SIP GUIDANCE
NOTEBOOK 3
-------
N. PM-1O
-------
N. Particulate Matter (PM-10 )
N.1. Designations and Classifications for Initial PM-10
Nonattainment Areas, (Initial notice) 56 FR 11101 (Mar. 15, 1991)
N.2. Designations and Classifications for Initial PM-1O
Nonattainment Areas, (Correction notice) 56 FR 56694 (Aug. 8,
1991)
** Codification of Designations and Classifications in 40 CFR,
Part 81), 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991) (See Designations section]
N.3. Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation
Plans; PM-10, Sulfur Dioxide, and Lead Nonattainment and
Unclassifiable Area Designations, 56 FR 16274 (Apr. 22, 1991)
(Information notice)
N.4. Questions and Answers (Q&A’s) for Particulate Matter (PM-
10), Sulfur Dioxide (S02), and Lead (Pb) - - Nov. 4, 1991 memo
from Joe Paisie
** State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990; Supplemental; Proposed Rule 57 FR 18070 (Apr. 28, 1992)
(See General and Cross-Cutting Guidance section]
N.5. Reclassification of Moderate PM-10 Nonattainment Areas to
Serious Areas, (Proposal) 56 FR 58656 (Nov. 21, 1991)
N.6. Air Quality Designations and Classifications; Amendments;
Final Rule, 58 FR 3334 (Jan. 8, 1993)
N.7. State Implementation Plans for Nonattainment Areas for
Particulate Matter, 57 FR 19906 (May 8, 1992)
N.8. Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes
(Proposal), 57 FR 43846 (Sept. 22, 1992) -
N.9. Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes
(Final), 58 FR 67334 (Dec. 21, 1993)
** Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
Amendments and Corrections, 57 FR 56762 (Nov. 30, 1992) (See
Designations section]
N.10. Designation of Area for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
Montana; Designation of Whitefish PM-b Nonattainment Area, 58 FR
36908 (July 9, 1993) (NPR) (redesignation from unclassifiable to
nonattainment)
N.h. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revision to the State Implementation Plan;
Addressing PM-hO for Anthony (Proposal), 58 FR 18190 (Apr. 8,
1993)
-------
N.12. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revision to the State Implementation Plan;
Addressing PM-l0 for Anthony (Final), 58 FR 47383 (Sept. 9, 1993)
(application of § 188(f) waiver policy)
N.l3. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Texas; Revision to the State Implementation Plan
Addressing PM-b for El Paso (Proposal), 58 FR 52467 (Oct. 8,
1993)
N.l4. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Texas; Revision to the State Implementation Plan
Addressing PM-b for El Paso (Final), 59 FR 2532 (Jan. 18, 1994)
(interpreting § 179B re areas affected by international
transport)
N.15. Clean Air Act Conditional and Limited Approval and
Promulgation of PM-l0 Implementation Plan f or Colorado, 58 PR
66326 (Dec. 20, 1993) (NPR) (complicated approval process because
of potential deficiencies and to limit FIP liability)
N.l6. State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-lO
Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-b
Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (Aug. 16, 1994)
N.17. Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of PM-b
Implementation Plan for Colorado; Designation of Areas for Air
Quality Planning Purposes, 59 FR 47088 (Sept. 14, 1994) (includes
contingency measures discussion and use of § 110(k) (6) to correct
original nonattainment area boundaries)
N.l8. Considering PM-10 Air Quality Data and the Approaching
Attainment Deadline While Reviewing Attainment Demonstrations for
the Initial Moderate PM-b Nonattainment Areas -- Oct. 20, 1994
memo from Joe Paisie
N.19. Attainment Determinations and the Processing of Initial
PM-b Nonattainment Area SIPs -- Nov. 14, 1994 memo from Sally L.
Shaver
-------
Federal Regsster I Vol. 56, No. 51 / Friday. March IS. 1991 f Rules and Regulations
1I1SI
LICL.teaant Commander. U.S. Coast
Guard. project attorney. Ninth Coasi
Guard District Legdl Office.
fliscussion of Regulations
The International Bay City River Roar
will be conducted on the Sag i naw River
between the Liberty Bridge and the
Veterans Memorial Bridge on the 12th.
13th. and 14th of July igBi. This event
will have an estimated 70 hydroplanes
which could pose hazards to navigation
in the area. Any vessel desiring to
transit the regulated area may do so
only with prior approval of the Patrol
Commander (Officer In Charge. U.S.
Coast Guard Ste tion Sagniaw River.
Ml ).
Economic Assessment and Certification
This regulation is considered to be
non-major un4er Exeentive Order 12291
-on Federal ‘gn 6 bon and
nonsignificant under Department of
Transportation ‘regulatory policies and
pmcedures (44 FR 11034; February 26.
1979). The economic impact has been
found to be so thmal that a full
regulatory evaluation is unnecessary.
This event will draw a large number of
sp a crafi o the erea for the
durtiimvfdmevent. This should have
• favorable Impact on commercial
facilitie, providing services to the
spectators. Any impact enaxnmerdal
traffic in the area will be negll ible.
Since the impaCt of tide regulation is
expeCted to bemmimaL the Ccast
Guard certifies that It wiilawt have a
significant economic impact on a
subsbi,et*l mamber of small entities.
Federalism
This action ha, been azelysed is
accoiiiv i r with the principle. and
aiteria onnialned In Executive Order
lzel2, z d 1t1I haen determ ed that
this inismakftig does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preperatkin of a Federalism
Assessment.
List of Subjects ln Pert 190
Marine safety. N A, sk 1 (water).
FInal Regulations
Iuamslderalleud*e L gtdzig . port
100 of title 33. Code of eral
Regulations. ani. _ L.A kIJ m
1. The .ltycltathmfarpartlOO
contlnuesloreede, Toflewu:
Authority: 33 U.$C. 1333; 49 CFR a d
33 _,. 10026.
4. Part 100 would be amended to add a
temporary section 10035 -T0918 to read
as foIlow
f 100.35-10414 Inturnationsi B .1 City
River Rear, Saginaw Rivet, Bay City, ML
(a) Regulated Area. That portion of
the Saginaw River from the Liberty
Bridge on the north to the Veterans
Memorial Bridge on the south.
(b) Special Locci Regu!alions.
(1) The above area will be closed to
navigation and anchorage, exoept when
expressly authorized by the Coast
Guard Patrol Commander, from 930 am.
(EDST) until 4 p.jn. (EDST) on 12 July
1991. from t aO a.m. (EDST) until 4:30
p.m. (EDST) on 13 july 1991. and from
8:30 a.m. (EDST) until 5:30 p.m. EDST)
on 14 July 1991.
(2) If the weather on 14 July 1991 is
Inrietnent. the river closure will be
postponed until taO a.m. (EDST) until
5:30 p.m. (PDST) on 15 July 1991. If
postponed, notice will be given on 14
July 1991 over the US. Coast Guard
Radio Net.
(3) The Coast Gnard will patrol the
regulated area under the rection of a
designated Coast Guard Patrol,
C n m*nder. The Patrol Commander
may be contacted on channel 16(156.8
MHZ) by the call sign “Coast Guard
Patrol Commander”. Any vessel, not
authoi d to participate In the event.
desiring to transit the regulated area
may do so only with prior al of
the Patrol Coi,imnnder and when so
directed by that officer. Transiting
vessels will be operated at bare
steerageway. and will exercise a igh
degree of caution In the area.
(4) The Patrol Commander may direct
the anchoring. mooring, or movement of
any boat or vessel within the regulated
area. A . co..sion of .bmp, short
signal. by whistle erlssrn from vessels
patrolling the area undm the direction of
the US. Coast Geard Pabel Commander
shall serve as a signul to stop. Any
vessel so signaled ihall stop and shall
comply with the order, of the Patrol
Commander. Failure to do so may result
in expulsion flora The area. dtathm for
failure to comply. or both.
f5) The Petrol Commander may
establisb vessel size and speed
liftaH i. , eed operating eoadttlon .
(I ) The Patent Commamlor may
rest vassal operation s n The
regulated aims to veaucls g
flThPatro1Commaitder.iy
tei nate The mazine event or ‘Sm
operation of any vessel 51 any time ft Is
deemed necessary ‘for the protection of
Life and property.
Dated: March 5 1901.
GA. Penlngton.
Rear Admiral. U.S Coast Cuas Commander.
Ninth Coast CaordD,stricL
IFR Doc. 91-4221 Plied 1-1441; &45 am)
muies coca .ts-,s-n
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
l*D -FRL-3413 -12 1
Designations and ClassIfIcatIons for
Initial PM-b Nonattainment Areas
aomicv: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AcTiose Notice announcing designations
and classifications for Initial PM-SO
nonattalament smau.
BUM ARY: Under sectloellw(d)(4)(B) of
the (sean Air Act (Act) as amended by
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1090
(Pub. L No. 101—649. November 15.
1990), certaIn areas were designated as
nonatI i ii* far the pollidaatl3l-1O
by operation .f law upon en .. tcI
the Amendmezita. These areas teolude
“Group” I smas 1dent ed at 52’FI
(August 7,1987) endue subsequently
clarified at 55 F 45799 tOctobe ? 31,
1990). Other areas La , Cthup fl
areas) can*ai h 1 g sites erbiub air
quality moi*,elng date showed a
violation of the nafiamal ambient air
quality standards (NAAQSJ rfi 4-1D
prior to January 1. I were ales
designated nona*tsinn eut for PM-Ia by
operation of law upon narhn nt . A
other areas weredesignated
unclassified for PM-Ia by operation of
law. By this notice, EPA Is sanasmcing,
as required by section 107(dJ(2 .) of the
amended Act, aD of those areas that
were designated nonattaInmant rPM-
10 by operation of Jaw on November15,
1990.
By this notice, EPA liaise
announcing, as requhed by sedllcas
186(a)D! ’ S* amended Rct,that fl of the
Ireas dasignatEdlionattablmefltfarPM-
10 by upeatIon f1uw upon snaCthmtit
of the ? dmeMa were claisthed as
moderitte nonitttaimaent areas at that
time. In MJ u iO with ici5kni
189(a)( ,9 e.niua1 subndt ’ Stete
mp6w nbiUuu lilans tS!P ’s for these
areas by v er IS. 199L
DAT Written conu ses this notice
must be received byAprll 15, 1 591 at the
address below,
crpamiWI OA These adi s will
become effective on May14, 1991.
-------
11102 Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 51 I Friday. March 15, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this
action should be addressed to Larry D.
Walince, Particulate Matter Programs
Section. Air Quality Management
Division (MD—15). Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
The air quality monitoring data
supporting the nonattainment
designation of the former Group 11 and
111 areas monitoring violations of the
PM—b NAAQS prior to January 1, 1989
are available from the respective EPA
Regional Office which serves the State
where the affected area is located. The
addresses of the Regional Offices are as
follows:
• State Al, Programs Branch. EPA Region L
J.F.K. Federal Building. Boston, MA 02203-
2211
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region 1 1.28
Federal Pica, New York, NY 10278
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region W. 841
Chestnut Building. Philadelphia. PA 19107
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region IV. 345
Courtland Street, NE. Atlanta. GA 30385
• Air end Radlatio Branch. EPA Region V.
230 South Dearborn Street. Chicago, IL
88604
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region VL 1445
Pou Avenue, Dallas. TX 75202-2733
• Air Branch. EPA Region VII 728 MInnesota
Avenue, Kansas CIty. 1(8 88101
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VUL 999
bath Street. Denver Place—Suft 500.
Denver. CO 80 —24O5
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street. San Francisco, CA 94105
• Air Programs Branch. EPA RegIon 1(1200
Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 08101
coe uemae e oeme ae coemc
Larry D. Wallace. Particulate Matter
Programs Section, AIr Quality
Management Division. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, (019)
541-0906 or FTS 629-0906 and at the
address Indicated above.
IUPPtEN08 TARY 08FORMAT!OI
1. Background
A. 1987 Revision of the NAAQS for
Particulate Matter
On July 1, 1987. EPA revised the
NAAQS for particulate mattan replacing
total suspended particulate. (TSP) as
the Indicator for particulate matter with
a new Indicator that Included only those
particles with an aerndyiu.mlt diameter
less than or equal to a nomInal 10
micrometers (called ‘PM-10 ’) (52 FR
24834). At the same time. EPA set forth
regulations for Implementing the revised
particulate matter standards and
announced EPA’. SIP development
policy on PM—b control strategies
necessaiy to auure attainment and
maintenance of the PM-b NAAQS (see
generally 52 FR 24872). The EPA
adopted a PM—b SIP development
policy dividing all areas of the country
into three categories based on their
probability of violating the new
NAAQS: (1) Areas with a strong
likelihood of violating the PM—IC)
NAAQS and requiring substantial SIP
adjustment were placed in Group L (2)
areas where attainment of the PM—b
NAAQS was possible and existing SiP’s
needed less adjustment were placed In
Group IL (3) areas with a strong
likelihood of attaining the PM-IC)
NAAQS and therefore needing
adjustment only to their preconstructlon
review program and monitoring network
were placed in Group 111(52 FR 24872.
24679—24682).
B. Prior listing of and Modification to
PM-iC Groups I. IL and I lIArea .
in accordance with the standards.
policies, and regulations published on
July 1.1987 for revising and
implementing the new particulate matter
standards, EPA identified and listed the
Group I and Group 11 areas In each State
In a notice published on August 7.1987
(52 FR 29383). That notice also indicated
that any area of the country not listed as
Group! or U was placed In Group 111(52
FR 29383).
The EPA subsequently modified the
listing for three areas and announced
these revisions In a notice published on
March 28, 1989 (54 FR 12620).
Specifically, the 1989 notice Indicated
that Porter County, Indiana, was
changed from Group Ito Group IL Mono
Basin. California. was changed from
Group UI to Group II; and Sandpoint.
Idaho. was changed from Group Ito
Group IL
On October 31, 1990. EPA published
technical corrections clarifying the
boundaries of concern for some of the
areas previously Identified as Groups!
and U areas (55 FR 45799). When EPA
listed the Initial groupings for areas In
the August1987 notice, the Groups land
11 areas of concern wale generally
described as cities, towns, counties, or
planning areas. The EPA indicated at
that time that these descriptions were
only the Initial definitions of the areas to
be Investigated In the SIP development
process and would be better defined
later. The clarifications to the Groups!
and II areas announced In October 1990
specifically defined and delineated the
boundaries of the Groups! and Group U
areas in question based on informatIon
obtained In the SIP development process
and EPA guidelines and procedures for
determining particulate matter
boundaries. With respect to Group II
areas, the October 1990 notice also set
forth those areas containing a site for
which air quality monitoring data
showed a violation of the NAAQS prior
to January 1. 1989.’
II. Today’s Action
in the 1990 Amendments to the Cler
Air Act. Congress used the PM—b
grouping scheme as the starting point for
designating areas on nonattainment and
unclassifiable for PM—b by operation of
law upon enactment of the
Amendments. Group I areas Identified in
52 FR 29383 (August?. 1987) and as
subsequently clarified m 55 FR 45799
(October 31, 1090) were designated
nonattalnment for PM—b by operation
of law’ (see section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of
the amended Act). Any other area (I.e.,
Group II or III areas) containing a site
for which air quality monitoring data
showed a violation of the NAAQS for
PM—b prior to January 1. 1989 was also
designated nonattaimnent for PM—b by
operation of law upon enactment (see
107(d)(4)(B)(II) of the amendment Act).
All other areas were designated
unclassifiable for PM—b by operation of
law (see 107(d](4)(B)(W) of the amended
Act). By thIs notice, EPA I . announcing.
as required by section 107(d)(2) of the
amended Act, all of those areas that
were designated nonattalnment for PM—
10 by operation of law on November 15,
1990.
SectIon 188(a) of the amended Act
provides that those areas designated
nonattatnment for PM—bO upon
enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amen lm.nts were, by operation of law.
classified as moderate PM—b
nonattainment areas at the time of their
designation as nonattainment. By this
notice, EPA Is also announcing. as
required by section 188(a) of the
amended Act, that all of the areas
designated as nonattabment for PM—b
by operation of Law upon enactment of
the Amendments were classified as
moderate nonattahunent areas at that
tIme. -
For administrative efficiency reasons,
EPA will defer the ministerial act of
formally codifying these PM—b
designations and classifications In 40
CFR part 81 until EPA codifies
designations and dasslficatlons for
other pollutants sometime within the
next few months. This notice Is provided
now In order to make the
annonn1 mPnts required by sections
107(d)(2) and 188(a) of the revised Act
and to ensure that SIP development For
‘Footnote I of thi October 31.1990 otlce
references Group U sreas with violations of he PM-
10 NAAQS.
‘The notice published no October 31. 1990 1 5 FR
45799) reflects the re laions announced In the notlc
published en March21 1919(54 FR 12820).
-------
Federal Register ‘ Vol. 56, No. 51 I Friday, March 15, 1991 I Rules and Regulations
11103
the new PM—b nonattainment areas
proceeds in a timely fashion.
Neither of these actions is subject to
he APA requirements for notice-and.
comment rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553—557)
or section 307(d) of the amended Clean
Air Act. 3 Regarding designations.
section 107(d)(2) of the amended Act
requires the Administrator to publish a
notice announcing designations
occurring pursuant to section 107(d)(4),
but explicitly provides that such
announcement Is not subject to APA
notice-and.comment rulemaldr.g
procedures. Thus. Congress has
expressly exempted the announcement
of those areas designated nova ttainmerrt
for PM—Ia by operation of law under
section 1071d)(4)(B) from the notice-and-
comment procedural requiraments of the
APA.
Regarding classifications. section
188(a) of the amended Act requires the
Administrator to publish a notice
announcing the classifications of these
areas. Section 188(a) explicitly states
that the provisions of section
172(a)(1)(B) pertaining to lack of notice
and comment and Judicial review shall
apply when the Administrator
announces these classifications. Section
172(a)(1)(B), in turn, expressly exempts
the classification announcement from
the notice-end-comment procedures set
forth in S U.S.C 553-557 of the AM.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of
providing en opportunity for public
participation and avoiding error, FPA
will entertain any comments on these
actions that received by AprIl 15,
1991. The EPA. annoencement of these
actions [ for purposes of sections
107(d)(2) and 188(a) ] will become
effective on May 14. 1991. Thi, will
provide enough lime for EPA to make
any adjustments to the announcement
that are appropriate In light of the
comm ,nts.
III. Initial PM-1O Nonattalnineset Areas
The following list identifies all of
those areas designated as
nonattalninent for PM—b on November
15. 1990, upon enactment of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. The EPA
also announces, pursuant to section
188(a) of the amended Act, that all of
these mess were classified as moderate
by operation of law upon enactment of
the Amendments.
PM-b IrirnM. NONATTAINMENT AREAS ‘‘
Psii Sp it/Douglas planning eras: Tuwn.h i 23 south, Range 25 mid (123$. R25E) 123$, R29E 124$, R2SE 124$. RZIL
T2SS. R27E T24S. R27E 123$. R2BE 124$. RaE.
Nogalee plsni*ig war The at Sis ULJ Tv...,14s watalt a, wW* the Siete at kmia aid at sir
1235. RI3E. - 123$. R14E
124$ R13E 1245. RI4E
to iuaig was
TI$5.R9$,T1t$,RIOE &RiiE,TiiS 12E
TI*4 IE. T125 . 88E. rsen. SlOE f12SffiIE TIOE Rs
T.. ei T** 56w, aid Sis 4aS ng at 5c...Ji T1* R5
a.Sict Io.e$-$
b. S.c*Uw 17-10. rid
a. SscOoa 29-32
Ptiowli , 1. ..iI.. was: The angle . IJ...... ...d t i. aid e i*ç
TSN. R3W TeN. 57E.
12$, R3 125 R7$.
TIN: RSE
Ywia plsn.*ig war T....,Ji4 .. . T7$-RZIW. R23W 168-521W. R22W. 523W, 524W, 128-521W, 525W, 52W 526w.
R25W 1103-521W, RaW, 523W. R24W. 525W.
N., ienFUSii , ls.. , was: T ,.....J4 .
T4$. S I OE
715.5188
7155188 __ __
a the poillos at T.. ., ,.J 1* SlOE 8at ss nat te at Sm Smi kdan RsssivaSwi , end the m ier.gls
isimud . aat T U, .
TiN. RI3E TIN. RISE
108, R13$. 165 RiSE
in Valley Olrv*lg war I IM ticS #15050103
Series VaSey plarVig wa r I yiku& IMt #1505005.
M ,mo0i Las platv* ig war inctides the &..ing . &t
a. Si ons 1-12, 17. end 15 ci 14$. R2 5$.
bh SedanS 25-36 at T , ,...,Ji 13$, 528E
a. SeaSons 25-36 c i T .,.....tU 135 R27E
5ic&is 1-IS at T ..,..N. . T45.
aid
• 25wid 36 c i T.. ,...Ii 165
Sri ,lesi*t VaS , igsL
South Coast M BaM
Co’ Vl ,.milp was.
ki eiiaI Valley plplv*Ig was.
30?(dK1) T the —‘.dAd asbelag ni1 ud to the óe i etae àeulgast.d these . r’ .
procedural raqu1n l, dsedma XO 5J. u dJtaJ(u)dth. . .—i’ Act.
Stat. and cowibes
km c i Comem
Comnwnlty at Eagle R .
City at esc Mendenlisil Valley eras.
V.—
Sen 8 h aid Kern...
----
— Sobe
l wemls . Los MgeIe Orrigs
requirements todays
adieu. 5 aol amoog the actions listed In section
-------
11104
Federal Register I Vol. 50, No. 51 I Friday. March 15. 1991 I Rules and Regulations
PM-b hirnAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS “ 1 —Continued
State and cwities
kes of Concern
Manes. Denver. kapahoe. Jet.
fomon. Douglas, and Boulder
—Ccrmscticit
New Haven __
Barmodi arid
,‘ INilom :
COdL
La$eds
Malnar
-
Wayies.
Romssy
—
LaHe
i e
Pos
aa eow_____
-
OItioc
a
Denver MetropolItan erear AS of Denver. Jeflerson, and Douglas Corsities, Boulder County (sxckdng the Rocky Hot
Nationat Pert) and the Colorado automobile mepeclion and readjustment program p. i1l of Adams md i
Counties
Tellunde.
c aty.
City of Nsw Haven
Boise Northern Bow idery—Segirvsng at a poist I i ties center of the clwm& of the Boise River, wf We the toe bet.sen
sections 15 end 18 in I at .f4 $ ricitit ( T3N), range 4 east (R4E). oroassa serd Boise Rivec thence, west down the center
of the diarmel of 0 ,5 Boles River be point elt the mouth of More’s Creok tHence, its a straight i. north 44 degrees
and 35 imnutes west wtst the east Ire kitersocts Vie north ins of T5N (12 Tec See. Si) . thence, west to Ste nurU st
corner T5N. P1W: Westent Bosmda,y—Thenoe, south to Vi i flwUt*st corner of T3N. RIW thence, east to the northwest
owner of sectIon 4 c i T3N, P1W, thence, south to the southeast corner of section 32 ci T2N, RIW thence, wust to lie
nwU eat corner of TIN. P1W; thence, soiatt to the southwest corner of section 32 of TZV, P1W; thence. west to me
riorUi.. .L owner of TIN. PIW thence, south to die southwest corner ci TIN, RIW Southern Bosaidwy—Thence. east to
the southwest wvw of section 33 ci TiN, R4E Eastern Boimdaiy—Thencs, north ng the lWth vat south omtar toe of
TIN. R4E, 12N, R4E, and TON. R4E, Boise Mendan to the begreting point in e center of the cherstel of the
Boise ar.
City of Pkteltorst.
City of POC5tISOL
a. Lyons TourHf -
b The area bor.mded on the north by 79th Street. on the west by Route 57. on the south by Sibley BolieWd and on the east
by ties lflIoois/Inóana State toe.
Oglesby iticb*ig the I*,.At Townships. ranges, and eecxrtar 13211, PIE, SI; T32N, P25, 85 TWI, PIE. S24; 13311,
PIE. $2s. TO3N. R2E, $31; end TO3N, PIE, SOt
Granita City Toeewtvp and Nanleld Tomwlr .
Cities of East Citicago, Hamn o .4 Whllkig. end Gary.
clinton Tounship .
of p e 5que Me.
The ares Worsted by IL*i. , .n Avenue from to bto & . . . wIth 1-75 seat to 1-04, 144 southwest to G. ..&..lJ Reed
G ...ihtUJ Reed south to Soiteoler Reed, Sobastar Abed eciati vat sed to JJN....., . .toenue, JJf.. . . Avenue
(Bidete Avenue Vwougll the dty of W ...JoUe ) to Sibley Avenue. Sibley Avenue west to Fist Street Fort Street south
King Reed, (trig Reed suet to Je . Aversie, Jefferson Avciia south to Helen Road, Helen Reed east 4..4J
Trenton Qesrmel, flerdon cleamsl north to the DetroIt River, the Detroit River north to 5 • Aisbsssedor Bridge.
Ambassador Bridge to 1-7 5,1-75 to L0, ,U 5 . . . Avenue.
The ares bounded by the ,.,A River from LaNiyuIto to Route 494. Route 494 sed to Route SI. Pouts SI ncith to 1-54
1 -94 west to Lafayette, and Lakysll south to the River.
City of
Coim.
The wee Wielded by toes from Urteereaf MM) coor*.ate 70O00De , $34700Brat1 , st to 7O4000niE ,
5347000rnN, south to 704 0mE, 5asI000mN. west to i03000mE, 5341000nV4, south to 70300Se , 534000 at1, west to
lO2000mE, 5340000n . scssh to 102000n . SO39009 ’idf , east to 703X0n , sO3S000mit sosaf I to 703000n ,
533800thnN , s to 7O4000rrE, SOOSOONirVI. south to 7Oi000rnE, S33BXOsr&1, wed to 7eeOO0n , tan8O0 -i*& south to
7IQ0O0n , 533500th1*4, seat to 0O0Se€ , 5335000mM, north to 7O000thi , 5340000mM, west to 89500DeE.
5340000inN , north to B95C00ir , 5345000mM, led to 700000mE, ea4a000ri*i. north to 7O000 5347000mM.
Coivntla Fs T..,.ati lOON. P20W. Ce cis 7 5,9, 18. arid 11.
I- .
To..itt TI3N, P1 9W, as &..i 2, fib 11,14 13,15,11, East 19, 20,21,22,23, 54.27, *25, Bed 1/2 30, East 1/2 31.
32,33.34, vat 11219, P19W. section 4 5,8,7.
Len. Dear.
Rime 0.1 5*19 west steal?. -
Las Vegas pLi* west H ,,.l4ll , . Ares 212.
Ties area bounded by Mthoey Q ladwnglSb Mthomy $ew Me ,dco—Teicas, SE/4 LaMees 15’ imgIe N3200.—W10830s
7.5, Toeselt 268 Range 25. Sacdor . 35 and OS es tested by the New MwdOO.—Tisle Sbae tee art the sciati.
The portion of the dy of Stodierwie eade of MIJSet SHeet, p is the wee bounded on the north by the southern boisidary
of the City ci Stes er iwSe, on the west by 01o Route 57. on the sotafi by Vie southern border of Stuithsrwie T .$ifp .
end on the seat by the OIseIWed Vitgfraa Wider.
Medlord.Aehlerid atr qiiofty maintenance eras (ktclustng White Cfty3.
sante Peec The area *10*1 ties saMe growth boundary.
Eugene/Springftel The ares wish the saMe growth botaidaly.
KisniaSi Fetar The ares *15*1 the when growth beutatary.
LaGrwidar The area wish the satan growth botmda’y.
I —
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56. No. 51 I Friday. March 15 , 1991 / Rules and Regulations
11105
PM—ID INITIAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS ‘‘—Continued
bias.
El Paso
Utah
0011 LaM --
C o un r .
Utah
County
n e
Yakanc
The poman the CIty 01 Seams bounded on the east by 1-6/East Ouweitvth Greenbalt, on the south by 104th Bbeet. on the
west by the West Ouwansoh Greevtholt north 10 F morg Avemie. SW • north on Faemord 10 EiIioIt Bay, end Dearborn
Street from Elliott Bay to l-5
The City 01 Kant wide parson of d ”. Green R j valley bo.jt cm lest and west by the tOOloot oontoi . on the north by
South 212th Steet and on the south by Haghsoy 518.
Tacoma mevcpobtan urea bounded on Vie north by Mama View Drive from C..•.....nce...ei* Bay seat to the 100.1001
contort. southeast along the 100-tout contort 10 84th Avemie East. south along 64th Avamie East , aI.i 4.J 101 - 5, 14
west 10 the 100.1001 contort near Pecdic Avemar, and north slang the 1004oc 1 contort 10 Cormns ,.. ....ant Bay.
The ares bounded on the lorAn by a toe from (k*#ersal Trs ..stcatcr (LJTM) 4a900deiE , 5271000vr*l , west 10
458000mE. S2lI000mN. thence north etong a By 10 oooritoale 458000nE , 525800thtV4. thence seat to 483000nE.
5288000mN , thence north 10 463000n iE. 5292000mN, thence east to 481000mE, 6292000n*l. thence south 10 48I000n iE.
5268000mN. thence e to 48S000rnE. 5288000. thence aouth 10 the ba g *ieto 48X00mE, 5V100de N.
The area bounded on the aouth by a toe Imni Uiiversst Tra.......t. . . (UTM) w &...t . 59 5000mW. 5157000 ,011, west to
881000mW, 5157000mN, thence north along a toe 10 681000mW. 5 172000ri*I , thence aotlti 10 the bei..ng
coct* ate 694000mW. SlS7000mN.
cItes of Otympsa.Tumaoter. wet Lecey
Wailuf a.
oIIansbes eves bounded on the north by ma Market SIre t Bridge , on the seat by West Wgms Route 62. on the south b
the astenston of the southern bortidary of SterthenvUts tv..n.lr* ) U ’. Jefferson County. Olso. wet on Ills west by the Cree/
Wesi W9mn border.
cttvcfSlier ldan.
‘When d c i Iewns wo Wiown. Ste ares of cc& ern u demad try ma mrt v01 boun y to dIe date 01 ma nutce.
sectIon plwoang woe .hown, the area 01 . . the antre ptaiv*i9 ares mess the urea a IaVw daGied (sg.. by k .ili iwç id/or
IV. Sigi iRnnnce of Today’s Action
By November 15. 1991. States must
adopt and submit to EPA a SIP for all
those areas that were classified as
moderate PM—la nonattalnment areas
by operation of law upon enactment of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(see Subpart 4 of Part D of Title I of the
Clean Air Act as amended (section
189)1. All of the areas listed above muat
submit a SIP meeting the general
requirements for nonattainment areas
identified in section 172 of the amended
Act and the requirements specific to
PM-loin Subpart 4 of Part D. In
particular. section 189(a) of the amended
Act requires that all of the Initial
moderate PM—b nonattainment areas
submit a SIP by November 15. 1991
which Includes the followlng
1. Either a demonstration (including
air quality modeling) that the plan will
provide for attainment by December 31,
1994 or a demonstration that attainment
by that date Is Impracticable.
2. Provisions to assure that reasonably
available control measures (including
reasonably available control
technology for the control of PM—b are
implemented by December10. 1993.
In addition. a new source permit
program meeting the requirt “ents of
Part D of the Act is required for the
construction and operation of new and
modified malor stationary sources of
PM-b (including. in some cases. PM-la
precursors). A SIP revision meeting this
requirement Is due by June 30. 1992 for
all of the initial moderate PM—b
nonattainment areas. The EPA will
provide additional guidance on SIP
requirements for these areas In the near
future.
Also note that EPA must take final
action by the end of 1991 with respect to
which of these In itial PM-ia
nonattaininent areas should be
reclassified from moderate to serious
because they cannot practicably attain
the PM—b air quality standards by
December 31. 1994 tsee section 188(b)(l)
of the amended Act). If reclassified as
serious, these areas will be subject to
additional control requirements and a
new attainment date. Since EPA must
propose these reclassificatlone by June
30,1991, EPA wW work with the States
before that date in order to develop a
proposed list of moderate areas to be
reclassified as serious.
V. Authority
Sections 107(d)(4). 110. 188(a), and 301
of the amended Clean Air Act provide
authority for today’s action.
Dated Maidi 7,1991.
Prflthasl Shapk
Ac1i gAssistenIAdmmnistzt7torforAJrOM
Radiation.
(FR Doc. 91-5987 FIled 3-14-01: &45 am)
saism coca
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
41 CFR Part 301-I andCh. 304
(FiR IntsdmRuls3l
RIN 3090-AEIS
Federal Travel Regidatlon Acceptance
of Payment From a Nanfederel
Source for Travel Expensss
AGENCY: FederalSupply Service, GSA.
ACTIOIC Interim rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This action corrects an error
in a document amending thePederal
Travel Regulation which was published
March 0. 1991 (56 FR 9878). In the
State and Couritlee
Penns
_
Puerto Rico:
Area of Concern
The area ricfuding LIsrty. Laiooln. Port Vue. arid Glausport Borough and the City of Clarion.
Municipally of Gusyiiabo
That porlon of the Cay of Lrd tiar 4 endosed by Loop 289 hçhway.
City of El Peso
Wslttflgtcm
K g
0
West Wgtea.
-------
a
Fodiral 4 IMer 1 L 58’ No. 153 / ‘thurgday: u uif . 19911 Ri 1e aflURé hliond
request revision to any SIP. Each
request for revision to the SIP.sbafl be
considered separately In light of specific,
fni r . r.L.tfna to levant
statutory and regulatory lsqulremeuta. -
Today, ‘Ma approving the SIP
revision submittala of October17, 1985.
January 29.1989. November?. 1989.
October12, 1 . and October13. 1990,
which Indude (1) The IIM plan with an
anti-tampering regulatlon and (2) the
carbon monoxide plan conirol sfrstemj —
and attsbmnf demonstration.
Under 5 U.S.C. e05(bJ I certify that
this SIP revision will not have a
significant economic Impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
(See 48 FR 8709)
Under section 3W(b)(l) of the Act,
pefftions for ludiclal review of this -
action muSt be Med In the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 7.iO9i. This action
may not be challenged later In
proceedings to enforce Its require ants
(See section 387(bJ(2fl. .
The Office of Management and Budget
ha. exempted this rule frorathe
requirements of sections of Ruecutiva
Order 1?Z1. -
The Agency has reviewed this request
for revision of the federally approved
SIP for conformance with the provisions
of the 1990 Amendments acted on
November15, 1990. The Agency has
determined that this action conforms
with those requirements Irrespective of
the fact that the adoptionof the revision
by the State preceded the date of
enactment.
List of Subjects 1n40 CFR Par(f
Air pollution control. C bou -
-monoxide. Hydrocarbons, Incorporation
by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recor eep1ng
requirements.
Auth .itiy 42 US.C . reoi-ieez.
Nota IncorporatIon by reInence of the
State Lmplententatioui Plan for the Stat. of
Oklahoma was approved by the DIrector of
the Federal Register on July 1. 1982.
Dated: June21 1991.
WdIIam IC. Roifly,
Adminisocior.
40 CER part 52. Subpart U .. Is
amended as followa-
Subpart LL—Oldattoma
1. The Authority citation for part 52
-ontinucs to read as follows:
Authunty 42 Li S C. 7401-7642.
2. SectIon 52.1929 Is amended by
adding paragra Ih (cX4o) !o read as
followi
152.1890 -“u- iliptsfl.”
• • • • •:. ,i. ._
(40 )OnOd ober lZig8S,d&e
Covernor of Oklahoma submitted aSIP
revision designed to achieve the carbon
mono,dde stanlad In Oklahoma
County. Supplemental Information was
submitted on January * 1988.
November 7,1988 October13. 1990, and
October19. 1990. The atitl4ampering
regulation was submitted to EPA by the
Governor on October 9.1985.
0) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Oklahoma Official Motor V.i I4
Inspection Rules and Regulations
Manual adopted December 5,1085, and
effective January 1.1985.
(0)470.5. 513W Section 855.1 et seq.
adopted May 24.1954. and effective May
24.1984. . - .
(C) OP. Oklahnma Attorney Con.rnt
number 84-174 (December 12.1984).
( I)) October17, 1985, plan reporting
commitments for Oklahoma Coeaty
Reasonable Further Progress v 1 ’ dule ,
page5. -
(E)TheQtyofOk!ahi ” iUty
Ordinance No.12,575, as passed by the
Council of the Oty of Oklahoma Qt an
March 31.1970, and approved by the
Mayor on March 31,1970
(II) Additional materiaL
(A) A February 7,1991. commItment
letter stating that the DPS will anima lly
conduct unannounced visits t 10
percent of the OfrI.hona County
Inspection stations.
(8) An October13. 1990, letter
committing to report sainfennuallyto
EPA. information relating to
effectiveness and enfo n m.iit of the 1/
M program.
(FR Dcc. gi-isme FUed 54-It &45 sm
I coca
to the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for P14-10
occurring by operation of law upon
enac” ” of the 1900 Amendments to
the ( 5 .an Air Act tAct (th. rImtteI PM
W pnln M i zeas’ 9 ,.- .•
SaeI 1 n 1W(dXZ) ( ae IcIi .eci1on
107 (dX4) designations) and 1I aJ of the
Act specify that EPA mUst uiake these
annoácements. he thtI MeEchiOSi-
notice. EPA explMna.d the operative
legal prov sions v uLig the -
designation and classfflóetian of thàe
Initial areas (see e.g.. sections
1W(dX4liB) (I), (If). (lii ), and 198(a) of the
Act). -
The EPA else provided an ciportimity
for the public to comment on EPA’s
announcement. As noted, this did not
stem from any legal obligation. Rath&,
as a matter of policy, EPA reqnated
public comment on the annsai w imnr In
order to facilitate public pailidpatlon .
and avoid imii ’nithng errors. In today’s.
action, EPA has responded to pertinent
comm ’ts addressing the March1901
Federal Register-notice. Where EPA
believed appropriate sad where there,
waaalegalbaelstodoon.EPAhu.
made adjustments to the initial PM—jo
nonattah mniirareu In light of the
comments. Finally, note that for -
informational purposes, EPA has -.
restated some of the background
dlicuulon provided In the March1991
notice.. - -.
a cTuve baru Par those areas that
have r.macn d unchanged. the effective
dateofthearm .. . .--...entofthe
designation and nisoniffnition of the -
areas Is May14. 1991. as Indicated in the
March 15, 1991 Federal Register notice
(58 FR 11101).
-For those areas where EPA has
adjusted or corrected the boundaries, -
the effective date of the annonnimv .nt
of the Inaignation and danaifliation of
such areas ii August 8.1891. (see
— below).
onPPi.anoivs*v U OfiMATtOtt The air
quality monitoring data supporting the
nonattainment designation of the former
GrOUP II and Ill areas monitoring
violations of the PM-b NAAQS prior to
January 1.1989 are available from the
respective EPA Regional Office which
serves the State where the affected area
40 cFNPad 81
Designations and Classfficmions for.:
Initial PM-b N .tL.iainect Areas- -
AGENC1 F.nvlroi mental Protection -
Agency (EPA).
ACTIO1 Notice correcting EPA.. -
announcement of the designations and
classifications for the InitIal P14-10
- (particulate matter nomInally 10 wla’oas:
or smaller in diameter) nonattatrunent.
areas.
- son Plfl R F0 AT10N CONTACT
Larry a Wallace. Particulate Matter
‘ Programs Section. AIr Quality
Management Division (MD-is), Offic, of
Air Quality Planning end Standards,
U.S Ruvironmental Protection A u ..y,
Research Thangle Park. NC vni .. Mr.
Wallace’s phone number Is (919) 541-
9998 or FFS 629-0905.
suv M*sm On March 15.1991(56 FR
11101). EPA announced the designations
and dasaifications of areas with respect
-------
Federal Register j VoL 58. No. 153 I Thwday, g t 8. io i I Rules and Regulations . 37€55.
Is located. The addressee of the
Regional Offices are as follows
• State Air Programs Branch. EPA
Region 1. J.FJ(. Federal Building.
Boston 1 MA 02 4211.
• Alt Programs Branch. EPA Region IL
26 Federal Plaza. New York. NY
10278.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Raglou III.
641 Chestnut Building. Philadelphia.
PA 19107.
• Air Programs Branch, EPA Region IV.
345 Courtland Street. NE., Atlanta. CA
30265.
• Air and Radiation Branch. EPA
Iteglon V. 230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago. IL 00608.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region VI.
• 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75282
2733.
• Air Braflch. EPA Region VII. 726
Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, 1(9
90101.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region
VIII. 999 18th Street. Denver Place—
suite 500. Denver. CO 99202—2405. -
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region IX.
75 Hawthorne Street. San Francisco.
• CA94105.
• Air Programs Branch. EPA Region X. -
tWO Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 90101..
L wul
A. 1987 RevisIon of the NAAQSIor
Particulate Matter
• On uIy 1,1W EPA revised the
NAAQS for particulate matter, replacing
total suspended particulates (TSP) as -.
the Indicator for particulate matter with
a new I1 11lI ntor that included only those
partides with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10
mieromelere (cailed “PM—b”) (see 52 FR
248341. At the same time EPA set forth
regulations for Implementing the revised
particulate matter standards and
announced EPA e State ImpLementation
plan (SIP) development policy
elaborating PM—iD control strategies.
necessary to assure att*Ininant.and
maintenance of the PM-iD NAAQS (see
generally 52 FR 24872). TheEPA
adopted a PM—to SIP development
policy dividing all areas of the country
Into three categories based on their.
robabUlty of violating the new.
NAAQ&
1. Areas with a strong like lihood of
• violating ihe PM-to NAAQS and
requiring substantial SIP adjustment
were placed In Croup L
2. Areas where attainment of the PM—
10 NAAQS was possible and existing
SWs needed less adjustment were
placed In Group U.
3. Areas with a strong likelihood of
• attaining PM-to NAAQS and therefore
needing adjustment only to their
preconstruction review program and
monitoring network were placed In
Group ill (see 52 PR 20572.24879-24882).
A Prior IJ.thrg of the Modification to
PM-iC GioupilL and Ill Areas
In a000rlalIr, with the standards,
policies, and regulations published on
July 1. 1 7 for revising and
Implementing the new particulate mallet
standaid, EPA hianlified and listed the
Group land Group U areas In each State
In a notice published on August7. 1907
(see 52 FR 29389).The 1987 iroücialso
indicated that any area of th&country
not listed uGroup lor l l was placed In
- Crbupll l(see52FR29983).
• The EPA sub.equez tly modified the
Identification for three areas and -‘
announced these revisions In a notice
published on March 28 1989 (see 54 FR
12620). SpecIfically, the 1909 notice
1nii; ted that Porter County. In II*ftn ,
Mono Basin. California. was changed
fromcroupfl ltocioupThand
Saadpoint. Idaho. was changed from
CroupitoGroupiL
On October 31,1990 EPA publM d
technical corrections modifying the
Identification of the locations of concern
for slime of the areas previously
Identified as .Croup I and II areas (see 55
FR 45799). When EPA listed the Initial
groupings for areas In the August 1W
notice, the Group I and U areas of
- concern were generally desaibed as
cities, towns, counties, or plam lng
• areas. The EPA ln.Ikwted at that time
that these desalpilons were only the
initial definitions of the areas to be
Investigated In the SIP development
process and would be better defined.
later. The modifications to the
Identification of the Group I and II areas
announced n the October1990 notice
specifically defined and delineated the
boundaries of the Group I and Group II
areas In question based on Information
obtained In the SIP development process
and EPA guideline. and procedures for
determining particulate matter
boundaries. Generally, prior to
modifying the Identification of
boundaries In the October1990 notice.
EPA amsulted with the afl.cted State..
reviewed technical Information, and
• was guided by applicable EPA policy.
Weighing these various factors. EPA set
the boundaries It believed appropriate.
IL Today’. Action
On March 15. 1991 (58 FR 11101). EPA
announced the designations and
classifications occurring for PM—to by
operation of law upon enactment of the
Act (the “initial PM—to nonattainment
Sections 107(d)(ZKA)
(referencing section 107(dX4)
designations) and 198(a) of the Act
specify that EPA must maki there
announcements. In the Mirth 1 i
notice. EPA bxplalned the operative .
legal ons governing the -
designation and classification of these
Initial areas (see. e.g.. section.
107(dff4)(BXI). (II ). (W). and 180(a) of the
Act). The EPA also provided an
opportunity for the publicto amiwent
on EPA’. announcement As noted, this
did act stem from any legal obiigation.’.
Rather,isamatterofpoUcy. A. ‘.•;
requasted.public ‘eot on the.
annouli merit In order tolacllltate ;..
public participation and avoid ‘ -
commlfflng error.. In todays action..
EPA has rssponded to pertinent’
commenls addressing the March 15,1991
notice. 5 The EPA has made adjustments
erder either the Adiulsl .trslive P l. i Ad
(AM) (3 U3C mi .W) or. eJw (dJ of the Ad
(so. getidsily ar FR 1110$.
aec&a IY(dX3 ) Oldie Aut . ,. . di.
to pubtiub.odc. ——
edgealler. peruosetto seeder 1 dKlI
but . n HthIy PTOOIdSS that es Is
cot subject to APA .eUc.4ii4ciwnert i’ ’ 5
errnØ
buso the imdoe.sn cansomt procedsuil -
,eqefresoeata c i the APP. the em..------..cot a t dicer
geu lgpted mcoctt.lu.em 1w P 5 4- i D by
operidoo of law coder seeder iW(djf4XBp.
Siead Uoco. aedica 1 s3 oldie Ad
Ff4-iS d stpatloa . sad 4a llL iL __ tfl A
codifier the delipiadco. sad — “- -dec. of
area’ enen Ito . ....h wtth . r to the -
I4AAQS for Other p ” ’ Na ‘ ‘ dcc
ourerceodes wtthl. ent few maa
____ ___ - ‘ iL _
oldie 510.1 PI6-1O -°-’ .-— -’ arose . 15
— dieAgeccy. Roil setter us thai.
dealgnatlu .tthII Ito .easlrrduid les IWlbJ of
th .Aua C leo rtbI
‘1. the htoub is. lest codçe ma acted (eelS.
riltoated I . today. colic .) that either Ow.
amoagermetof di. Initial dasigeglier. .eith.
InitIal da 1w PM-iS a jectb the
bncdcs ’ .ad’c w-’—-
teas. the AdmlnleUstor to publiubaaodce
seriowedeg the .l rduerof these areas..
Sidle. 118 (i) eqlllidyctates Owl di. provlsloaa of
edton 17 a )(1)(B) petatateg to lack .f cotter sad
connect eel jidlelat tc,lew slisU appLy eS. the
then
Sectioc 1r$.I(iØ ) 5 two. e. , ,..asLy exempt. the
I... . rtlOa aro. . . --- ’ frees Ike solico.coO
,— ‘d psuerdures sst forth Ins USC. iss-sor.
• ‘The A received many pir1l...al camureots Ia
direct . -q e to d i. coda.. ilowofer. ‘A has
stlealpted also to re.pmd to ..Il. ....I VOO w%t .
received b e n effected State. , .Ji . . .tlt,A 5
to .notber Agency acdou. £ Jan uary cod Pebnary
of 1801. A Ragtanal AdmirIetistore provIded
letter, to the Netioc. Covenic.. ptalaing see of
the .pedllc Stat. echo .. that were to be compittad
In c.der to leftists lmplemeat.tter of 1 1th I of the
Act a’ eceelly aineaded by the 1880 AincednOnt.
(“RA Letten’3 Regardlog P54-ia lot example. O’A
reformed the Governors of three ares. designated
nonsttenment for PM-ID by cpevodon of law upon
enactment of the Act end e’qiteined some of the SW
requureatenha applicable to such sea, under the
Coc t hm ed
-------
37656 Federal Register I VoL 56. No. 153 / Thursday, August 6. 1991 / Rules and Regulations
to the initial PM-la nonattahe . nt
in light of the comments, where EPA
believed appropriate and where there
was a legal basis to do so.
A. Legal Fzvimewui*
Section 107(dX4)(BXI) of the Act
clearly specifies those former Group I
areas that were designated
nonattainment at enactment That
provision states that each former Group
I area Identified hr 52 FR 20303 (August
7, 1987) or modified before enactment of
the Act (November 15, 1990) is
designated ncna t falnment for PM-la As
discussed previousLy, the Federal
Register notion published on October 31.
1990(55 FR 45799) clarIfied or
“modified” EPA’s Identification of the
Group I areas bated in the August1987
notice. 4 Thus, as explicitly provided by
the statute, the Group I areas listed In
the October1990 notice became
uonattalnment for PM—IC by operation
of law upon enactment of the Act on
November 15 1990. The EPA. then,
announced that these areas were among
the initial PM-IC nonattahiment areas in
Its March 15,1991 Federal Register
notice. Because the Act explicitly
provided that the former Group I areas
identified In the October1990 notice
became nonatfndmi ent for PM-40 by
operation of law at enactment. EPA
believes the law generally prohibits any
modification of these areas at this
Juncture. The one excqptiou is where.
before enactment, EPA cniirinlfted error
hr Identifying and/or modifying a Group
larea as referenced In section
107(d)(4)(B)(i) of the Act.
There are a few circums’ ”ee where
there La evidence that EPA intended that
the boundasy for a Group I area
identified and/or modified in Its
October 31. 1990 Federal Register notice
(and reiterated in the Murch 1991
announcement of Initial PM-ID
nonattaizunent areas) be different and
through administrative oversight or
other error failed to so provide’ In one
revised law. ey s l.tters A thu W st.d the
process ofr ’ 1— ige .t i sg additional exsu.s
oonst’—’— .——” far PM—SO pwIuant is .sedon
107(dJ(3) alibi . Swit m 1W dU33 exltinil,
provides an uypcrtuthy for State pwtldpotlou In
desIgitatIng sddlticnal 994—10 uonattânonnt
ala ,,. Section IWIdJ(4)(B). the provision .ddiesslng
deslg a6ou of the Initial PM-SQ nona ” - ’ . ’-—
aJeas (I.e.. thou ocon4JI by operation of law gpo.
enactment). does ent -t__.plata s a process.
Neverthete,,, iowa ... end Slat. gwicy
omcaIs ,ubmftied comnwets on the Initial areas In
responding to ‘A ’s eug eeted additional
nonaiteinmant areas. The EPA has responded to
any such pertinent comments In this notice.
• Pre.enscti.snl wadlficatlons (a the August 1987
intica WCIO also made In (be Federal ‘ a lu’ . notice
published onMa:ch m i m. discared prevloualy.
• T?ua mar was brogg t( to EPA. attention In
mmmntla ashmitted In response to EPA. Mardi 15
Instance, for example, EPA mislabeled a
highway number. EPA has made
adjustments to the boundaries In such
circumstances. Faced with the choice of
designating erroneous noaattalllment
areas or interpreting section
107(d)(4J(B)(l) such that It includes the
areas identified before enactment In the
October31, 1290 notice but corrected for
error, EPA believes the latter approach
the most reasonable’ Moreover, EPA
believes that In providing that the areas
Identified and/or modified in the
October31. 1990 notice would be
nonattainment areas by operation of
law upon enactment of the 1990
Amendments, Congress and the
President could not have Intended to
ratify dysfunctional or evidently
erroneous boundaries not grounded In
fact Note that these circumstances are
in contrast to the situation where
commenters requested modification of.
former Group I area because they
believe, ass technical or policy matter
that all orpart of the area should notbe
designated nonaftahement EPA has not
adjusted former Group I areas whore
there Is a Judgurent dispute about the
proper scope of the area or its very
designation u nonatwe ’
The prior categorization as a Group II
or UI area bear, differently on en area’s
nonattainment status, In comparison
with the Acts’ treatment of former
Group I areas. Spedflcafly, section
107(d)(4)(B)(U) of the Act states that
“any area containing a site for which air
quality monitoring data show a violation
of the national ambient aft quality
standards for PM—ID before January 1.
1989 (as determined under part 50,
appendix I C. of tItle 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations) Is hereby
designated nonattaltiment for PM—b.”
1995 aw--.. ItMU1 or In EPA’ . review of Us
reestds In preparIng sesponses to csan
‘I i,thw. section 11o(k)(eI expressly autbark. ...
the AdmInistrator to revise deslgeatlons.
clauillc.dons . ste. whet, the Adndaieiseior
datweinea that mtub 1C ’.tlose. 4 ’ tions.
et were In esiw.
In cases where there eie dispute. i dlng the
proper scope of the desigestlen. 1 1 . 8 1st. later
wakes apereuuks demoeanalmes (SW equivalent)
thus EPA. lionel “ ‘en. is IdentifyIng a
former Creep I area were In enor. the Agency will
consider whethe, It would be . ., 1 . . ,, , .Iate is correct
the em rel$itg en the . wL ,k , is — uc(kKeJ
of the Act.
• Since EPA n. ,,, .4 all stie, of the w ,.Jiy saL
U. cr 111 whet ft revised the PM-ID PLAAQS (see
previous dlsazulooj end bucsu.s all freer Group I
ares. were designated nenettaIn t b operudin
of law under section 107(d 114115K 1). the ldSlao.U 10
soy area It, section 107(d)(4)(BIØI) di facto
applies to all areas formerly . n..yed asU • I II.
That allfortnerCrouplareuwaiildb 5
designu ted nonettaloment by opereU0i of law upon
enectzuent or the Act. while farmer Group U/Ill
areas would have to o’.euvis U violation poor ‘0
gfluatY i. ion to be sodulpatad. is grounded is
The language of section 1W(d)(4XB)(li)
suggests that EPA has mozediscretlonin
determialngwbldr of the formerCruurp
II and UI areas were Ignated.,
nonapalmf e’t by operation of isof upon
enactment of the Act. For rg 11 J EPA
must exercise some judgment In
construing what Is a violation within the
meaning of 4G R past RL appendix IC,
to the , xten t these regulations leave
discretion.
Further. section 1O7(d)(4) (BXII) doe.
not define the boundaries of “any area”
measuring a pre-1989 violation. The Act
does, however. set forth a revised
definition of nonattahittn.nt.area for
purposes of section 107(d) dealguetions
generally. Specifically. section
107(d](1)(A)(I) of the Act defines a
nonattainment area as “any area that
does not meet (or that contributes to
ambient air quality Ins nearby ares that
doe, not meet) the national primary or
secondary ambient air quality sfan .4ard
for the pollutant” Thus, coincident with
providing that ertaIn former Group U
and UI areas wore designated
nonatt’I” t by operation of Law at
enactment. the Act provided a standard
to govern the scope of what that area
should be. This definition suggests that
EPA must apply Its expertise and
knowledge to Isolate as noriattainmunt
any area It believes violates the
standard or any area that significantly
contributes to such violation in a nearby
area.e Further DO 5tea1nmsnt area
definition is being applIed to these ai ’eas
for the first time since under EPA’. pie.
enactment grouping scheme they were
not designated nonatf .itannt. The EPA
therefore believes that. consistent with
this new standard, it has some
discretion to apply its frthnlraL
expertise and appropriately adjust the
boundarie, of the former Group U or UI
areas for purposes of determining which
earns Ioglc reson. A, noted above. when EPA
ple’d a,easdthe uy Into Croupa LII. or Iii ,
Creep I mess wee e5 withs sOsop - -—-t of
violadop the PM-1De’ ’d.
‘lathe ten’ ’ where the Agency has
the b edes c Ia foisterCeoup liar UI ares
becanea ft contributes toe violation tea nearby
eles. the A baa omatraad the definition of
nsnaUal aent ale. to reqUIte some meterlal or
.igtidicautwetrlb idnn I D side ‘balm. The
Agency believes that scciethlng greater that, a
t,g k .m ,Ia , Impact Is required. Finthe WA has
adjusted the bouade,ic, of former Cenup j and fl
are.. designated nonattalnmaut In reliance on Its
geteral te ical expertise and lisa not conducted,
for example. lfoi.. ,n.5 modeling analysis.
umefreme. ut forth ut the ula’gte do not
contemplate such detailed analysts. For example.
the law mandates that all of the area, desIgnated
nonaltutitetent by operation of law upon enactm,nt
of the Act must iubm,t SIP fl .’,IIon, by November
1S.IQO1. Such tight deadline. do not afford 0mg for
moore .upluste.trd tecitr..caj aiialyets.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56 No. 153 I Thcrsday..August 8, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
Vb57
areas were actuaUy designated
nonattainment by operation of law.’°
Where appupriate, EPA has exercise
both types of diseretlon In responding to
comments addressing former Group 11
and III areas that were announced as
Initial t’M-le nonattaimnent areas In the
Mardi 1891 notice. Specifically. EPA has
considered whether a violation within
the meaning of part 50. appendix K.
occurred and EPA has adjusted
nonattalanient area boundaries for
those areas based on the standard set
forth An section 1O7(d)(1)(A)(l).”
& Responses Conmievts
1. ormerG,o I Areas
a. Hcydesf Mimi Planning Area.
Aràoaa.Carnm”is were submitted on
behalfafASARCO. Inuu . posted
(ASARCOI. addressing EPA ’s
designation .f the Hayden/Miami
PlannnigAzaalnAilzonaas aninitial
PM—lOnwtattalament area. ASARCO
.dcnewledged that as a former Group I
area ‘the ‘HaydenlMiami’ Group I area
Identified in the notice published at 52
FR 29083 en August 7. 1987. must be
designated a nonattalament area
However. ASARCO stated that the
March1990 notice “expands the
bounllarles of the Hayden/Miami
nonattainment area far beyond the
Limits of the planning area used by the
state when developing its PM—to SIP for
Hayden.” ASARCO commented that
these boimdarAes are unsupported by
ambient monitoring data, information
the State of Arizona discovered in its
SIP development for the Group I area.
EPA guidance ducaments, and the
language of the amended law.
Consequently. ASAR ) requested that
the boundaries of the area be
substantially revised .
ASARC() has misinterpreted the legal
weight of the October 1990 notIce. In Its
August1987 notice, EPA only generally
referenced the ayden hfiaml area.” In
the October1990 notice. EPA modified
and clarified this. enumerating In detaiL
portions of the Hayden! Miand p) ”iiItig
area deemed Group LThese
modifications, In turn, were adopted by
operation of law upon enactment of the
Act (see section 107(dX4)LD)(Q). -
ASARCO argues that EPA can
disregard the boundaries In the October
1990 notIce ben se It “did not ‘modif(yj ’
the ‘identification’ of PM-ID
nonattainment azeu rather, that notice
defined the boundaries of nonai 1 ” ' ’t
areas that bad already been Identified In
previous notices.” This extreme reading
of section 107(d)(4)(BJ(i) has no basis In
reason. An area Is identified by Its
boundaries. Thus, when EPA modified
the boundazyof a Group larea in Its
October 1990 notice. It was modifying
the identification of the area as section
107(d)(4KBI(lJ expressly contemplates.
ASARCO also argues that the October
1890 notice Is not within the Intended -
ambit of section 107(d)(4)(Bj(i) because
the operative language appeared In the
legislative history bdore the publication
of the October notice. This argument
ignores the express and plain meaning
of the text of section 1W(dJ(4)(B1(I). That
provision states that any modification of
the August 1987 notIce “before the date
of enactment of the Act” Is effective. It
clearly does not state, for example. that
only modifications occurring before
Legislation or legislative history was
introduced are effective. as the
commenter apparently believes ft should
be read.
The EPA has no basis to disregard the
boundaries for this former Group I area
as modified In the October 1990 notice
and adopted by operation of law.
ASARCO argues, for example, that EPA
should adjust the boundaries because
they are inconsistent with the Group I
SIP develop for that area, monitoring
data. and EPA guidance documents.
That the Stale of Arizona was
developing a SIP focusing on ccrtain
portions of this former Group I area
does not compel EPA either to agree
with the SIP’. scope or to adjust the area
boundaries to comport with that scope.
In fact. EPA has taken no action on the
former Group I SIP for this area.
Generally, prior to modifying the
boundaries in the October 1990 notice,
EPA consulted with the affected Stateq.
reviewed technical lnfarmation, and
was guided by applicable EPA policy.
Weighing These various factors, EPA set
the boundaries It believed appropriate,
and an November 15, 2990 these
boundaries were adopted as the
nonattainment boundaries for the former
Group I area In question.
lite Governor of Arizona also
submitted enwonents addressing the
Hayden/Miami PM-b nouattahim ””
area. The Governor oneiu.ented that the
State has subwiUed a SIP demonstrating
attahemani In the Hayden area. He also
commented that sInce 1988 monItoring
In the vicinity of industrial sources at
Miami has not revealed any violations
of the PM-to standards. The Governor
stated that tim State of Arizona “will be
submitting aSIP revision to desIgnate
only the ama within TSS, RiSE as
nonattnInmast ” However, In an
attachment to the Goimnor’. letter, be
provided a more detailed and
apparently inconsistent desaiption of
portions of Hayden that the Governor
believed should be designated
uonattaL. .4 .
As Indicated in response to
ASARCO’, comments, there Is no
evidence that EPA Intended to provide
boundaries for the Hayden/Miami area
that are different from those Identified
In the October 1990 notIce and
announced In EPA ’s March 1991 notice
In reliance on the October notice.
Essentially, there Is no evidence of EPA
error. Moreover, as explained lathe
response to ASARCO’s comments. EPA
is in no way obligated to set
nonattainineat boundaries for former
Group I areas according to the scope of
the State’s implementation plan for the
former Group I area. In fact, EPA has
taken no action on the former Group I
SIP for this area. In sum, the boundaries
for this Initial PM—to nonattainment
area will remain as set forth in the
March 15.1991 Federal Register notice.
b. Newlioven, ConnecticuL The
Governor of Connecticut and the State
of Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CDEP)
submitted comments requesting that the
boundaries for the New Haven
nonattainment area be modified to
include only that portion of the city east
of the Quinnipiac River. The COEP
noted that CDEP staff had sought to
have the boundary revised in the
October 31. 1990 notioe but that EPA
had informed them that “a municipality
was the smallest geographic area that
could be designated.” The CDEP also
commented that CDEP staff were told by
EPA that the State would have another
opportunity to refine the boundaries.
“Former CIO.Ip ii ieee. lot example. present an
cetreew ma ,. urly cceipelling EPA to exercise
discretion in tile way. The August rewind October
1990 Fedseelle lsterno1loea elated that any area of
• Stateontllet.dai Civop lorD Is inneldered to be
Civupfll (see 52 FR mae and 55 FR 45799). Where
A det . ,. , .1nJ that ,uth an ate. mesiwed a
vlsletioodthe 1 54-10 standard pitarto Iena117 1.
1999. ii would be lerstional for the Agency to
designate as sonattalnorent entire portions of State.
far iemovedlrom end not significantly contributing
i.the aiva eioaiIsehr the elolatlcn. Rallier. EPA
muet ew e.cme4- i g —.i
“Incanimet, asleas EPA has cometitled an
arrer. the aiatute e vesesest of looser Group I
•reas does not cesteotplate sudi adjustment. A.
ment&thsgesi4,looof the Act addressing the
nonsttalament deslgnutloa ot mimer Group * areas
Is quite apecific. Section &OItdl(IJ IRI(Q calls lot the
nixtatlainahedl designation of eech area Identified
In52 FR 290 53’ ea aiibaequcotlv modified before
the date ideo.ctment of the Act. Thor, the law
•pec’f.cs each.m’ that mu ____
nonsttstnment. The EPA cannot rely on Ike Ada
defirniton olnonettnfnment to adlust these area.
The EPA bellevia au , adjustment would
contrsecneáe eneraI canon of etelutory
ainstracion that when Inlerpreling the Act. si’eczf
prai store aiot,nt those thst au one generaL In
thin ,. EPA beheses that Con r,,. ha. specified
looser Group I fleas will be 0000ttaunaent
D’Acsnnoi rely on the genertil dcfinitlon of
ouretlainmoat eta to .d 1 usi bc bounditrics of
area
-------
‘ 7g53 Federal itegistèr I Vol. é, Nd. 153/ Thur ddy, August 8 99 / ’R iles and Reglilatiôñs
The EPA regrets any
mlscommunlcation between Connecticut
and EPA that may have occurred when
discussing the modification of Group I
areas for the October1990 notice.
However Connecticut has not submitted
any documentation Indicating that EPA
committed an error In designating the
City of New Haven as an Initial PM-b
nonattainment area. In røfl nc , on the
October1990 notice. Thai, Is no
evidence that EPA Intended that the
boundaries for this aiva be different
from those set forth In the Marchnotice
and through ailmlnhisbative oversight or
other error failed to so provide. Thus.
the City of New Haven Is a PM-b
nonattalonient area. u described In the
March 1991 notice.-
c Pinehurst Idaho. The Mmln1 trator
of the Idaho Division of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ), on behalf of the
Governor, requested that EPA
significantly adjust the City of Pinehurst
nonattainment area. Believing the
nonattalnment problem In this area to
be a valley afrshed problem, IDEQ
requested that EPA expand the
boundaries to Include additional
townships along Sliver Valley.
There Is no documented evidence that
EPA committed an error when It
modified the boundary for this area in
its October1990 notice or as reiterated
In its March1991 notice announdng the
Initial PM—1O nonattalnment
designations. Thus, there Is no basi. to
alter the boundaries Identified as the
“City of Pinehurst” and set forth In the
March 1991 notIce.
Nevertheless, to the extent that the
boundaries described In the State’s
correspondence aie broader than those
initially designated nonattainment, EPA
is considering whether the State’s
submittal should be treated as an
unsolicited redesignation request within
the meaning of section 107(d)(3)(D) of
the Act Under that provision EPA must
“approve or deny” a revised designation
“Ewlithln 18 months of receipt of a
complete State redesignatlon submIttal
• I
If EPA finds that the submittal is
complete and approves the submittal,
then the City of Pinehurst and any
revised nonatta 1 ” t area surrounding
it in the Silver Valley will be subject to
somewhat different statutory deadlines
for SIP submittal, attainment
demonstration. etc. Compare, e.g..
section 189(a)(2)(A) (first SIP for initial
nonottainment area due 1 year from
enactment) and section 189(a)(2)(8) (first
SIP f’r later redesignated nonattainnient
area due 18 months from the
non .i comment designation). However.
EPA notes that nothing in the Act
prohibits the State from submitting a SiP
for the entire area they have Identified £ Counts Illinois. The EPA -
by November15, 1991,. the SIP submittal, - rec Jv o formal comments about the
deadline applicable to the portlop of the, portion of Cook County, illinoIs,
area Initially designated nonattainment. de.ign ted nonattalnmnt for PM-b. -.
and announced In the March 15,1991 .. - HoIvev jn reviewing recoi s -.. - ,
notice. . - .subsequenttothepubl lcalionofthe -
d ThantetIA Idaho Th. Mmlnlitrator March1991 notice, EPA realised that a
of the IDEQ submitted Information to highway number In the description of.:
EPA Indicating what portion of the this bed b Inadvertently
Pocatello area in Barmock and Power mi ,eJ i ‘figs announcement corrects
counties should be designated - that error là accordance with the legal
nonattainment In the October1990 and described above. -
March1991 notices, this area was listed , MOJJS The Maine -
as “City of Pocatello.” Both of those
notices Identified Bannock andPower as Depar nent of Environmental Protection
the affected counties. er reviewing - . . M)EPJ and the City of Presque Isle
IDEQ’s submittal, EPA realised that the subn omnments addressing EPA’.
“City of Pocatello” site only In Bannock de . gnation of the City of Piesque Isle as
County. Thus, there Ii a disconnect or-- n Initial PM-I l ) nonattainnient area.-
gap between EPA’s listing of the “City of• The ty of Presque (ale óomznented that
Pocatello” as the nonattainment area for PIeSqUS I le was incorrectly placed in
both Bannock and Power Counties. - Group I In August 1987. the notice first -
As evidenced by Its listing of both aiinoiindng grouping. after EPA revised
counties. EPA Intended to Include that the NAAQS for PM-loin July1987.
port lonofthePocate l loarealnboth Thus.thedtyreqUest 5dthatltbe
Bannock and Power Counties In the removid from nonattainment status. The
October 1990 notice. The EPA now MDEP also objected to the designation
realizes thatlistlngwaslnexror.ThIs ofthecltyasnonattalnmentand. -
error, then, was adopted Inadvertently alternatively. drgued that the boundaries
In EPA’s March 1991 notice announcing of the nonattainment area should be
the initial nonattainnient areas for PM- reduced to Include a ½ mIle radius In
10. The EPA corrects this error In - the city’s urban center. The MDEP
today’s notice as explained In the “legal submitted a number of supporting
Framework” discussion above. The EPA documents.
has clarified the boundary for this area The designation of Piesque Isle as
consistent with IDEQ’s request and nonattainment and the scope of Its
EPA’s original Intent boundaries appears to be a judgment
The Shoshona-Bannock Tribes also dispute. In Us October 1990 notice. EPA
submitted Information addressing the modified the boundaries for this Group I
boundary for the Pocatello - -- p u It believed appropriate. This
nonattsin’n.”t area. The Tribes area and attendant boundaries then
Indicated that they agreed with the mp nonattalnment for PM-b by
darificatlon and expansion of operation of law upon enactasent of the
Pocatello nonattainment area as Act me EPA regrets any
Indicated in IDEQ’s submittaL They also f m cetion between
requested that EPA Include an
additional section whIch they said
would Include a seasonally operated
“open pit silica mine with a rock
crushing operatibn and attendant
storage piles • •. “
The EPA has corrected the error It
committed with respect to Pocatello as
described previously. However. EPA -
does not believe that the additional
section Identified by the Tribes was
among those Intended to be Included
with the Initial Pocateilo nonattainment -
area. Thus, at this time. EPA will not
adjust the boundaries for this area to
include this section. Nevertheless, If -
after further study EPA concludes that
there Is evidence that this area violates
the PM—b standards or significantly
contributes to such a violation in S
nearby area, then EPA would initiate the
process to redesignate this alea
non attainment pursuant to section
l07 d)(3)(A) of the Act.
______ PDA and
MOEP which may have occurred during
the development of the October notice.
Nevertheless. this Is not a sItuation
where EPA Intended that the boundaries
In theOctober 1990 notice be different
slid, through an error, failed to so
provide. Thus, as announced in EPA’s
March1991 notice, the boundaries of the
Prësque Isle PM—b nonattainment area
will consist of the entire city (see
section 1o7(d)(4)(B)(ifl.
- g libby. Montana. The State of
Montana submitted information to EPA
In conjunction with EPA’s development
of the October 1990 notIce. The EPA
reviewed this Information and intended
to modify the boundaries for this area in
accordance with the State’s submittal.
Through administrative oversiglt. this
modification was not reflected in the
October 1990 notice and. consequently
was not announced in the March 1991
notice. The EPA has corrected that errnr
-------
5 ,Noi i / 4 gj 4991 / ole4J eguWi s
s3Th 59
in toda a notice In accordance with the
legal rationale desaibed above .
h. MàsoulaQiuntjc Montana. The
Governor of k inf submitted
co ments to EPA Indfr .J4qg thatU’A
co’n’ tted naztor lnmodlMng the
Group 1 area of for t ds un’
In A1 October ao notioe Through
administrative oversight EPA
Inadvertently o utf daecUons of this.
area that records lndb ate It Intended to
include. This error then was reiterated
in EPA ’s Mardi 1991 notice announcing
the initlal It*inmpqt areas. The EPA
has corrected its error ‘In socordance-
with the legal ra1iei le explained
above.
I. Butte. Montana. As was the case
with Libby. the State of Montana
submitted Information to EPA In
conJunctlo’ with EPA ’s development of
the October1990 notice and, after
deciding to include It in the notice. EPA
inadvertently omitted the Information.
As with Ubbj,. This ervor was reiterated
in the Mardi 1991 notice announcing the
Initial PM-lb nonuttaimnent areas. The’
baa remedied Its admhdstrallva
oversight and corrected the boundaries
as origiuaUy Intended in accordance
with the legal rationale described above.
In d Februsiy 27.1991 letter to EPA.
the Governor of Montana .ubwltted
additional nf .H tIon addressing
Ubby’s PM—Ia boundaries. The
Goveniorindicated That Montana had
completed technical analyses since the
publication of the October1990 notice
and submitted detailed boundaries. The
Governor Indicated that the suggested
boundaries would expand the Butte
nonattalnrnent area. es listed in the
October1990 notice;far beyond the city
limits. Upon comparing the
nonattainment boundary submitted by
the Governor and the corrected
boundary In todays notice. EPA has
determined that the boundaries are
similar; however, The Governoi’s
suggested boundary for the area Is
slightly broader. There Is no evidence
that EPA Intended to Include the
additional urea Identified In the
Governor’s Letter when EPA modified
Group I areas In the October1990 notice
(or announced the initial PM—lb
nonattainment areas in the Mardi 1991
notice. In reliance on the October 1990
notice) and through administrative error
failed to so provide. Thus. EPA will not
adjust the boundary for this area to
include the additional area identified in
the Governor’s letter.
However, to the extent that the
boundary described In the Governors
.wi c i ,undence is broader than that
listed in today’s notice. EPA will treat
the Governor’s submittal as an
unsolicited request for redesigna (ion
with the meanarqg at er r4Int , 107(dX3XD)
of the Act. Under th ovision. EPA
must approve ord.asevlsed
desipallon wUbIa months of receipt
___ .- ‘
If EPAflad. that the ub” 1 ” is
complete andap 0 aoves the submittol.
then the dd alareas 5h!1ff 1d by
the Governé for the Butte
noOat L m. t area will be subject (a
somewhat different statutory dev
fotflWsribmlttal. attainment
demonstratIons. atc. Cosipare . e.g..
section 189(a)(211A) (first SIP for Initial
nonattalninent area duel year from
enac1m ”t ) and sec* 10 (a) (ZXB) (first
SIP for later redesignated aerrattabunent
reasue18ii o ith.fromthe
nonat’ In 4 is4uitjo4 However,
EPA notes that nothing In the
prohibits the State from n}ito1r g a SIP
or the entire area they have Identified
by November 15.1891. the SIP ‘ihmtlii .l
deadline applicable to the portion of the
area Initially designated anatt 1nrmant
and announced In todays notice.
j. Anthony. New Mexico DonaAna
Count$ The State of NewMe dco
Environment Department (NMSI)J
submitted comm ts addressing the
nonattaininent designation of the
Anthony. New Mexico 1 ares. The NMSI)
stated that Anthony Is araral fugitive
dust area (RFDA) and under EPA ’s
“Rural Fugitive Dust Policy” (RFDPJ,
I 1FDA sites shall not be designated
nonatlainment.” Farthur M.IW stated
that EPAr, RFDP ru naIn In effect
because’EPA Indicated “in the Ostuber
zo. 1990 Federal Register. the nidstlrrg
RFDA policy shall i ln In effect until
it is revised by EPA.” Finally. NM )
requested that former RFDA”s now
deatgnaled nonattninmsa t have most of
their requirements waived If EPA
discontinues the RPOP.
Two 1977 EPA memoranda constitute
what has been called EPA’S “Rural
Fugitive Dust Policy.’ These memoranda
set forth treatment of areas Identified as
“Rural Fugitive Dust Areas” for the
proposes of attalnmen*/nonatta lameut
slatrrsas well as SIP development and
new source review under the Act before
the 1990 Amandeierits (see. e.g.. 52 FR
24710 (July 1. 1987) (historical
discussion)). This policy was Issued
when TSP was the indicator for
particulate matter. When EPA revised
the particulate matter NAAQS in July
1987. changIng the indicator to PM-b
EPA proposed a number of alternative
policies. In that notice EPA indicated
that the existing policy would remain in
effect until EPA adopted a final policy
(see 52 FR 24718 ( uly 1, 1987)).
Since then, the 1990 Amendments to
the Act were enacted. As discussed.
section 107(dX4 (BXtl of the Act
provides that all Lormar Group I areas
were de.tp ad nmatf Ine utby.
ape atlon .oIIawepon umctment of the
Ainarnimenti. Farther, EPA Is anaware
of any error It may have c,imaltted
when it modified the boimdary for the
Artibony area In Its October1990 aodoc.
Thus, on November 15.1990 th.
Anthony. New M ” area (as listed to
the October1990 — be
nonattaMma t for PM-to by operation
of law. The EPA announced this
da lgpatlonhi Its March1991 nodes.
Ibe EPA believes the waiver
provision alluded to hi NMSIXs
coi m .rits provides a statutory
alternative 4oEPA s RFDP (see section
18 of the Act The E PA tn* .na i sto
provide g” 4 ”e to the States on the
meaning of section 118(f) later this year.
In the meantime. areas d4 .lg!1 ted
nonattainment for PM-to hmindiug
former RFDA’s. should proceed with SIP
development In accordance with the
new law.
The October .99,1990 Federal
notice referenced by Nh was EPA’S
sendannimi Regulatory Agenda (see 55
FR 45134 45198). This notice Is
published for Informational proposes
and has no regulatory effect. In addition.
the October publicatIon preceded
enactment of the Ad. Any confusIon
emoted by the reference to the RFDA In
that notice should be cleared by today’s
notice. Finally. EPA notes that former
RFDA’s will receive the same treatment
that .11 other areas requesting a waiver
will receive. it EPA Reds that an area
satisfied the operative legal standard
then, within the construction of the law.
EPA will waive those requirements It
believes appropriate.
k. Jefferson Cowrty, Ohia. Ohio EPA
(OEM) submitted comments Indicating
that EPA erred In setting the boundaries
for that portion of Jefferson County,
Ohio. that was designated
nonattainmeat at-enactment. After
exththig the doQun rtatlon submitted
byOEPA,EPAagreesthatanezrorwas
committed. In both the October1990 and
Mardi 1991 notices, EPA identified a
boundary for thi, area that was
Incomplete. It appears, for example. that
EPA failed to dearly delineate a
western boundary. The EPA has
corrected its error in accordance with
legal rationale described above.
I. El Pono. Texas. The Texas Air
Control board submitted comments on
this area noting that “on March 8. 1991.
the Texas Air Control Board (TACB)
passed a resolution’ approving the
Texas Air Control Board Designation
Proposal. where the nonattaininent area
for PM—lOin El Paso was changed In the
-------
37660 Federal Register / . VoL 56, No. 153 . 1 Thurediiy, August 8, 1991 . 1 Rules and Regulations
City of El Paso Induding Fort Bliss.”
Apparently. TACB sàught to clarify that
Fort Bliss, which is within the dty limits
but not part of the municipal entIt ’, was
Included In the City of ElP aso
nonattainment area. Celerelly, when
EPA lists municipal boundaries or other
boundaries Identifying a perimeter, all of
the area within those boundaries Is part
of the nonattainnient area unless
otherwise specified. More specifically,
Federal facilities are subject to the
requirements of the Act unless thay
have been expressly exempted from a
requirement because the President has
- determined that It Is in the “paramount
interest of the United States to do so”
(see sectIon 118 of the amended Act).
The EPA Is unaware of any such
exemption for Fort Bliss. Thus, as
indicated In EPA’s March 1991 notice..
the City of El Paso. and any area within
its municipal boundaries, Is anlultial
PM—b nonattainment area.. -.
D i. Wallula. Washington. The -
Governor of Washlngtonsubraltted
Information to EPA requesting that the
Wallula nonattalnment area be.
expanded to include Icenneivlck. ’ .
Washington. The Governor s submittal
etated .that these two areas should be
combined into one nonattalnmènt area
becauie the Wallula nonitt2 4 1 an.nt g a 5
does not include all of the major.sources
which contribute to the air quality
problem in the area. The Governor also
noted the close proximity of the
monitoring sites In the two areas.
The Wallula area, as described In the
October1990 and March 1991 Federal
Register notices, was designated
nonattainnient by operation of law upon
enactment. Further, there Is no evidence
that in developing either of these notices
EPA intended the boundaiy to be
different, but through an error (stied to
so provide. Thus, the Wallula area Is
currently a moderate PM-b
nonattainment area. As such, the State
of Washington must submit a SiP
revision for the area by November15,
1991 contaIning the applicable statutory
requirements and demonstrating
attainment by December 31, 1994 (see
generally subpart 4 of part D of title I of
the Act).
The EPA agrees that ICennew ick has a
PM—b air quality problem and has
already initiated the process to
redesignate this area nonattalnment (see
January 31. 1991 letter to the Governor
of Washington from the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region X see also
56 FR 16274 (April 22. 1991)). However.
absent error. EPA cannot expand the
boundaries of the Wa!lula
nonattainment area to include
Kennewick. if Kennewick is designated
as an additional PM-b nonattainment
area, It wIll be subject to statutory
deadlines for SIP submittal, attainment
demonstration, etc., which are different
from those of Wallula. However, EPA
notes that nothing prevents the State -
froth submlttlnà a SIPlor the entire
Wallula and Kennewlck area by the
November15, 1991 SW submittal
deadline applicable to the Initial PM-b
nonat h niont areas and, consequently,
beating this ass single nonattainment
area. The opposite is not true. Under the
law, the State of Washington cannot
defer submittal of a SIP for Wallula until
a SIP for Kennewick is due, assuming
ICenne Wick is ultimately re ’l. ”Igi’ ted to
nonattalnment. -
n. Yakimo. Washington. The EPA.
received no formal comm ’ts about the
portion of YalrI ” a . Washington, -
designated nonattainment for PM-b.
However, in reviewing recu 48
subsequent to the publication of the.
March1991 notice, EPA realized that a,
set of coordinates were missing from the
boundary description for the area. This
announcement oouécts that error I D -
accordance with the legal rationale -
described above. . . .: -
2. Former Group Hand Ill Areas
a. Ajo. Arizona. Comments were
submitted on behalf of the Phelps Dodge
Corp iradon (Phelps Dodge) addreislng
EPA’s announcement of the Ajo
plpnnIng area sean initial PM—b
nonattainm ”t area. Phelps Dodge
commented that air quality data do not
show “a violation of the national
ambient air quality standard for PM—to
before January 1.1989 (as determined
under part 50. appendIx K of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations)”
because only one exceedance of the 24-
hour standard has been measured (see
section 107(d)(4)(B)(ii) of the Act).
Phelps Dodge commented that,
alternatively, the exceedance In -
question should be treated as an
exceptional event
The PM-b standard is expressed In
terms of an expected value. Section 2.1
of 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, describes
the adjustments that must be made to
Z4-hourdatalnorderto.etünatethe -
number of expected exeeedances when.
PM-b sampling is not conducted on a
daily basis. Section 3.1 states that “ (un -.
this adjustment, the assumption is made
that the fraction of missing values that.
would have exceeded the standard level
is Identical to the fraction of measured
values above this leveL” The regulations
recognize that this adjustment may lead
to overprediction. Thus. * 3.1 also states
as follows: “To reduce the potential for
overestimatIng the number of expected
exceedances, the correction for missing
data will not be required for a calendar.
quarter inwhlch the first observed.
exceedance ha oc . d 1f (a) There
wasonlyoneevoredanceinthe.
calendar átar, (b) evezyda9 sampling
Is subsóquently Initiated and malntalnd
for4 caIendar quarteru In accordance
wIth 40 ( R 58.13, and (c) data capture
of 75 p&cant Is achieved durlngthe.
required period of everyday.anip t ”*g
Sampling I. conducted ogce everyl
days at the Ajo Station monitoring site.
After the exceedance In question was
measured, daily sampling wunot
commenced. Thus, the regulations
require correctIon for the missing data.
After applying the adjustment
referenced above, the expected
exceedances of the 24-hour standard at
Ajo constitute a violation of the i’M-tO
standard consistent with part 50,
appendix K.
• Section 2.4 of part 50. appendIx K,
governs the itiquiry of whether
exceedance measured at Ajo should be’
treated as an “exceptional evint.” That
regulation states that an exceptional.
event Is “an wroonfrollable event caused
by natural sources of particular matter
or an event that Is not expected to recrir
at a glvenlocation.” Phelps Dodge
commented that “gusts In excess of W
mph” were measured at the closest
meteoroldglcal station on the day the
exceedance was measured. The level of
the wind gusts was noted presumably to
Illustrate the anomalous nature of the
event However, Phelps Dodge.
submitted no information Indicating
whether that high wind was the cause of
the exceedance and, if so, whether the
wind was likely to recur. In fact, Phelps
Dodge suggested that the wind gusts
were due to the area’s seasonal
monsoon. SpecIfically. Phelps Dodge
stated that “(tjhe conditions at Afo were
characteristic of:mossoon weather
patterns In southern Arizona.” Further.
recent meteorological data collected
neerAjo by lb. Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality indicate that
hourly wind gusts seater than or equal
to 20 mIles per hour occur at least 7 days
per year. The EPA, therefore, does not
• believe the event Is properly deemed
exceptIonaL Thus, as described in the
March1991 notice, the Ajo plarmirig
area Is an initial PM-b nonattajnment
area.
Finally, the State of Arizona appeare
to agree with the Ajo boundaries. In a
May15. 1991 letter to EPA. the Governor
of Arizona suggested boundaries for the
Ajo nonatlainnient area that were
consistent with those set forth in EPA’s
March 1991 announcement.
b. IJulihead City. Arizona. The
Arizona Center for Law in the Public
-------
eR gls er ‘ / ôL’5& No 15 /ih Jdi g,’ i ø / R iIes ,g ca 8 &lI 1ó&
Interest (the Center) commented that
“EPA should add the Bullhead Oty
Arizona. pIar nIn area (Mohave:
County) tq the list of Initial PM-b -.
noaaftalnment areas based on Its
violation of the annual.standazd In 1989
and Iti exceedance of the 24-boar.
standard in the same year.” ; •
Bullhead City was a former PM-1O•
Group Ill area. Section 1071d1(41(B)(ll)
governs the Initial nonattalnment
desIgnations of former Group U and UI,
areas. That provision Indlcatesthat a
former Group U or III area can be.
desig ..*rt .d nonaP Inment by operation
of law upon enactment of the ‘Act coIrif
“monitoring data show a violation of the
NAAQS for PM-be be cre Jwiuary 1 -
1989,. • . “ Violations of the tanaIp,tl
occurring Iii 1989 would not qualify as a’
violation occurring befort January 1..
1989..
Note, however, that ptirsu zt to -
section 107(d)(3) of the ACt.EPA has
initiated the process t6redeslgnate this
area as nopattalnment forPM-10 .By
letter dated January zi. 199v the
Regional Administrator of EPA Region
D C notified the Governor of Arizona that
available Information Indicates that
Bullhead City should be redesignated
thnattalnment for PM—loud, or that
basis, called on the State to submita
redesigpatlon for the area (see also 50
•FR 16Z74 (April 22*99111. , .
c Payson Arizona. The Center..
aubmitted.comments dalming that
Payson. rfzona. should be de ignated
as an Initial PM—iO nonattalnuzent area.
The Center stated that “Payson violated
the annual mean PM-b standard In
1988 and 1989. and ilso recorded Bye
violations of the 25-hour standard In
1989 •“
Payson was a former Group III area.
For the reasons noted in the B&tflhved
City response. those violations occurring
on or after January 1.1989 cannot be a
basis for designating Payson as an
initial PM—b nonattainment
Panther, the 1988 data r cod for this
area did not meet EPA ’s 9eneral data’
capture requirements (I.e.. was--
incomplete) and was not otherwise
sufFiciently unambiguous to establish
nonattainmecit (see I 2.3 of part 50,
appendix K). More specifically. 2.3
states that Iris “generally necessarf for’
a monitoring site to have data which
includes a mioinunn of 75 percent of the
scheduled 131—to samples per quarter In
order to assess whether a violation of
the standard has been recorded. With a
minimum sampling frequency of once in
8 days. a valid annual mean must be
based on at least 48 obrervations (12
thservation per calendar quatterj.
however. 12.3 aLso states that there a e
“Ies strin.3ePt data requirements for
showing that a monitor has failed an
attainment test and thus has recorded a
• vlolatlon.of the partlcülate matteu -
standanL” Section 2.3sets out examples
of how nonaltalàmentasay be -.
demonstrated su beu a monitoring site
does not meet the completeness criteria.
With respect to the annual standard.
I2.3provtdeLforexamp le.that
nonattairimant way be demonstrated
“oar the basis of quarterly mean
concentrations developed from observed
data combined with one-half the
minimum detectable concentration
substftuted for- missing values.’
Applying this analysis to the data
collected In 1988 at the Payson -
monitoring station. EPA conduded that
Payson should not be an Initial PM-be
nonàttalnment area. First, according to
the State of Arizona data report a total
of 19131—10 samples were produced In
1988 by the Payson monitor. This dearly
fails the cdrnpleteness requirement IL
• then..one-baIf the , nlnlm.on detectable
concentration 01(4.0 mIcrograms per.
Cubic meter(pgf m’)) Is substituted for
the misfing values (say, 99, I.e.,
99+10=48). then the resulting annual
meafl would be approxImately 32 grg/m’
which Is below the annual PM-10 -.
standard.’ •
Huwvver. 1Mfljtr to the Bullhead City
situation, pursuant to section 1 7(d)(S)
of the Act. EPAhas Initiated tlte 5 .iw an
to redesignate this area as. -
aonattalwnent for PM—10. By letter
dated January24. 1991, the Regional
Adndnisfrator of EPA Region IX notified
the Governor of Arizona that available
information Indicates that Payson
should be redesignated nonattalnment
for PM—I9. and on that basis called on
the State to submit a redesignatlon for
the area (see also 50 FR 10274 (April 22.
199111.
ii Tucson. Arizona. The Arizona
Center for Law lathe Public Interest
also commented that Tucson sbouldbe
an inItial 181-10 nonattahunent area.-
The Center’s request was based on
monitoring data from three different
sites In the Tucson area.
First, the Center stated thu the
Orange Giiwe Road sampling 1atiorr -
monitored one 24-hour exceedance in
1985 and two In 1988. Since ‘the 1985’
exoeedanoe was produced prior to the
promulgation of the PM-to NAAQS (see
generalLy 52 FR 24834. July 1.1987). EPA
did not adfust It for incompleteness of
sampling and counted It as 1.0 In the
calculation of the average number of
estunated exceedactces.’ 2 The analysts
“CenevuUy when utnptu I ii nut cond.icted one
daiLy b.isie. A ediuste eticeedences of the 24.bogr
•tiu.dod to order to estimate the number of
eipicl. .d c edeiu,an (see S it of iO CR1 put 50
specified La t 3.2 of part 50. appendIx I C.
wasthearappliedtothetwo -
exceedancet’obseived In 1989.” On this
basis, EPA calculated 3.1 excuedangés
for 1909. Section 2.1 specIfies that the
number oftóxceednnces Is determined
by averaging the number of exceedances
over the past 3 calPrIIrlryesx,.
Therefore. the n imber of expected’
exceedances for the 3-year period from -
1980-88 Ia 1.033. After the rotmdhag’
called for- In 2.1,1.033 wouldbe less
thanorequa ltoL owhlthdoesnot
constitute a violation of the stamlard.
Au” t ’ig for purposes of Wu :
that the 4-year period from 1905-88-
representative. then. cotisistent with
I 2.3, the 1985 exneedance i ay be
.coosideret lathiss ltuatioo,the.
11 1L . C ). 9- 1 ’ - 31 stats . this (I a this
sdSeV ’_the s isumptios Is weds this the -
&sãthse cI-’*i eslues this would ban
esededth ,efla14 -ttc .ltothe
1110 01 iiiiiiuryj vsl is above this ks L’ - -
sans
paler to the pranslgatlonofplit S0- . . q - “ K.
ThiS. tote of the 24-bow ezosedsate . ei... 4 In
tees si Ibe O sage G t e .. land suaplbu site Is -
Tames. Psrt1 sppeodix K. wan 11 ..M 1.k.4 out fuly
Lum(swinds t eSL19u1iibo a ’& -
tset.ed the lidianterhe utsrdmisti mitts. to PM-tO
(see gemisly 52 F 541. When byeWed the
PM-to indeed, and ,uu. Iget J a n” K. A
thd out “r te ares, aid. 9...J .an.eosld bit -
teen Inte n ded temb$ent pte-prawslgetiou data to
due to ha. th dslI a.4JtL . kr thi
l 4 M 01 L4 ...thu a m s aa.utittaI t. : -
Ywthaf. b. .d . .thdSe catleintag dsltbefoti e.
isles pmwuI atLos.bsd so esilidaithe ‘ -
01 lees.thsa4eeIy -day —‘r’ - ft
would bsanf&rtp sdjed data “‘ll pe-
pr .mnlpfl’ . . at this Thin. A
alth that dite piUto Site
‘anle’s pruuedgatise mid used for m’- ’s an
uress — ga’.-itoo Is not oonqttued as usuntibatliag
‘tnnmgulete dsta whitin die .—.-‘- 01-i ipeedIn
K hethe esutner ,n.. ie of .djuistIsgda fw less
thandsU ye ’n p l g - -
The ”. wb b d i eA e ocybss -
peit so. appendix K. pesiddes e .J ’ .oe
of the Agency’. mtessl .. with the wifslaouss
of sub 5sctlag pee . . Mka data to sdluinwent
forlncoupletsoess. even before the seedy revised
Ain PM-SO . in s lam I S Is
poy4-- - faAse td that lithe (lest
enuedsues is an usi o. ... . .4 palorto the -
preusd. stIoe 01 sin PM-to e. .—’- .thlt would be
— 11vse the di i mpitar Nqultemet (are
genei* n.sptiunto stIo R IJdIfl PM-to
State laupleseentatlout nan (SZP Development it
page r i Flashy. thtoe Isso evidence to did
resiud Ant that istet ided A to spp(y -
, ip ” ’• Kin. ... “.—diffwmit11ewbow ,
Agency had . r*’J4 1 It palorto—” '”’ - -
‘Th. coanputaflsu hesotn.tlopeusedsaces
to sd uat is. mhsalop dsta ste perfcaned quietest.
Threate .pecla p. .u . K fmwgtsl Is sddresa
the situation with wisdiedided ‘r’ ’ In ouder to
reduce a bias tebidi may be Inteodoud by
ooo mtlferm smplicg during linquatter. During the
third quieter of 1905. when the two exceedsutoes
oncurrut there was a diange In semplLn Irequencp
from evciy.odwidey to e’vwydsy. Ateoedaitg ly for
the pmpopm of estimating exceedaitces. the sample
achedulo wan auiwied to be eve.y.other.day (or the
entice qqwler sod. for eotnpotstlonal perpoes..
some of every-day samples ate treated us
u .iw ted ,de tt. -
-------
87662 . Federa’ egister 1’ Vol. W No 153 / “Thin ’ day ‘ A igüM 81 1991 f Rures and Re ulaLIdr1s
expected number of exceedances would
be 4.1 over a 4-year period which Is
1.025. After the toimdlz*g c2I1 d for Irs
I L1. this would beless than or equal to
10 and would not constItute a VIOlatiOn
of the standard. .
The Center commented that elevated
levels of PM-b were monitored at the
Congress Street station. Speclflca ly, the
Center states that the annual st . .Aard
was violated In 1989 and that three
exceedances were monitored In 1989.
Tucsofl was; former Group II area. As
noted. under section 107(d)(4fiB) (HJ a
former Group II axes can be designated
nonattalnment by operation of law upon
enactment of the Act only If “monitoring
data show a violation of the national
ambient air quality standard for 131—10
before January 1, 1989 • .“. Because
the violations cited by the Center
occurred on orafter this date, they
would not constitute a basis for
designating Tucson as an Initial PM-1O
nonattainment area. -
The Center also commønted that the
monitor located at Prince Road
monitored a violation of the 1989 annual
standard. Again. EPA notes that a
violation must be monitored prior to.
January 1.1989 to constitute a basis for
designating Tucson as an Initial PM-b -
nonattaliunent area.
ColTecling EPA’s announcement of the
Initial PM—b nonattalnment areas Is the
narrow question addressed by the
Agency In today’s action. Nevertheless.
the Center has alerted EPA to possible
attainment problems In the Tucson area
which may be a basis for redesignating
this area as nonattainment pursuant to
section 107(d)(3) of the Act. The A
will review the PM-b data collected In
Tucson on or after January 1.1989 and
expects that it will reach a conclusion
about Tucson’s statue (and whether to
initiate the section 107(d)(3)
redesignation process) sometime this
Fall.
e. Bonnet County. Idaho. The
Administrator of the IDEQ submIUed
comments addressing the Bonner
County nonattainment area. The EPA
announr.ed that “Bonner County was
an Initial nonattainment area In the
March 1991 notice. The IDEQ submitted
a more detailed description. Isolating
that portion of Bonner County believed
to warrant nonattainment designation.
Consistent with the definition of
nonattairtment area in section
107 [ dlll)(A)(i) of the Act, in today’s
notice EPA has refined the boundaries
for this area as requested by IOEQ.
1. Oglesby. Illinois. The Governor of
IILEOlS submitted information to EPA
re’ ”.’sting that an additlnE’lI section be
aw d to that portion of ‘. . . csby
designated nonattainine i for PM—la.
Consistent with the definition of -. . “-
aonattalll .m.nt area In section .‘
107(d)(1)(A)(Q, EPA has added the’.r -.
section and announces that the Oglesby
131-10 nonattalament area Is as - ‘ a
described In Table L
In January 28. 1991 correspondence to
the Governor of illinois, the Regional
Administrator of EPA Region V had.
Initiated the process to redesignate as
nonatt tniitent this portion of L*Q IIa
County. That process has been mooted
by the action announced In todays
notice.
s. Clinton Townsh a Indiana. The
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) requested that the
boundaries for the Clinton Township
noaatfnl ent area be reduced to
Include eight sections In the Township
and submitted technical Information
supporting their request. The EPA has
reviewed the information submitted by
IDEM and apees that the area should be
modified to Include only the eight
sections Identified. The IDEM’s
Information shows that violations of the
standard ale attributable to a coal mine
In the area. The EPA believes that
limiting the boundaries to the eight.
sections suggested by IDEM does not
exclude any significant sources or any
likely nonattRjIun nt portions of this
area. Thus. EPA Is r 8 ”ng the
boundaries of that portion of Clinton
Township that Is designated as
nonatt Inm.nt for P1 ,1—10 to Include
these eight sections, consIstent with the
‘lefinition of nonattainment area in
section b07(d)(1)(A)(I) of the Act.
h. Rochester. Minnesota The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) commented on the City of
Rochesters nonattainment status. The
MPCA requested that the boundaries for
the nonattaixunent area not Include the
entire city. They submitted information
supporting this request Including
documents Indicating that EPA had
Intended to Include the modified
boundaries in Its March 1991 notice but
through admInistrative oversight failed
to do so.
The EPA believes that the
nonattainment area should be less than
the entire city and EPA Intended to
provide more refined boundaries In its
March 1991 notIce. Violations In
Rochester have been attributed to coal
storage at a power plant. This facility is -
the only significant source in the cIty. -.
The EPA’s refined nonattainment area
includes the source and all the area EPA
believes to be monitoring violations of
the NAAQS due to the source. Thus.
consistent with the definition of
nonattairunent area In section
107(d)(1J(AJ(i) of the Act. EPA has
refined the nonattainme1 t area.
Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) also
submitted co” ts addressing this
area. The P.PU requested that EPA
reconsIder Rochesters 000att.bin.n( -
designation. The RPU commented that
no violation of the NAAQS has ooC . . d
In the area. Specifically. RP1J asserted
that there has been no violadanof the
NAAQS because only one exceedanc ’
of the standard has been measured and
there have never been two exceedances
during any 1 year. Further. RFU
‘commented that the event causing the
exceedance was an “exceptional
meteorological event” and should not
trigger a nonattainuient designation. The
RPU also commented that the sampler
malhmctloned and did not reliably
measure 134-loon the day the
exoeedance occurred.
The PM-b NAAQS Is expressed In
terms of an expected value. Section 3.1
of 4o FR part 50. appendix K. describes
the adjustments that must be.made to
24-hour data In order to estimate the
number of pec1ed exceedances when
PM-in sampling Is not conducted on a
daily basis. Section 3.1 states that ‘IlIn
this adjustment, the assumption Is made
that the fraction of missing values that
would have exceeded the stnnit rd Level
Is Identical to the fraction of measured
values above this level” The regulations
recognize that this adjuàtnaent may lead.
to overprediction. Thus. §3.1 also states
as follows: “To reduce the potential for
overestimating the number of expected
exceedances. the correction fot . i ing
data will act be required for a calendar
quarter In which the first observed
exceedance ha. occurred if: (a) There
was only one exceedance in the
calendar quarter. (b) everyday sampling
is subsequently initiated andmalntained
for 4 calendar quarters in accordance
wIth 40 CFR 58.13, and (c) data capture
of 75 percent!. achieved during the
required period of everyday sampling.”
Sampling Is conducted once every 0
days at the site where the exceedance In
Rochester was measured. Daily
sa pllng was not commenced after the
exceedanee. Thus, the regulations
require a correction for the missing data.
After applying the adjustment
referenced above. the expected
exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS at
Rochester constitutes a violation of the
PM-b NAAQS consistent with part 50.
appendix IC.
Section 2.4 of part 50. appendix K,
governs the Inquiry of whether the
exceedance measured at the Réchester
monitonng site should be treated as an
exceptional event.” That regulation
states that an exceptional event is “an
uncontrollable event caused by natural
sources of particulate matter or an evrrnt
-------
Federal Registerf Vol 56: No. 153 / Thursday August 81991 I sandRegulâUà is
that is not expected to recur at a given
location.” The RPU conwnented that.
extremely high winds occu rTed on the
day the exceedance was measured. The
RPU cited a memorandum by MPCA
requesting that EPA heat tiur.
exceedancs as an exceptional event and
noting that the Rochester National
Weather Service Office measured wind
speeds in excess of 40 mIles per hour on
the day the exceedance was measured.
As noted. EPA believes that coal.
storage at a power plant Is responsible
for the exceedanon. Thus . the event In
question would not qualify fortreatinent
as an exceptional event under the first
proogof the exceptional eventS
siandards lnce itis controllable and was
not àaused by natural sources. Further.
EPA has no basis to believe the eveltt
would meet the second prong of the
operative legal standard. While high
winds were cited, no Information was
submitted Indicating whether that high
wind was the cause of the exceedaace
and If so. whether the wind was likely
torecur.
The EPA also believes there Is -
insufficient technical basis to cast doubt
upon the reliability of the measurement
11 eRPUnotedthatithadbeen
Inforceed by MPCPL that the sampler
was encumbered with large particles.
and possibly a dirty sampler head “such
that quantification ofPM-10 could not
be accurately and reliably theasigp l.
.“Prevlously. MPCA had -
submitted to EPA a mkio.coplst’s
analysis of the filter sample. The
analysis concluded that large paitjcles
were collected which should not have -
been measured and suggested that the
sample point be Invalidated. The EPA
found the mlcrvscopisl ’s analysis
technically deficient since It did not
document the quantity of large particles
collected and encumbering the sampler.
Thus. EPA will not disregard the data
due to the Inadequately substantiated.
claim that the sampler malfunctioned.
In sum. EPA has adjusted the.
boundaries for this area In light of
MPCIVs cossments and consistent wIth
the definition of nonattatament
under section 107(d)(1)(A)(I) of the Act
However, for all of the reasons
explained above, EPA denies RPITs
request to totally eliminate this areas.
nonattainment designation. - -.
1. Audroin County. Missouri. The
Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MUNRI submitted comments
addressing EPA. designation of monitoring sites sInce 1988 were’
Audrain County. Missourt as an Initial determined by the TACO to be -
PM-10nonatfnlnm nt area. The EPA Influenced by wind-blown dust..
Identified Audrala County as an Initial transported from out of State sowuss.
nonattainmpnt area because of an As a result, the TACO and the City of
exceedance of the PM-lO U-hour Lubbock contend that the days on whIch
slanlard occurring on August 1.1987. eyreedanne , were .neasuied were days
The MUNR submitted Information seith unus ”y high wind gusto sadni -
suggesting that these data were Invalid, such, these days should be considered
After reviewing the technical . as exceptional events and excluded
lnformaÜon associated with this from the iecords In acoordan ce with
measured exceedance, EPA has EPA:s exceptIoO a1 ven1s pal1cy undei
concluded that the PM-ia sampler
malfunctioned on August 1.1987 and C R part 50. appendix I C . 2.4 They.
also contend that if the days with the.
operated for a.perlod exceeding24 bjgh winds were e” ””’ d as -
hon ., Section 1.0 of part 50. appendIx IC. ____
specifies that a “daily vilue” Is a “24- exceptional events, She 4giu st 24 hour..
hour average concentratlonof a... itrttIon recorded at thi Lubbock...
calculated or measured frommidnight monItorwR sites would be 128vs/m
midnight • .“ The EPA hal wh ’ I below the national sInlad ot
lnvrilidated the exceedance sInce A 50 grgfm’ . .:..
believes the sampler ran for loirgerihan TheW.A has reviewed all data’
24 hoar. and was not measured from submitted by the TACO and the City of
midnight to midnight By todays notice Lubbock In ms.frh g Its decision on the
EPA removes Audraln.froin the list of• affalniviFilt status of the Lubbock area.
initial PM-b nonattainment areas. . Sectloii 2.4 o pazt 50, appendix i C
because EPA believes Audraln County. Indleutes that certain exceedanre , of
has not measured a “violation” of the the PM-b NMQS can be adjusted to
PM-b NAAQS within the meaning of take exceptional events and trends Into
part SO, appendix IC. account The data available indicate
J. C ,lwnbia Foils. Montario.(Flathecd that Lubbock has monitored a limIted
öouniy The Coveinor of Mqntana. numbei of PM-ia Levels In excess of the
requested that ’A expand. by M1 g . 24-hour PM-10 standard. Further. thi
one section. the Columbia Falls,- Influence otlong. ange transport of :..
nonatI Inipent area. In gh of the -: .: . in W nst on these ie s ired..
.Coj eOs comments and. crnilteiaI - exceedance m ” It difficult to’...
wfthihe dg cIUon of nonattaInment deternilne the associated eacy and
area set forth in section 107(d)(i)(A)(I) of nature otthese exceedanoes. This
the Act, Eg’A has adjusted the rmuj in uncertainty In bow to treat
bo indarfe set forth In the Ma h1*9i, events. Because d l
noUce.. this uncertainly. EPA feels that an
k Lubbock. Te cas. The TACO as well nnr1a sifled status Is appropriate lot
as the City of Lubbock submitted - Lub while additional Information is
comments on the March 15.1991 Federal. collected,
Register notice providing an analysis of
the Lubbock PM-b air quality data IlL Table Desathing the Initial Moderate
collected over a 4-year period (roar PM-b NöuatI 1n”” Areas Correded
1989-1989. The TACO commented that by Todays Notice
they had performed an analysis of all
PM-la filters showing an . Based on the foregoing dIscussIon.
the NAAQS These analyses included an today 15 changing Its Match 15
Interpretation and evaluatlonof soil 1981 (58 PR 11101) announcement of the
samples and particulate matter collected Initial R4 bOponattnInmnt areas. The
on the filters. The results of the analysis-. attainment designations for those
of the filler and . ll samples indicated - areas corrected b7 today’s notice are set
that these was a distinct difference forth In the following table. Consistent
between ,the particulate matter with EPA’s announcement In the March
deposited on the filters from routine 1991 notice, all of these areas were -
monItoring days and those from the . cIassified as “moderate” PM-b
days of hIgh gusty winds and blowing nonattatninent areas by operatIon of
dust The three exceedances of the FM- law, pursuant to section 188(al of the
1024-bout standard at the Lubbock Act.
-------
37664 Federal Register I VoL 56 No. Lmuziday. August 8, 1991 I RuIe . Regulations
The ( ci Si ora 13-36 ci 33 • ___ . - - .: •
6 sou5 Sec6on 31 ci vsç. 35 sent sld 5 on* S.cmlie 1-36 ci ,sçe 33 .si 11 I. - .4i I souci
Si oce 1-35 ci isi e 34 a s I,.. . U, . I sas S.clonc 645 ci tongs 5 isi .11 09 . ...J . I sos 0&&. .s 1.6.15-
23, wld 27-35 ci rerige 36 ssi sld 09. . . . I so, Se im 44 ci isIg. 33 sent end 1...nJ4 . 7 ssøc Sscboie 1-4.10-14
end 24 ci iie $4 ssi end 7 aoi Ss lu 1— end 3246 ci isis. 35 ssi end 7501* Seci 2—I l .
14.23, end 2645 ci ienge 36 esi d L....li 7 on* Ss 6oi . 1-4 ci irçs 35 I .......14 . S on* S ie 3-6 ci
isigs 36 isi end 09.u 11 S soi.di.
The Seni i&s seen S. ono I-I . 0-12. is. ii . 21.32.27.35 ci onigs 2 ensci sid 09-.4J , 57 ml end ml 1.m % ci
Se oiie 14,23, end 26 d i . suns I....idi i end i s .dII i .
______________ en Lyons T mli _____ _____
a. The eon boimled on lie north by lath Sleet. on the uset by L.L.J.l. . 57 b*min SthIsy Soideved end U..L.t . 04 end by
U 04 W. e 51 end 79th Sleet. si lie suoli by Sbey Geidsvu4 set on lie asi by lie isdslbdons
Oesby bi athig the 09Ia ig ruige.. aid fl RIE, SI: 1 1 S 1336,513,. 234; 1335. RIE.
S25 1335.523, S31; 1335, RIE. S36 ad 1335. $30.
Psi ci lon bi iliig ml I.A..I .. 1 , Sidouie 15,1 5,21.33.27. * 33 end 31
The see boisided on lie scioli by US. 14 on lie set by U.S. Ifl Pusy SZ on lie soils by 14th Sseet NW. bm-sei
U.S. LI i..a 52 and U.S Roide 63 ree ay Avs1ae U.S Rode 63 north 09 N it.rn H. its DIre. NE.. end N ,.ithsys
____ H11 ds Dive NE. . .i1- ed s 09I1e1090 y ci Rodi.d. . Sd aid on the sod by Ii. .1090 Oly ci flndieeter 09*..
The ass loaded by loon bern t esi Tisem (!JIV4 .aI. 7QO00Oi . co47001ld4. sod 09 lOl000sv€. 5347000nd 1 ,
south 09 lOl000mE , 534100DIN. usol 09 70300 109E. 534 10009d 1 , aoietl 09 70300 , S3l0000n*1. usol 09
63400010914 , wIth 09 ?O23ODiE. 52390001094. ol 09 633900011 14. sode 09 703000srE. 52380001111. sod 09
704000nE. 6338000mP1. wIth 09 10400017€, 533500011*4, sod 09 1090001 1€, 533600011*4. soioll 09 799000nf , i01I*&
suet 09 T00000mE. 5335000 ,114. north 09 100000 ,T€. 534000011*4. sod 09 5 5II € , 5$40000n*4 . north 09 6050009€,
53450009*1. asol to 700000mE, 534500011*4, issli 09 7000U0, € , 6$479001i*t
Cobscis F 1 109 ad ty T.....JiI , . 1305. R20W—Ss ns 7 5,0.10.17. .d 16.
Ltby end vle*y 7305, R3IW—Secllons 2,3,4.6,2,10, 11. 14. 13, 23, 2 35. end suet ci Sedon 24 sod ci Sedon 25,
end wed II of Seclon 36 pbs 13124. 1W—Sec6ons 26. 27, 35, ml sod % of 8r ’ -w 30. 32, 33. 31 end 35.
aid dilWty ki dffig lie Idciâi s.i . T135 . RIWI—Ssdorw 2. 11. 14.16,16,17.10.20,21.22.23.2427. *
26, 50, 31. 32. 33, end 34 T I2N , R1 —Ssc5ons 4 5. I, 7 TI3N, R f—Sa ns 33, 24. 36. 26. 35. end 36.
________ Biolen The NuIUi . . . .iI corner ci eethon 2, 7.35.. R*I_ limos Csszaty 09 conw Sedan 5, T.YI. 5.1W, hence
Soidonly 09 IUUu.resl conw Seden 0. 1.35, R .7W hisnos Essleily 09 Pi ..iii..1 enmer Sedan 10, T.35. R.7W , lonsu
Southuly 09 South t corner SscUcn 22, 7.35, R.7W , lon Wed $j ’ 09 SOuleneel mow S n 19. T.Z4.. 5.7W, thues
Norlrniy 09 N , Ui mow Sedan 19.721. 5.7W.. hones W ty 09 Soid09ud suns Ssdon 14. T24, 5. 5W., Sieves
P&jIi.il 09 Sauthwsd coiner Sedan 35. 735.. R.SW. hones W $y 09 Souhusi mow Ssi09n 34. TiN.. R.IW, thence
Nui*&7 09 PSdUIwud cams SeaSon 27, TiN.. 5.5W. Isee W.a1.t 09 Southued canon SeaSon 20. 7.35.. R.SW. theme
NoilonPj 09 Northwest corner SeaSon 17. TiN. 5.6W, hones £colui$y to P&. .ili..eet corner SeaSon 14, TiN.. R.BW. thence
northedy 09 the po09t c i be,L. .J..g .
The see boimled by Mubs Sleet (Stile Soils 4$ ) born hi. Wed WpbdolOtSo bolder wed 09 Seed 509t (U.S. Rcuts 22).
Siasut Slid. wed to ml SteilisiwUlo T.... . J4 /Qoss Oeeli T......Jl , , boisidsy, the sdi baisiday south 09 lIe
Stalisiwole Corporation 51€, ml coipaisS .. . boimmly sod I D Stile ROde 7. State Rode? Sosdi 09 lie Steuthenwlle T ... ..diW
Weds Tci...di boadsy, ml boadsy sod to ml Wed * ma/OlSo bails. ad Nalli on ml boils ID Model
Sen uL
The see bsglded on the souls bye lie from UTU & ..09 694ã00mW, 515700011*1. 09651000mW. 515700011*1. thence
north dong a lie 09 wQ.J..l&4 68100011*1.51723001114, theies sod 09 694000mW. 51720001111. thence sedi 09 the blvL.l.qi
co .ste 69’000nW . 51570009*4.
When dOss or towns we diosni. lie ass ci 09 dthied by the melc 11 boi.mday I’ls cool l&,. ,nOer 15,1990 (the doted aedilati ci the Act)
xcept for seen sI di were loimedy Group l.li wildi see the ass ci . . ..1 . 09 deloed byml suI 11 bolalsy 0969 end Cowiw 31. 1990 (See 55
45799). (The 0 9 0 0W 09 - ,j - -’ ’ - 09 IDdey ’l edon end doe mo the Set 09 the ads add the Mudi 15.1091 FeuRJI. RoOSTER notice (56 FR
11105).) ___ ___ ___ ____ ____
i iWhena ass 09 duoun, ml eves ci eancen. , kedjdss the s Os iI....L . see en ci 13,1990 (lie doled flidi1 ci ml lid) sespt for
seas ilidi see fo.rn. .lIy Group I, Ii wildi the seed . 09 doled by ml sills L.J . . , eon end Odlis 31,1W (ass 55 FR 45799). 09
to ml onteil the Øsewig see 09 bather ddoied ( e.g. by I ..reJ4 ,, suigs, end/or sedan). Sicit geov.w4I .4 4e.4 i09lS ammo spent ci the .enanawmeiti
boisiduies L . ..Uive ci . diiUiir they ens kidded Ii the pt...à1 1 ass. (The tor*ids 09 . , I. _ LI 09 my ’s odon aid abs S i. s d locCele m lie
table heed Ii the Merdi 15.1091 PeeERSL Reweirj . notice (55 FRI 1168) ) _____
“AulsIl Cosedy. wee removed en en flOel PM-b cor ..m d sea. See ovs.
I? I . ká * Tasu. wee isuosad Si lied PM-1O nanattllunerl ass. See . . .. .n09 ll
IV. Significouce of Today’s Adieu November15 1991 whIch Includes the . December15, 1993. In addition, a new
By November 15. ig i. states must followlng (1) Either a demonstration eoiiYCe permit program meeting the
adopt and submit to EPA a si vision (includ ing air quality modeling) that qremonta of part D of the Act is
for all those areas that were classified plan will provide for attainment by required for the Construction and
as moderate PM—b nonattainment areas December 31. 1994 or a demonstration operation of new and modifled major
by operation of law upon enactment of that attainment by that date Is stationary sources of PM—b (includjag,
the Act (see subpart 4 of part D of title i impracticable: and (2) provisions to In some cases. PM—b precursors). A SIP
of the Act as amended). In particular. assure that reasonably available control revision meeting this requirement is due
section i89(a of the Act requires that all measures (including reasonably by June 30.1992 for all of .e initial
of the initial moderate PM—to available control technology) for the moderate PM—b non :Iainrnent ireug
nonanainment areas submit a SIP by control of PM—b are implemented by The EPA will provide ndditIon. l
TABI.E L—PM—1O tsnw. NONATTAINP.IENT AREASIs,%s,I ,IT •:
State aid cowdes
heed wIbt iu
-
de
ILil
I L
I ’—
SBier Bow
Ws 1 1w i la re
V.frb. ..
-------
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 153 I Thursday . August 8, 1991 / Rules and Regulations
37865
guidance on SIP requirements for these
areas In the near future. Also note that
EPA will be reclaulfythg some of these
Initial PM-b nonatfthwmt areas boat
moderate to serious because they
cannot practicably attain the EM—b air
quality standards by December31. 1994
(see section I.88(b)(l) of the Act). If
reclassified as serious, these areas will
be subject to additional wutlul
requirements and a new attoislinwot
date. The EPA will work with the States
In order todevelop aproposed list of
moderate areas to be reclassified as
Lerlous.
V. Effective Date of This Notice
As mentioned, the effective date of
the annoam ment of the doa%nntioa
and claceffi Ucn of areas adjusted or
corrected In today’. notice Is August 8,
1991. While 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (the APA)
states that the effective date of certain
administrative actions must be 30 days
after publication, EPA does not believe
that provision of the MA Is applicable
to this action. S.ctm , 107(d)(2) of the
Act expressly states that “promulgation
or annooncren.nt” of a designation
under section 107(d)(4) shall not be
subject to 5 U.S.C 553-557. The
provision estabilahing the PM—Is
designations that occurred by operation
of law upon es actmeat of the Act (the
designation of the U ftj J PM-Ia
nnat’ -I . -°”t areas”) appears at
section 107(dR4)(Bj. Thus,
announcement of the initial PM-b
aonattalnment areas Is exempt from the
notice .end. .comn .nt rulemaking
procedures set forth In 5 U.S.C. 553-557,
Including the I 553(d) requirement that
the effective date of certain actions must
be 30 days after publication.”
VLFlnaHty
The EPA will take final action on the
Initial designations for PM—b (under
section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act)
for the purposes of section 307(b) of the
Act when EPA formally codifies these
designations In 40 a R part 81. ThIs
includes those designations announced
hi the March 19.1991 notice and any
subsequent modifications made In this
notice. As noted. EPA Is expected to
“Utlie AM Irswaat thai pubUosilca
precede the effective date of ositala actions by 30
days was deem appii.hi . to todays adios. ‘A
bcIleves this action would be within the pwwlew of
the good canoe exception to this requirement. SeeS
USC. 553(dJ(3). The March U. ion Fedsrui
Rcglstsi notice .nnoundng ths Initial PM -1O
oo .isttahumeul steas was effective todays stir
publication (I... May 14.1591) In order to allow for
• .dep moment period and any appn,prtat.
kilow-up adjusuosnia by EPA. In this Fadosal
S notice. EPA ,esponda to momenta
.ddi ng the Mardi ion notice. Thus, there Is no
insecii to defer the effective date furtizer.
complete a part 81 cedlficatlon for PM-
10 and other tItle 1 aIr pollutants In the
near future.
vu. Anlhnslty
Sections 1W(d)(2 ) . 107(d)(4), 110
(Including 110(k)(6fl, 188(a). and 301 of
the Apt provide authority for todays
action.
Datedi July 31. ISSL
— -
Assistant Administ r ator JorAfra nvi
Radiation.
IFR Dec. 9i-IS5V Piled 8- 7-I l ; t4SamJ
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CPA Part I
(FCC 91—2171
Standards for Assessing Forfeitures
ACENCY Federal Ctpi.in imjcatlons
Coiiinit nslon.
AcTusic Policy statement.
suuuanv This policy statement
establishes standards to be used by the
Commission In assessing forfeitures.
Adoption of the Policy Stai.meeit will
assist the Commlsslnn In ensuring that
similarly situated violators are treated
In a similar manner and will provide
guidance to the public regarding the
forfeitures that can be expected In
connection with specific violations.
EPPECTIVE DATm August 8,1991.
roe mmea esroeva*viow CONTAC
David H. Solomon. Office of General
Counsel: Federal Communications
Commission (302) 632-6990.
SUPPLEMEPifAPY SIFORMATIOIC
Policy Statement
Adopte& July11. 1991; Releasedi August 1.
1991.
EytheComudss lom
L Ifltroduction
1. In this Policy Statement, we
establish standards for assessing
forfeitures. These standards are set forth
in the appendix. We intend lobe guided
In the future by these standards.
although we note that we remain “free
to exercise’ • discretion In
situations that arise” In specific case.
See Guardian Federal So vings bLoon
Assn v. Federal Savings and Loan
Insurance Co.. 589 F. 2d 658,608 (DC Cit.
1978).
11. Background
2. The Commission has traditional!y
assessed forfeitures on a case-by-case
basis. in fight of relevant precedent. In
19 Co eu substssth* Inoreased
the dollaramounts of cur forfeiture
authority. Public Law No.100-239. U
Stat. 2131. As the Caiminl..lain u
Implw this inoreased faufeitwe
aLwlty we believe it I. 4ate to
depart from our trs&’ oael case-by.case
approach and adopt more specific
standards fur assessing fcifeltm Such
standards will assist the l’ , ,mI..,,. , In
ensuthig that . lmIlerIy situated violators
are treated In a comparable and
will provide guidance to the public
regarding the forfeitures that can be
expected In conn cUnn with apedflc
violations. (The Cn ,nn.lasion rm Iwa -
free, of course, to reipend to violations
with other or additional action, for
example, admowiubunosit . revocation or
non-renewaL) EstablIth!g forfeiture
standards Is consistent with a
recommendation of the AdaiMistratfve
Conference of the United States (ACUS),
and Is similar to approaches taken by
some other Independent regulatory
agencies. See Agency AssonantPnt and
Mitigation of Civil Money Panaldes.
Recoinwawlntion No. yn
30529-3 General Statement of Policy
and Procedure for NRC Enforcement
Actions. 10 CFR chapter 1. part 2,
appendlxC.
ilL Discussion
3. Section 503 Forfeitures. Most
Commission forfeitures are Issued under
the Commission’s general forfeiture
authority contained In section 503 of the
Act. Under section 503(b)(2). for each
violation or each day of a continuing
violation, the Commission may now
assess forfeitures of up to S25.000
against broadcasters, cable operators or
applicants for such facilities. *100.000
against common carriers or applicants
for such facilities, end $10,000 against
others. In addition. there is a limit on
forfeitures for continuing violations
Involving a single act or failure to act of
*150.000 for broadcasters. cable
operators or applicants for such
facilities and *1.000.000 for common
carriers or applicants for such facilities.
A limit of $75,000 applies to continuing
violations Involving a single act or
failure to act by others.
4. Our new standards for section 503
forfeitures establish base forfeiture
amounts for specific classes of section
503 forfeitures. The base forfeiture
amounts are based on a ranking of a
relative gravity of the violation
involved. The base amounts are
computed as a percentage of the
statutory maximum for the service
involved. For example. failure to comply
with prescribed tower lighting and
-------
Federal RegIster / Vol. 58. No. 77 1 Monday, April 22. 1.991 I Rules and Regulations
Today’s Action
‘The EPA Is. by this notice. Identifying
for the public those PM—to. SOi. and
lead areas for which EPA has notified
the affected States that EPA believes the
area should be designated or the
designation should be revised to
nonattainment or unclassIfiable. Upon
receipt of responses by the governors of
the affected Slates, EPA will review the
submitted Information and conduct
appropriate rulemaking. at which time
the public will have additional
opportunity for review and comment. 1
Ust of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control. Lead. Participate
matter, Sulfur dioxide.
Authsdty SectIons 107(d). 110 and 301(s)
of the Clean Air Act as amended.
Dated April 13. 1991.
Michasi Shapb
Acf irIgAsthtcntAdrninhslr owrforAir and
Rod /a
Table L—PM—lo Designations
jMeu for w lá A bee nceot1 boWled lbs
affected Stat. that A believe, the a m a should
hi is4—l ist.d a. omauata.eu’ fir PM- I D I
Aetams P.p.os.
Snflhu-d city.
Cailfisoja Samsm.nt. County.
Sas 9urnrdLso County.
cgoru _ _ . . Stuamboat Spi .
Idaho kootunal County.
Illinois Edpo County. Ilast and
SOsOon twp
I a 3.11 , County. ?wp. aE
Rare, lSsctks 3
MIdd .. lay County.
Mlucwt SI. L ouis County.
Mcutanu 1ts ,. .. . . , Pails.
New Mexico Bmnaiills County.
New Yosh N ,. Yoi Cmaty.
Or o. 0absd s.
Wsshlntoa Dentin County.
w..t V 1 1n 1 city of Whim.
on PM-IC NAA violsUme mss,d
or aft. unify I. I
TABLE II
Simi. . d counss
r j
.L41ld
-
.N d
- -
40 CFR Pail 281
(FRL-3923—13
New HainpshWs Approval of Stat.
Underground Storage Tank ProgrOm
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIUI8 : Notice of Tentative
Determination on Application of New
Hampshire for Final Approval, Public
Hearing. and Public Comment Period .
SUMMMY: The perpose of this notice Is
to amtowtce that: (1) The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has received a
complete application from the State of
New Hampshire requesting final
approval of Its underground storage tank
(UST) program under subtitle I of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) (2) EPA has reviewed New
Hampshire’s application and has made
the tentative decision that New
Hampshire’s UST program satisfie, all
of the requirements necessary to qualify
fo final approvak (3) New Hampshire’s
application for final approval Is now
available fo, public review and copylng
(4) pubLic comments are requested; and
(5) a public bearing will be held to solicit
comments at the application. If
requested.
DETESt A public hearing I . scheduled for
May20, 1091. The State of New
Hampshire will participate In the public
hearing held by EPA. The hearing will
begin at 10 sm. and will continue until
the end of testImony or 1p.m..
whichever comes first Requests to
present oral testimony must be flied by
May17. 1091. Written consent must be
i vcelved by May A 1991. EPA reserves
the right to cancel the hearing should
there be no significant public Interest.
Those Informing EPA of their Intention
to testify will be notified of the
canceilat lon.
*DO *SS!St Continents and requests to
testify should be mailed to Susan
Hanamoto. Underground Storage Tank
Program. HPU-1, U.S. EPA. Region 1. JFK
Federal Building. Boston. MA 02203.
Copies of New Hampshire’. final
application for program approval are
available B a.m.—4 p.m.. Monday through
Friday, st the following locations for
review..
New Hampshire Departh ent of
Environmental ServIces 8 Hazes
Drive. Concord. NH 03303, l%oae
(803) V1-3044;
U.S. EPA Headquarters. Ubrery. room
Z 1IA. 401 M Street, Washington. DC
20460, Phone: (202) 382-5928
T*ai.E Il—Continued
(4,saa fur wtdt EPA 1ti m sju mOunt Si
slfsctsd Stats Sit EPA bsI as Ste ores uiun
bs N4l.’ ”.ISd U lIOflht JThi.4 for 50.1
s .nt ooi Ouis
,
kU —
D PsrCo.
Jte..&..CoL_
—
A Diø a fw _
Wevun Co.
T
___
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
x.
.
x
X
w
0ct sCo.
1 0 1 5 1Ou 0(Coka itla_
X
X
TABLE IlL—LEAD DESIGNATIONS
(Man EPA t Stunid be d. . .J, . ..tsd
namSivnosO at u - ’ - fur usd3
$lstewto rCss
Pibnes A
— ‘
!
I
JJl___ , .____
. I
LosAn i .Co ._
‘
2
Rnt
l ar u,* CA
x
—
a ,:C o .__
2
M.to .
2
es
Eat eaten Rooms
PaW i _... . ..._.... _..
2
2
‘NalCo.
2
2
DuIscA
2
ISL .I J.h
2
..*iosaco._
X
U iz
P u ’i’—
2
Nm Yofu
wi ,Co.
2
‘ t i iJ.Co.
X
as.
qatie sc&
2
P a U .
BaheCo.______
2
T...-——
mt.e,co.
x
Fu als Co.______
2
x
Tame
CoII ,Co.
2
BaunCo.
2
(Aime_W wNOuI EPA tm n .J Ii.
. l1.d.d Staten Out EPA batsus 0,s ores dm 55
bu . .J.4 as . ....iU... .. ,.l SOil
4
fume
as f unCo. 2 2
1 MaOu.e nCo . 2 2
.IS&Ct.Co. X S
‘Pumuent to .sctloa 107(dli2)(DI of lb. Ad. lbs
promuiption of th sad da.igizauou. I. not subfsat
to the A tat utrothu Pmoadini Act Tequlonnaftu
fo , nodc...nd .oommant ro1 ’ng (5 U.S.C 51$-
ssij. lL..., .sr . ass matte, of poblic policy. EPA
may thooss Ii psuvid. such noltc. sod mammal or
othor opportunaty for public review,
(FR Doc. 91-0309 FIled 4-19- I l; MS amj
unoo case us u
-------
16274 Federal Register I Vol. 50, No. 77 t Monday. Aprtl 22, 1991 1 Rules and Regulations
2. ? . ,r the period between April 1.
1991. and May 31. 1991. paragraph (d) of
O 117.911 is revised to read as foliows:
Note- Thai. a temporvy nile and will not
appear In the Code of Fadurel Regulation..
f 111.811 AtlantIc l. .t..ca.sli W s j ,
Lifts River to Sa .,aIt River.
• . I • •
(di SR 171/700 bridge across Wappoo
Creek Mile 470.8 at Charleston. The
draw shall open on signal, except that
the draw need not open (mm e am. to 9
am. and from 4 p.m.to 6:30p.m.
Monday through Friday. except Federal
holidays. From April 1 to November 30,
from 9 a.in. to 4 p.m. Monday through
Friday. except Federal holidays, the
bridge need not open except on the hour
and on the hall-hour. From April 1 to
November 30. from 9 am. to 7 p.m.. on
Saturdays. Sundays and Federal
holidays, the bridge need not open
on the hour and half.hour.
Dated: April 9. 1991.
Roburt 8. Kianssk,
RearAdmitv!. U. Coast Guard, Commander.
Seventh Coast GuojdflhstricL
(FR Doc. 91-9338 Filed 4-19-91:8:13 amj
umir corns *15.14.0
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
(AD-FRL-3923-5J
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal
of Stats ImplementatIon PIwis PU-10,
Sulfur Dioxide, and Lead
Nonattainment and UnclassIfIable Area
Deslgnatlons
ASENCY Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
acyico: Information notice.
suuMA Pureuant to sections 107
(d)(3) and (dfl5) of the Clean Air Ad as
amended by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549.
Nov. 15. 1990) (the Act). EPA Is
authorized to promulgate designations
of new areas (or portions thereof) as
nonattainment. attainment, or
unclassifiable for particulate matter less
than or equal 1010 mIcrons (PM—b)
sulfur dioxide (SO,), and lead national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
As required by the Act. EPA has
provided notification to all affected -
States that the lead designations for
certain areu should be submitted or
that EPA believes that an area’s PM—b
or SO, designation should be revised.
Pursuant to sections 107 (d)(4)(B) and
(d)(1)(C) of the Act, certain other areas
were designated as nonattainment. by
operation of law, for PM—la and SO..
respectively. For PM—b, this Includes
areas previously Identified as group I
and other areas with violations of the
PM—b NAAQS prior to January 1. 1989.
For SO,, this Includes areas which, prior
to enactment, were designated as not
attaining the primary and secondary
SO, NAAQS. -
The EPA Is, by this notice, identifying
those PM—b, SO,. and lead areas for
which EPA has provided notification to
the affected States that EPA believes the
area’s designation should be revised to
nonattafiunent or unclassifiable.
aoousu Information supporting the
basis for notifying a State that EPA
believes an area’s PM—b or SO,.
designation should be revised to
nonattainment or unclassifiable, as well
as the basit for requiring States to
submit new aonattalnment or
unclassifiable designations for lead, can
be obtained frvom the respective EPA
Regional Office which serves the State
where the affected area Is located. The
contracts and addresses of the Regional
Offices arm
FOR PURThIR INPURMA11ON CONTAC1 1 .
larry 0. Wallace (PM-la). Particulate
Matter Programs Section. AIr Quality
Management Division (MD-IS). Office
of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-0906; F1S
Gretchen Mume (SO.). Sulfur Dioxide
Programs Section, AIr ( :ality
Management Division (MD—IS). Office
of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park. NC 27711(919)541-0642; F l’S
Laurie Ostrand (Lead), Sulfur Dioxide
Programs Section. Air Quality
Management Division (MD’-15), Office
of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, (919) 541-3277; Fl’S
629—3277.
SUPPUNtNTARY IN?ORMATIO
Background for PM-b
On July 1, 1987, the EPA promulgated
revised NAAQS for particulate matter
(PM) (52 FR 24634). replacing total
suspended particulates (TSP) as the
indicator for PM with a new Indicator
called PM—la that includes only those
particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10
microns. At the same time. EPA set forth
regulations for Implementing the rev’ ’
particulate matter standar
• Ac51 0 5sf. Sets Al 8:wCt, EPA Re an I, JF FiUsrsf 8i ig,
Boston, MA 02203-221 1. (117) 115’3248: F l ’S 935-3249.
• WOsu S. Biker. Olaf. Al PI ’o &.,s Biaiul . EPA Radon 1,98 F.d.i Ptsaa,
New Yolk, NY 10279. (213) 214-2511; Fl’S 264-2517.
• Mol 80 1*. 01 1sf. Al PIVyw.. . 01.011, EPA Rs on III, 541 Oiusbvl
BI I . Pt1.J.bi PA 19107. 215 5974078: FT5 5974019.
• Biuss P. USsr, Ola f, Al P w a 01sath. EPA Rs an IV, 345 aVurd
Skin, NE., Atl1*a GA 30369. (404) 347-2064: Fl’S 217-20S&
• $1101. Pt Sow.u . 01st. Al ost ai1 fl. 01emI EPA Rs an V. 230
Soiai Ds.t Stout. CNe.qo 8:10604,5)13)383-2211; FT’S 353-2211.
• Gerald r ,.a....,t . Cd i i. Al Pr%.,.. . 01oWt EPA fiu an VI, 1445 Rosa
Ausmis. 0Boe, TX 75202-2733, (214)655-7208: 7, 255-7301
• Gil. Wñ S. Cdi i. Al 01ouh. EPA 800. VII, 725 L01.... ,il . M *
Koiss City, KS 66101,5)13) 236-1020 FT’S 275-7021.
• De U. Skis, 0 1. 1, A l 01oIdt. EPA RoOm VIN, 998 1101
Stout. wsr P s—& 500. O5r , CO I -24O 5, 5)03) 293-1758:
Fl’S 330—1750.
Osald I.. CsSew, Cd i i, Al 01sa01 , EPA RsØ m Ot. 75 U. ,,.Ui....s
Seem, So. Fro.co , CA 94196, ( 415)744-1218 : P75164-1219.
,• Gsergs Abel. 011 . 1, Al 01mi01 , EPA Nsan it, 1200 Sbttll Avs is,
Seattle, WA 96101, (200 4 .IV8: P75330-1279.
Ccmsctlc01. MW, kisaudvisuSs , New I ,..4I .. , Rilods lubeld. erto
N Jousy, New York, Puerto Rioo, sad V1i I1* ds.
_, 01*98 il cckrtIu. U..,I..aJ. Pu....,S*iS. , V 19 1* old Win V1m.
Alibsms, Rortos, Osor a, Ksmlecky, ‘ — No .01 CsroI* Soisti oBoa.
sad TlMmau
b IOd pn , k01vusa% bNs. old Wlcomk
Alkereas, LerMisas, New Modes, Oklahoma, sad Toma.
Kousa . ‘ su sod N.L...L .
I
Albona. C,.D ....J& . Gina, lisw* old Nouda .
Alaska, Idaho, 01eon . sad W..h&
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 56, No. 77 I Monday, April 22, 1991 I Rules and Regulati one
16275
oun ed EPAs $ate Implementation
plan (SIP) development policy
elaborating PM—b control strategies
necessary to assure attitnin.nt and
maintenance of the PM-ia NAAQS (see
generally 52 FR 24872). Ths EPA
adopted a PM—ia SIP development
policy dividing all areas of the country
into three categories based on their
probability of violating the new
NAAQS (1) Areas with a strong
likelihood of violating the new PM—b
NAAQS and requiring substantial SIP
adjustment were placed In group 1 (2)
areas where attainment of the PM—b
NA.AQS was pouible and existing SIPs
needed less adjustment were placed In
group 11 and (3) areas with a strong
likelihood of attaining the PM—b
NAAQS and, therefore, needing
adjustments only to their
preconstruction review program and
monitoring network were placed In
grdlip LU (52 FR 24872,24679-24682).
Pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(B) of the
Act, areas previously Identified as group
I and other areu which had monitored
violations of the PM-b NAAQS prior to
January 1, 1989 were, by operation of
law, designated nonattalnment for PM—
1O.Descrfptlons of the areas Identified
as group I and II areas were clarified in
a Federal Register notice on October 31,
1990(55 FR 45799). That notice also
Identified group II areas which violated
the standards as of January 1.1989. The
EPA has announced all of the areas that
were designated nonatf lnm,iit by
operation of law for PM-b upon
enactment of the Act In a Federal
Register notice dated March 1L 1991 (56
FR 11101).
In addition, EPA Is authorized to
promulgate the designation of new areas
as nonattainment for PM-b pursuant to
section 107(d)(3) of the Act on the basis
- of air quality data, pienth g sad control
consideratIons, or any other air quality-
related consideration that the
AdmInIstrator deems ap rtate. Based
upon available InformatIon, EPA has
notified the governors of those States
with areas which recorded violations of
the PM-b NAAQS on or after January
1. ieee and In.Ih.tad that EPA believes
these areas should be r.d. tgii ted as
nonattalnment. After notIfication, the
governor of each affected State must
submit to EPA the designation which he
or she considers appropriate for each
area in question wIthin 120 days. For
adininiufratlve efficiency reasons, EPA
requested the States to submit the
designations by March 15, 1991 (the date
the lists of designations for all ozone
and carbon monoxide areas are due
from the governor of each State
pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the
Act). No later than 120 days after the
States response, If any, EPA must
promulgate those redesignations which
EPA deems necessary and appropriate.
The EPA Is by today’s notice
announcing that EPA believes available
air quality information indicates that 18
areas should be redesignated as
nonattainment for PM-rn and that EPA
has so notified the governors of the
affected States. A list of the 16 areas is
provided below in table L As discussed
above, after consideration of the State’s
submittal., if any. EPA will promulgate
the designations which EPA deems
appropriate and necessary. Pursuant to
section 189(a)(2)(B) of the Act, States
must submit PM—b SIP’s for these areas
to EPA withIn 18 months after EPA
promulgates the nonattainment
designation.
Background for SO.
Following the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977, EPA published
areas Identified by the States as
nonattaninznent. attainment, or
unclassifiable. Any area designated u
not attaining the primary or secondary
SO. NAAQS as of the date of enactment
of the 1900 Amendments was designated
nonattalnment for SO. by operation of
law upon enactment, pursuant to section
107(d)(l)(C)(i) of the Act. The EPA will
formally codify these designations in 40
CFRpart eiwhenEPAcod lflesthe
designations for other pollutants.
In addition, as described above. EPA
Is authorized to promulgate the
designation of new areas (or portions
thereof) as nonattalnnient for SO .,
pursuant to section bO7(d)(3) of the Act,
on the basis of air quality data, pLanith g
and control conslderatione. or any other
air quality-related consideration the
AaIIhlI.trstor deems appropriate. Based
upon available Information, EPA has
notified the governors of the affected
States that EPA believes certain areas
should be designated as nonat’ ”e”t
for SO.. After notification, the governor
• of each affected State must submit to
EPA the designation he or she considers
appropriate for each area In question
wfthln 120 days. For the reasons
described above. the EPA requested the
States to submit the designations by
March 19.1091. No later than 120 days
after the State’s response, If any, EPA
must promulgate those redeuignatlons
EPA deems necessary and appropriate.
As mentioned above, for
administrative efficiency reasons, those
SO. areas designated nonattainment by
operation of law upon enactment of the
Act will be formally codified In 40 CFR
part 81 when EPA codifies the
designations for other pollutants. The
EPA I. by today’s notice announcing
that EPA has notified the governors of
affected States that EPA belIeves 13
areas, listed in table II of this notice.
should be designated nonattainment for
Pursuant to section 191(b) of the Act.
States must submit SIP’s by May 15,
1992 for those SO, areas which are
designa ted nonattalment by operation of
law for the primary SO, NAAQS and
which lack a fully-approved SIP. For
those SO. areas designated
nonattalnment after enactment, States
must submit SIPs to EPA within 18
months after promulgation of the
nonattairuneni designation, pursuant to
section 191(a) of the Act.
Background for Lead
In 1978, when EPA promulgated the
lead NAAQS, It was not authorlze4 to
designate areas nonattalnment,
attainment, or unclassifiable. Under
section b07(d)(5) of the Act, EPA ii now
authorized to require States to designate
areas (or portions thereof) as
nonattainment. attelnm.nt, or
unclassifiable for lead. Sections i
(d)(1) and (d)(5) of the Act permit EPA to
require Statestosubmitlead -
designations in a timefrsme that EPA.
deems reasonable, but no sooner than
120 days after date of notification nor
later than lyearafterthe date of
notification. For the reasons described
above, the EPA requested the States to
submit the designations by March 15,
1991. The EPA must then promulgate
these designations no later than 1 year
after notifying the State of the
requirement to submit designations of
certain areas, but first notifying the
affected State of any modifications EPA
deems necessary and appropriate to the
State’s submittal.
By todays notice, EPA Is annoImr 4 rg
that It has notified the governors of
affected States that they should proceed
to designate as nonattainment those
areas that have recorded violations of
the lead NAAQ9. In addition. EPA has
requested the governors to designate as
unclassifiable those areu that contain
stationary lead sources which EPA
believe, to be capable of violating the
lead NAAQS, but for which existing air
quality data are Insufficient to designate
as at lnmPnt or nonattalnmenL A list of
those areas EPA believes should be
designated to nonattainment and
unclassifiable for lead Is provided In
table UI below.
Any State containing an area that Is
ultimately designated as nonattainment
for lead must submit a SIP to EPA within
18 months of the promulgation of the
nonattainment designation, pursuant t
section 191(a) of the Act.
-------
- - . ieo sr 4 , 1 ° R( 0’
‘g ¶ , UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Nu1
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
q 1
NOV 4 ggi
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Questions and Answers (Q&A’s) for Particulate Matter
(PM—b), Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ), and Lead (Pb,
FROM: Joseph W. Paisie, Acting Chief LA). rb
S0 2 /Particulate Matter Progr r ch, AQI1D (MD—15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I—X
Attached, you will find the second set of Q&A’s for PM-ic
nonattainment plans. The questions are numbered 9 through 22 and
follow the first set which was sent to you on August 20, 1991.
The responses, which were developed with the PM—lO contacts, have
been reviewed both in this office and in the Office of General
Counsel.
These Q&A’s serve as a supplement to the General Preamble
for Title I of the. 1990 Clean Air- Act Amendments, which is
currently undergoing review at OMB. The General Preamble, in
turn, is based in part upon the Staff Work Products for SO,,
PM—10, and Pb. In any instance where there may appear to be a
discrepancy between the Q&A’s and the General Preamble, the
Preamble and Title I of the Clean Air Act remains the
authoritative policy and statutory- guidance, and the Q&A’s should
be read in ways that support these documents.
If you have any questions regarding th Q&A’s, please
contact Gwen Jacobs at (FTS) 629—5295.
Attachment
cc: John Calcagni, AQMD
Eric Ginsburg, AQMD
Gwen Jacobs, AQXD
Laura McXelvey, AQXD
Tom Pace, AQMD
Vickie Patton, OGC
Joe Paisie, AQMD
Andy Smith, AQMD
Chris Stoneman, AQMD
Lydia Weg nan, OAQF3
P14-10 Contacts, Regions I-X
-------
PM—la Q&A’S
SIP Processing and Sanctions
Q: 9. What is EPA’S policy on partial approvals? Conditional
approval ? Committal SIP’S?
A: Partial approvals — The EPA will, after reviewing a
submitted SIP, approve those elements of the plan that meet
the requirements of the Act and disapprove those elements of
the plan that fail to meet those requirements, in accordance
with section 110(k)(3) of the revised Act. The SIP as a
whole will not be treated as meeting the requirements of the
Act until all the required elements of the plan are approved
(section 110(k) (3)1. The EPA may apply sanctions after
finding that an element of the plan has not been submitted
or must be disapproved (section 110(m)]. Section 179 states
that sanctions may be applied if a SIP deficiency has not
been corrected within 18 months of the fipding of
deficiency.
Conditional approvals - ly approve
SIP revisions that fail cnn ‘to meet all the
requirements of the Act base Lte’s commitment to
adopt and submit specific enforceable measures by a date
certain, but no later than, 1 year (section 110(k)(4)J. If
the condition is not met on schedule (the measure is not
adopted and submitted within 1 year), then the conditional
approval must be treated as a disapproval and the EPA may
impose - sanctions at any time’ in accordance with seätion
110(m).
Committal SIP’S — the Act, as amended in 1990, does not
provide for pprova1 of committ L SIP’S other than
conditional anDroval of SIP’S that include commitments to
adopt specific enforceable measures within 1 year, as
described above.
Further guidance defining the application of partial and
conditional approvals will be forthcoming from EPA.
Q: 10. Can EPA approve a control strategy without approving
- the full SIP?
A: Yes, this may qualify for a partial aDnroval of the SIP
since the control strategy is one portion of the
requirements for a nonattaininent area SIP. However,
ultimately EPA would have to determine the approvability of
the entire plan. -
14
-------
PM—1O Q&A’s
Enforceability
Q: 11. What is the status of consent decrees/orders and
memoranda of understanding under the Act?
A: In the past, consent decrees and memoranda of understanding
(MOUs) have been incorporated into SIP’S. The EPA intends
to continue with this process for those agreements which
meet EPA’S criteria for enforceability.
Residential Wood Combustion (RWC
Q: 12. How much emission reduction credit should be given to a
mandatory curtailment program that in effect exempts
EPA-certified, Phase II stoves due to a “no visible
emissions” performance requirement?
A: A mandatory curtailment program that allows wood stoves to
operate during a 24-hour mandatory burn ban (provided no
visible emissions are produced) in effect exempts stoves
from the ban that are capable of meeting that performance
requirement, including EPA-certified Phase II stoves. The
Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion Emission
Control Measures (450/2—89-015) recommends curtailment
exemptions be kept to a minimum and limited to sole source
and low income wood, burners and, only in certain situations,
- to Phase prOgram exempts! P1iase:II
stoves, explicitly or implicitly, then it does not
satisfactorily address the “exemption” feature of Table 5-9
of the guidance document. Therefore, in the SIP the State
should provide justification for the program’s emission
reduction credit by documenting the number of stoves
exempted and the resultant emissions that would occur during
a burn ban • -EPA recommends the emission reduction credit be
calculated as follows:
Emissions during burn ban equals:
(emissions of exempted conventional stoves) +
(emissions of Phase II stoves) +
(-emissions of existing conventional stoves that convert to
Phase II stoves because of “no visible emissions” implicit
exemption) *
(the credit for conversion of conventional stoves to Phase
II stoves)
15
-------
P11—10 Q&A’s
credit calculation equals:
100 * (1 — (emissions during burn ban) / (baseline 24—hour
emissions)]
Q: 13. In calculating emissions credit for RWC controls, are
States restricted to those credits and control measures
listed in EPA’S Guidance Document for Residential Wood
Combustion Emission Control Measures ?
A: In September 1989, the EPA issued guidance for controlling
wood smoke emissions from residential wood combustion (RWC)
in a document entitled Guidance Document for Residential
Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures (EPA-450/2—89—
015). The document was issued as a recommendation to State
and local agencies developing wood smoke control programs
and not to prevent such agencies from considering-other wood
smoke control devices or measures not discussed in the
document. However, it has been brought to EPA’s attention
that, despite its purpose, the guidance has in some cases
been construed as restrictive and exclusionary in nature.
The purpose of this Q&A is to clarify EPA’S intent behind
issuing this guidance.
The nonexclusionary nature of the guidance document is
embodied in EPA’S policy regarding RWC emission reduction
credits as explained in ChaptérI.OTøf theguidance- Z. -.‘
document. To reiterate, the emission reduction credits
recommended In Appendix F of the document are only suggested
and should thus be considered starting points in assessing
the effectiveness of RWC control programs and regulations.
In their SIP’s, State and local agencies can request credit
greater than that recommended in the document, as well as
credit for measures not included in the document. Any
application for credit in a State implementation plan (SIP)
must be accompanied by a justification in the implementing
agency’s specific program or regulaticn. All credit
applications in SIP’S are, of course, subject to EPA review
to ensure the credit level is justified.
Q: 14. In a State implementation plan control strategy, can
credit be requested for woodburning devices that are
not certified to EPA’s new source performance standard
emission limits?
A: EPA will consider well—supported requests for credit for
woodburning devices not listed in Table 3-1 and Appendix F
of the Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion
16
-------
PM-b Q&A’s
Control Measures (EPA 450/2—89-015). Merely because a wood—
burning device is not EPA-certified does not mean it does
not merit emission reduction credit and, hence, status as a
device that burns more cleanly than a conventional wood
stove. To obtain credit, however, proponents for such
devices must provide justification for credit to be granted
in the same manner as the devices currently listed in the
guidance document (e.g., EPA—certified Phase II cordwood and
pellet stoves), as described below.
The suggested credits currently in the guidance document for
the conversion of conventional wood stoves to EPA—certified
catalytic, noncatalytic, and pellet stoves are based on
field test data documenting the emissions reductions
associated with the different advanced wood—burning
technologies. Therefore, if SIP credit is sought for
conversion to wood heaters not listed in the guidance
document (including wood heaters determined to be—”not
affected” by EPA’S wood heater new source performance
standard definition (see 53 Federal Register February 26,
1988) and hence exempt), the request should be accompanied
by a justification based on emission reductions documented
through “in-home” field testing (versus laboratory testing).
The EPA recommends that the field testing employ an
emissions sampling and data-gathering technique that is
reviewed by EPA prior to the start of testing.
If EPA finds .that field test data ‘indicate a wood—burning
device not currently listed in the guidance document is
clean burning relative to conventional stoves and,
therefore, warrants emission reduction credit, depending on
its emissions performance, that stove may be afforded status
similar to that of an EPA-certified stove with demonstrated
emissions significantly lower than that of conventional
stoves. That is, EPA will approve control strategies under
SIP’S to the extent of demonstrated emission reduction
credits for such devices.
Other Issues
Q: 15. What is the status of the Rural Fugitive Dust policy?
A: As explained below, EPA believes that section 188(f) of the
amended Clean Air Act provides a statutory alternative to
EPA’S Rural Fugitive Dust Policy.
EPA issued the “Rural Fugitive Dust Policy” when TSP was the
indicator for particulate matter. Specifically, two 1977
memoranda constitute what has been called EPA’S “Rural
17 -
-------
P14-10 Q&A’S
Fugitive Dust Policy.” These memoranda set forth treatment
of areas identified as “Rural Fugitive Dust Areas” for the
purpose of determining TSP attainment/nonattairunent status
as well as SIP development and new source review (see, e.g.,
52 FR 24716 (July 1, 1987) (historical discussion)]. When
EPA revised the particulate matter NAAQS in July 1987,
changing the indicator to P14—10, EPA examined the Rural
Fugitive Dust Policy and proposed a number of alternative
policies. EPA indicated that the existing policy would
remain in effect until EPA adopted a final policy (see 52 FR
24716 (July 1, 1987)].
Since then, the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act were
signed into law. The Amendments provide that upon enactment
certain P14-10 areas were designated nonattainment for P14-10
and classified as moderate by operation of law (see sections
107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a)]. The amended Act also-provides a
waiver provision which authorizes EPA, among other-- things,
to waive the attainment date for a moderate PM-3M
nonattainment area where EPA determines that
nonanthropogenic sources of P14-10 contribute significantly
to a violation of the P14-10 NAAQS in the area (see generally
page 16 of the P14-10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance (April 2,
1991)]. However, EPA may waive the attainment date only for
those moderate areas which fully implement their moderate
area SIP requirements (see H.R. Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong.,
2d Sess. 265 (1990)]. ThUS, by November 15, 1991 any
initial moderate nonattainment area qualifying for the
waiver would still have to submit, for example, a SIP
revision containing RA M (including RACT) and a
demonstration that the area will or will not attain by
December 31, 1994 (see section 189(a)].
Generally, EPA believes that in providing explicit authority
governing the treatment of P14—10 nonattainment areas having
significant contributions from nonanthropogenic sources,
Congress has provided a statutory alternative to EPA’S Rural
Fugitive Dust Policy. EPA intends to provide additional
• guidance on how it will interpret and implement section
188(f) later this year. In the meantime, in accordance with
the new law, areas designated nonattainment for PM—b,
including former Rural Fugitive Dust Areas, should proceed
with .SIP development.
Q: 16. What is the international transport policy under
section 1798 and how will we implement it?
A: Section 1798 of the amended Act authorizes EPA to approve a
moderate nonattainment area SIP if the SIP meets all
18
-------
PM-b Q&A’s
applicable requirements under the Act other than the
requirement to demonstrate attainment by the applicable
attainment date. An area may qualify for treatment under
this provision if the State establishes to the satisfaction
of EPA that the SIP would be adequate to attain the PM-b
NAAQS in the area by the applicable attainment date but for
emissions emanating from outside the United States.
Therefore, at a minimum, the State must implement controls
sufficient to attain the NAAQS when foreign emissions are
discounted. Accordingly, a demonstration consistent with
Attachment 5 of the Staff Work Product is required which
shows, to EPA’S satisfaction, that the area would attain by
the applicable attainment date if it were not for pollutants
emanating from outside the United States. However, since
the public continues to be exposed to unhealthful levels of
air pollution, additional controls should be implemented to
reduce such exposures to the extent that controls are
reasonable.
In demonstrating that an area qualifies for treatment under
section 179B, states must be consistent with Attachment 5 of
the PM—b Staff Work Product. In addition, in all cases
the SIP still must require RACM (including RACT) for sources
within the United States (see section 189(a)(l) (C) and PM—
10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work Product
(April 2, 1991)].
. .
Q: 17. What components will be required in the November 15,
1991 SIP submittal (PM—b plan provisions and general
plan provisions)?
A: Each plan submitted by the State for a moderate PM—b
nonattainment area must be adopted by the State after a
reasonable notice and public hearing. Each plan must meet
the general SIP requirements of section 110, the provisions
applicable to nonattainment areas set forth in Part D,
Subpart 1 and the more specific PM-1O requirements in
Subpart 4. The specific requirements of Subpart 4 supersede
the more general requirements of the Act where there are
inconsistencies. SIP’S should also clearly indicate whether
attainment by December 31, 1994 is practicable as EPA has
discretionary authority under section l88(b)(l) to
reclassify areas to serious at any time if it is determined
that the area cannot attain by this date.
All SIP’S must also meet the applicable regulatory
requirements set forth in 40 CFR Part 51 except to the
extent that those requirements are inconsistent with the
amended Act. The 1990 Amendments include a General Savings
19
-------
PM—b Q&A’s
Clause (section 193] which provides that regulations,
policy, and guidance in effect before enactment of the
Amendments shall remain in effect. The preexisting
provisions relevant to PM—b were developed to implement
section 110 requirements for TSP and were later made
applicable to PM-l0. Thus, the Savings Clause preserves
these provisions, which are not inconsistent with the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments. Guidance on interpreting
preexisting Part D requirements for TSP as they now apply to
PM-la is contained in the Staff Work Product.
The P11-10 SIP checklist is being revised for use in
reviewing the SIP’S which are due by November 15, 1991.
Q: 18. What is required for an area to be reclassified as
serious? -
A: Moderate areas can be reclassified as serious under two
conditions. First, if the State submits a SIP that
demonstrates an area cannot attain the standards by the
applicable attainment date after implementing RAc M
(including RACT), then EPA can reclassify the area to
serious. Second, if an area fails to attain by the
applicable attainment date, the EPA must reclassify the area
as serious.
Final decisions on reclassificationsàf initial
nonattainment areas will be based on reviews of the SIPS
that are due on November 15, 1991. If an area proposed for
reclassification fails to submit a SIP which demonstrates
attainment by 1994, EPA will reclassify the area based upon
criteria identified in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
reclassifications.
Q: 19. Can EPA dictate, under section 179(d), specific control
measures for an area that fails to attain the standards
- by the applicable date?
. A: The consequences of a P11—10 moderate nonattainment area
J failing to attain are specified in Subpart 4, section 188(b)
which supersedes the more general sanctions provisions of
section 179(d). Section 188(b)(2) provides that when the
Administrator finds that a Moderate area has not attained by
the applicable date, the area will be reclassified as
Serious by operation of law. The SIP requirements for PM—b
Serious nonattainment areas are specified in section 189.
S
20
-------
PM—lO Q&A’s
Q: 20. What are States expected to provide in support of
determinations as to whether specific control measures
constitute RA M for a nonattainment area?
A: The criteria for judging whether or not a control measure is
reasonably available for an area are addressed on pages 6—8
of P11—10 Moderate Area SIP Guidance (April 2, 1991). First,
the sources that significantly impact P11-10 concentrations
in the area must be identified. It may be unreasonable to
spend the resources necessary to control sources whose
em ons are de ainimis (i.e., insignificant). Second, the
s - echnically feasible measures available to control the
s of sources that are significant in the area should be
evaluated. The technical feasibility of control measures
may vary with the location of the source. For example, wet
suppression may not be a measure that is technically
feasible for controlling fugitive dust in locations where
water carce. Third, the economic feasibility-of using
the St echnically feasible control measures must be
eva ed. The capital costs, annualized costs, and cost
effectiveness of an emission reduction technology should be
considered in determining its economic feasibility.
Procedures for determining these costs are described in the
OAOPS Control Cost Manual. Fourth Edition , EPA-450/3—90—006,
January 1990.
Q: 21.’ What RA I/RACT ‘guidance will be applicable to future -
nonattainment areas?
A: The guidance on determining RACX/RACT in the P11-10 Moderate
Area SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work Product is applicable
to both initial and new or future Moderate nonattainment
areas. When published, the General Preamble will supersede
the Staff Work Product.
Q: 22. Can an area classified as serious be reclassified as
moderate?
A: No; while there is no explicit mention in the CAA of
reclassifying a Serious P11—10 area to Moderate, such
reclassification would be inconsistent with the statutory
scheme underlying the nonattainment designation,
reclassification, planning, and implementation requirements
(see section 107(d)(3)(F)]. The Moderate and Serious
classifications of PM—iC nonattainment areas are not
directly linked to P11-10 air quality levels in the area but
rather to whether attainment can practicably be achieved by
statutory deadlines. All P11—10 nonattainment areas are
21
-------
PM—b Q&A’s
initially classified as Moderate. Moderate areas will,
generally, be reclassified as Serious areas only after the
EPA finds that the area can not (based on a SIP control
strategy demonstration) or has not attained the standards
by the applicable attainment date. The Serious area must
then meet all the SIP requirements specified in section 189.
These requirements include adopting and implementing best
available control measures (BACN) and making long—range
plans to attain the standards within 10 years of the
original designation as nonattainment.
22
-------
58656 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. Z25 I Thursday. November 21. 1991 / Proposed Rules
airplanes in France. The airplanes are
manufactured in France and are type
certificated for operation In the United
States. Pursuant to a bilateral
airworthiness agreement. the OGAC has
kept the FAA totally Informed of the
above situation.
The FAA has examined the findings of
the DGAC. reviewed all available
information, and determined that AD
action Is necessary for products of this
type design that are certificated for
operation In the United States. Since
this condition could exist or develop in
other SOCATA Creupe
AEROSPATIALE Moran. Saulnier
MSI9O series and Rallye 235 series
airplanes of the same type design. the
proposed AD would require repetitive
dye penetrant Inspections of the nose
wheel axle for cracks, replacement of
the nose wheel axle if found cracked.
and replacement of the nose wheel axle
attaching screws. The actions would be
accomplished In accordance with the
instructions In SOCATA Groupe
AEROSPATIALE SB No. 150. dated June
1991.
It is estimated that 72 airplanes In the
U.S. registry would be affected by the
proposed AD. that It would take
approximately 2 hours per airplane to
accomplish the proposed action, and
that the average labor rate Is
approximately $55 an hour. Parts cost
approximately $16 per airplane. Based
on these figures. the total cost Impact of
the proposed AD on US. operators Is
estimated to be $9,072.
The regulations proposed herein
would 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 Therefore.
in accordance with Executive Order
12612, liii determined that this proposal
would not have sufficient federalism
Implication. to wanant the preparation
of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above. I
certify that this action (1) Ii noti ‘ ma jar
rule” under Executive Order 12201; (2) Is
not a “significant rule”-under DOT - -
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034. February 39,1979); and (3) If
promulgated. will not haves algrIfiennt
economic Impact positive or negative. -
or a substantial number of small entities
underthe criteria of the Regulatory
FlexibilityAct.Acopyof ft. .
regulatory evaluation prepared for thb
action has been placed In the Rules
Docket A copy of It may be obtained by
meetacting the Rules Docket at the
-lacatlon provided under the caption
ancasssas”. -
List of Subjects In 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation. Aircraft. Aviation
safety. Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly. pursurant to the
authority delegated tome by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14
CFR part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations as follow.:
PART 39—f AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
AuthorIty: 49 U.S.C. 13 54(a). 1421 and 1423
49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 aR uja.
f 39.13— (Am&4sd )
2. Section 39.13 Is amended by adding
the following new AD:
SOCATA GROUPS A OSPATIAL&
Docket No. 91-CE-el-AD.
Applicability Morane Saulnier Models
MSIS2A I5 O. MSIS2EI5O, MSOO3A. M
MSO94A. and MSIO4E airplanes (all serial
numbers): and Rally. Models 235C and 2155
airplanee (all serial number.), certificated In
any category.
Compliance: Required Initially upon the
accumulation of 500 boors tinr. .In..ervtce
(TIS) or within the next 50 hours TIS after the
effective date of this AD. whlthever occurs
later. and thereafter as Indicated. unless
already accomplished.
To p.v. ..t no.. wheel a,de fatigue failure.
accomplish the foUowta -
(a) Dye penetrant Inspect the nose wheel
axis auemb y far cracks In accordance with
the Instructions In DESCRIPIION (1) Of
SOCATA Croupe AEROSPAIIALE Servtc :
Bulletin No .150.datedJuns199L --
(1) If cracks aM found, prior to further -
(light, replace (he nose wheel axle assembly
hi .ccardançh wlth the applicable
maInM I .Iw 4 i..iii ..I . return the airplane to
service, sad relaspect at Interval, not to
exceed 500 hour, rn.
(2) If no crack are found. return the
airplane to service and reinspect at Intervals
net exceed 500 boors rn
(b) At every 4th repetItive Inspection
Interval (2,000 bourn uS) ,iandatdd b
pare sphs (aJ(1) and (sf2) of this AD. c . k
replace the nose wheel axle . ttathlng screws
Instead of reinstalling the existing screws U
spdfledictheinassnd. . ’
DES IP11ON: ., .. , ,
(2) Of SOCATA Croupe L1 EROSPATZALE
SB No, 50. dated June 1591. -
(c) $dCIal flight peithlts rnq’be Ii d In
accordance wttbFAR2LIS7and 21.199 to’- ’
operate the airplane to location Irher. the
requirements ef this AD em be , .. ‘. . :
axcp l I b ed. , r
(d) An lteraadve method of compliance or
adjustment of the con ipllince times that ,..
pinvidexan equivalent level of safety. may..’.
beapprovedbytheManager.Brusse ls :
Aircraft Certification Office. FAA r Eâope.
AMce. and Middle East Office. c/&Am rIdan
Embassy, B-bOO bieseels, Belgium. The’ rc
request should be forwarded through an
eppropriate FAA Maintenance Inspector.
who may add comments and then send It to
the Manager, Brussels Aircraft Certification
Office.
(e) Copies of the service Information that is
applicable to this AD may be obtained from
SOCATA Croupe AEROSPATIALE. Socata
Product Support. A .u 1 uit Tarbes.Osium-
Lourdes, B P900. 05009 Tarbes Cedex.
Francs, or maybe inspected at the FAA.
Central Region. Office of the Assistant Chief
CounseL Room 1558001 K 12th Street.
Kansas City. Missouri.
Issued In ans , City. Missouri. on
November 12,1901. -
BairyDOements,
Mamoger. Small Aàp!ane Directorate.
AirczvftCert:ficalionServke. -
(FR Dos, 91-20014 Filed 11-20-It &45 aini
ceiso coos .i a -
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY -
40 CFR Part 81.
IAD-FRL-4032—7)
Recla.uiflcalion of Moderate PM-b
Nonattainment Arias to SerlousAreas
AQøiC Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). . . —
AcnOi Notice of proposed rulemaking .
auMer liv: Sev ral areas meeting the -
qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of
the Clean Air Act (Act) were designated
nonattabirsent for PM-b (particulate
mitter nctininally10microns or smaller
In diameter) by operation of law upon
enac ent of the Clean AirAct ‘
Amendments of 1990. All of these areas
were also Initially classified as
moderate nonattainmant areas by
operatlon’of law at the time of
designation In accordance with section
188(a)oftheAct
Section 188(b)(1) of the Act require.
the Administrator to reclassify any area
he afthlñ
the PM-b national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) by the approprla â
Iim g date. Section 1a8(b)(1)(A)
- requires early rer laaaificatIon.of..
approprIat, areas desIgn ited I ‘.
nonattalnmènt tor.PM-iOby óperatlon
oflaw.TodyKIspróji Oslugto - - ,
reclassify 14 of !hâJnhtIaI moderate PM-
10 nonattalnnient areas as serious areas,
The EPA Is also soliciting comments
today on several queitiona that are
raised by section 188(f) of tl e Act.
Section 188(f) allow. the Administrator
to waive requirements !or certain aas
whèie he determines that (1)
anthiopogenlc sources of PM—b do not
contribute significantly, or (2)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 225 / Thursday, November 21. 1991 I P , sed Rules
58657
nonanthropogenic sources contribute
significantly to the violation of the PM—
10 standard In the area. Those questions
are raised in section VI of this notice.
DATES: Written comments on this notice
must be received by December 23.1991
at the address below.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this
action should be addressed to Kenneth
R. Woodard, Air Quality Management
Division, Mall Drop 15, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711.
The technical reports referenced In
today’s notice can be found in Public
Docket No. A-O1-63. The docket Is
located at the U.S. EPA Air Docket.
room M—1500, Waterside Mall, LE—131,
401 M Street. SW., Washington. DC
20460. The docket may be Inspected
from 8.30 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1:30
p.m. to 330 p.m. on weekday., and a
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth R. Woodard. Air Quality
Management Division. Mail Drop 15,
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental.-
Protection Agency, Research Thangle
Park. North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-
5897, FF5 029-5697.
•SUPFtEMBITARY INFORMATIOIC
Lflackgiuund £ - -
On the date âf enactment of the Clean
- Air Act Amèndmentsof 1990 (November
15. 1990)..PM-1O areas meeting the.t.....
qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of
the Act were designated nonattainment
by operation of law (see generally, 42
U.S.C. section 7407(d)(4)(B) of the Act).
These areas Included all former Group I
areas identified In 52 FR 29383 (August
7,1987) and clarified In 55 FR 45759
(October31. 1990), and any other areas
violating the PM—la standards prior to
January 1, 1989.(many of these areas
were Identified by footnote 4 In the .,‘
October 31,1990 Federal Register
notice).AF.demlRegisternotice
announcing all of lb roan _____‘ted
nonattainment for PM-lOat.enaciment.
-and classified asmoderate was- .
‘published in 50 PR 11101 (March15,
1991). A follow-up notice correcting -
some of these dreas wái published..
August 5, 1991 (50 FR 37654). All other
areas not designated nonattabiment at
enactment were il eign&ted -
unclassifiable (se section -‘
107*d)(4) (S)LiIl) qfthe Act). -
Once al area r deslgnated
nattainrnent iedtion 188 of the Act (4Z
U.S.C. aectionl5l3 ) outhnee the process
for classification of the area and
establishes the area’s attainment date.
In accordance with section 188(a), at the
time of designation, all PM—b
nonattainment areas are Initially
classified as moderate by operation of -
law. -
A moderate area can subsequently be
reclassified as serious either before the
applicable moderate area attainment
date if at any time EPAdetermines the
area cannot “practicably” attain the
PM-b NAAQS by this attainment date,
or following the passage of the
applicable moderate area attainment
date if EPA determines the area has
failed to attain (see sectIon 188(b)).’
In accordance with section
188(b)(1)(A). EPA must now propose to
reclassify those areas which were
designated nonattainment on the date of
enactment by operation of law, where
EPA determines that the area cannot
“practicably” attain the NAAQS by
December 31, 1994. The EPA also has
discretionary authority under section
188(b)(1) to reclassify any of these areas
as serious after December 31. 1991 (e.q..
after reviewing the State’s PM—b SIP). If
EPA determines they cannot practicably
attain the PM-la NAAQS by December
el. 1994. The EPA may exercise this
discretion where, for example, EPA may
exercise thi. discretion where, for
example, EPA originally believed an
area could attain the standards by
December 31,1994. but later determines
that it cannot attain by that date. For.
example, EPA may find that ad area
cannot practicably attain by December
31.1994. after reviewing the November
15, 1991.SIP submittal for an area or
‘4
________ - /.
‘Undue the pWn I.ning of the t.en of esedon
i8 5(b) fl ‘A bs unee.IdIsoredon in re Iuutfy at
say date before the appiloable .“.‘—dstssa
eras AdstuemInus cszent pesctL ..bly attain tin
slendsedi by seth date. A udbgly. section
1el(bXl) Is. general J . . . of dalqated
(A) and (B) of section 1IN(bfll) mandate tbat ’A
reduslfyat specified dateframe. ( La. by December
foe the initIal 13 1-10 - .
-sad within Is — ‘..‘ - after the State
I J—’ Um Plan (SIP) milattittal due da -
• Iater .des* atad PM-re 5 tt 1 — 7 .
areas It deimattaseappeuprlate for redsasiftontion
at these dates. These siubpar. spbs de not usetite
the general authority but aimply spsd that dt d ” —
ft J at autein time This
faiths ,, the oueaiddiai . .of .
upon the failure of a State to submit a
SIP for an area.
For areas designated nonattainment
and classified as moderate subsequent
to the date of enactment, EPA must
reclassify appropriate areas as serious -
within 18 months of the required
submittal date for the moderate area SIP
(see section 188(b)(1)(B)j. Taken
together with be statutory requirement
that these SIPs be submItted 18 months
after being designated nonattainment,
the statute thus requires that EPA
reclassify appropriate moderate area.
an serious withIn 3 years of the
nonattainment designation.
Finally, in those cases where EPA
determines that an area has failed to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, the area Is reclassified
as serious by operation of law (see
section 188(b)). The EPA must publish a
notice In the federal Register of such
determinations and consequent
.reclaselficafions wIthin 5 months -
following the applicable attaInment
date.
IL Determining an Area Casiwie
Practicably Attain
Generally. EPA will rely on -
information such as the control strategy.
the compliance schedule, and -
attainment demonstration submitted by
the State In the SIP for a moderate PM-
10 nonattalnmpnt area to determine
whether it Is practicable to attain the
NAAQS in that area by the applicable
attainment date. The SIP revisions ate, -
due Novem)rer 15.1991. for the Initial -
moderate PM—iD nonattnimn .t ireas
designated by operation of lars. The SIP
must include a control strategy that
requires the use of reasonably available
control measures (RACM), induding
reasonably available control lachnology
(RACF) (see sections 189(a)(1)(c) and -
l72(c)(1)J. The State must also
demonstrate that the SIP provides for
timely Implementation of RAQI lad
RACT and attainmentof the NAAQS.
The RAQ4/RACT must be Implemented
ln the InItlal,PM.1Ononatta1nm° taeas
by December10, 1995, and the j
- must attain the, standaed&byDecembe
21.1994 (see uliona188(c)(1)iid ,
l89(a)(1)(C)J..’ -
There aeit least three reason . iby
anarei may not pmct1lab lttah the -,
standards by the applicable ttnfi1in ’it
date. Thst, iniplientatIor ofR CM/ .
RACI’ may not delta sufficletit: -
emission reduótions to bring thiarea
Into attnIrnn. nL Second. -.
nonanthropogenlc,sources i hith cannot
reasánably be controlled may contribute
signlflcantlyio the violation of the PM—
10 NAAQS in the area (see section
the sines, I. that e ’-ail t ’ -tIon woild sepedits.
iin sppticatIon of adthtiooalaonlnd mu. b th.
.Itua(Ionwbsre A ftnda . alter the mandated ,
tsd.astflcetioa uulemskh,g end btfota the.
appliceble sI t .’ .’— ’ date, that ansen b.
pract lc.bly attain the ataithrdi .Thha. in bra, ‘.
would expedite ultimate attainment o thePM l0:
- - standards. leawommy. et ’A belle,.. it lea
reasonable interpretatIon and conaleteat with the
plain language .1 the statute to consime section c
.i1e(bfli) such that it authorize. EPA to -zedaaslfy an
arue. as appropriate. .tsay time before the.
appinable attainment date and o,guidates that at a -
minimum, EPA mute I l. inqubypt specified liens.
-------
58658 Federal Register I VoL SOw Ne. 225 / Thursday, November 21. 1991 / Proposed Rules
188(f)]. Third, the area may be
significantly impacted by PM—b
emissions emanating from outside the
United States. In such a case, the State
may qualify for treatment under section
l79SoftheAcL .
If the SIP demonstrates that an area
cannot practicably attain the standards
because RACM/RACT do not achieve
sufficient emission reductions in a
timely mfinn , then EPA will propose to
reclassify the area as a serious area.
The EPA has construed RACM.
including RACT. to be those emission
reduction methods that aie
technologically and economically
feasible for application to existing PM—
10 sources In the nonattainnient area In
light of the attainment needs of that
area. The burden Is on the State to
demonstrate that an available control
method for an existing source is
infeasible or otherwise unreasonable
and, therefore, would not constitute
RACM (or RACT ).’ Therefore. the SIP
should require Implementation of all
available emission reduction methods
that have not been demonstrated to be
unreasonable. The State will have.
shown that an initial PM-b .
nonsttalnment area cannot practicably
attain the NAAQS by theappllcable
attainment date if It demonstrates that a
SIP requiring implementation of all
RACM (including RACIJ by December
10,1993, will not achieve sufficient
emlsâlon reductions to attain the
standards by December 31. 1994. In this
case, It may be appropriate forthe State
to modify the S W tabe submitted h
November 1991.to recon 4 ile differences
between RACT and requlremen(zTd1
best available control technology Y
(BACI ’ ) In aertáus areas, as discussed
below in section N.. -
If the SIP demonstrates that RAG).!!
RACI’ would attain the standards if It.
were not for a significant contribution
from nonanthropogenic sources or PM!
10 emIssions emanating fromoutside the
United States, then special provtslbna of
the Act apply. SectIon 188(f) allows the
Administrator to walvosolne
requirements for cp’4nh areas tinpactea
by nonanthropogenic sources. aiid:
section 179B allows EPA to approve ..
SIP’s and not reclassify aas•tl at’ .
cannot attain the standards because of
emissions emanAting from outside the
thilted’State,.TheEPA’spolidda for’ ,b
fmp1 ”enthig these p lsionàOithe ‘
Act are discussed In ectlon VI ath VU
of this notice ’ .’ ,1,IU J. .11
c, ?r(L ,. i’
• r r
‘See PM-io Msds ts Area SIP CuIda co.P1s I
SiaffWoiS Pru4u ’ s me eandi n from IoI n
Cs4 iL e r. AJrQua it Management
DIVtame. A OMstoa Dom AinOL
•‘
.
,
lbs . s aunt
eel ssdlml O(b)( .bsst.vs lIabls omirel
me tss
ib. .dy .prsvM..
th.i th.ee ,. ,.t_beesilta ad eaIetb.:
av ttsd
ladiebMsèr.t.Arom .. .
i ii . -.lbm ltth.rr””-
- ,-..
PWlher..s iplIndyst.tad.th.obli stcs .sb.Ii
setoussrs. pIsa ..q k 1. I. In - “ ‘ seed
does notobetsis the It si cb’t . .’ .i . submit -
specifying that areas with design values
forGO In excess of ap prwdmate ly 83.:
percent or more thavg he NAAQS
siiouldbedaulfleri eas e rlour . .
Severalcana lderat lOh siedEPAto
select aointmmedlate crltedrni.of;
deslnvahrer.5 mr termmuabove
the P14-10 NA*QSfiwreclasslflcathms
as selois reopqFfrst.a1thooghPM-lO
nonaualninén*b,generally caused by.
numerous and’diverse categories of
emssio sour e ,aei er the number of
..!o rie :noe,a et of c t i j
geatasdn4he case of ozone.-..’-
Cnusequantiy EPA believes that air
quality concenfratious can more readily
Reclassification of an area as serious 188(b)(1)(A), EPA must propose this
does not obviate the legal requirement action before the SIP revisions for the
to submit a moderate area SIP. Alas. a areas subject to reclassification are due.
State should be penalized if the The specified tlmeframe for final action
attainment date for a moderate ares is on this rulemaking and the timeframe
missed because the State fails to adopt specified fo an analogoue-mil .msk 4 rig
and Implinent control measures as for areas subsequently redesignated
expeditiously as practicable. Therefore. rwnattajnment for P14-10, suggests that
if any Stats fails to submit a SIP by Congress envisioned that In ultimately
November15. 1991. for an Initial determining which areas cannot
moderate P14-10 nonattainment area, practicably attain the P14-10 standards
including the areas EPA proposes to by the applicable attelnmnnt date and
reclassify today. EPA plans to are appropriate for reclassIfication. EPA
immediately notify the Governor of its would also rely on the SIP revisions-
Intent to impose sanctions under submitted for these areas. Thus. while
sections 118(m) and 179 of the Act or EPA believes the Indicators fee
adopt a Federal implementation plan assessing an areas ability, or inability.
(PIP) under section 118(c) of the Act, to attain are reasonable, they are
Once imposed, the sanctions will not be rebuttable on a case-by-case basis. -
removed until the State has satisfied all Further, it Is difficult to generalize for
the applicable planning requirements. PM—l0. given widely disparate sources
Further, EPA may reclassify moderate of PM—b emissions, the availability and
areas for which a SIP has not been feasibility of control measures. etc.
submitted whenever It becomes Accordingly, during tbe comment period
apparent. perhaps because of the delay on this notice. States submitting timely
In submitting a SIP, that the area cannot SIP revisions demonstrating that an ares
practicably attain the standards by the identified in today& notice can - - -
end Of 1994. .. practicably attain the standardsby the
rn p nc - applicable attainment date will not be
reclassifled’in EPA’s final action on this
Since EPA must propose to reclassify rulemaking despite the fact that an area
the appropriate Initial P1440 - meets the objective criteria Identified by
nonattalnment areas before the EPA. Conversely, if EPA zecet es a SIP
moderate area SIP’. are required to be revision for an area not identified In -
submitted, It I. necessary to today’s notice hpIb ting that the area
information other than the S 1P’. to Judge practicably attain the staidards
whetheror not It Is prectlcable’for each by December 31.1994. then PA will ,
of the initial areas to attain by propose to reclassify the areabas ,
December 31. 1994. The EPA has - - notice. - ,
propo.edto reclassify appropriate areas . - i . EPA l
basedone,dstfng air quality data for - .. ‘‘aemfi of die pre oie. .fE set bj
these areas; These.bjecdve fteth ale tire statute ice ozone and carbon
rebuttable IndiCators of an area’s ability, ____
or Inability, tónttaln the P14-10 monoxIde (CO) nonattnbma t areas
standards b becember i. and the magnitude of PM-I l )
Therefore.today’s . osa1 in without concentrations experienced In the areas
the beneflt,of an actual SIP during the 3 most recent rziI.n,Inr years.
demonsirating a ñ demonstrating’ First. Congress specified In s on 181
aflalnmenL However; given the of the Act that areas wIth design values
statutory deadline set out In section for ozone that are appm dinately 33 -
_________ percent or more above the NAAQS
_____________ - , — —
, should be rlkssified as serious. severe.
. ‘ ‘ img5as thL I l ._ sms - - or e ctreme ionattaIrrm ñ ux hs, while
sib.’ thIe.. to nqu meeate isui te
“‘I) ( -
medsisisame iPreqeirmesuts esnalsierd wilbilie
spplicable slatetolim desdllesa (see dienmeism later
In this mdc. RAD4 and HAO&
zequueersuls tat areas redusifled easerim4 ..,n - - -
-------
-Federal Register VoL 56,-No.225 I Thursday. November 21, 1991 1,Propoaed Rules
•58659
be reduced in most instances for PM—b
moderate nonattainment areas than for
ozone. It follows that the design value
for reclassification of PM—b -
nonattainment areas from moderate to
serious should be higher than the ozone
analogy. Second, although the nature
and number of sources are less complex
for PM—b than for ozone. PM—b
sources are markedly more diverse than
in the case of most CO nonattalnment
situations, wherein violations can be
attributed predominantly to mobile
sources. Accordingly. PM—b moderate
area emission reductions may not be as
readily achieved as those for CO and,
therefore, a PM—b design value lower
than the CO analogy Is appropriate.
These considerations have thus led EPA
to select a design value of 58 percent
above the PM-b NAAQS—. value that
falls directly between those represented
in Ike criteria adopted by Congress for
ozone and CO—es one basis for -
proposing to reclassify areas as serious.
Next. EPA believes that multiple,
expected exceedances of the standard
are appropriate indicators of persistent
air quality problems that RACMIRACT
may not be adequate to correct. ir
Ambient PM—b data for the three most
recent calendar.years (1988-1990) In the
Atmospheric Information Retrieval -
System (AIRS) revealed only a small -
group of the 70 InItial nonattainment
areas that still measured PM—b, ....
concentratlopa far above the 24-hour
NAAQS and could be expected to
exceed the sh niLiyd seve nl times e ’ch,
year. Areas. 3 ie e hejvgenu!nber.
.of expected exèeedances over 3 years to
o or thore peryear have at least 3
measured exceedances over that same.
period. Therefore EPA concluded that
an expected exceèdance rate greater -
than or equal toO per year would-
• adequately dIstln gu1sh between areas
with persistent air quality problems and.
those with more transitory vlolqtlons. It
- should be noted, however, thaf1he . - .
sensitive, I.e., ni ging & s value up or
downslightlydoeinotiigp lfivinUy
- affect the areas that would be classified
serious.
The AIRS data were analyzed to
determine the PM—b design
concentrations for the areas with high
- values during the 1986-1990 calendar
years. The look-up table procedure
explained in section 8.3.1 of the ‘PM-b
SIP Development Guideline.” EPA-4501
2-86-001. June 1987, was followed. The
average number of expected
exceedances of the 24-hour standard for
a year is explained in 40 CFR 50,
Appendix I C. section 3.
The EPA’s analysis identified 14 areas
with design concentrations 58 percent or
more above the standard (>W
micrograms per cubic meter (JLg/m’)J
and with 6 or more expected ‘
exceedances of the 24-hour standard per
year. The 14 areas which meet the above
criteria are listed In Table I along with
- the design concentrations and numbers
ci expected exceed”nces.,
Additional considerations also led
EPA to conclude that the above criteria
are reasonable. First, in several cases
brought to EPA’. attention. States -
attempting to develop control strategies
using RACMIRACr for these areas had
concluded that ft was not practicable to
attain the 24-hour standard-by
December31, 1994. Seilond, the annual
mean PM-10 concentrations for 1988-
1990 exceeded the anniral NAAQS (50
pg/m9lnloofthel4areas. 5 In.severaJ
areas, the annual lean was 20 to 80.
percent overthe anImal NAAQS. A high
annual ‘,‘ng tratiöfflIanothe1 iw ’
- Indlcatçr 1hat au 4rea experlincer J’ r
persistently hlghPM- b0 Ievils ’rèther :
than occulon l riofex -
Because EPA4ntends to base Its final
deternrlnatio,’on whether areas should
be reeIn aeifl donItsrevlew f the SIP’.
due Novemberl8.1991. thi. proposal is
limited to those areas that appear most
likely, on the basis of niolent air -
quality Information, to have difficulty
atinlethig the PM-b NAAQS by’- -
December 31,1994 Therefore, EPA Is
proposing to selfy the areas listed
In -Table I as-serious, with the caveats
— . •L1 •,
discussed below. The EPA believes the
criteria used to identify the areas In
Table I area reasonable to use in
meeting its obligation under section
188(b)(b)(A). However, the criteria are
being used as surrogates for area-
specific information that will eventually
be provided in the SIP’ .. States can
rebut EPA’s presumption that any of the
areas proposed for reclassification
cannot practicably attain the standards
by the attainment date by submitting a
SIP that provides for attainment by the
end of 1994. In such cases, EPA will not
take final action to reclassify the areas.
The EPA requests comments on the
choice of criteria used to Identify the
areas that It proposes to reclassify.
Areas EPA Does Not Expect to
Refr . -,.
Based on prelinthinly informatIói
described in more detail below, at this
time, EPA does not expect tq reclassify
the four areas discussed below from
Table 1 as serious even though they
meet the above criteria. However, in
today’s notice. EPA is proposing to
reclassify these areas, in the event that
EPA does not receive a SIP revision for
these areas by the time EPA lakes final
action on this notice which -
substantiates this pretlmlraory
Information. Similarly. f EPA receIves a
SIP revision (otthese areas by thedme
EPA takes final action on this notice
which indicate, that the area c namt
- .pracUcabl r attain the PM—b standards
by Deoember3l.1994 , EPA leproposing
4oday.toTedaulfy these ózeasln the
final rul m’anfrbrg action on this notice.
Oglesby, IllInoIs—The EPA does not
anticipate reclassifying the Ogleaby .
nonattainmènt area. The area Is
Impacted primarily by aithgle source of
PM-1 a cement manufacturing pLant
The State has submitted a disperulon-
modeling demonstration that. tentatively
shows emissions from the facility can be
controlled with RACI’ toe level that will
prevent future violations of the 24-hour
NAAQS.’.
‘bin dedpev p00 ware
based i ..IL data p..& .d In 19S5 -d The
—h-- etc sen ’.tlooiuped In lbs lock-up table
pn e Is the c -uIb ’-d wmb cIcbser vatlecs
preduced muSs. is is, and lSSa.No alt juatments
-
wre f*p Isibtuda cr
- __
. ;.. __ -.. _ ,. _
• —tr.tIoesaireitly being used far S’,%q
development were .maraIly derived &on l i
monitoring date collected liladler pears (Ia I S IS
- or i ) end. therefore, n.y dIilà fro m those listed
Tabh’I ’- J • .•J •
‘ d6u t sbk lare
based only ilyams ti’ ambleni data
-.
.uets. A deli sat equfrus at heat ii sample days pee
- quarter year to be complete. As poled In the table.
-. nanycfthearssabadlorma rsyeaz sof t-
Incompletadata.’ .. - ,.. -.
- ‘Proposed PM-tO ernlssloã limits (cv the Portland
- Cr I Manufacturing Plant and . -“ led quany
- operations In ‘ -°-‘ e County flhloois. February...
lam. - ,.— -
-------
8662 Federal Register / Vol. 56. No. 225 / Thursday. November 21. 1991 I Proposed Rules
4. What requirements, if any.
applicable to serious areas should be
waived.
The EPA i . specifically soliciting
public comment on appropriate answers
to these questions. The EPA will
consider any comments received before
the close of the comment period on
today’, proposal when developing its
policy for implementing the waiver
provision authorized under section
1 88(t).
VII. ntern.fional Border Areas
Section 818 of the 1990 Clean Act
Amendments adds a new action 1799 to
subpart I of part 0 of Title I of the Act.
Section 1799 applies to areas that could VIII. Request for Comm ’ts.
attain the relevant NAAQS by the The EPA requests comments on all
attainment date but for emissions aspects of its proposal to reclassify the
emanating from outside the United above areas as serious nonattainment
States. For PM—b nonattainment areas, areas. For example. EPA requests
section 1799 provides that EPA can comments on its choice of criteria for
approve the moderate area SIP if the Identifying areas It proposes to
State establishes that the SIP would be reclassify as serious including technical
adequate to attain and maintain the information to substantiate or refute its
PM— iD NAAQS by the attainment date basis for today’s proposed actjon. The
but for emissions from outside the comment period which closes December
United State.. and that the area 18 not to 23. 1991. will additionally allow EPA to
be subject to the provisions of section consider the SIP revisions required to be
188(b)(2). Section 188(b)(2) provides that submitted for these areas by November
any moderate PM—b nonattainment 15. 1991.The EPA I. also investigating
area that Is not Ii attainment after the - the development of criteria and policy
applicable littainment date shall be for granting waivers for certain areas uuitim cose silo-se-v -
reclassified by operation of law as a under section 1880). Several questions - _____________________________
serious area. Therefore. Congress does were raised in section VI of this notice
not want areas that could attain but for that must be answered’ In developing the
emissions emanating from outside the waiver policy..Coiñments are requested
United States to be dutomatically on those questions as well as the scope
reclassified as serious after failing tO of such waIvers. -
attain by the applicable date. In the
same spirit, EPA does not believe Other Regulatory RequIrements 49 pp p . -
-F
Congress Intended for areas that the it. El ecu/i ye Orders ‘ F.d...I Motor
States demonstrate could attain the UndCi Executive Order 12291. EPA standarda Denial of Petition for’.
standards but for emissions emanating has determined that this proposed RUI.flmidl g -
from outside the United States to be action is not ‘malor ’ because
reclassified before the attainment date reclassification of the areas would not aoencv National Highway Traffic
under section i88(b)(1J. . have an annual effect on the economy of Safety Administration (NHTSA).
at least $100 million, would not cause a Department of Transportation (DOT).
“As noted. section 179 5(d) Stain. thai areas major Increase In prices, and Would DOt acuo,c Denial of petition for -.
demnnstr.tln attalnmetof the standseds bat for
emluions emanath,g fro. outsid, the United st .t. , ‘have a significant adverse effect .. rin klng - . .-. .‘ . . , . .
.haUno lbe s ub lectto ,ecU o n l s s(b)(2) ‘: ‘ ... -, , compet ltlonorthe’abi lityofUnlted
(reclaniflcatlan for faflurs to attain). By sneer lo States eáterprlses to compete with- suu anv Thu noUce4enIes a petition
1 1th provisIon .ini ciqibing Oe.S of statntoiy - . foreign enterpriies This peoposal was by Dr.CarI C. ( lark of the Safety -.
csnctlau. A will not Ir ’ 4fY bSfe.S thiS submitted to the Qua of Malagement Systems Company to amend the Head
applicable 5 ft I& d.te areas which sea .‘
deinosisirste at’-’-- ’ of the standard. bat roe- . . end Budget (0MB) as required by ‘ ‘ - . Injury Crite4on hilt of Standard No.
enlulonj esisnatbig t ia r a ts1de the United State. Exei utive Ordá (E.O.) 12291: Any --‘ - - 208, Occupam t Crash Protection. The
ieee section 1*bJll) 1 . First. seCtlO 1705 evInces.’ written comments from 0MB and any -, petitioner st u hi to reduce the H ad
ener.I com,,— - - Intent eat to pi areas.’
___ written EPA tesponses to thope , , In juryCritezlqn limit from 1000 to 750.
countiy a le the buttes caine of the P 14.10 ‘comments are included In the docket. - -. Alter iareful review. NIffSA has
•tt.Inment Vwlbsr. tf A wine ‘- . This action does not contain any — “;‘ . determlmie’d that the petition failed to
reduslfy .uch Sees. before the SPPIIc.bhi ‘ ‘ ..i ‘ -. . • ‘ - . provide.sufficlent justification to change
anslnm,nt in affect would be reading - the àjrrent Head Injury Criterion lirnil
section u 3 d) out of (be utanate. Specifically. If - construction onwisel against inlerpietlng the law -
EPA prececdsdto ieclsu lfy before the applicable - such diet language Is rendered mere uurplusage. -. - i ’he petition’dld not present information
attatcnun’t e those areas qualifying for treatment. Finally, note that section flnE(d) contains. cieasly nahIin into question the agency’s belief
• under .rcnon 1795. so ale. would never be subject erroneoun reference to carbon monoxide Instead sit that the current Head Injury Criterion
to the prov-á in section i7SB(d) which prohibits PM-ic. sod that this section ContaIns other Clear limit of 1000 is the most appropriate and
EPA from rex1ess,fyie such situ site, the - . coors (see. ci.. section 1798(c) ref ,t! practicable level for minimizing the risk
applicable stt.. .nsnt data. Canons of statutory ‘ 1a5 9I. which does not exist).’ - - -
Consequently. EPA does not
anticipate reclassifying Nogales.
Arizona. and Imperial Valley.
California. as serious areas at this time
based on preliminary Information
submitted by the States. The preliminary
information indicates these areas could
attain the NAAQS but for emissions
from Mexico. However, If the technical
Information submitted with the SIP In
November for any of these areas does
not satisfactorily confirm the
preliminary analysis relied on in today’s
proposaL EPA will proceed to reclassify
that area as a serious area in its final
action on this rulemaldng.
Information collection requirements
subject to 0MB review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), A Federalism assessment
under E.0. 1281.2 Is not required for this
action since reclassification of moderate
areas that cannot attain the NAAQS by
the statutory attainment date as serious
areas Is mandated by section 188(b) of
the Act
B. ReguIator Flexibility Act
Under 5 U.S.C. 805(b). the
Administrator has certified that
redesignations do not have a significant
economic Impact on a substantial -
number of small entities (see 48 FR
8709). Because -reclassffications under
section 188(b) constitute a refinement of
existing designations, such actions are
also not expected to have significant
impacts on small entities. --
ListofSubjects ln4OCFRPart s l
Air pollution. Particulate matter.’
Waivers, International border areas. -.
Authanty’ SectIon. 188(b) and 301(a) of the
Clean Air Act u amended.
Datedi November 15.1591. -
William K Reilly,
Administrator.
(FR Doc. 91—28004 riled 11—3041: &45 am) -
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety -
Adm lnlstritlon . . .-.. -
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 50 No.225/ Thuriday, ovemb&2i ,i Ig9j / Proposed Rules
TsSLE 1.—AREAs WITH F4GH PM-tO DESIGN coNcENTRATIoNs AND EX ECT EXCEEDAJ1CES
Utah Coimty. Utah— .The EPA doe.
not ant*cf pate reclassifying the utah
County nonaIt Inment areabecause the
State has demonstrated that the
standards canbe attained by December
31.1994. The State has adopted -
regulations requiring RACM for area
sources and RACIIOT point sources In
the area. The control measures
scheduledtobe lmplémentedby .
W I . . - .. .
Nagalee, Mzoaa—The EPA .d es.not
anticipate red aIfyIng.theNogsiesi ‘1 4
nonat**It !1l I4 area based.on tburesnits
of a pzeHmIi ry .tudypreparedby thea
Arluena Department Of Envjronmeutal
Quality In September1990. Therepcrt:,’
indicates that most of the PM— iD
emissions In the-area . .t from. fi
Nogalea. Sonora. M O’ - Thsiarea --W4
emission Inventoly Indlv ’.tesihatOl
percent of the PM-b h ons — -.
originate In Me,dco. An intensive a . ‘ ..
monitoring study, Including timorlapse
photography of airflow atth.borders(T
conducted In 1989, IndIcated thaI PM 40
concentrations in Nogales, Mzona.
were primarily atti4butable to sources in
Nogales, Sonora. Therefore, the report
indicates the State maybe able to
demonstrate In the SIP due November15
that, with the application ofRAQA.
Nogales. Arizona. could attain the-
itandarde by December 31, 1994. but for-
—, .j . .-- - j;u - S -.. .
.1 %. 1, o•
‘Utah State f i.- .-.a-tj tanJe saG.
octrol Str :P aid CsapILa - z Sthedide.A. e
If ai1ülI
— -- --‘!
‘-‘ - . U.2.
I .do tob 11 5B& .Gt t
PM—iD .m1aaloaseinanath)g frcm .
Nogales, Sonora.’ .: , . : -- . • .. . . ‘ -
CaWormla—Ths EPA
dons not anticipate redasaifyb .
Imperial Valley 0 ma fahiaiae4 -.
based on the results of an EPAstudy
conducted In 1989. The study hwlketed
that In1 ?natfonatIranspoztOf FM- j o ’-’
from Me dcali in M& 4 co 4 ’Jf1ly
fu4} 4ft fnfw4Itnrjng 5Itá In Cale*tca
El tro and Brawley, ifcin2a .ibe
report l”II’ utes theStatemay beab4mto
demonsfratektheSIP N ber25
that, with the-appI tioaorRAO
Imperial Valley cme the r r--
standards byDeóember 31 ,199S bztlm
PM—b en ieuIonfrenanatsdgfiom .
Msidca!L’i -f : -—— •
nrjosfous
AdditlonatSip revisions axe equked
under sectlcn.189(b) for the Initial
nonattalninent areas that.are - . . ,, •
reclassified ta.edoua.PIr,Lreeulelions
Second. the Stat. “4’a SiP
revision wIthin 4 psirs after • •
redassificatkin of the area that Includes
a demonstration that the plan willattain
the P4-1ONAAQSbyDei nber31 .
O1 (see sections 188(cflZ). “ -
189(b)(l)(AJ( 1J 1 and 189(bX2)J Third.
section 189(bX3P provides thav’forany
Serious Area. the-term ’mafr,ótavV-
and ‘major ststIas iuu include
any stitfon rysource
.tatlona y issucà located wfthbr
dul sI ai*d nd1 c1 , ’
troT that ezidte r hâi hepotentIa to
‘ethff, at least 70 tons. er year ófPM 10. e
This piovfslon retjuim. mong other,.
thlagc smaller newaid fliodISad
sources (those with the po ’tantfal to emit
70 or greater rather tbaniflo or
- - tons per 3 ea4 to ol tatm.edlcnhJ2(c)(5)
r igffi 3nn permits whlckle,ln&i
requirements t smpII .wlth lowest
achievable rates audio obtain
ainI.eIø nifept . [ see sethlon8 172(c 5}
ItIarseacnable,Inseme. ’r ’V ••— . ‘
drcwnetances. for States preparing SIP’s
for moderate areas that will be
re serious, to consider the
relationship of RAQ4 to BACM and
“A .asd*di. Slate ut —---lr.ts that
• a bfl--- t lOL t aprsctI
EPA a t
•
Rice at . ,. . , ..
•. 241 1ar
ui J?s
S .
; • . -
uin(p
lOuSes
II I
LLuity. Lkicc0 .
“.
$1 .0
.47
POIt
V
VIII
VIII
I X
IX
IX
I X
IX
IX
ix
i x
X
X
OØsehp .L___________________________________
L hy,MT_______________________________________
- 3 11
241
553
244
18 51
2 62
712
78
5
RU
.2
11.0
12.7
onD
1 7
Sit
174
26.5
112
- 1 2
.. t I
‘
7A
•
- 55
114
534
4
4
.. 704
22#
84
004
704
. V I
474
PsiS.
FO. P8.
Pelt
4.FD
. PB.
PD
S .-u-y PM. PD.
FO
PD I1....&.. P
PD
ffl, • — p9
PD, P8.
U 1 ,UT
PSiS AZ -
Nm AZ
Sni Jss *i V , C __________________________________
Deem Veley. CA_____________________________
Snith Case Ak Baell,
C a n ti.ieV a t.CA
ta Vat, CA
V s s .NV
ICte m Fate, OR
k..i. WA_____________________________________
RWC—Ra ,4aiatj uo d conthuates . - • - -
I.fl $A.1 ctPM-1O -
Pcmt. ’Du.....ntpoi sums Vi a ‘ • ‘.-
s. se Ie at g L . . . ci V i , . jJi... ,jd sees cees piAiW .d laSS FR 11101, Usd115. $001. s d s - lass FR .WIMlRiiid
so. at eat o. se i ____ - .. :. j.. - ‘--. -
requlrI t ,be use ofBM Unciudiog,u
MtheappllI! t1onoLbestava1lable qtnq.
control tccbnology toexlstlng ótatlcnaey
(KR. Rep. No.499, lOut Cong..
Zd Sass 267 (1990)1 must be adopted and
submitted to EPA within * months after
the area Is reclassified to serious
(section 189(b)(2)J. The BAQ ’A and . - ________
BACT requirements must be -’ v . ____
implemented wIthin 4 years after the _____ ______
area Is reclassified (section 189(b)(1)(D)J. scd lOt P 1 a 1 7 •
- - - ._ .. -. - - eaat sqis a.iIti, ath.dite 1 v .4L ..Ma (bat
__________ - ‘ ‘• - esethan5 . esmaftlO.otou soa
• Prel1 ia ,7 tauselgadoc elVi s Cs to .. ViffàctIoa 11Sf a)’
EkIent of th, 5I I it i 1Vil —11 ,,qufr ii* ’P c .CP.L esaxtlei& , at tbó - “
AdD4$a.t .si,oiB..L . noIQsslUy_ - . aIII a- ’ vu ham .ttafied (Li ? .. pIo.
Sep*esbes lSe o —S . ‘ . f ,-.. : . c L1a lOt se
‘Rural PuRftlve Duet Analysis: bperIaiCbaity -t±± Ws ’esPIaftSISYSlalaau-
CmlsFtcctr oitiaepsred by Me bta iSftathlSySd* selc Slate enteas - . - .
uMarSt ’A ContractNo. GD&CO94.’Wcak tf,ealb 5,I . . ..I. .d ISthS.ZU) less sscdos.,
uignmait No. * May 1090. ‘ ‘ i ‘ii IhifIVAIIIflL.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 225 1 Thursday. November 21. 1991 I Proposed Rules
56661
RACT to BAC for the affected sources.
The EPA discussed this relationship in a
recent policy memorandum entitled
“PM-to Moderate Area SIP Guidance:
Final Staff Work Product” at pages 14-
16 (see footnote 1). The EPA anticipates
that BACM for area sources, If required..
will be additive to or not significantly
incompatible with RACM for these
sources. Therefore, the moderate area
SIP’s for the areas which EPA is
proposing to reclassify should reflect the
application of RACM to appropriate
sources. U an area Is rerisinsifled In
EPA’s final action on this rulem Iring.
then additional requlations which
require BACM must be adopted and
submitted wIthin 18 months and
implemented within 4 years after
reclassification.
likewise. in the case of fugitive dust
associated with stationary sources, EPA
anticipates that the implementation of
BACK will not be significantly
Incompatible with the Implementation of
RACF. Therefore, EPA expects that the
moderate area SIP’s for the areas
identified in today’s notice will reflect
the application of RACT on fugitive dust
associated with stationary sources. If an
area is reclassified in EPA’s final action
on this rulemaking. then additional
regulations requiring BACI for fugitive
dust.at stationary sources must be
submitted within 18 months and
implemented withIn 4 years after the -
area Isreclassifled.,- -- , -
In contrast to BAC1’ for ititionary
sources of h dust,PM-1Oe uiss1on;
control technology det rminéd toj ,
represent BACI’ for processes at
stationary sources may be significantly
incompatible with the technology that
would represent RACf.for the same -
sources. Under such circumstances, It:
would be unreasonable and. therefore.;
would not constitute RACT to Install
controls to meet the requirement for
RACI’ by December10. 1993. that would.
subsequently be replaced by BACT
within 2 years. ’ Accordingly. EPAdoes
not expect the SIP’s for the moder te
areas that are finally recla8sj dW
serious to requlremajoi hangèstthb
control systems for specific stadc add ‘
process sources whereihe Sfo’? ’
reasonably dmiilastratd th111L P
changes will be 5 1 t iflcantlydCW)3C .8
incompatible with the a liclilióq ö 9
• - ;:I :9U .)
• •. ,
deufgested ncnau.L ,.. . ..t it . 2
ImpI—.--—4 RA t d ’-tini MACI) b O _ _ . _ h
10 1103. Ueube u d 110(b ). eze..
kmee BAQiL 21 1 MCEc.1T
,mth(. 4 year, afte, iecluafftcatlc .. UE Atà.a’
fiII .t*CtIOi eaDe b..3L199L the, e aU wfll
be ieq*ed Ii mp en1 BACT byD.e. b 31 . —.J
1095. appvu.xlmawlp Z year. iSr. the 10, -
BACT. A States demonstration should
Include, for example, showing what the
State believes RACT and BAC 1’ are for
the source and why they are
significantly Incompatible. Rather.
within 18 months after the final
nilentafrhig action to reclassify theseS
areas, the States must submit
regulations requiring the use and
implementation of MCI’ wIthin 4 years.
V. Final Adieu
Area (under subpart 4J where the
Administrator determines that
anthropogenic sources of PM-b do not
contribute significantly to the violation
of the PM-to standard in the area.” The
legislative history su ests that
Congress contemplated. namrow
definition of what may qualify as
“nonanthropogeniC ” and would limit It
to Include activities where the human
role In the causation of the pollution Is
highly attenuated (see gene ally. HR.
Rep. No. 490,101st Congress, 2d Sees.
265 (1990)J. As one example of. type of
source Congress considered to be
anthropogenic. the House Report states
as foflowe: “The term ‘anthropogenic
sources’ Is Intended to Include activities
that are anthrbpogenlc’tn orlgl&An -.
example of such sources Is thi dry lake
beds at Owens and Mono Likes In
CalIfomla’whlchglve rlsi 10 dust:’
storms that are a resilt bf the dlverslon
of water that ãould otherwise flow to
such lakes and should be considered
anthropogenic sources”,(H.R. Rep. No.
490at285). •
TheEPAwillretypthn riIjon’ .• •
Information in the SU a submitted. In
November1991 to detez ne,wI ’aø ” '
anthropogenci soUrces ânidbute
significantly to violations beach of the
aboveareas. ltd qailsalons in nçn*s
sad M-bO fiI àUh.tpI 4 7
mass b il inenaaalyslsifor the 4 ep
wfllbe
ilA ,AW
In addition to the criteria disãussed In
this notice, EPA’s final decision to
reclassify the areas Identified In todays
notice as serious areas will rely on the -
moderate area SIP, due November IL
1991, and on comments received In -
response to this notice of proposed
rulemilrivig The final decision will be
based primarily on the SIP attainment
demonstration showing whether or not,
the States can impleieant sufficient ,,..
RACM/RACT byDecember 1O,i993, to
bring about attainment of the standards
by December 31, 1994. Any areas that
EPA determines cannot practicably
attain will be reclassified except for.,
those areas that could attalubut for PM—
bOeiniss )ons emanating from outside the
United States. Areas that could attaIn
but for significant contributions ofPM. -
10 from nonanthropogenic sources’to’
PM-b NAAQS violati usia Lhia à,: . ___
may be rectasàlfled as serfbüs areas.
these areas If I
aithiop ,’ us roes inai anwropogewcJcJu p ,
sign1fldandjto do not c1 n tesignlffcantjylna ‘ :
NAAQS (see section partfcular area. EPA will edde wfwtb 6 i
The EPA nyora llrequirementiroi l lAcMl
technical in - - - MCI’ should be waived for the ardl... - -ì
SW. for the f â areas meeting the a Section 2880) also granis EPA the. .
quality rIterfa identified by EPA but • authority to “waive a specific date for
which A does not expect to reclassify. attainment of the standard when the - - -•
UEPA detpi,uthi.s . based on new ‘:.... Mnilnlefrator determine . that - i. . ‘1
Infonnallon contained In those SWa, nonanthropogenic sources of PM-to -
that any of these areas c ”not - ‘ . contribute significantly to the violation
practicably attain the standards by thS of the PM-b standard In the area.”The
end of 1994. CVC tef dlsCOWttht3 - . - legislative history sjggeaia that “ [ tjhe -•
frolU outside th . . - attainment date may only be waived for
United States, or the Stats fail to!eufq. areas that have fully iniplenlented thefr’
submit an adequate ilnwiutradoa ‘ ‘a ti”(HJI Rep. No. 490 at
substantlatrag thepreliminary ai c s-cl zesj. ’ ‘ ‘ - -
Is matiojideodearlier ,EPA?w1ll ,e seve s ’ S e n ’
take final actl,anon this . .a%c!tigi ! bn i before EPA n establish a jiolicy for;
proposal tO grañtIn the walvéki authorized dnder i
5ed0U 5 ‘ I/.O flbCff2C3UO 2L’W secdoni88(4Foi exampIe. EPA most ,
VLWaIvafrC aA 3” determine ’” :1’
Some f th; a eaaEP 1s b Wb t so’urces ivifl be considered,
reclassify is serfâus have very -arid . “nonanthropoganic. . .. , , . •
climates and are impacted by - . - 2. When nonanthropogenlcuources:
nonanthrojio euicsourcei fPh -IOai • conbibute”signficantly” to violations
well as anthropogenic sources. Section In an area. , - -. - r • .-..‘ . “ -
188(f) of the Act authorizes EPkto “on a . 3. When anthropogenic Icu ces do
case.bycase basl;’walveeny - nbt coninbule si tlffcaiitIy to violations -
requirementappllcabletóanySexlóus : - Inanarea.,, ‘,- .. ,- •
-------
Friday
January 8, 1993
Pa II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 81
Air Quality Designations and
ClassIfIcations; Amendments; Final Rule
-------
3334
Federal Register / VoL 58. No. 5/ Friday, January 8, 1993 I Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 FR Pert 81
D-ffi 4I58
RIN NO. 2060-AC56
Reclassification of Ilodurate PM.l0
Nonattairiment Areas to Serious Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (WA).
AC11011 Final rule.
VMY : Under section 188(b)(1) of the
Clean Air Act. ‘A Is r 4 *ilfyIng as
serious four areas In California and one
area In Nevada which were Initially
classified as moderate nnatt Inment
areas for PM.1O (particles with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 mlaometers).
EPFEC 1VE DATE This action will become
effective on February 8,1993.
ADOREISES. The technical reports
referenced In today’s document can be
found In Public Docket No. A-9 1-53.
The docket La located at the U.S. ‘A
Air Docket. Rm. M-1500. Waterside
Mall, LE-131. 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The docket may
be inspected from 0:30 a.m. to 12noon
and from 1:30 p.m.to 3:30p.m. on
wee&day. except for legal hoUda , and
sreasonablefeemaybechargidfer
copying. -
FOR RISThER aiFOmI* C0I W
Ginsburg, Air Quality Management
DivWoaj Mail Damp 15,’ ce oIA
Quality P l’ig derds ,IJ.3 . -
En entel Prot Icn Agency
Research Triangle Park, MC 27711. (9lI .
541 O877.
B MY -
is available sean electronic flu. on The
Fedewi Bulletin Hoard at 9 a ,m the day
of publication In the Paderal RagWen
By modem dial 202-812-1387 Or call
202412.1530 for disks or
This file Is available ferf iaiI&riyt
Wc.d 11 eife * LI 4 an*
- LB&gaeand : ‘
On the date ofe .iIthesagr
• • Air Act Aes t ‘11jM40-
d clgn .d nonatminmuitbyopsisdcn
of law iss.generelly, 42 U.S .C.
- 7407(d)(4X8) of the Act seiscanossin
thian to”the Act” or ”tbe C3ean
AfrAct’aaetotheCleanAfrAct.u
amended. 42 U.S.C 7401 at seq 3 These
areas Included all former Group! areas
ldibfi,d in 52 FR 29383 (August 7,
19871 and clarified in 55 FR 45799
(October 31. 1990), and any other areas
vioLating the PM.’io standard. prior to on fads specific to the nonattaInMIent
January 1. 1989 (many of t area at Lasue end will only be mads
were Identified by foothote 4 in after providing notice in the Federal
October 31, 1990 Federal E. Register and an opportunity for public
document). A Federal RagI . comment on the basis for A’s
document announcing all of the a proposed de’ n .
designated nonati Inment for PM-t at In those cases where D’A determines
enactment and classified as modesits that an area has failed to attain the
was published in 50 FR 11101 G 1 NAAQS by the applicable . ts lnm,mt
15.1991). A followup notice date, the ares is reclassified as sexiout
some of these areas was p11 1 d1lL4 by cieration of law (see section
August 8,1991 (58 FR 37654). ‘ 5s 188(b)(z) of the Acti. The A must
nonatt lnment designations i publish a notice In the Federal Registes
moderate area classifications wais of such determinations and consequent
codified In 40 R past 81 in a F1 redassificatlons wIthin 6 months
Register document pubtl.hmd en -
November 6,1991(56 FR 3101).A1 th. applicable attainment
theareaslntheNatjonnot- ’ - M oco aucewIth se d1on
nonait litment at enactment wis . ISSM 1XA) of the . A is
dmclgn*t,d unclassifiable lees SOot -. ouncing the rec *4ficstlon of those
107(d)(4XBXIII) of the ACt). Initial moderate nonattainment areas
Once an area Is de nate&. which A has determined at this time
nonatt*Inment. section 188 dth. cannot “practicably” attain the PM.1O
outlines the process far NAAQS by December 31,1994. the
- the area and establishes the area’s date ieee section
atialnnwmfr date. In accordance 188(c)(1) of the Acti. As explained
section 188(a) of the Ad, at the thea of further below today’s action discharges
‘ ½elgni.f Ion , all PM-la ii - - . EPA’s statutory obligation under section
areas are Initially rJ 9ed — • ‘ iea ij j of thd Ad which required
by operation of law.
A moderate ares - he ‘A to appropriate Initial
as serious sithai moderate PM .10 nonattainment mess
smp mbl. moderate ares a5 . 5STlO1 byDeceiIIbS? 31,1991.
date U A determines themes r.. Desucoduing That en Area ri 4
“practicably” attain the PM40-NU nobly IIah ,
by this aft.lnment date, or following the
p dtbs ap lLcable_ -. .. Generally, A will rely on
ient date I A In the State’s SIP submitta
ares baa felled to attain ths dard. .aa the control strategy, et’ ” t
‘ 1h.p o ____ iI n.lraffon. and comnllànc.
aIi. ’ A us(bml of the 4lstjWA • schedule I. determine w1rether 1t Is
geese! authority to •:‘ practicable to attain the NAAQS In that
d bike the applicable area byth. applicable ,ttMnment date.
date any ares A dStarmI - - The SIP’s which were due on November
____ 15,1991 for the Initial PM-b moderate
________ sonattainarsot areas were required to
____ r nMsin. *mmig other requirements, a
centre! utmt based upon the use of
IdlH i , s bpara aphs ( Aj 4 ably available control measures
section 188(bJIl) of the Ad 1 ’ (RA 4)-mbIth l’1t4ud 0 reasonably
that A ‘ r øI r “appro.” piiILit.avallable control technology (RACF)
nongmi g pe .d t . z1s *L s 173(c)(l) and 189(s)(1 Q
frames IL... by December 3$Nfr 0Lthe Act).! Th Statss were also
the lithI.t PM-i0 nonatf.L. •;‘ required to demonstrate that the SIP’.
and wIthin 18 ni 0 i th . for timely Implantmqatlon of
submittil du. date fo n1 - and umeut of the NAAQ&
areas). ‘ t Th. *A must be Implemented In the
d’ December10, 1993, and the areas mud -
PM-IC n af*2lnm it sees by
___ ft ” the standard as expeditiously as
at certain thorn. ’ Any du —%y pr ’ ”le,bat no later than December
t,rlrn 4 fy an ares U 1994. rml an area can
applicable e+’ I” ent dat. *11 b. se&T 4lmonstrste that attainment by that date
‘Th. A’s t.I Ucs afite. RACT I.a sm of ibs o,snicbIa MAQi
vlMans te us a 1eI(b (1) of & -’ _ lass a—” - R?2(cXl) o.’th. A L ml
________ ooiy she ‘ - teanicgicsL
A “ —‘—‘— of 1190.” ST 0*
(Ai11 iS. illS). lactudsrMCt.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
3335
is impracticable (see sections 188(c)(l)
and 189(a)(1)(C) of the ACt).
There are at least three reasons why
an area may not practicably attain the
standards by the applicable attainment
date. First. implementation of the SIP
control strategy, including RAC f. may
not create sufficient emissions
reductions to bring the area Into
attainment. The State will have
demonstrated that an Initial PM .1O
nonattainment area cannot practicably
attain the NA.AQS by the applicable
attainment date if the implementation of
RAQvI by December 10, 1993 will not
achieve sufficient emissions reductions
to attain the standards by Decembel 31.
1994. The EPA has interpreted RAQ 4.
including RACT. to be those emission-
reduction measures which EPA believes
are generally reasonable considering
technological feasibility and costs of
control. The State should prepare a
reasoned justification to show that a
particular control measure for an
existing source is infeasible or otherwise
unreasonable and, therefore, would not
constitute RACM. 3 Otherwise, the SIP
should include implementation of all
available emission reduction measures
that have not been demonstrated to be
unreasonable.
Second. nonanthropogenic sources
which cannot reasonably be controlled
may contribute significantly to the
violation of the PM -b NAAQS In the
area. Moreover. section 188(1) of the Act
authorizes the Administrator to waive a
specific attainment date for an area
where the Administrator determines
that nonanthropogenic sources
contribute significantly to the violation
of the PM-b standard in the area.
Section 188(0 of the Act also provides
that the Administrator may. on a case-
by-case basis, waive certain
requirements applicable to serious areas
where the Administrator determines
that anthropogenic sources of PM-10 do
not contribute significantly to violation
of the PM-b standard in the area. 4 Note
that an area Is rerin .aifieiI If EPA
determines that it omuiot practicably
meet the appllcàbli st..lnment date or
that it has failed tG t such date.
Thus, reclassificatinsie keyed to a
specific date. If that èI. is waived, the
area would not be . uLJal to
reclassification because there simply
would be no date that the area cannot
practicably meet or that the area fails to
‘S. , the “G.,.ral Piia ble to Thu I of the Demo
Air Ac? Am U of 1990.” 57 FR 1334043544
d 3sso-I333I (Apnl 16. 19921.
•m . m’Ab road. evailabi. to tha public theft
oo the appllmodco of the weleW
p oeie$m$ .ad ssc mo I ea(fl of the Aet Ieee 57
FR 31477 UW 16.1992)1 mid wdl floalize that
— at a Latw dat..
meet. Thus. while noáanthropogenlc
sources which cannot be.reesonably
controlled may be a reason an area
cannot practicably attain, if such area
qualifies for a waiver of the attainment
date under sectIon 188(0 of the Act, it
may also be a basis for not re”usifylng
the area. Note that In today’s action, in
order not to undermine th. waiver
provision. EPA has given some
consideration to Spokane’s potential
exclusion from reclassification under
section 188(f) of the Act in determining
whether It Is “appropriate” to 19 i4aaeify
that area at this thne.
Third, the area may be significantly
impacted by PM-to emissions
emanating from outside the United
States. In the latter case, the State may
demonstrate that the area qualifies for
treatment under section 1793(d) of the
Act, which provides that areas which
would have attained the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date but for
emissions emanating from outside the
United States shall not be subject to
reclassificatiorr requirements under
section 188(b)(2) of the Act (see 56 FR
58662). In such cases of International
transport, the State will be expected to
demonstrate and quantify the
international contribution of PM-lU in
the affected area. Any State conl*lning
an area which may qualify for treatment
under this provision still must timely
submit a moderate ares SIP far such
rea. In order to have Its moderate PM-
10 SIP approved under section 179 3(a)
of the Act in addition to demonstrating
that It would have timely attained the
PM-la NAAQS but for International
emissions, the State must submit a
moderate SIP meeting all requirements
applicable to moderate PM-1O
nonattalnment areas other than the
requirement that It demonstrate timely
attainment.
The EPA may also consider
redass1 ,1ng moderate areas for which a
S W has not been submitted whenever It
becomes apparent. e.g., because of an
extensive delay In submitting the SW,
that the area cannot practicably attain
the standards by the end of 1994. The
EPA also may determine that an area
cannot practicably attain the PM-tO
NAAQS by the applicable date when the
Sthte submits an incomplete or
otherwise inadequate SIP for the area,
which would not assure timely
attainment and the State does not act
expeditiously to cqrrect such
deficiencies. The EPA has notified
certain States of their failure to submit
PM-b SIP revisions for the initial areas
by the November 15, 1991. deadline and
has notified some States that their SIP’s
are incomplete (see, e.g.. 57 FR 19906
(May 8, 1992)). These actiofts
constituted determinations under
section 179(e)(1) of the Act and were
communicated in letters to affected
State Governors. As provided under
section 179(a) of the act, States
contAining which EPA has
made sucb determinations have up to 18
months from EPA’s determination to
submit the plan or plan revision before
EPA is required to Impose either the
highway hznding sanction or the
requirement to provide two-to-one ne-v
source offsets descnbed in section
179(b) of the Act. The EPA’s
determination also til ered the
requirement for EPA to Impose a
Federal Implementation plan as
provided under section 110(c)(1) of the
Act. In conjunction with the possible
Imposition of sanctions. EPA may
propose or Issue a final determination to
reclassify the area as serious.
Reclassification of en area as serious
does not obviate the legal requirement
to implement a moderate area SIP.
ilL Determination for Reclassification
As noted, the PM-ba reclassification
provisions contain a general delegation
of authority to the Administrator
Indicating that he “may” reclassify as
serious “any” moderate nonattainment
area that he determines “cannot
practicably attain” the PM-b NAAQS
by the applicable statutory deadline (see
section 188(bXl) of the ActI. By its plain
terms, this provision confers broad
discretionary authority on the
Administrator (hereafter referred to as
the “discretionary” reclassification
authority). Ass subset of that broad
authorit f, section 188(bM l)(A) of the Act
mandates that the Administrator
propose to reclassify “appropriate”
- initial moderate nonat*nb ment areas as
serious by June 30, 1991 end take final
action by December 31,1991.’
As described above, Initial moderate
area SW’s were due November 15.1991.
Thus, EPA did not have the benefit of
these required SIP submittals before
developing and issuing the
rerlamolficedon proposal required under
section 188(b)(b)(A) of the Act. In the
absence of better information, EPA used
surrogate criteria as evidence of an
area’s ability to timely attain and
proposed to reclasa t fy 14 areas rei}ing
on that criteria. However, In Its
proposal, EPA also contemplated that it
may get better information about an
area’s ability to attain In. for example,
‘See 54 FR 5463$ INovoabor 22, 1991). note 3
‘This dlzuctlv. does act resOict D’Ae genwel
suthoilty, bit simply specifies thai It must be
moercised. ate minimum, In accordance with
certain dates for ness designated ocouttainment
under sectl %o7(dy’xb) of the AOL
•1
-------
3336
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 5 I Friday. Jai uary 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
the form of the required SW submittale.’
Thue. EPA entertained the possibility of
roceiv ng toEor’ which rebutted
the iiiAir tors ($8 FR 58858; Nov. 21.
1991): Thus. while EPA believes the
Indicatois for . wcuig s o area’s ability.
or inability, to attain ama vesaooable.
they are rebuttable on a cese.by-case
basis.
Since this proposal. EPA has received
SIP’s for some of the 1411e81 Identified
and hu received other Information
bearing on the determination of whether
it is appropriate to reclassify such areas
at this time. For example. EPA has
received SW submittals and detailed SW
work pisas for some of the areas
identified In EPA’s proposal which
purport to provide for timely
attainment. Am noted. EPA is directed by
the statute to make a final decision to
reclassify appropriate areas by a data
certain and that data has already passecL
Due to these time constraints, EPA
cannot fully review the SIP’s or wait for
SIP’s which have not yet been
submitted. (hi the other hand. EPA
believes this tnfom t1nn Is relevant and
should be given at least some
consideration. The EPA has reconciled
this dilemma by preliminarily reviewing
the SIP submittals and other relevant
information (Including the public
comments submitted in response to
EPA’s propntal). To the extent such
information Indicates, contrary to the
iteria Identified in EPA’s proposal.
that the area may be able top ty
attain by the end of 1994. EPA Is
determining that It Is not appropriate to
reclassify the area at this time and.
hence, has declined to take final action -
on such area In today’s rulemaking,
Nevertheless, EPA may conclude at a
later date that one of these areas cannot
practicably attain. For example. a full
review of the reqithed SIP submittal
may reveal that the ares c ot
practicably attain. In addition, the
delays In developing and submitting w
required November 15. 1991 SiP
submittal may become so prolonged that
the ares cannot precitembly $ohi In
such h ences , EPA ld 1 .- d. , Its
dlsoretlonauy authiu ’Ibj’ _ m s emi
188(bKi) of the Act to .I—fy the
area.
Note that EPA’s ” ‘1 - oat to
rethmify them. aim time do.
not mean that any SIP , 1I d on In
‘s Ndssaemt — wim
— — Ia .raatsiea th. ..d.. .Iip
deIi &ad It by ludion 1U(bIlt) cith. A . $b ao
thu uisuardo. ool addrsw thtu wuc
- y by ite sppI1 doluao .y
. uI _ ‘ wta nay Imd.SW
making such determination will be
approved. If a SIP purports to
demonstrate att aninnat . that is simply
strong evidence contradicting EPA’s
aiteria and militating against
reclassifying the area at that time. The
EPA may conclude after a full review of
the SIP that It has deficiencies that
walTant less than hill approval. Farther.
If such deficiency would preclude an
area from timely a*iining , then EPA
may exardee Its disaetlonsry authority
to rer I..r ify the ares. In any mae. no
binding EPA dadslan about the
approvability of any such SW will be
mad until th . public has had an
opportunity to Iment on such
decision.
In some EPA’ . preliminary
review of the SIP for so ama revealed
that th, area could not pr. 4l Iy in
by the required date and should be
r.ri.aoifiod. Thee. are the atom
reclassified In today’s re4ao
Specifically, In today’s action. EPA Is
reclassifying five stem. (listed in Table
I and , 1i.r .c. .d below) which EPA has
determined, at this tires. ot
pracicably attain by 31.2994.
The EPA has not received public
comments or other lnfrmnatio. duneg
the public n t period In
opposition to EPA’. deI4 to
— them areas.
Note that, em lndI’ ted In EPA’.
proposal. reclassificatIon of an area In
nomannerlthviatestheob’__‘__to
ahao4t moderate ares SW 56 ER
58656 Nov. 21, 1991), Thus, those amas
reclassified In todays action mud,
among other tithigu , submit pma 4
to assure that gs . _ ..1sIy aseiI
con ol maserans (Including u.—aethly
available cootrol te ’ 4 ’o.Iogy) are’
inrplemaated no later than Deauib
1O , 1993 emI ubmlt a dimonitretion
that attaInrn ent by December 31.199415
impr Ir .h l a
Two item. i ffiad In EPA’s
— have requested toestmeat
under the International Durdat
provision ( 4m 179801 Ad),
While EPA has not yet received a 4 .
tOSiPfore ltherofth eeearsas.EPAb es
significant In mstIon en .ming that
the areas may qualify for -
untler section 1798 of the Ad, indudhig
an exclusion from mdami i n under
semioo 1798(d) of the Ad’. 8s
‘ — — iIIBWId A thM
4.osuItusngr- ’---- elite iIA $ betto
aniulase ‘ g ins ce thu
thuD e ,th oct1o s m iIa b)($ cf Aol
( r to do?. dte4
Ito rein 11 ’- ’7
nsuuuotes. A wdl aol r— ”y b .
ipp h. d a emrwb th em
donomume - -- “ of thu NU tedin
unlo.u hun aoatd.
jose um Ioo iM(b 2) of the Acti. Pint. na T iS
EPA has information indicating that
these areas are significantly Impacted by
emissions emanating from Mexico, but
Insufficient information to determine
whether they would qualify for
treatment under section 1798 of the Ad.
EPA is dedining to r,i fy thee.
areas at this time. This reprsearts. In
some fashion. • change In position from
EPA’s proposal In that EPA believes the
Information cwnently.anllthI. to EPA.
standing alone, lea sufficient bmis open
which to conclude that theme areas
should not be reclassified at this time.
So as not to undermine se 4 1718 of
the Ad, EPA believes it is y n 1 4
conclude that it is not “appropriate” to
reclassify these areas at this time whom
the.. Is acme gn c ,nt evidence
momeating that these areas may qualify
for an exólusion from i r .I4os ’
un tbm provision.
Hoomv. EPA may rw4ow’ify these
areas using its discietionary
reclassifir 1it . .i authority should EPA at
some time in the future determine, for
example, that th. areas cannot
pr lcably attain and do not qualify
exclusion from reclassification under
section 1798(d) c i the Ad. For erempi..
pzol d delays in submitting the
required SIP for these areas may had
EPA to conclude at some future time
that theme areas cannot practicably
attain bytheend o 11994.
In sum. In today’s final r.Iu Ll g ,
EPA I . reclemifying those atom which
EPA has determined at this time
practicably att te the PM-b NAAQS by’
the applicable etatutosy attainment dais.
Today’s 4 on wholly discharges EPA’ .
stdutmy duty to ri’4.ealfy
“appropriate” moderate areas em serious
by De ”’ 1 ’st 31, 199 (ae.sectltm
188(bX ll(A) of the Acti. }L ,w t , EPA
alsoresaryes the right to use Its hued
188(bM lI oithe A IS Iuui 4 aouify at.
later dat. the nhaatuss EPA dr4bii.d
to in today’s action. I L at
times In th. future bd the appbmbi.
attainment dot., EPA determines that
such stem me1 1 o—iikebly altaln the
PM-b NAAQS. EPA will take final
of the Aol . oste aj- -1 let en
pna)Iosem w.g.*-
outodo th.reuatry irs th. but.to mis of thu P 5(.
iOol ” ’t FhIk 1 muLe. If li ’A wee
non bs .
A, to . , d It. . tUo
1?l(dl of the Aol asS elite iWo
1 t 1ly. I1 A . itLi to r.i4...l bar.
Ucthis t dir. these non
to i I7m.d
.ao ons w E ae, L..,l4.u r. thu
Ii usctlca 17e.(d)dths Act whith puetobb A
in. ate thu . ,p
utr.inment dun. r of—,
— eL * towi th
____ ‘ so.iiu u4.esMPEd
eases. Nov. 21, ages, e 121.
ao LS.A. S ic. V:
f ’RDC 467 U.& en. W4 55 I3m.a)3 .
-------
Federal Register I Vol 58, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
3337
action to reclassify these azea& Note that areas not reclassified today wlfl re. , ain rulemaking record for any future
the materials In the ruJ ti1dng docket In furve as part of th, ongoing decision to reclassify these areu
for today’s action pertaining to the nine utIIl Ing EPAs discietionary authority.
TABLE 1.—AREAS WHiCii EPA IS REcLAaslrffiG AT ThiS TIdE’
SPA NOS
Mae it
9m
Ssejaspi Vats ,, CA
O a Vats,. CA
Sev liccseaw Bsat .CA
c I s ,.CA
ImVs s .PW
F . us JLJ. PM. Pr
FO
s. a e l, P M , F O
FD.
PD
‘liw 4 — - a a j. a. a a at ow esis’ . . seit es
‘FO.Fi
N Areas Which EPA ia lidasuifylig at
CoacheJla Valley, California. The EPA
Is reclassifying the Coachella Valley
nouatfAinr!lent area at this dine because
the SIP for the ares submitted to EPA by
the State of California on November 15,
1991 suggests that It I. not practicable
to provide for attainment of th. annual
and 24-hour PM-b NAAQS until
December 31, 1995, 1 year after the
moderate area attainment date. The PM-
10 SIP for the Coachella Valley Indicates
that 97 portent of the PM-b emissions
are due to fugitive dust sowcas. The
most significant of these sources are
construction activities. reentralned dust
from paved roads, and windblown dust
from agricultural and disturbed lands.
Las Vegas. Nevada. The EPA Is
reclassifying the Las Vega.
nonattAIntIleIlt eras due to the hot that
the PM-b SIP submitted to EPA by the
State of Nevada on Dr eii her 6 1091
suggest. that Implementation of the
control meemies contained In the ‘
will result In suthdent emissions
reductions to attain the annual PM-b
NAAQS by December 31, 1994. but that
It win notbe practicable to timely attain
the 24-hour PM-to NAAQS. A 19*9
valley-wide emissions Inventory
suggests that a substantial amount of
PM-tO emissions am due to Ih4d s
dust saunms. Mlavlnvunter4ea indicate
that significant sotircas of fugitive dud
Include construction activities 1 paved
and unpaved rosds .d windblown
dust from dIsturbs . . 1 ,l land
including dlatwb.ddesst’
‘Th. WA vied th. .---- I pu sdc.
of the PM-iS . -‘--‘ -‘ i, Ia -
public put as asss Nbalds . . -“‘
.ffcds a develop a
th. suc iaatflofth. Ma
u,Wass 99F1 IISSI-IISsu N .e. 31.lISl). The
Oath C y Health O - - _ - -
SS5I vi of fi 5 Ildfi the
of 1 5 8 ( 1 1 of Ib.Ad . Cab Co y’e
m eu addrs. WA. L1. itIla of
ead up sM ad ., atc ”m
lUll) .1 the Ad asd do i reqelet thie WA it
l eopo.ed decldc3 bv. iy lhk ats.
l..... ... ..Cah Cavity does eabstasisis a whet
Owens Valley, ColIjbmIa. The EPA Is
reclassifying the Owens Valley
nonattainment ares at this Urns based
upon the fact that the PM-b SIP
submitted to EPA by the Slate of
California on January 9.1992 asa ests
that the area cannot practicably attain
the PM-tO standards by December 31,
1994. AmbIent PM-b levels In Owens
Valley are among the highest In the
country. In 1989,10 : Ins ’ c , the
hIghest 24-hour PM-b ccac ntrstIon
observed In the area was 1861
micingrams per cubic meter (ugl&), In
contrast to the NAAQS of 150 vpJ&.
The PM-b SIP for Owens Valley
Includes an analysis of wind direction
and wind speed on days when PM-b
levels are high, which Indicates that the
major source causing , Iktlw . of the
PM-b0NMQS In this ares IsOw um s
Dry Labs. O wosDry Labs ra
approxImately 110 squssa idles near the
south end of the planning iris.
Appyordmatsly 60 sçzars mile. of the
lake 1. dry. The Great Basin tialfied Air
Pollution Control District Is manuntly
developing and svahastiaga variety of
mitigation measures. The final
mitigetion program Is scheduled for
Implementation In 1995. The Grist
Basin Unified Pollution Control DIsttfd
submitted cel umts to EPA supporting
the rr4 .el of this -
&a Jonqui i Valley. Cal4brriIa. The
EPA Is redaselfying the Sum Josqufes
nanate lI11v1a1tt eras due to the fad that
the PM- iD SIP for San Jn piM Valley
t the Oeethsr IS.
_____ - -
ta a, IvUOL the vPSf bees
uae. PlasBy. WA . . ...dy ..dos lis
. — rss(l)dth. Ma paSs,
paSSe ad bald apdSe— - aparrido the
paSSe with J O ap,. i;l , a - a.
It, osa. 157 Pb 3bi77; Isip * ISeIL Riet
lo-’—ési a doW. amdeidfyae atasie
iwios will e m sEem as va’e dlillUty Sea
wits. The WA will aseitdu . lbs Cart Cialy
‘ — ‘- a sddtssag .a.tas rs8(fl it the AS
us — II areWes thaS — 158(11 itth. Ma
policy ta lI hi of the vsdo .i “ “ . 4.4.4L
su hm ltt.dloEPAbyth.Stat.of
( .ll&i iiIi Decvmlir 24,1991
suggests that the ares cannot practicably
attain the PM-b NAAQS by December
31,1994-Moreover, the area has not
projected attitinment betas, the
mber 31,2001 serIous aria
attainment date. Violations of the PM-iD
NAAQS In the San Josqulu Valley are
doen4 e id by two source categories: (I)
primary PM-to sow s, Including
yesutreined road dust, construction
activities. and farming operstIoa and
(2) no ”d&Ily-formed PM-b.
Including aenmanlum nitrate and
smmcnlum sulfate. On days when
primary PM-b emissions deiuli,ats ,
lugItIve dud emlidons socotmt far
nearly I0p. . 1 of the PM-tO mess. On
days when secondary PM-to do 4aia ,
nitrates end sulfates account far 63
percent of the PM-to mass. The
eteL .n .4 ate for the San Josquin
Valley will rely heavily on the control
of widespread fugitive dust sources and
the e .trul of precursors of PM-to.
Including nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, and volatile organic
cc7=d: Al, Basin. Qzlifan The
EPA 1. reclamifylng the South Coast Air
Basin at this time because the SIP for
the South Coed Air Basin projects tbm
It Is not p wl 4 e to attain the 34-boor
PM-b NAAQS until the year 2009 and
_ lTh.lIInL..W of the annual PMbO NAA($
by the 2006. These date. are well
the Detanbar 31,1994 moderate
ares attainment date. The basin-wide
— Inventory Im the ares o em
approximately 6800 square miles and
Indicate. that 91 pmcit of prImary PM-
10 embm am due to ama sourme,
primarily rssitrsthsd mad dust. With
.ruj.c’.a Inorsuses In population (31
pemsut ) and Inasaasa In e 4 miles
travelled te2 puui.wit). PM-b emIUlons
sssodsted with reentraln.d iced dust
are expected to inaese from 663 tonal
day In 198710 1025 tons/day In 2010.
In addition to the widespread sources of
primary PM-be emissions, source
-------
3338
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 5 I FrIday, January 0. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
contribution estimates Indicate that
secondarily-formed particles (nitrates
and sulfates) can contribute as much as
52 percent of the 24-hour PM-tO mass
and as much as 31 percent of the annual
PM-iD mass. Therelare, the .ttihm.nt
strategy for the South Coast Ab Basin
will also rely heavily on the control of
Important precursors to PM-ID
including nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, and volatile organic
hydro c athon
V. Area. Which EPA I. not
Reclaulfylag at This Tim.
While EPAIs SAWn 5 final action to
reclass 4 fy the five areas descsibed shove.
EPA Is not reclassifying the nine areas
listed In Table 2 at this time. Including
those areas which EPA has determined.
in Its preliminary essewnent, to be
affected by International transport.
Generally. EPA has Information for
these areas Indicating that they may
practicably be able to attain the PM-tO
NAAQS or may be excluded from
rerl l,ifi1*tlon due to International
transport (see section 1798(d) of the
Act). Thus, EPA believes It Is premature
to re ’ 4 *&fy these stem at this time.
However, as noted, EPA holds open the
possibility of reclassifying these areas
using Its dluaetlonaty authority under
section 188(bXi) of the Act. This will
permit EPA to undertake a -
comprehensive review of each areas
control strategy. The EPA anticipate.
that it will take final action on Its
proposal to r rLi t*ify these areas
because they cannot practicably attain at
the time It takes nilem ikfng action on
each area’s SIP. Note also that If a PM-
10 SIP control strategy and
demonstration have not yet been
submitted far an area, EPA may
conclude at some future date that the
area cannot pr 44mbly ft In due to
protracted delays In making such
submittal. Amove specific discussion
follows below for each of these nine
areas, Including the ulgn fi’ nt public
comments which EPA has received.
TASLE 2.—AREAS IICH EPA Is NOT RECLASSIFYING AT THIS T uE’
EPA
.
anast .......m
umss
•
0
L s Uior 5 . Poet is
o IpO4 Po’ss n nst in
cay Cselut. PA
Peti
V
Vu
V I I I
OØu y.L
I.Lb ,.MT
IMP Co..UT
-
P *
FO’.RWCPS’
Pee.’
PnáSpIW.AZ
P iN.PS
I X Mujplu& AZ
IX
X lamisSI Fa OR
uMSiTSSonhI’. FO
ze.V sy.CA
PD. RWC. PS
FO .U... PS
X 4WA
P0.PS.RWC
.
‘a. se JI. 4De te was isa e s . .i_Ijlfti e in in — e. us rs Miss e..a isi
• - — i .
• mw
• U....JL.J N, M
SPIW • I — —
liberty Borough. PennsyMznla. The
EPA has detsrmlned that, at this time,
It is not sp .yrlato to reclassify the
Liberty Borough nonatt h nent ares to
serious. This decision Is based on
comments and Information received
during the public comment period
regarding the ability of Allegheny
County to attain and maintain the PM-
10 standard by December31. 1994. The
l 4danlgelsobasedonthe
commitment by the Mlagheny County
Bureau of Air Pollution Control to
submit an apptfr i14e Implam .nis*I.m
plan which damonatatos the ati lnment
of the PM-to NAAQS by - . te
area stt Inmg t dAte V $ ii--,iber 31,
1994).
The Liberty Bc ’ 1 nment
area Iscomprimd of LL t, ) L ln.
Port Vue, Glassport Bcisegire.’end the
City of Clairton In Afl ghany County.
PennsylvanIa (58 FR 56823; Nov. 6,
1991)-The ares Is heavily Industrial i sed
with a diverse mix of sources Including
steel manufacturing, utilities, and
boilera. Them sources
ganerate both point source PM-b
iI iona and fugitive dust. In 1989 and
1990, e ” ” ’ control measures were
hnpfemerrted In the nonatt*lnment area
In addIti n to those measures which
had been Installed previously.
However, EPA has not received a PM-
1051? for the Liberty Borough
nona lnma!It area. On December18,
1991, the EPA Regional MminI.lratrrr
sent a letter notifying the Governor of
Pennsylvania of EPA’ . determination
that the State had foiled to submit the
PM-ID SIP far Allegheny County by the
statutory submittal date of November
15.1991 (se.,e.g.. 57 FR 19906, May 8,
1992). ThIs determination started the
18-month finmolock for the Imposition
of nn’ 44 ons and the Z-y.er thnschwk for
promulgatlonofa Federal
lmplem.n’.th”i p ) •
The EPA did receive a “PM-ID work
plan” from the Allegheny County
l4ealth Department an Mirth 26,1992.
The work plan commits to . ts lnm tt of
the PM-b NAAQS by the statutory
fl inim nt date of 31 1994.
It eummarims th. proosdures to be
followed for the developus”’ of the SIP
. ub ” 4tal , Including modeling and
monitoring sir quality In the area.
condttrllng an ,nh,icns Inventory, and
producing a control strategy. The work
plan also establishes a schedule for SIP
submltt }, Indicating that the chidul.
will be tset through a cooperative ,gort
wIth EPA. Th. schedule projects that
theSWw lflbesubrsiuttesftoEPAby
June 15, 1993.
The EPA received mare detaflad
com n its on Its proposal to , e l fy
the Liberty Borough nonat” 4 n’ ”. t ares
thananitsproposedsctlon another
areas. Rather than discuss those
comments and EPA srespcnses In detail
here, EPA has placed a document In the
docket . mpanylng this notice which
dssalbe. those snd explains
further the rationale for EPA. dedsiop
not to redamify the Liberty Borough
n( .aft In t Sill U serious at this
time. -
received barn the -
local air pollution control agency, the
C’w’u onw,alth of Pennsylvania.
effected Industries, local dH,.u1. . end
public Intereit soupe. Those
. ..mm _ .Ima opposing e ,4h..Ifir tlaa
based their viaws on . rUons that
Improvements In air quality are
th. remalt of Iocelly4nstlttdsd controls,
that EPA did not adequately consider
the air quality Impact of those controls
in Its decision to propose
re . 4 amlflr*tlon of this area, and that the
PM-ID work plan provides evidence of
the State’s commitment to, and the
practicability of. att sInlng the PM-to
-------
Federal Register F Vol. 58, No. 5 / FrIday, January 8, 1903! Rules and Regulations
NAAQS by December 31; 1994. For
these reasons, some of the ctlmmenters
indicated that It wouLd be prematur. for
EPA to reclassify-this was. Gemments
favoring reclauffication were based
primarily on cononna about poor air
quality in the ens on disagreement as
to the cause of ieomtly.obeerved
Improvements In air quality, on
assertions that the sates failure to
submit a SEP by the November 15, 1Q91
due date precludes Lb. area’s ability to
timely attain the NAAQS, and an the
belief that reclusiflcatlon would best
advance the goal of expedMious
attainment of the NAA &
Briefly, EPA has It ede c islonon
the evidence provided in the Allegheny
County Health Department’s work pine
in support of that ares’s commitment- Ia
attain the NAAQS by December 31,
1994. The EPA has further based its
decision on the fact that uuuentere
favoring reclassification have Trot
provided any evidence which rebuts the
State’s and -county’. assertions that
attainment by December 31. 1994,
practicable. The EPA notes in response
to those favoring reclassificatIon that
reclassifying the area at this thee would
result in the requirement that the area
implement additional control me w ,
but would also permit the State to
postpone attainment potentially up to
the statutory serious area attainment
date of December 31, 2001.10 By not
reclassifying the area as serious, EPA.
intends to enforce the statutory
moderate ares requirement for the Stats
to adopt a plan which provides for
attainment of the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but not
later than December 31,1994. The EPA
believes that the principal concerns
expressed by the commenterl favcdng
reclassificatIon—the need to promote
near-term improvements in air quality—
are better served by not taking final
- action to reclassify an area at this time -
where there is some reasonable -
evidence that the area may priu*fr hly
attain by December 31. 1994.
Spokane, WashfrØrir . The EPA Is n
taking final action to* i,ify the
Spokane nonatta ênt ares at this
lime, but will ma gflnal decision at
the time the Agency tshas rulemaking
action on the SW. This WIN permir EPA
the opportunity to comprehensIvely
review the SIP and to ef the r!laiuit
that nonaualnnaent In the ares is
attributable, at least In part, to -
nonanthropogenic dust storms, and that
the area is potentially eligible fora
S n I S 1 of .AcIreqtr ’v, tInt
teim_analmnmt su attiln NAM re
mp.dlOsusly p.-lkstl 1 - . but r -iw thas
D.—, Jj, . . 31. 3001. —
waiver of the L mfr er 31, 1994
attainment date under sectIon 198(f) of
the Act. The EPA cannot reject or a pt
these claims at the present time. The
Agency is au eutIy reviewing the SIP
for Spokane, giving particular
consideration to any antluopogenic
conthbutions to emissions that may be
reentrained during the ares’s dust
storms. The EPA wIN determine
Spokane’s eligibility era waiver of the
moderate area attainment date under
section 188(1) of the Act and will mak
a final dedsio on rr-t.. 8 mtlon when
the Agency has completed Its review of
the area’s SIP.
Comments received kvm14 private
d ti and government. Industry, and
environmental groups attribute -.
Spokane’s nonattahunent status to.
nenanthropogenic dust storms. One
commenter asserted that these dust
storm. emanate from the appnrrdmately
100,000 emes of ondeesloped. untWed
land southwest of Spokane. and to
approximately 500.000 actes of
farmland vulnembi. to soil erosion due
to high winds. According to the -.
Spokane County Conservation District,
such soil eroultre Is especially prevalent
after hatweut and prior to the emergence
of the new ctop, . ‘ ting that It I . not
possible to pn vvOt windblown dust
during this vulnerable period. They add
that whour compounded by high winds.
pieventina this windblown dust is
“beyond the realm of legislation or
regulation.” One omsvatlcn fanâer
indicated, however, that heusen-have
be n working dosely withihe Soil
Conservation Service to mitigate-the
erosion to their eropland.
In addition to comments regarding
nonanthropogenic sources of P1410 Ia ’
Spokan. County. 3 alecIad M I.1n
Washington State. the LIIUIW.VII*ain
Grass Growers Aaidation, 3 Spokane
County public ageumies, and 1 private
corporation contended that the
drretetorms In the Spokane
area should be treated a.
“exceptional events,” a. di itc imd In 40
C7R part 50, Appiundtv K. section 2.4.
As such, the commenters believe that
contributions from these dust storms
should be discounted when measuring
exceedances of the PM-to NAAQS.
Becaus. the State has measured 7 auth
occurrences during the 3 sr reporting
period, ther. Is i seson to believe that
these events happen with a regularity
which would disqualify them from
treatment as exceptional events. Again,
EPA will make. final determination
regarding this claim following a
comprehensive review of the SW
“Line fr SpcIn ,a. C ty Gsuss.adoa
Dtiuicf I. Km Woodud, Dr. .h 17. ISOt.
submittal. 0 .. £_. . entar urged EPA to
classify this are. serious, but did not
substantively addrwa whether the ares
cannot practicably attain by the
applicable attainment date or the
ilkalihood-of the wee qualifying for a
waiver of its moderate axes attainment
date under section 188(f) of the Ad.
Available Information to ,Hr4f 5 I
both imperial Valley.Callfmnla, and -
Nogales, M ama . may qualify for
treatment under the International -
Transport provision In section 1793 of
the Act due to particulate matter
ntanating from Ma . While the
Agency has sufficient data at this time
to verify that PM-b originating In
Me,dco contributes to nonattalnmeut in
-these areas, additional monlteriegend
air quality analysle-er. ne ’— , to
quantify the International contribution
so that the S 1P’. for Naples and
imperial Valley may aonzrately discount
thtemetionalbea port from their
attainment demonstratIons, and EPA.
can correspcmdlngly determine whether
the SW ’. for th . areas would be
adequate to attain and azalnisin the PM.
10 PIAAQS but fo emissions nman Wng
from Mexico (see section 1793 of the
Act). The following is a more dstailed
‘ J.. . . of the at cI-4 by
international transport :
letpetiol Valley, California. The EPA
• is not redas&fying the imperial Valley
neuattalnnrent a r m at this tire..
Although the Stat. of California has
yet submitted s PM-tO SW for Imperial
Valley, previous reports Indicate
transport from Mardall, Mexico, may
significantly contribute to elevated PM.
10 levels In the Valley. 2 As suth the
area may qualify for emlusfeur from
raclasalflcedon to serious eada eectlori
1798 1d) dUwAot. - - -
On D ,, asib — 16,1901, Lb. EPA
Regional dr_lntntja_pw.f0u ’ RegjagDCj
sent a letter to the Governâr of -
California notifying him of the Stat&s
failure to sulinit a SIP the Imperial
Valley. Thu notification started the 1$.
month timeclock which wIN remit in
the Imposition of eanc’ ons if EPA d
not receive a SIP lie. sectIon 179(a) of
lb. Act). The bnpwial County Air
Pollution Control District Is currently
working with the California Air
Resources Board (CAEB) to develop a
P1410 SIP for this axes. The SIP is
scheduled tobe submitted to EPA by the
sa-
i1fanga i,aj PusJdve Dust Mse, weasud bp
n Assecistes. Jmvssy %911 “Eim.p s Lersi 0 ..
Air Quinty An.Iyits te PnOmIsti Mifto ’ ta
Imp ”’ ’’ Pim Reriston Itoputil V . 1 1 . 7 .
C.IdOinML” Stat. of Calitenla Mr Resources
Rend. Marcb teal; aft Protsm Plan teth.
tepestal VaHI ft’ -”” Psettr a1ss. Mine Sources
App ouesast $ludy. Deceit R ..antL tnsStuts,
D- ’- - ei * agei.
-------
3340
Federal laglater / Vol. 58. No. 5 / FrIday, January 8, 1993 F’ Rules and RegulaU s ‘ •
end of 1992. In addition. EPA and CARB
will be conducting a PM-1O source
apportionment study In the imperial
ValleyfMexlcalI air basin In cooperation
with the Imperial County Ala Pollution
Control District and the Seantary of
Social Development In Mexico. The
objectives of the study are to: (1)
estimate the spatial and temporal
distributions of PM.1O concentrations In
the Imperial Valley and Me dcall; (2)
apportion PM.1O concentrations to
source e?n c 4ons; and (3) estImate muss.
border transport of PM.1O. The
monitoring portion of the study began
on March 10. 1992.
Nogoies. Adsona. The EPA L i not
taking final action to reclassify the
Nogales nonatf inment area at this time.
Despite the fact that the State of Arizona
has not yet submitteda PM-jo SIP for
Nogales. previous studies b the
Arizona Department of En’rvnmental
Quality indicate that transport from
Naples. Mexico. may significantly
contribute to elevated PM-b levels In
the nonattainment area. ’ 3 As such, the
area may qualify for exclusion from
reclassification as serious under section
1793(d).
On December 16,1991, the EPA
Regional Mivthi atrator for Region DC
sent a letter to the Governor of Arizona
notifying him of the State’s failure to
submit a SIP for Nogal. , This
notification started the 18-month
linieclock which will result in the
Imposition of sanctions If EPA does not
receive a SIP Is.. section 179(a) of the
Acti. The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality intends to
submit a SIP by the end of 1992. They
also planned to Initiate a project in the
summer of 1992 to provide additional
emissions inventory data and source
contribution estimates for the Nogales
The SIP’. submitted for thq re .Ii lng
5 areas contain control strategy
demonstrations purportth& to show that
the NAAQ$ will be attained by
December 31, 1994. 1 Agoucy Is
reviewing the public received
for thes. areas, as well th. SIP control
-strategies end, as staied se4ously. will
make a determination “ n1ng
reclassification upon iil .making
action on the SIP’.. Perthu’ discussion
of these areas follows below.
Yjamath Foils. Oregon. Based upoe.
EPA’s preliminary review of the PM.10
S W submitted In reapoma to the.
November 15. 1991 SIP requirement.
EPA. at this time, supports the State s
“PtsU ay tn ssdpdea eIcsu. dZxteat
@1 thi 4çj , PM4O Prc ’ MLoea
in i of tie lii QuaIft S.ctimW
determination that the nonatt.in nent
area will practicably attain the NAAQS
by December 31. 1994. One comment
was received from the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
opposing reclassification. The
commenter asserted that f40 SIP
submittal Includes the necessary air
pollution control provisions and a
demon*atlon that attainment of the
NAAQS by December 31, 1994.
LIbby Montana. Based upon EPA’.
i’relimlnary review of the area’s PM.10
SIP submitted In respons. to the
November 15.1991 SIP requirement,
EPA. at this time, supports Montana’s
determination that the Libby
nonattalnment area will practicably
attain the NAAQS by mber 31,
1994. The Montana Department of
Health and Environmental Sciences
submitted comments opposing
reclassification. The commenter
contended that the SIP contains an
adequate control strategy. Including
point source permit modification, and
that it would be premature to reclassify
at this time.
0 5 ! esby. illinois. Based upon EPA’s
preliminary review of the PM-1O SIP for
this area, EPA at this time supports the
State’s determination that the
nonatt.lnment area will practicably
attain the NAAQS by December 31,,
1994. The EPA Ii currently evaluating
the S W and will make a final
determination ebout reclassifying the
area because It cannot practicably . itain
when EPA takes formal astlonon the
submittaL
Paul Spur. Arizona. R d upon
EPA’s preliminary review of the SW
submitted for this area, EPA, at this
time, supports Arizona’s determination
that the nonattainment area will
practicably attain the NAAQS by
December 31, 1994. The Arizona
Department of EnvIronmental Quality
opposes r,rl . ..fficadon based upon
EPA’. design value criteria (see 38 FR
588* Nov. 21.1991) end ltsbelief that
EPA should review the SW before
deciding to reclassify the ares. One
comment received from a prlvatd
corporation adds ihat significant
Improvements to air quality have
already been made with the Imposition
of control measures as Indicated by the
data front 1988 through the third quarter
of 1991. Further control measures, the
commenter are outlined in the
SIP revision.
Utah County. Utah. Following EPA
preliminary review of the PM.10 SIP
submitted for this area In response to
the November 15. 1991 SIP requirement,
EPA. at this time, supports Utah’s
determination that the nonattainment
area will practicably attain the NAAQS
by December 31. 1994. The State of
Utah’s Department of Environmental
Quality opposes reclassification based
on Its belief that the PM.b0 SIP revisIon
provides for emissions reductions
sufficient to demonstrate attainment by
December 31, 1994. The comrnenter
states that EPA should be fair In giving
Utah County the opportunity to how
such aft a inment
VI. i4 of Ra ,4j,i..ffir .14n
Additional SW revisions are required
under section 189(b) of the Ad for the
nonatfalnment areas that are r,rlaas lfied
to serious. First, regulations requiring
the use of best available control
measures (BAQA), Including “the
application of best available control
tecbnolop (BACT) to existing stationary
sources.’ must be adopted and
submitted to EPA withIn 18 months
after the area Is reclassified to serious
(section 189(b)(2) of the Acti.” The
8A04 requirement must be
implemented wIthin 4 years after the
area Is reclassified (section 189(bX1)(B)
of the Acti. Second. the State must
submit a SIP revision wIthin 4 years
after rrla.alncatlon of the area (within
18 months after reclassification far
failure to attain) that Includes a
demonstration that the plan will attain
the PM-1O NAAQS by December 31.
2001 Is.. sections 188(c)(2),
189(b)(1)(A)(I), and 189(b)(2) of the
Act). ’ 5 Third, . .ctI . . , 1e9(bX3) of the
Ad provides that “far any Serious Area.
the terms ‘major scums’ and ‘major
stationary scums’ Include any stationary
source or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and
under comman control that emits, or
has the potential to emit, at least 70 tons
psi year of PM-lO.” This provision
requires, among other things, emaller
new and modified sources (those with
the potential to emil 70 tons per year or
greater, rather than 100 tens par year or
“Au with kAOdmi RACT, B CT I sa w it at
the o,u.thlii 5 ft I .qnbumset Th.MCr
e.aIly ruts,. w the licbaeialctl cantiol
‘ss wblcb .pply lisp i ” 1 ’y m ,cus
Thiii, aafi e.. BAØ4 baits ImplidtIy
L4
“Ahaigu,uly. thsstst. east L- _ -.liets that
- i sI -”by ‘ ‘ 31.3001, Is inpuac&abli.
thit thu pim pmutibi far ati.Ia ”t by th. most
mpsdItIess ailimate. l. pimo . ( bet a .
mole th S ,uai sibi ib..al. ma
date). md ibsi — “ ‘ 1*.) auth. £d
requtismab b..ts m — “r .1 the
“‘ dab bse.bsua ut1th l (Li.. thu plan
tssiu th. mast uwi an , - this a ,.
Indudsd Is thu “ p’ ’4ci plan at say Slate
,,.i.. acbfamd Is pisata. In my Slat. and ma
Imoibly be Implaiant.d In ibi irmilaus matica taS
(bKIKA)W) alike Acti. Me. that iii
md i i u ” Iea(bXZ) alibi Act followIng failure
li attain must sabmit “ W’ ’ dmoaus attsa.
within 15 monibsaftis p ”—’ caUon to oan
lies madon ,el(bX2) alibi Acil.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 5 / Friday, JanUary 8, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
3341
greater) to obtain section 172(c)(5) of the
Act construction permits which include
requirements to comply with lowest
achievable emission rates and to obtain
emission offsets (see sections 172(c)(5)
and 173 of Acti.
Where an ares Is being reclassified to
serious. It may be reasonable for States
to consider the relationship of RAQA to
BACM for the affected sources. The EPA
discussed this relationship In the
proposal for today’s action (see 56 FR
58660-58661; Nov. 21. 1991). The EPA
anticipates that BAC ,i for area sources
will generally be additive to or not
significantly Incompatible with RAQ4
for these sources.’ 6 Therefore, the
moderate area SIP’. for the areas which
EPA Ii reclassifying should continue to
Implement the requirements for the
application of RAQ.1 to appropriate
sources. After reclassification to serious,
additional regulation, which require
BACM must be adopted and submitted
within 18 months and implemented
withIn 4 years. as stated above.
V I I. Miscellaneous
A. Rxeculive Orders
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
has determined that this action Is not
“major” because rerla.affication of the
areas does not have-an annual effect on
the economy of 3100 mflhloucr more,
would not cause a major lnaeeee In
prices, and would not have a ‘ ‘ 18 cant
adverse impact on competition or the
ability of United States enterprises to
compete with foreign enterprises. This
notice and the November 21, 1991
prepcea] were suborn tied to the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) as
required by Executive Order 12291. Any
written comments from 0MB and
written EPA responses to those
comments are included in the docket
Simibirly, any written comments from
0MB regardIng today’s final action, and
any written responses, have been placed
In the docket This action does not
contain any Information collection
requirements subject to 0MB revIew
under the Paperwork Reduction Ad of
1980 (44 U.S.C. sections 3501 it seq.).
A federalism essuiement under
Executive Order 126121* not required
for thi, action since this action was
directed under section 188(b)( 1XA) of
the Act.
B. 1Ieguiator FI.xthilhtyAct
Under 5 U.S.C. section 605(b). the
Administrator has certified that
redeslgnatlons do not haves uigi ” 8 ’ ”t
economic Impact one mahetantlal
number of small entities (see 46 FR
8709). Because the regulatory Impact of
re .¼euificatiots under sectIon 188(b) of
the Act Is no different rthø. itively
from that associated with ilaiilgn.tlons,
such actions are also not cpscted to
have a gnIficant Impacts an email
entitles.
S I i 4O R Part S i
Air pollution control, National perks,
Wilderness areas.
1 ted: November II, 1992.
William K. billy,
Adminimutus’.
1. The authârlty citation far part 81
continues to read as follows:
AatheriIy 42 U.S.C. 7407. 7501.7515,
7601.
2. SectIon 81.30515 amended by
revising the tabl, for CallIassda—Pt410,
to reid as follow.:
•si. cj 1 ,,j. ,
a a a a
S
CAUFCRNIA.—PM-10. Nonallakunsnt AreaS
.
mm
.
.
0_ _&_
.
— --.
--.
. Ii
s
T e
—
0mm Valsy ,,i.n&., ama
H . tWO .ieoecios
Sot Dmmth .
8.astss Valsy mm
tII tWO
MowCoidp
MaI isp t uJv*l ou,
iviaso
ilflMO
ivisee
N.tl..U.L...,4
.
P1 .tlU. *
PL.LL..,*
,
. -
WIWV O
tin .
uj
.
Wdidss Ss Ut, .ki asj ...
I Sialonsi-12, 17. sid lSdT 1 ...a.N41748 , rei
0. 3 253 i at T .,....J t , 739, 5E
.
C. Ssatoiu 26 -3 5 at To. .mJ 118. aS79,
I Ssalots 1-lid T.... . .ut T48, es7(; oat
3SdT . . T* SE
.
Fmow. Kim, mi Tu , Sot t, “— —. iOs
S en Jas 5 .ii Vuk .S..it, mm
dt Los _s, Danu u
Ss:ati Coal Mr - -
ds Come -
Ccaste Valsy mm .
,
tu sb Valsy , .L.J.., mm
Stats -
11 11600
1111050
1111050
11,5550
11,1600
.
N.. .J.L. .al
P&..LI..... 1
N....... *
N.....UJ.....IM
%ds d1 0’I
05V1aS
eiIS
005553
5 5053
8s uu .
Sidses.
.
i s bn.
IhLLJL
.
‘Tha EPA iiii dI- usd tO. idadosibip
bstius RAQ4ssd BA 4 to the “Gusant -
toThi. I ottO. 1990 a A Ad
Aoioadmsnlu. ’ 37 FR 13344 (April 15,1992).
S&ilIy. EPA ladlalud that IS say be
r— 4 , rot Status amtainlz otim this will be
rsthuIB.d a, sutosa to e d . ths psdblKly
of aAad and R .4CT with BAQI aed BACT that
ulduatsip will be Iapl .antud ando lb. lais
uoa plans b.th.. uius . Thu A “ “ “ d that
Status taLnIn$ such cam saud sat . .q ..I . su$oi
a, nJ ayitsui b. . 4R . s k and
smucus to JLrLA
whir. thu y dsuossmm that ach___ Os
llrffiP lf I , tammpsdbls with tb . ap p 1 ” of
-------
3342
Ve& Zeur 1 VeL 5S No. 5 I P!4day, Jieeary 8, 1993 / 1es
. . . s.S .e3 IssmeQdedW ISI
re 4iiug the i. rN,aia.-PM-IO. . . . .
N fC4IOW$
Na . .—PM-IO No.dum. c,a As
•
.
.
o..i,..&.,.
r- -
r
-__
o .
— ..
all
c w p__
$ Ii s 212
R Suiw
11fl
.
•
- 11 MW
JI 11 i d WI..J* •
r ij -*
.
“-
11 11W
- - - -
ia
S S S S U
-37S Pi P4 14-31.45 sal
SU.LIIS coot r
-------
1C908
Federal Register I VoL 57, No. 90 / Friday, May 8. 1992 I Notices
G noriattainment areas was reviewed
or completeness and, on October 3,
L991. EPA denied the request for parallel
processing because certain required
rornponents were absent or provided
Insufficient detail. On October 9, 1991,
PA received additional draft proposed
rules from the illinois Division of Air
Pollution Control for the Granite City
moderate PM—tO nonattaliunent area.
On October 10,1991, a letter was sent
From Region V’s Air and Radiation
Division Director to the Manager of the
Illinois Division of Air Pollution control,
explaining the general procedure EPA
intended to follow in addressing any
tate failure to submit SI?. for the
nitial moderate PM—la nonattainment
areas by the statutory deadline. Illinois
lid not submit a complete SIP revision
ror the McCook. Lake Calumet, and
ranite City moderate PM-la
onattainment areas in response to the
Dctober 10.1991 letter. Therefore, on
December 17,1991. EPA made a finding.
pursuant to sectIons 110(k) and 179(a) of.
he Act that the August * 1991 and the
)ctober 9,1991 submittal. were
ncomplete and, therefore, Illinois failed
0 submIt a required complete EM-b
uP for the McCook , Lake nient, and
Dranite City PM—to nonattainnient
areas.
Fndiano
On October 8, 1991, a letter was sent
bern Region V’s Air and Radiation
Division Director to indiana ’s Acting
sslatan Cnit mI sIoner, Office of Air
1anãgement. explaining the general
procedure EPA Intended to follow In
addressing any State failure to submit
l?s for the Initial moderate PM-b
wnattalnment areas by the statutory
leadilne. On December 17, 1991. EPA
niÜaled thI process by finding.
pursuant to section 179(a)(1) of the Act,
hat Indiana had failed to submit a SIP
o meet the statutory deadline of
Jovember 15,1991 for the Lake County
and Vermillion County moderate PM4O
onattainment areas. -
tlich gan
On October 1, 1991, a letter was sent
bern Region V’s Air and Radiation
Division Director to the Director of
4ichlgaa’. Division of Air Quality.
Department of Natural Resources,
ixplaining the general procedure EPA
‘.tcr.dcd to follow In addressing any
e failur ’ to submit SIP’. for the
.t a& mod’ -ile PM—la. nonattainment
isna by tht tatutory deadline. On
i,vember 19. 1991. EPA received
revisions to the Michigan SIP for the
Wayne County PM —b nonuttaimnent
area. The EPA reviewed the submittal
[ or completeness pursuant to section
110(k)(1) of the amenddd Act and found
that the submittal did not contain many
of the required elements, but rather
consisted primarily of a commitment to
adopt the required elements. The EPA
does not believe that this submittal Is
appropriate for a conditional approval
under section 1bO(k)(4). Therefore, on
December17, 1991. EPA sent a letter to
the State of Michigan finding. pursuant
to sectIons 110(k) and 179(a), that
Michigan failed to submit a required
complete FM—tO SIP for the Wayne
County moderate PM-b nonattainment
area. . -
Montana
On November 1. 1991. a letter was
sent from Region VI I I’. Regional
Administrator to Montana’s Governor
expinining the general procedure EPA
Intended to follow in addressing any
State failure to submit SIP’s for the
Initial moderate PM-to nonattainment
areas by the statutory deadline. On
December15, 1991. EPA Initiated this
process by finding , pursuant to section -
179(a)(1) of the amended Act, that
Montana had failed to submit a SIP to
meet the statutory deadline of
November15, 1991 for the Butte,.
Columbia Falls, and Missoula moderate
PM—1O nonattainment areas.
Pennsylvania
On October11, 1991. a letter was sent
from Region hr. Air. Radiation, and
Toxic. Division Director to the Director
of Pennsylvania’. Bureau of Air Quality
Control explaining the general
procedure EPA intended to follow in
addressing any State failure to submit
SI?. for the Initial moderate EM—b
nonattainment areas by the statutory
deadline. 01) December1 1991. EPA.
Initiated this process by finding,
pursuant to section l79(a)(1) of the
• amended Act that Pennsylvania had
failed to submit a SIP to meet the
statutory deadline of November 15, 1991
for the Liberty Borough moderate PM-tO
nonattalnment area. •
Pizea ’toPdco
On September 26, 1991, . letter was
sent from Region IF. Air and Waste
Management Division Director to the
Chairman of Puerto Rico’s
Environmental Quality Board explaining
the general procedure EPA intended to
follow In addressing any State failure to
submit SIP’s for the initial moderate
PM—b nonattainment areas by the
statutory deadline. On December18,
1991, EPA Initiated this process by -
finding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) of
the Act, that Puerto Rico had failed to
submit a SIP to meet the statutory
deadline of November 15, lD9VTor the
Cuaynabo moderate PM—b
nonattalnnaent area. : -
IV.Coac lns lon
The EPA has made findings under
section 179(a)(1) of the Act that the
States listed In Table A failed to submit
a plan. plan element or a complete plan,
as required under sectlo 189(a)(2) and
110(k) of the Act. .
Authoofty ’ 42 USC. 7410(k). 7419(i4 75w ,.
7509(a), 7500(b), 7513,75134.). and 7001.
Dated .Msy4.19B7 ,...i
William
AuistaatAdatinistretarforAfrcnd
Radiation.
TABLE A—STATES FOUND TO HAVE
FAILED TO SUBMIT SiP’S OR COMPLETE
SIP’S PVR ThE FOL .OWING RESP TIVE
MODERATE PM-1O - NoNATTAINMENT
AREAs’.-.;.
Stats
A.es at
a09ee’
catsoit
•
..
CoIem
‘
‘
Cwmsc *
Idaho - -
N09 1
‘.
lidsee_______
..
U id gsn
Mw o nns
.
Pe__
onte Rtes
‘
wtaI Vdsy. ee Vats .
Bee JesqiWs V, SswIss
.v_.
A cay
t, , P.oa Tat.
katd
New Newe.-
PSiuI int’ P -”—” - Sand.
-t
i:. ’ ’ L*e mat
&w s Coy.
4ce . C idy. VarvdIIIsn
C o
Wa ie Coudy.
Bin CokrOSi
•
—
Gw. .
‘ For . IflJsmy . the U legal boimdañss Kr me
wets sd s.a.J Si Siday’s nokas itwe , hoen
Sited. The , .J........s Si Si Uda naSee we
general wal n d Si ooweis as - Kr
the U — toundwlet The U legal bcuidwles
we eel fwth at SOFA 50094 5 1709-60851 (Nsvsm.
bet 8. 1091) , Si ciedi EPA lomially coatled the
dodwistons and ckae*cs5one or etdi c i Vu 5450
PM-b wodei h .’..tSiiwfleI* Weal.
‘ 11* U legal bouidates Kr lie Pwl ii
Dou s , ..k ie we.” we Sited Vi lii P1ousn Ir
0, 1091 Fsdend R491.LJ1 naVe, w w ____
Cairn (ses 58 FR 58719). For PM-b SiP , ..
Von and a nited — the Slate lies Psated
Vu w e e on okut Vied . .,4.,.Il PM-ID
lusufleminied weal Ø’wi B nr sat Dau ) Si
edays nodee. EPA Si sunoumatig Si
led due Beds of Adasna has Ued Is aibiit•
veed PM-ID SIP Kr the 0ou as poiSon of eVe
•T1u U Sisal bowdwies Kr Vi . wet ci , ,n -. ,. ,
we Sited Si d s NomuiLar 9,1591 Fadsial Beats.
let nodes amlet Cook Cowdy on edna. Lpaius
Ta .ed u (use 58 FR 68753). _____
4 The Sal Sisal boumdw$es Sir des wee of co..cem
are listed Ii the Noveir er 8 1991 F.dsiat Reals’
1w notIce usator Cook Cowuly on item b (see 58ffi
• 1t i U Ieg boundoiles (or die area of c .noem
we kited Si tf P4oomVur 9, 1991 F,.d ,,ruI Regis.
ts r iioooe w : M.gtle..j Cowoy (see 56 FR
568 . r
(PR Dec. 95-10810 Plied S-7-42 0 45 amj
‘ -‘a coos us.-ss ’
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 90 I Friday, May 8, 1992 I Notices
19907
2. Provisions to assure that reasonably
ailable control measures (RACM)
.iicluding reasonably available control
echnology—RACT) for the control of
PM-ia are Implemented by December
10, 1993 Isee section 189(a)(1)(C)1. 1
In addition. States are required to
submit a new source permit program
meeting the requirements of Part D. Title
I of the Act, requiring permits for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources of
PM—la (including, as appropriate, PM—la
precursors) (see section 189(a)(1)(A) and
1B9(e)J. A SIP revision meeting this
requirement Is due by June 30, 1992 for -
all of the Initial moderate PM-b
nonattalnment areas (see section
189(a)(2)(A)J.
The Act establishes specific -‘
consequences Ifs State fails to meet
certain requirements. Of particular
relevance here are sections 179 and
110(k). Section 179 contains the
orovislons for mandatory application of
ianctlons. Section 179(a) sets forth the
iarious findings upon which application’
a sanction Is based. The findings that,
or a nonattainment area, a State has
railed to submit a plan or one or more
lements of a plan required under the
ct or has failed to make a submission
or such an area that meets the minimum
‘mpleteness criteria established under
. ction 110(k) (see 40 CFR part 51,
ppendlx V,as amended by 58 FR 42218
August 20. 1991)1 are the findings
relevant to this announcement.
Today, EPA Is announcing Its previous
letermlnatlon that nine States have
railed to submit a required plan or plan
element for one or more of the Initial
noderate PM—la nonattalnxnent areas in
hose State. and that two States have
railed to submit a required plan or plan
element for such areas satisfying the
omple1eness criteria. Under section
179(a), the Administrator must Impose
ne of the sanctions specified in section
179(b) 18 months after the finding unless
IPA determines within that 18-month
period that a complete submittal has
been made. If the State still has failed to
nake a complete submittal after 24
nonths, then EPA must impose both.
ianctlons specified in section 179(b)..
Finally, section 110(c)(1) has also been
amended to require that the .
Administrator promulgate a Federal
Implementation plan withIn 2 years after
a finding that a State has failed to
submit a required plan element or plan
or finding that a required plan or plan.
element does not satisfy the
completeness criteria; .:.
II. States for Which EPA Is Making
Finding .-p ’
Arizona
Administrator to Colorado’s Governor
explaining the general procedure EPA
intended to follow In addressing any
State failure to submit SIP’s for the
initial moderate PM—la nonattainment
areas by the statutory deadline. On
December18, 1991, EPA Initiated this
process by finding, pursuant to section
179(a)(1) of the amended Act, that
Colorado had failed to submit a SIP to
meet the statutory deadline of
Novehiber 15,1991 for the Aspen,
Denver, Canon City, Lamar, Pagosa
Springs, and Telluride moderate PM—ia
nonatt t?flent areas.
On August 30,1991. a lette; was sent
from Region IX’s Air Division Director to’
Arizona’s Director of the Office of Airs’ - Connecticut
Quality explaining the general
procedure EPA Intended to follow In
addressing any State failure to submit
SIP’s for the initial moderate PM—la
nonattaininent areas by the statutory’
deadline. On December18, 1991, EPA
initiated this process by finding,
pursuant to section 179(a)(1) of the Act,
that Arizona had failed to submit a SIP
to meet the statutory deadline of - _____
November 15, 1991 for the Nogales and
Douglas PM—la nonattalnment areas.
California
On August 30. 1991,a letter was sent
from Region Dl’s Air Division Director to
the Director of the California Air
Resources Board explaining the general
procedure EPA intended to follow in . Id o o
addressing any State failure to submit
SIP’s for the Initial moderate PM—b
nonattaininent areas by the statutory
deadline. OnDecember 10,1991, EPA
initiated this process by finding,
pursuant to section 179(a)(i) of the Act,
that California had failed to submit a
SIP to meet the statutory deadline of
November15, 1991 for the Searles
Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Imperial
Valley. and Owens Valley moderate
PM—b nonattalnment areas. The EPA
subsequently received PM—la submittals
for the San Joaquin Valley and Owens
Valley moderate PM—la nonattalnment
areas from the California Air Resources
Board. The San Joaquin SIP submittal
was dated December 24, 1991. and the -
Owens Valley submittal was dated
January 0.1992. The EPA Is currently
reviewing the San Joaquin and Owens
Valley plans for completeness pursuant
to section ilO(k)(i). If EPA finds the plan
- complete, then the State’s deficiency
- under section 179(a)(l) for these areas
will be corrected, and the sanctions :.
process initiated for these areas
pursuant to section 179(a)(1) will be
stopped at that time.
Colorado
On November 1. 1991. a letter was
sent from Region VI I I’. Regional - -
On October 1,1991. a letter was sent
from Region l’s Director of the Air,
Pesticides, and Toxic. Management
Division to Connecticut’s Department of
Environmental Protection explaining the
procedure EPA intended to use in
addressing any State failure to submit a
SIP for the Initial moderate PM-b
nonattalnmnnt areas by the statutory
deadline. On December18, 1991, EPA
Initiated this process by finding.
pursuant to section 179(a)(1J of the
amended Act, that Connecticut had
failed to submit a SIP to meet the
statutory deadline of November 15,1991
for the New Haven moderate PM—b
nonattntninent area.
On August 21, 1991, a letter was sent
from Region X’s Regional Administrator
to the Administrator of the DIvisIon of
Environmental Quality of Idaho’s
Department of Health and Welfare
explaining the procedure EPA Intended
to use in addressing any State failure to
submit PM—la SIP’s for the Initial
moderate PM—b nonattainment areas
by the statutory deadline. Additionally,
on September 9, 1991. the Chief of EPA’s
Region X Air and Radiation Branch sent
a letter to the Acting Chief of the Bureau
of Air Quality of Idaho’s Department of
Health and Welfare, further explaining
the procedure. On December18, 1991,
EPA Initiated this process by finding,
pursuant to section 179(a)(1) of the
amended Act, that Idaho had failed to
submit a SIP to meet the statutory
deadline of November 15, 1991 for the
Pinehurst, Pocatello, and Sandpoint
moderate PM—ia nonattainment areas.
Illinois
On August 16, 1991, the EPA received
revisions to the Illinois SIP for the
McCook. Lake Calumet, and Granite
City moderate PM—jo nonattalninent
areas. In that submittal, the State
requested parallel processing of the
draft rules. The submittal for these PM—
‘Not, that some or th. general nonattah. ,t
pian provisions specified In aec 172 (c) me
Inextricably related lath, provision. specified hi
the P14-10 subpart and due no November15, 1991.
Per w ’ —p 1 , section 172(cXl) (requiring provision.
hi IsmenI RMN Including RACT) must be read
Inuuther with the section 159(IXIXC) RAOtI
iequik t. Similarly.. campnuhensive. accurate.
Inventory of actual emission. (section
‘2(c 3il is tnte rII f an adequate demonstration
ecttc I aK1)(BN. These general onattaInment
rovlaion. must be reflected In or subsumed within
the relevant P14-10 specIfic submittal. due
November 15. 1591.
-------
b
Federal Register ! VoL 57, No. 90 / Friday, May 0. 1992 1 Notices
O nonaita*ninent areas was reviewed
For completeness and, on October 3,
1991, EPA denied the request for parallel
processing because certain required
component, were absent or provided
Insuffident detail. On October 9, 1991.
EPA received additional draft proposed
rules from the illinois Division of Air
Pollution Control for the Granite City
moderate PM—to nonattainment area.
On October10, 1991, a letter was sent
from Region V’s Air and Radiation
Division Director to the Manager of the
illinois Division of Air Pollution control,
explaining the general procedure EPA
intended to follow In addressing any
State failure to submit SIP’s for the
initial moderate PM—b nonattalnment
areas by the statutory deadline. Illinois
did not submit a complete SIP revision
For the MCCOOk. Lake Calumet. and
Granite City moderate PM—to
nonattainment areas in response to the
October10, 1991 letter. Therefore, on
December 17. 1991 , EPA made a finding,
pursuant to sectIons 110(k) and 179(a) of
the Act, that the August * 1991 and the
October 9, 1991 .vbctittala were
incompLete and, therefore, Illinois failed
to submit a required complete PM—to -
SIP for the McCook, Lake Calument. and
Granite City PM—to nonattainment
areas.
Indiana
On October 8, 1991, a letter was sent
From Region V’. Air and Radiation
Division Director to Indiana’s Acting
Assistant C mn Iasioner, Office of Air
Management, explaining the general
procedure EPA Intended to follow in
eddreselng any State failure to submit
IFs for the Initial moderate PM-to
nonattainment areas by the statutory -
eadllne. On Dece iber 17,1991, EPA.
Lnitiated thig process by finding.
pursuant to section 179(a)(1) of the Act.
that Indiana had failed to submit a SW
to meet the statutory deadline of
November 15, 1991 for the Lake County
end Vermillion County moderate PM4O
conattalnment areas. -.
F1fich an
On October 1, 1991. a letter was sent
From Region V’. Air and Radiation
Division Director to the Director of
Michigan’s Division of Air Quality,
Department of Natural Resources,
rxpialnlng the general procedure EPA
i r r.ded to Follow in addressing any
re failure t submit SIP’ . for the
.. izI m d’ule PM-Ill nonattainruent
arena by thit. statutory deadline. On
Nbvember 19,1991, EPA received
revisions to the Michigan SIP for the
Wayne County PM—b nonattainment
area. The EPA reviewed the submittal
For completeness pursuant to section
110(k)(l) of the amend d Act and found
that the submittal did not contain many
of the required elements, but rather
consisted primarily of a commitment to
adopt the required elements. The EPA
does not believe that this submittal Is
appropriate for a conditional approval
under section 110(k)(4). Therefore, on
December17, 1991, EPA sent a letter to
the State of Michigan finding, pursuant
to sections 110(k) and 179(a ), that
Michigan failed to submit a required
complete PM-b SIP for the Wayne
County moderate PM—to nonattalnment
area,
Montana
On November 1,1991, a letter was
sent from Region Vms Regional
AilmI& frator to Montana’s Governor
explaining the general procedure EPA
Intended to follow in addressing any
State failure to submit SIP’s for the
Initial moderate PM—la nonattnlnmpnt
areas by the statutory deadline. On
December19. 1991, EPA Initiated this
process by fln”ing , pursuant to section
179(a)(1) of the amended Act. that
Montana had failed to submit a SIP to
meet the statutory deadline of.
November15, 1991 for the Butte,.
Columbia Falls, and Missoula moderate.
PM-b nonatt Inment areas.
Pennsylvania
On October11. 1991. a Letter was sent
from Region ill’. Air, Radiation, and
Toxics DMston Director to the Director
of Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Air Quality
• Control explaining the gene J
- procedure EPA intended to foUow in
addressing any State failure to submit
SW. for the Initial moderate PM—iD -
nonattainment areas by the statutory
deadline. Oz December18, 1991, EPA.
initiated this proces. by finding,
pursuant to section 179(a)(i) of the
• amended Act, that Pennsylvania had
failed to submit a SIP to meet the
statutory deadline of November 15,1991
for the Liberty Borough moderate PM-iD
nonattalamant area. .
Puerto Alan
On September 26,1991. a letter was
sent from Region fl ’s Air and Waste
Management Division Director to the
Chairman of Puerto Rico’s
Environmental Quality Board explaining
the general procedure EPA intended to
follow In addressing any State failure to
submit SIP’s for the initial moderate
PM—ia nonattainment areas by the
statutory deadline. On December16.
1991. EPA Initiated this process by -,
finding, pursuant to section 179(a)(1) of
the Act, that Puerto Rico had failed to
submIt a SIP to meet the statutory
deadline of November15, ballot the
Cuaynabo moderate PM-la
nonattalnmant area.
W.Condusiou
The EPA has made findings under
section 179(a)(1) of the Act that the
States listed In Table A failed to submit
a plan, plan element, or a complete plan
as required under section 119(s)(Z) and
110(k) of the Act.
Authedty 42 US.C. 7410(k), 741 9 (m), 7512.
7509(a), 7509(b). 7515, 7513a(s), and 7501.
DatadMay4.1502. 1j
wffi i s Ross abe g,..
MslstoidAdministhztorforAfrand
Radiation. -
TAnkS A—STATES FOUND - TO HAVE
F*n.an TO SUBMIT SIP’S OR CoMPtETE
SIP’S RTHE FOIJ,.OwINo RESPWTIVE
MODERATE PM-ID NONATTAIBMENT
AREAS’
ts01 .
-
aim.
,
S i am
M
‘
M ai r e
ti-
- 8 1 — Vodsy. 9.edm
v —
Mpss, Oswdsr im
taiw, . Psgoss Tof.
P - Sis
‘ Late
Mts car.
I-
Wrgne Coumly.
ms. CaSaodSi Fs Mim
—
M
Seds
* For ilDJ. , tha *4 Is bCim dedis I i’ 115
ames e&*simd Si mdey’u Imis n teen
Muted. Ths . J.........s Si I i Ide ISi9. sr
eensr01 and S4 ..dod Si o a1s on m dS18s
9. *4 — baimdm.t The *4 Si’l bma dm.s
us m l faith aISI FR 55O54 5670945158 (Noesm
6. 1991) . Si utedi EPA Iommly CedIISd 9.
ded na1sns aid i.I 4Ofl$ fat 55011019. S
PU-lO Jsrml , ...U.I..ai.i1 a
‘Th. sa bounduies let Sm PU4 9.t
Ooua’av ptew9. am.” as Muted Si 9 .
6 . 1891 Fedsid Reutsiuil oi midst Oeddss
co .ls (see 56 FR 56119). For PM-b SIP
Ion and 11 n i& piapoadS, 111 Stets his Pmlud
11. wee on - W9. . ,..4...M PM-1O
nomatlaiimul uess 9 ud Spit d Un ’ * Si
Siday’s redo,. EPAU avm.a m de
I i i Stete 01 Aibons his MInd (a sibyl a
rWsd P51-10 S b 115 On1 I potIon elide
, I , . ...L, ass, ____
• ml *4 fae ba iaidaues 515 stSS 01
as Sited Si d i. N leer 1,1991 F.Jsiid Res•
noSes imder eS Osmay on mum a, L uns
T mul * (see 56 FR 56753). _____
• Ths *4 legi bowi f no là use c i
s te Mated Si the 8 199 ? Foi led RIots-
tot nolice imder Cooli Cowity is dam b (sos 5OFR
i.g boundailes I cr 515 stOS at COnCur. .
eta Sited Si th Novelither 6, 1991 Foised RsQIs.
tsr nodes w t A5ea, f Coiady (see 56 FR
56823).
(PR Doe. 02-10616 P lIed 5-7-02:6.45i . )
rtji ’ia coos -
-------
I9906
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 90 I Friday , May 8. 1992 / Notices
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) requires that
:ertain information collection
requirement. be approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (0MB)
before Information is demanded of the
public. 0MB has issued a final rule on
the Paperwork Burdens on the Publlt (48
FR 13866) dated March 31. 1983. Ample
opportimity is provided in the proposed
rules for the Interested public to -
participate with the Power Marketing
Administration in the development of
rates. Nevertheless, this is at their sole
selection. There is no requirement that
members of the public participating in
the development of the P-DP firm power
and firm and nonfirm transmission -
service rates supply information about
themselves to the CovernmenL It
follows that the P-DP finn power and
firm and nonfirm transmission service
rates are exempt from the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
ENViRONMENTAL !VAWATION In
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
Council of Environmental Quality
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through
1508). and DOE guidelines published at
52 FR 47882 on December15, 1987.
Western conducts environmental
evaluations of the P-DP firm-power and
firm and nonflrm transmission service
rate adjustments and develops the
appropriate level of environmental
documentation prior to the
implementation of any rate adjustment.
Issued at Golden. Colorado. April 27. 1992.
William H. Clagett.
Administmtor.
IFR Doc.92-10858 Filed 5-7-42. 5.45 am)
DIWNQ CCCI 146 541-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(OAR—FRL-413143
State implementation Plans for
Nonattainment Areas for Particulate
Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice announcing findings of
failure to submit required State
Lmpleme’tatf on Plans (SIP’s) .
5804MARY: The EPA gives notice that It
made a finding, pursuant to sections
129(a.) t) ’ and liO(kJ the Clean Air Act
(Acr) as amended ii .990 (Pub. L No.
101-549, November 15, 1990), 42 U.S.C.
7509(a)(I) ançl 7410, for each State listed
In table A. The EPA has determined that
each State has failed to submit an
implementation plan, plan element, or
“complete plan” (a submission
satisfying the minimum criteria
established under section 110 (k)(i)(A)J
for particulate matter lee. than or equal
tolO microns (PM—b) as required under
the provisions of the Act. This notice
addresses the requirement under section
189(a)(2)(A) of the Act that each State
shall submit the plan required under
section 189(a)(1) wIthin 1 year of the
date of the enactment of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (i.e., by
November 15. 1991) for areas designated
nonattaLnment under section 107(d)(4),
except that the provision required under
section 189(a)(1)(A) relating to new
source review requirements shall be
submitted no later than June 30. 1992.
This notice announces the rmdings
made in December 1991 via letters sent
by the EPA Regional Administrators to
11 States notifying each of its failure to
make a required PM—It’ SIP submittal or
Its failure to submit a complete PM—b
SIP submittal. The letters triggered the
18-month thneclock for the mandatory
application of sanctions under section
179(a) and the 24-month tizneclock for
promulgation of a Federal
implementation plan under section
110(c)(1).
FOR FUPTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
General questions concerning this notice
should be addressed to Andrew M.
Smith. Air Quality Management Division
(MD—15), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711, (919) 541—5398 orFFS
829-5398. For questions related to a
specific area, please contact the
appropriate Regional Office listed
below.
Regioni offices
States
Regional offices
Slat..
• Gay G edun .. Chief. M
To,dcs and Ra etion Breach,
Michigan.
V —
EPA Region V. 7? West
Jad on S e Chicago. IL
60604. (312) 353-855P, FTS
•
353-8559.
•Douglss N. 814., Chief. Ak
Cuiorsdo,
Programs Brunch, EPA
Uontaea.
Region VIII, 999 18th SPest,
0mw Ptac.-&ea 500.
•
0mw, 80202-2405,
(303) 293-1750 FTS 330-
.
1750.
• David L Csfldn.. Chief. Ak
A,tmes. Calfonda.
Programs Brunch. EPA
Region IX. 75 Hawthorne
Skeet. San Francisco, CA
•
94105. (415) 744-1219; FIS
484-1219.
• George Abel, Chief, Ak Pro-
grams Branch. ‘EPA Region
X. 1200 StethI Avenue, Seat.
idaho.
tie, WA 98101, (206) 442-
i275 FTS 399-127&
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT1ON
L Background
On March 15. 1991 (56 FR 11101). EPA
announced those areas of the country
designated nonattainment for PM—b by
operation of law upon enactment of the
1990 Amendments (see sections
107(d)(4)(B) and 107(d)(2) of the Act). On
August 8. 1991 (58 FR 37654). EPA
published a notice correcting some of
these designations and further
explaining EPA’s rationale fot the
designations. The EPA also announced
on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101) that all
of the areas designated as
nonattainment for PM—b by operation
of law upon enactment of the 1990
Amendments were classified as
moderate nonattainment areas at that
time (see section 188(a)). Those States
containing areas designated -
nonattaimnent and classified as
moderate for PM—b upon enactment of
the Amendments were required to adopt
and submit to EPA a SIP for those areas
by November 15. 1991 (see section
189(a)).
As a general matter, all of these initial
moderate areas are required to submit a
SIP meeting the requirements for
nonattainment areas identified In
section 172 of the Act and the
requirements specific to PM—b in
subpart 4 of Part D. In particular. Section
189(a) of the Act required that all of the
Initial moderate PM—b nonattainment
areas submit a SIP by November 15,
1991, which Includes the following:
1. Either a demonétration (including
air quality modeling) that the plan will
provide for attainment by December 31.
1994 or a demonstration that attainment
by that date is Impracticable (see
section 189(a)(1)(B)I.
• Susan SaidSen, Chief, Ak
Pru .ms Branch EPA
Region I (APB-2311), Jff1(
Federal BiuI ng, Boston,
Massadvmetts 02203—2211.
- (617) 986-3221; FTS 835-
3221.
• WMam S Baker, Chief. Ak
rugrs... . Branch, EPA
RegIon I I, 28 Federal Plaza.
New Yo& NY 10278, (212)
264—2517; FTS 264—2517.
• Nerds Spinlt, Chief. N Pro’
grams Branch, EPA Region
III. 841 Chestnut Building,
PPwladefplva, PA 19107,
(215 597—9075. FTS 597—
9075
• Stephen H. Rothblatt, Chiel,
A and Redietion Branch.
- EPA Region V. 77 West
Jackson Skeet. Chicago. IL
60604. (312) 353-2211; FTS
353-2211.
Puerto Rico
Pennsylvania.
Illino Indiana.
-------
TUesday
September 22, 1992
Pait:IV.
Environ me
Protection
.
ntai
Agency
40 CFRPatt81
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning. Purposes Pcoposed. Rule
-------
43846 Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 184 I Tuesday._September 22, 1992 I Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
(AD-FRL-4139-2)
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes
AOENCY U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACT)O* Notice of proposed rulemaking .
SUNMARV Pursuant to section 107(d)(3)
of the Clean Air Act as amended (Act),
EPA is authorized to redesignate areas
(or portions thereof) as nonattainment.
for the PM-b (particles with an
aerodynamic diameter les. than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers) and sulfur
dioxide (503) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS).
In this action, EPA Is proposing to
revise the PM—b and SO 1 designations
for certain areas. Previously, consistent
with section 107(d)(3)(A) of the Act, EPA
has notified the Governors of those
States containing the PM—Ic and SO 3
areas addressed In this proposal that,
based on available Information, EPA
believes the areas should be
red giuded from unclassifiable or
attainment to nonattainment. For PM—
10, theredeslgnatlon Is based upon
recorded violations of the PM—b
NAAQS which occurred on or after
January 1.1989. For SO 1 , the-.
redesignatlon Is based upon violitlons
of the SO 3 NAAQS which were
monitored, modeled, or determined from
a combination of the two.
0*7 W All written comments should be
submitted by November 23, 1992.
ADDP arQ! Information supporting
today’s action can be found In Public
Docket No. A-0Z-22. The docket is
located at the U.S. EPA Air Docket,.
room M—1500. Wateralde Mall, LE—131,
401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20400. The docket may be inspected
from 8:30a.m. to 12noon and from 130
p.m.to 8:30p.m. on weekdays, except
for legal holidays. A reasonable fee may
be charged for copying. In addition, the
public may inspect that lnformation•
pertaining to a particular area at the
respective EPA Regional Office which
serves the State where the affected area
is located. A list of Regional Offices Is In
Supplementary Information.
Send comment to:
Larry Waflace (PM-b). SOilParticulate
Matter Programs Branch, Air Quality
Management Division (MD.-15), Office
of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711
Andrew M Smith. SOa, SO3/Particulate February of 1991, EPA notified the
Matter Programs Branch. Air Quality - Governors of the affected States that
Management Division (MD-15), Office EPA believed certain areas should be
of Air Quality Planning and - redesignated as nonattainment fc —
Standards. US. Environmental - 10 and SO 1 . The EPA identified ti
Protection Agency. Research Triangle areas in a Federal Register noticl
Park, NC 27711 - published on April 22. 1991 (56 FR
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT: 10274). Under section 107(dJ(3J(8) of the
Larry Wallace (PM—b), (919)541— Act, the Governor of each affected State
09067 Andrew ?.L Smith (SOs), (019) 541- Was required to submit to EPA the
5395. - . designation he or she considered
BUPFUMEPfTARY RIFORMATIOPC - appropriate for each area in question no
The contacts and addresses of the later than 120 days after notification.
Regional Offices arm - However, for reasons of administrative
efficiency, the EPA requested the States
Re omd c i Sc . . to submit the designations by March15,
- ‘1991; (the date the lists of designations
• WNm S Baker, Nsw Yceli. for all ozone and carbon monoxide
Qilsi A Program areas were due from the Governor of
‘Brandt,EPARe g I OnU, \. _-. .
pi . ‘each State pursuant to section
YciI, iiv io re, - ‘ - .. 107(d)(4)(A) of the Act). The EPA
264-2517. - . received responses from the affected
• Marcia Spk*, CNeI, CISbICI ci Coltmt s, -- States for all of the areas addressed in
M Programs Siutch, Pems’,lvw s utd
EPA R . on U I, 541 w..t . todays proposal. Section 107(d)(3)(C) of
ctem t ei . ‘the Act provides that EPA must
PMadelpNs. PA - promulgate the redeelgnatlon submitted
10107, (215)697- -. by the State unless EPA determines that
H. .. a modification Is necessary. The EPA
a isi. aui -. has reviewed the State submittals for
Pa th i &.nSb, EPA -. the areas addressed In today’s notice,
Region V.? ? WSci - and EPA Is proposing redealgnatlons
- . • which are consistent with those
IL 60604.
(3i2 353- 11. — submitted by the affected States.
• Gerald Fi.la..l . New Mgrlrfl 0S’iaboms, However, EPA Is requesting cm
Odel. Ak - To . . .. on today s proposal and will cc
Biwidi, EPA Region
VI, 1445 o. A o.e, . - any relevant comments in tekin
Data,, 175202- . “ action on today’s proposal. SecL__
2733. (214) 56..7204. . ... , ‘ . ,: - . 107(d)(1)(A) of the Act sets out
• DOt*S It sue, -. CQlQrado . Moidano. - definitions of nonattaliunent,
Ak PtOWIMS attainment, and undasaifiable. These-
Branch, EPA Region
vut. sag ias s .si. definitions proidde the controlling legal
Deiwel Pleas—tails ‘ standard for any designations or
500. Dower, cc redesignatlons to the relevant
IC202-240 (205)
2 03-1750. - attainment status. The EPA is proposing
• Osuid L ‘,e , Means, CdfOIIIIa. that all of the SOi and PM-b areas
CNst Ak Programs addressed In todays, notice be
Branch. EPA Redo. . - redesignated nonattainment. A
_______ -
- . . nonattainment area Is defined as any
CA seice, (415) y - area that does not meet, or that
1219. signifIcantly contributes to ambient air
• Gaceg. Abel Qilsi. Welto. Ougon , quality in a nearby area that does not
Ak Pro wis Brsfld Ws.M too . . meet, the national primary or secondary
EPA RegicnX. 1250 - .
mali AVOIWS. sesnj - ? ambient air quality standard for the
WA 05101.1206) 442- ‘ - relevant pollutant I (see section
1275. . -- - 107(d)(1)(A)(I)). Thus, In determining the
______________ _______________- - appropriate boundaries for the
nonattainment areas proposed today.
L General . EPA has considered not only areas
where violations of the relevant NAAQf
have been monitored and/or modeled,
but nearby areas which significantly
contribute to Buch violations.
The EPA I. authorized to redesignate
areas (or portions thereof) as
nonattalnment for PM—b and SO 1
pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of the Act,
on the basis of air quality data, planning
and control considerations, or any other
air quality-related considerations the
Administrator deems appropriate.
Following the process outlined In
section I07(d)(3), in January and
‘The EPA has con.tnaed the definitIon of
nonaitslnment ares to require some maIurI I nr
significant contithulion to a violation hi
area. The Agency believe, Ills reeso
•cocdud. th.t something g,eater than -
taped is required.
-------
Federal Register / Vo1L 57.. Not. 184: 1’ Tuesday.. September 22’.. 1992. I Proposed Rules
The tabr pmvided at tbeend!ot
today’sinotice specifythe complete!
bounda es:ai sesodateddea1gnat1on
status tbeIEPprepo ngJorthe
areas addmsaezLlmtcda siactlan..Thus .
the “desi iatad are ’ andleignation
type” idantlIled in thntables lndIcat
how EPA isipropo.mg th .w 1 L the
pertinenkportioneoL4l) CFR.pariii..
Because of thgiiiffstliwolved , ,
EPA hannotputtht designated areas
and ‘ po designationiypeha
the identicalforinat lzrwhiclrjf
finalize&tks i wilLappearin EPAa final
action modifying 4OCFR part8t . .Tha
final formatwflkbe consistent’ witfr thes
style.otthere tialon&to4O CFP pad8L
made In the Federal Raglsternoticft
publiabeéoirNov.mher 6.1991 aI5WFR.
56894 and Is nded almpl torlniprnve
the readabillt)rofthetable .;1n4(ICFR
part 81 anthIu.ancountf rthepoilutaa5
classifications required by the i99Q
Amen, n to.thaAcr
Notealso ,thab intheNovemben6ilP9li
FederaIPIsM, notics .EPh defei edi
refermattlngthrSO, tubler in 40 CPR.
part 81 banauseno SO. designatlonsi
were being revised hrihat!actloa .Thes
EPA. hidigateti thatit woul&reformatthe
SO. tablan the flitnre-aa epproprlate
Th Phanllclpater that when I L takeas
flnabactfoxranrthe ’SOi redeslgnatlons
proposeditaloday’. actlo .lt. wilL revise
the SO tablergenerally. conaistentwith
the new formaL
ILPM .1 .
A. BacicgzvundjosPM-1O ’
OirfiiI 1. 198 theEPA .evieed’the
NAAQS for partlbuletematter’(52’FW
24834). Ieplaeln&tolapsuspendedc
particulaterasthe lndlcatorfbr •.
particulatematterwltFr mew Inalcatbr
caired PM-tO ’tharlhdtidewo* those
partIderwIthoiraerodynauucdl eter
less ifianer equartoa ’nomlnaliO
microme . At ’th,same time, set
forth returetlone 8w implementlhgthe
revised parfieuMtmntetterstenderd and
annoencediEPAl Slate’ Impl mentatlon
plan ( SW7 dbvelbpmenP policy
etabosatflrgPM-10 ’centrol strategies.
necessary to assure attainment and
maintenance of the PM-b NAAQS (sea.
geft Ey52F&24&2) . .thesEPA
adoptetaPlI(-1O .SI?development
polic dMdIng alf areawottlwcowrtrF
into .thxea.categorIeLba.ed upon theth
probabWtyohlalath g the ua e
NAAQ5 1)Areas wtth’a .streng
likelihoodofviointfng the new PM 1P’
NAAQ .an .LreqpiringsubstantiarSW
adjustmentaweresplaced.Ln.Grmqrb .(2)
area tbe#might weflLhave.been
attaining the PM.40NkAQS and whose
existing SIPs . most likely neecfed less.
adjustment were placed In Grouplk(3 )
areas with rstrong.iikelifzocdiof
attaining the M-bO NAAli San L
therefore; ngadjutmentsionI) to
4 k. 1 reconatmntiom view programi
ftodngnetwork.weresplacermnm
Croup m (52.FR24672.24879-24882)..
PursuanMo’section,bO2(d)(4 W) oLthi
AcE .area. p r evlonal)’Identiflsthaa
Group I and other areas which had
monitored violations oLtha PM.-10
NAAQS.prloe I a January 1 .1989iwere.
by operation otlaw.upon.enacimentot
theiO9 OAmendments..de.lgnated.
nonatt ’ilnt.forPM - l O ..AfterEPA .
revised the PM-mNAAQS, ,EPA .
Identified andilisted. the Croupil and.
Group ILarearln.a Federal Register
notice pubhshe&oaAngueL7 1987 (p2.
FL29383). In. that. notice. EPA.indicated
that Graup.UI areas.consisted.of that.
portlon.of eState not pdln .Croupr
or 11. DescriptIons of the. srea• i Hit 1
as Group Land ,ILareaa.were.laten
clazifledin.aF.dIral Register notise.
dated October 31.1990 (5&EE.45799J,.
That notice sisal nhlfled:Ginup IL
areaswhoIktedthe.sf nd rda ptiar
to January 1J98LTha EPkannaunced.
all areu which, were designated’
nonaftiihtmentby. operation of 1kw fbz
PM.1O upon. ’n fTnPnLof the 1990
Amendments ln.a..TeJeralfegfster
notice dated March 151991j55.FL
11101). In addltion. EPA has published a
follow-up notlce.correctfng the.
boundaries and: designations of’some.ot
the areas In lrgJttorcomments recelsed’
addresslng,the.Marth 1991 notthe (pee 56
FR 37654 Augpst 8. 1W1J l FbrmeX
codification In 40 CFRpart8fofthose
areas designatad’nonattalnment for P1t -
10 by operation oflaw upon enac ent
was announced iii a FederalRogjbfer
notice dated NuvernberL199? ( Fl
56604Jt :. ‘ :‘ -
B. Tokzy’a Act kwf vi P51-10...
Those apeawnotdisignated!
nonattalhment far PM-b b .opvatfan.
of 1awupon’enactment’ofthe’1990
Amendments.weiedestgi iatedl
unelliesiflabili (see section.
107(d)(4)(B)(IIl)of the AaI3 Th.EM Ir.-
autboTlzedte redesIgnat. these’areap an
nonattalnment 1ev Ph$4 purenanttm
sectlomlwtd)P)oS theAct ontth.bas1st
of ali que tpdata plann andicontrol
consid don ranprothera lsqualitp-
related conslderalion that; the
AnI.fror ’dBemLayp .uprtaI (bes
al s xsec1D7(d)(1 )(AJOll . ___
reare ,bw.o groups of PM_1ft .
aL !-.:!! .se&ln .todayslactiont Thesfirat
group consietsiofthosa areas li t d’ln
theFedaxuLRegiater notice dc’ prilz
22. 1290 (5&FR 1n274) which r
violationa ojthePtv4 .iO siand - bear
after Januae r1t.1S89; InJanuey ’and .
Fe qo8 199t. otifiedi den
Couernora QL those States with areas
whlc lrrecorded’violations of the PM—1O
standards omonafter January 1. 1989.
and indlcatedithat EPA believed.tbose
areas should be red ’esignated from
uncJ’assLfIeble.t .nonetra1nment for PM—
10 bued upon availableihforinatloe. 5 ’
The Governor of each affected State
was requfred to submit to EPA the’
designatlonwhlch.ha o,the considered
to.beappropriate’for each. area In
questioawlthln 120 days.after receiving
notlfization(.ee section 107(d)(3)(B) of’
tha.ActJ,.As.noted forreasonsot
adrMn lstrntiseseffidency.. the EPA.
requested the States to submit the
designations by March 15499L Section.
107(d)(3)(C) of the Act provides that
EPA must promulgate the redesigns dons
submIttac by the Staterunleer EPA
determ lne*thapa ’modlffcatioir la
necessary.
The second’groupof areas being
adtheued’ In’ today’s proposal were
submitted as unsolicited requests for
redesignationby the Governors of the
affected States. These unsolicited
requests were submitted to EPA as
.comments to IetteivEP& sent’ to the
Governors In January and February 1901
Lu which they were notified of PM-b0
violations fn.thelr States. The EPA
explalnedthe manner In.whlcb It
Intended to address these requests in
the corrections notice. published on
August 8,1991 (50.FR 37655). The EPA is
propos lngtheee. areas for redesignadon
to nonattainmenC pursuant to section
1O7(dJ(3 (D1 of the Act. Section
iO7(dJ(3)(D pro’iddee that a Governor of
a Stats may. oil hi’s or her own initiative.
submit to.the Administrator a revised.
designation ofan. area wlthlh .the State.
WithIn.1B.monthe of receiptof a
complete State redasignatfon submittaL.
the Mmrnlatmtor.shaltapprovaor deny
the redesrgnatfoa. The bowufazlei fan
The proposed nanaHnl .11T .seIt areas are
provlde&intha.ravlalona.ta4O C R part
81 at the end.afthIa notice..
The .fo l law lngtable.lists.ln.a.generaL
fashion theadditlonal nonat’ 1 ” ’-
designations, fot PM-lU that are being
proposed ln .thls.uotlce-
e,aI.,
PM-1O’sadsw ‘
end ii
C.Ui J.
Pai l. e GI& C y. Pu? d
. CanSy,
Centy. Put
S 8.uedE Oo
Pad c Routl’Coisd
Psi ’. of Kooten County.
Put of Sitositane County.’
Mon 5ne Pitt of Ssnde,a County.
‘A. oote&ln a Pedsr.JR. l.Ie’ notice pubII.hed
on April22. tSSt(Ss PR 1001). EPA identified those
uses for which ba&noUfisd the Go,uno
thaten su utiurchstM be r.vI.adi
-------
43848 Federal Register VoL 57, No. 184 I Tuesday. September 22, 1992. / Proposed Rules
Siale
Ptil-IOw .sds ak s lwi’
New Me __
Bna o Cewdy.
Niw Ycñ
New Ycit C imty.
Oiegon
P 1 ci Lane Cainiy.
Wearliglon’
Pwl ci Benton. FqMIn, and
Willa Wala Coiaitie..
West Wgiude
Psi ci Nen Ccr.jdy.
redes gnat1on of theseareas are -
available for review at the addresses
_____ indicated above. The EPA requests
comments on today’s proposal
____ addressing the appropriateness of the
proposed boundaries In light of the
statutory definition for nonattainment
- area set out at section 107(d)(1)(A)(l) of
lbS IS dOtSSSd bO U ISS beifl9 the AcL -
today we puekied hi the . -,.—I ci w 40
CFR psi SI 1 the wi wcn ci e i no cs. - The EPA has received information
• TNa I en WuolOtod PM .iO SC.*ftShVflSnt Indicating that Mohave County, Arizona,
‘hi to I ai nstIat by W ..JI1.4W. . EPA has petitioned the Nevada State -
I au,.oam en Vicrease ii *5 Ci Ps SIS to be Environmental Commission to delete the
. .,4.w wtd nonettarmis’it The we. ki.islhd hi
lie m, issi r. eci Register . WIs Nevada Administrative Code 445.724.
Benton Ca irn. The proposed wea dose nCi tchde As currently written, this code Is a
the City ci W&PJa Wi dth he. *5ed waiver for the Southern California
gated as a nonafla.....&it wee (see, •.g., 56 FR
56648, Nh 8, 1991). Edison Mohave Generating Station.
• located In Laughlin. Nevada. of the
As noted. EPA has reviewed the State • requirement to meet a 20 percent opacity
submittals for all of these areas, end -. ‘limit measured at 0-minute Intervals at
EPA Is proposing PM-b redesignations The stack. Mohave County has claimed.
which are consistent with those
submitted by the affected States. among other things, that emissions from
1. The PM—b areas listed in the April the facility significantly contribute to
elevated levels of Pk5—b0 in Mohave
22,1991 Federal Register notice. County that adversely affect public
a. The PM-b areas EPA is proposing health and contribute to Its
for redesign ation. As noted above, the - nonattaliunent problems. The State of -
EPA l authorized to Initiate
redesignatlon of additional areas as Nevada held a public hearing on
nonattalnnient for PM—i l) pursuant to December 5, 1991. As an outcome, a
section 107(d)(3) of the Act on the basis study has been authorized to assess the
of air quality data, planning and control Impact of PM-Il) emissions from the
considerations, or any other air quality- Mohave Power Plant on surrounding
related considerations U at areas. The EPA requests public
Administrator deems appropriate, comment on this Issue. For example.
Further. section b07(d)(i)(A)(I) pro ’vldei EPA requests any Information Indicating
that a nonattainnient area shall consist whether and to what extent the Mohave
of that area violating the PM-il) NAAQS Power Plant contributes to the
or contributing significantly to violations nonattainment problem In Mohave
in a nearby area. Generally, the PM-Il) County. Further, EPA requests
nonattainment area boundaries - . comments on the appropriateness of the
presumed to be. as appropriate, the nonattanment boundaries for Mohave
county, township, or other municipal County In light of any such information.
subdivision In which the ambient . The EPA notified the Governor of
particulate matter monitor recording the New Mexico on January 23, 1991 that
PM—b violation(s) Is located. The EPA Bernalillo County (City of Albuquerque).
has presumed that this would include violated the annual and 24-hour PM-b
both the.area violating the PM-Il) ’ NAAQS during 1989. The City of
NAAQS and any area significantly Albuquerque has provided additional
contributing to the violations. However, Information regarding those violation..
a boundary other than the county With respect to the 24-hour standard.
perimeter or municipal boundary may The thy has provided Information which
be more appropriate. Affected States suggests that the two exceedances
may submit information Indicating that, measured in 1989 at monitoring site 35—
consistent with section 197(d)(1)(A)(I), a - 001—1013 were the result of exceptional.
boundary should be alternatively event., i.e., below normal ralnfall 1 and -
defined. Some guidance on this Issue is high winds in the Albuquerque area. In a
provided in the PM-Il) SIP Development similar manner, the city has suggested
Guideline (EPA-450/Z-86-00i). The EPA that additional exceedance. at this site
has received Information on alternative (one In 1990 and one In 1991) were also
bo indarIes from States in response to the result of exceptional events. I.e.. high
the notification provided under section - winds In the Albuquerque area. While
107(d)(3)(A). Thus, for many of the PM— EPA has not taken a final position
10 areas addressed In today’s proposal, regarding the City of Albuquerque
EPA Is proposing nonattainment subinittals in light of the requirements of
boundaries which reflect the alternative section 2.4 of 40 CFR part 50. appendIx
boundarie, suggested by the affected K, the Influence of below normal rainfall
States. Copies of the technical , and high winds makes it difficult to
information supporting the basis for the determine the associated frequency and
nature of these exceedances. This
results In uncertainty In how to treat
these exceedance events and In
determining whether the area Is or i -
meeting the 24-hour NAAQS (see,
section 107(d)(1)(a)(ill) of the Act).
Because of the uncertainty. EPA feeL
that a determination that the City of
Albuquerque has violated the 24-hour
PM-il) NAAQS and should be
redesignated nonattainment on that
basis I. Inappropriate until additional
‘data are collected. The City of
Albuquerque is currently collecting
every-other-day PM—IC samples at
monitoring site 36-001—1013 and Is
planiitngto collect hourly PM—il) data.
The EPA will continue to track the 24-
hour PM-Il) values In Albuquerque and
take appropriate action should’
additional air quality data Indicate that
the area Is not meeting the 24-hour
NAAQS’
With respect to the annual standard,
the Cftyof Albuquerque has provided
information which demonstrates that the
annual violation of 03 ig’ (microgram.
per cubIc meter) In 1989 (arithmetic
mean) was reduced to 37 &g”
(arithmetic mean) In 1990 and 39 &g” In
1991 (arithmetic mean). This reduction
In the annual average was attributed to
- a number of actions or control measures
which were taken In Albuquerque
following this annual violation. The
• regulatory bases for these actions,
however, are not Included in the cui
federally-approved SIP for the City of
Albuquerque and, thus, as a matter of
Federal.law, the reductions In emissions
of PM—il) are not permanent or
enforceable. Therefore, EPA Is
proposing to redesIgnate Bernallllo
County (City of Albuquerque) as
nonattainment for PM—b on the basis of
the violation of the annual standard In
1989. lithe City of Albuquerque submits
the rules requiring the subsequent
reduction In PM—b levels to EPA as part
of the Albuquerque SIP before EPA
take. final action on this redesignatlon.
the Agency will further consider the
appropriateness of taking final action on
• this proposaL-
- ___________ .
‘As Indicated In the dis ’ below, In today’s
notion. EPA Ii proposing to designate Al . ,.....,.a
nonat’—”..l based on a violation of the snousi
NAAQS. bbs EPA also notes that ills possible that
Mbuquerque has taken measures to eddreu this sir
quality problem sod that EPA would consider
withdrawing the proposed redestgnation If EPA has
reason to believe that continued attainment and
meintenenca of the annual standard Ia assured
Neither the pending redeeignstion proposal based
on the violation of the annual standard nor any
conclusion EPA makes about the .nnual standard
would In soy manner preclude e future
nonattainment determination by EPA Il futu,
quality dais Indicate the ares Is not meeting
hour atsnderd.
-------
b. The I M-2O areas EPA has decided
slot to redesignate at this lime.
The EPA has determined that
redesignatlon of four of the areas
previously Hated In the April 22. 1991
Federal Register notice is inappropriate
at this time. The areas are a portion of
LaSalle County, lillnolEa portion of
Edgar County. illinois; Bay County .
Michigan: and St. Louis County
Missouri. The ratlonaib for not
redesignating these areas Is as follows:
illinois .
LoS ills County: The Governor of
Illinois requested that the portion of -
LaSalle County Identified as an area
EPA believed should be redesignated as
nonattainment (see 56 FR 10274, April
22.1991) be added to the lnltIal :
nonattainment area of Ogiesby. flhlnots.
In a corrections notice (56 FR 37654,
August a, 1991) to EPA’ , announcement
of the Initial nonattainment areas for
PM—b (those areas designated
nonattainment by operation of law upon
the enactment of the 1990 Amendments).
EPA announced that the section in
LaSalle Identified by the Covernor was
added to the Oglesby 134—10
nonattainment area (see 56 FR 37662.
(Augusta, 1991)). AccordIngly, the need
to redesignate this area as a separate
nonattainment areq was rendered moot
by that action: - -
Edgar County: The EPA has reviewed
records pertaining to the Edgar County.
Illinois, area and has determined that
redesignatlon of the area Is not
appropriate. Air quality data associated
with an existing coal mine in Indiana.
which Is in close proximity to the Edgar
County mine, showed violations which
were attributed to the surface coal mine
operation. The EPA Initially determined
that violations were likely at the illinois
mine, due to the close proximity of the
two mlnes..The operation in Rdrr
County has since been dosed and the
company has moved operations.
Available air qualitj data have not
showed any violations of the 134-10
standards..: ‘: - . •
Michigan •. . -
Bay County: Based upon further
review of the air quality data for Bay
County. Michigan, EPA has determined,
that redesignation of this area to
nonattainment Is not appropriate at his
time. The EPA i uncertain, based on
available information. whether the area
meets or does not meet the PM—tO
NAAQS..Therefore, EPA bellev’ - Is
presentiy more appropriate to I. the
usa d i ’ - gnated as unclassifiat. - d to
znllect i ulfitional air quality monitoring
data for the area before deciding
whether the area should be
redesignated. The EPA plans to review
the designation status of the area when
the additional data are available.
Missouri
St. Louis County: Based upon further
review of the air quality data for St.
Louis County. Missouri. EPA has
determined that redesignatlon of thi!
area as nonattalnment Is not
appropriate at this time. Similar to Bay.
County. Michigan. EPA is uncertain, on
the basis of currently available .. -
Information, whether St. Louis County
meets or does not meet the PM—la
NAAQ& Therefore, EPA believes His
presently more appropriate to leave the
area designated as unclassifiable and to
perform additional air quality -
monitoring In this area before deciding’
whether the area should be
redesignated. • . . .
2. Uneollcated PM-la Areas
There ar two areas for which EPA
has received unsolicited designations
(see section 107(d)(3)(Dfl. They were not
listed In the AprIl 22, 1991 Federal
Register notice; Both of these involve an
existing PM-la nonattainment area for
which the State has requeste4 an,
expansion of the boundary They are the
cities of Butte (Silver Bow Coulty),
Montana,,and Pinehurst (Shoshone.
County), Idaho (see 56 FR 37658
(Pinehurst discussion) and 56 FR 37659
(Butte dIscussion), August 6, 1991). In
the August 1991 Federal Register notice
referenced, the States were informed-
that the expanded areas would be
treated as separate areas with statutory
deadlines (e.g., SIP submittal and
atiRiRment dates) different from the
existing nonattainment areas. However,
EPA also noted that nothing in the Act
prohibited the State from submitting an
Initial nonattalnment area SIP covering
both the Initial and the proposed
expansion area. Le., to accelerate the
SIP adoption, submittal and
implementation schedule for the’....’
expansion area to-match that of the
Initial nonattalnnrent area.- ., -.
The State of Montana has sthce .:
rescinded its request for expanding the
boundaries of Butteina letter from the’
Governor to EPA dated October 2,1991.
Thus, this unsolicited redesignated -
request is no longer pending before EPA.
The State of Idaho has not Informed the
EPA that they wish to rescind their
request for designating part of Shoshone
County as nonettainment. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing In todpy’s notice to-
redesignate this area as nonattainmenL
4384
C. Significance of Today’s Action for
PM-b -
I1LSO
A. Background for SO, -
Following the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977. EPA published
- areas Identified by the States as
nonattalnment, attainment, or
unclassifiable for SO ,. The Clean Air
Ad. as amended by the 1990
Amendments, provided designatloni for
SO, areas based on their status
Immediately before enactment of the
1990 Amendments. For example. any
area designated as not attaining the
primary or secondary SO, NAAQS as ol
the data of enactment of the 1990
Amendments was designated
nonattainment for SO, by operation of
law upon enactment, pursuant to sectior
b07(d)(1)(C)(l) of the Act. In addition,
any area designated as attainment or
unclassifiable (or “cannot be classified”
Immediately before the enactment of the
1990 Amendments was also designated
as suth upon the enactment of the
Amendments pursuant to section
b07(d)(1)(C) (ii) and (iii) of the Act. For
the current status of SO, areas, readers
should refer to the codification tables
currently set forth In 40 CFR part 81
(1991) and to any subsequent
Federal Register / VoL 57, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 22, 1992 I Pro oaed Rules
For those PM—la areas redesignated
nonattainment in the final action on
today’s proposal, State. must submit
implementatIon plans to EPA within 18
months after promulgation of the
nonattainment redesignatlon (see
section 189(a)(2)(B)), meeting the
requirements of, among other things.
section 189(a)(1) of the Act. For
example, provisions to assure that
reasonably available control meuures
(including reasonably available control
technology) are implemented within 4
years of an area being redesignated
nonattahunent and classified as
moderate must be submitted withIn 18
months after redesignation (see section
189(a)(1)(C)). A program meeting the
requirements of section 173 governing
the construction and operation of new
and modified malor stationary sources
of PM—b is required within 18 months
(see section 189(a)(1)(A)). Further, the
State’s implementation plans must
contain a demonstration (Including air
quality modeling) that the plan will
provide for attainment of the 134—10
NAAQS as expeditIously as practicable
but no later than the end of the sixth
calendar year after the area’s
• designation as nonattalnment, or a
demonstration that attainment by such
date Is Impracticable (see sections
188(c)(1) and 169(a)(1)(B) of the Act).
-------
43850 - Federal RegIster I Vol. 57. No. 104 j Tuesday. September 22,’ i99 I Proposed Rules
modifications to these SO, tables that
have been published In the Federal
Register (see also 56 FR 50700
(November 8.1991)).
A. described above, EPA Ii
auth rtzed to Initiate the ridesignatlon
of additional areas (or portions thereof)
as nonattainment for SO 1 , pursuant to
section 107(d)(3) of the Act, on the basis
of air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air quality-
related considerations the Administrator
deems appropriate. The EPA believes
that monitoring and/or modeling
Information should be used in
determining the attainment status of an
area and In establishing SO,
nonattalninent boundaries that are
consistent with section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of
the Act.’ As Indicated previously,
nonattainment areas consist of any area
that does not meet the relevant NAAQS
and that significantly contributes to a
violallon of the relevant NAAQS In a
neeiby area. In January and February of
1991, EPA notified the Governors of the
affected States that EPA believed that
certain areas should be redesignated as
nonattainment for SO,. In a Federal
Register notice published on April 22.
1991 (56 FR 16Z74), EPA Identified those
SO, areas for which EPA bad notified
the Governor, of affected States that an
area’s SO 1 designation should be
revised to nonattainment. After
notification, the Governor of each
affected State was required to submit to
EPA the redesignation he or she
considered appropriate for each area In
question within 120 days. For reasons of
administrative efficiency described
above, the EPA requested the States to
submit the designations by March15.
1991 although EPA indicated that the
States had up to 120 days. The EPA has
reviewed the State submittal. for SO,
and, as with the PM-ID redç.lgnationi
proposed in today’s notice. EPA ii -
proposing redesignatlons which are
consistent with those submitted by the
affected States. Section 107(dX3)(c)
provides that EPA must promulgate the
redesignatlon submitted by the State
unless EPA determines that a
modification Is necessary.
B. Today’s Action for SO,
In today’s action, EPA Ii proposing to
redesignate certain areas for SO, In
accordance with the section 107(d)(3)
redesignation process, descrtbed above.
The EPA announced in a notice
‘The A b.5.e.s that those 0 . 1p wkith are
ressuasbip rellab4e aim be used hi deiimibzth&
ssid section 1W1d)m(AJ(I) of the MI. whether in
ste. døes nat mist” or contnbnte. to smblenl sir
quality In a uesthy ares thai doe, not steer ib.
relevant NAAQS (see also 57 ra II&.& April 10.
1992).
published on AprIl 22. 1991 (see 56 FR
10274) that it believed that certain areas
listed In that notice should be
redesignated as nonattainment for SO,.
The EPA also announced in the April
notice that It had notified the Covernor.
of the.affected States that certain SO,
area designations should be revised.
Where a change has been made, relative
to the April 22. 1991 notIce (58 FR 16274),
the rationale for the proposed
redesignatlon, Including any changes.
has been briefly stated below. Technical
Information supporting the redesignation
for each area proposed for redesignatlon
Is available at the addresse. Indicated
above.
District of Columbia
GSA CentroJ: The EPA Is proposing to
redesignate an area within a 1 kilometer
(km) radius of the General Services
Administration’s (GSA’s) Central
Heating Plant as nonattainment for SO,.
This boundary is based upon the results
of EPA air quality modeling which
• revealed violations of the SO, NAAQS
in the area.
GSA West. The EPA also is proposing
to redesignate the area within a 1.5 km
radius of the GSA’s West Heating Plant
as nonattamment for SO,. This
, boundary Is based upon the results of
EPA air quality modeling which, similar
to the area noted above, modeled
violations of the SO, NAAQS in the
area.
The District of Columbia. CSA. and
EPA have entered into an enforceable
complIance agreement The District of
Columbia intends to submit this
agreement and technical analyses
demonstrating that the emissions from
GSA’s two heating plants no longer
cause violations of the NAAQS as a
formal SIP revision to EPA. Because the
SIP revision for the two areas In the
District of Columbia have not yet been
submitted and approved. EPA I.
proposing to redesignate these area as
nonattainment for SO,.
illinois
Madison County: The EPA Is . -
proposing that the nonatteinmeni area
for this county consists of the to mshlps
of Alton, Granite City and NameokL
The size of the Madison County.
nonattainment area was reduced based
upon air quality modeling information
which was submitted by the State and
reviewed by EPA. Major source areas
and their Impact areaa are included in
the proposed nonattalninent area.
SL Clair County: The EPA Is
proposing that the nonattainment area
for this county consists of the townships
of Centreville and East St. Louis. The
size of the St. Clair nonattalnment area
was reduced based upon air quality
modeling which was submitted by the
Stats and reviewed by EPA. Major
source area and their impact area
Included in the proposed nonattal
area. -
Ôinton county? The EPA does not
Intend to propose the redesignatlon of
Clinton County at this time. The State
ha. submitted a finally-adopted plan for
Clinton County which contains
provisions that are expected to assure
attainment and maintenance of the SO,
NAAQ& The EPA proposed to approve
this plan onJuly 1, 1991 (56 FR 29918)
and on November i .i991, EPA finally
approved It (50 FR 50158). The SIP
revisions became effective on December
2,1991.
Oklahoma
Kay County: At this time, EPA will not
propose redeslgnation as nonattainment
for Kay County based upon EPA’s
evaluation of additional information
submitted by the Stats. This Information
consisted of air modeling date which
Indicated no violations of the NAAQS,
and a federally enforceable construction
permit which significantly reduce.
allowable and actual SO, .e.fnslons
from a source In the area. In additl 1
the State has provided the EPA wil
years of monitoring data (1O89-19
which indicate no violations of the
NAAQS In Kay County.
Pennsylvania
Allegheny County: The EPA is
proposing to redesignate part of
Allegheny County as nonattainment for
SO,. SpecIfically, the proposed -
nonattainment area includes Lincoln,
Liberty. Glasaport. and Port Vue
Boroughs and the City of Clairton. The
basis of the redesignation Is monitored
violations of the 24-hour standard.
Won’en County: The EPA is proposing
to redesignate part of Warren County as
nonattainment for SO,. Specifically, the
proposed nonattalument area includes
Glade and Pleasant Townships and the
Cityof Warren.Thebaslsof the
redeaignatlon Is modeling analyses
predicting violations of the 3-hour and
24-hour standards
Texas
Jefferson Counlj’ The EPA does not
Intend to propose the redesignatlon of
Jefferson County based upon a review of
the circumstances surrounding the
monitored SO, violations near the
Based upon this review, EPA and
State of Texas agree that the viols
were produced by an exceptional evem
-------
which occw 4 ed En the area during the
time in question (see. e.g.. “Guideline on
the identification and Use of Air Quality
Data Affected by Exceptional Events”
(EPA-450 4-8e-O07) July 1988). An
accidental fire occurred In the sulfur
recovery unit at a petrochemical facility.
Meteorological data clear1y Indicate a
correlation between the fire, which
lasted for 3 days. and th, monitored SO,
NAAQS exceedances in the area.
West Virginia
Hancock Co imtT The EPA Is
proposing to redesignate the City of
Weirton Including the Butler and Clay
Magisterial Districts as nonattainment
for SO,. This area was not listed in the
April 22.1991 Federal Register notice (58
FR 16274). However, by letter dated
March 0, 1991, the Governor on his own
Initiative requested that the area be
redesignated nonattainment based on
historical monitored exceedances. This
request was clarified by letter dated
May 1. 1991 from the West Virginia Air
Pollution Control Commission to EPA
Region II I. The EPA believes that -
miffident evidence exists to propose the
area as nonattalnment for SO,. The EPA
is thus proposing to approve the
Governor’s request and is proposing to
redesignate this area as nonattainment
pursuant to section 107(dJ(3)(D) of the
Act. Mditlonal parts of Hancock.
County were designated nonattainment
on the date of enactment.of the 1990
Amendments, pursuant to section
107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the Act.
The following is a summary of the
revised nonattainment designations
being proposed in today’. action:
Slat., S,..
SO.ensdesc, i4on
ub_________
.
..
Pelwai +4ai
Pail ci Ma soi CwSy.
P .te(SLQ
Pail ci M h
Oowny, PM ci Wwven
CaiMty..
Pail ci Hwicc Coia Iy.
Pu1cieieOI .o
Cca*Ia wsa*
.
-
Wsci W s.._..__
D VlctciCo5intt._
..
C Significance of Todoy’,Aetion for
So’
For those SO, areas redesignated
nonattainment In the final action on
today’s proposal. States must submit
Implementation plans to EPA within 18
months after promulgation of the’
nonattainment redesignatlon. meeting
the requirements of Part I), Title I of the
Act (see section lal(a) of the Act). The
Implementation plans must provide for
attainment of the SO, NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than 5 year. from the date of the
final nonattainment designation (see
sectIon 192(a) of the Act).
PAR181—PM-1O
IV. Tables
The tables ptuvlded at the end of this
section specify the complete boundaries
and associated designation status that
EPA is proposing for the areas
addressed in today’s action. Thus, the
“designated area” and “designation
type” Identified in the tables indicate
how EPA I. proposing to amend the
pertinent portions of 40 CFR part 81.
Because of the significant cost involved.
EPA has not put the designated areas
and corresponding designation type In
the identical format in which, if
finalized, they will appear in EPA’. final
action modifyIng 40 CFR part 81. The
final format will be consistent with the
style of the revisions to 40 CFR part 81
made in the Federal Register notice
published on November 0,1991 at 56 FR
56894 and Is intended simply to improve
the readability of the table. In 40 CFR
part 81 and to account for the pollutant
classifications required by the 1990
Amendments to the Act. Note.also that
in the November 6, 1991 Federal Register
notice, EPA deferred reformatting the
SO. tables 1n40 CFR part 81 because no
SO. designations were being revised in
that action. The EPA indicated that it
would reformat the SO, tables in the
future as appropriate, The EPA
anticipates that when It takes final
action on the SO, redesignatlons
- proposed in today’s action, it will revise
the SO, tables generally consistent with
the new format.
Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 184 I Tuesday, September 22. 1992 I Proposed Rules
43851
4 ,Jd a iee
OeI Mon date
Type
Ai _n . . .‘.. — . . . .
G Sa County ai —Ps,.en TION, 8&aons 1-3,10.13, 22-27 and 34-30 ci R0€ TI IN,
Gec ona 1-0.10-13, 22-27 w 34-00 ci 99 5 Tl0 -IIN, ’RICE TION, SMtona 4-I, 10-
21, and 20-33 of RIIE TIIN, SocOsna 4-9,10-21, and 20-33 ci RIlE.
Mousy, County (psfl—8i lesd T21N, -21W. wèi Loft. Mead NaSonal
Rai. i ke T2ON, f 0-22 TION, R21-22W tr*ii*Ig Foit Mohave den
-
.
.
Pia bi
Nonaltafleent
•
Ptu .L.
N cnattalfvne nt.
N t
-
San Osmanaito County ‘ç that poiSon kst6J It 515 SIMPS V . 1Sy p .*i
ai, and .‘. *ig SM nsa Ii the Sci , CaM A BW . - . - ..
C.MiiJ P.m County —The Coy ci $pIqs
P 1090 1 1 19
Nonatta iw, iait
Pit,. , ..I 1 ,
Nonatl.ii. . ..
PAJ IT8I—SO,
D.J Wee
DS*15SOfl date
1 5
OIseIaiolCots11Ir: ’ ’ - -
(p.1)—The ens M*i 51 fit m is ci the Genstal SeMcss Ada*SMadon’s
CWat HastIng PtanL
WP . i (jeal)-.The ass M i t a Ii bit mmm of the Gene,ut Ser.tea
• S! sWMP Pflt
Propoe11g ’
Nonattabwn snt
Picpoofng_
Nonatlafnmeit
-------
43852 Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 184 f Tuesday, September 22, 1992 / Proposed Rules
S PART 81—PM—1O -
DsaQistsd sue
Dsdgnslon data
Typ.
-
Koolunal Coimly -.Th. City ci C dA ie.
Stioshone Caijity (psii)-ilwiI povlon at 5Ii ,.Ii County -“- 5 ’ig the I bal PM-tO
nonattakunent wee ci the City ci Phietiwut bi the Sleet Vaitey wear Sections -V arid
34 -36 0 1relee a tar 4 9no r d Ssc t io n sI-w id1O15 c i , a r igsI a
and townohp 48 novti $ecdoiw 13-36 ci isigs 2 seat end 49 ncvtI Seclons
1-lOot range 2 east and IasewIi 48 ncil Sections 19 20, and 25-36 ci range 3 lust
and townatiç 49 no.1l Gu cnu 1-20, arid 36 ci arigs 3 east and tewnhlt 48 ncrti
Section 1 ci wigs 3 seat arid 47 noil Section 31 ci lange 4 east and
lownehip 49 noiV Scalars 1-36 ci rang. 4 east and tawnultip 48 ncetii Sealone I- S
and 6-15 ci ruing. 4 east arid I. ,wn.tIip 47 noVi
-
iu.19
..
PUJ.....iiL
.
,
.
..
.
•
•
.
..
,•
PART 81—SO 1
s e
Osulgislon data
‘ Typs
PART 81—PM-1O
.
ar e a
data
Typs
Mont Sandera County
SecVciarR29W,T21NS5 Ib7, ,9,
and . loclj*ng the taI ng
1O,lObandlS.
Grew t boundary area
Fru O g
N U.k rt
.
New Martins SamsiUc County
New Yciio New Vol County
egns Lane County ar -CobIdgs Its
RUPOekig
P,upoiL
Reposing
NWr t
N , ..Ualonsi,t
U t
PART 81—SOs
•-:
area
Dedgedon data
Type
—
gCounty nui1)-L arty. Lincoin t ..p-
Warren County (pefl)—Wwven Bovougtn, Pleasant
- and Pod Vue Bora4ns. end Vie City
and Glede 7 n tnip
P&.
.
iWflSIt
.
Piu, k ig
N on.U. ii...ait
PART 81—PM-b
dar
D dais
Type
Waeteigtns
Bentcn. Frs n arid Wale Wala TII satss
area ci tine City ci WaiWi (pwQ D J.,
border UTM ne 11. 370000mE hee n
intersection with (JIM 5.135000ntil Thu
Westedy *stUwn ta the acintium border ci
Idlawe tine acidhem H.nk,d Weds boundary
bcnmduy then tolawu thu Yeats River
k’itsrsealwn cith Ionjde 119 30’. The bgundsy
wltidn fonna Ins ..wtina... geogapltia Isslaw
lie 500.focl contcn4 The nonsttaivnnei*
along the usgs oust is lii Suntan/Yeats
sullisdy en lie Burden Candy las
boundary lien foOows an eassarly rdu
Vwbo I. .
Weal Vi tia Haruedi wind lecois Canidas -.ay
ng the Wiel PM-1O . ..i*
at the poW on the sg IkngL...
north IA ,h , IITM 370000mE ta the
boundary than f claws UTM 5.135.000ntil in.
the H Jovd Wodu. The boundsy then
in . .dy .iI. ,J ,.. to R27E. lbs
sfruarn) in a uouthweete,ty ds &.. lo the
lous south along 11930’ loIn. ddg.
ci the Horse Heaven Pe apprarâuetely
boundsy then b l ess in a .uhi1 r In UWII
County las. yin. bomduy lien blows 8
is Vie sgo&WaJ*igk... atis lee. The
along lie egcn/Wedl..gtoe stale las la
ci Welts,
.
•
.
.
Pr
•
—
•
.
•
‘
Pk.,.u. 1n 5
.
‘
.
•
? Iukit
.
-
•
Nonattelsnart
PART 81—SO1
Oeslgnated sue
Designation date
I Typs
M - . County (pefl)-A Grads City, arid Pömualti
SL ci a Cwniy (pst)—Car*uvBe and East SI. La To.
I
West W d . City ci Walton lnoidng Biter and Clay Magistenal Diocicte
-------
• Request for”Public Comments
The EPA Is. by this notice, proposing
Lat the PM.-10 and SO 1 designations for.
rtain areas be revised. The EPA Is
questing public comments on all
pects of this proposal Including the.
propriateness of the proposed
signaUons and the scope of the
oposed boundaries. Public comments -
wuld be submitted to EPA at the
idresses Identified above by
ovember 23,1992.
L Other Regulatory Requirements
• Regulatory Flexibility ActS
43853
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control. National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7407.7501-7515.7601.
Datsé September 8.1992.
F. lisary Hibichi U,
ActirsgAdininistmlor.
(ffi D cc. 92-22785 Filed 9-21-9 &45 amj
coca e
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 184 I Tuesday. September 22, 1992 I Proposed Rules
proposed rules subject to notice-and-
comment rulemaking an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis describing
the impact of the proposed rule on small
entitles. The requirement of preparing
such analysis is Inapplicable, however.
if the Administrator certifies that the
proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities (see 5 U.S.C.
005(b)).
The redesignatlons proposed for PM—
10 andSOs will not alone directly
b impact or impose any significant
requirements on a substantial number of
small entitles. Accordingly. I hereby
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 certify that the actions proposed today
S.C. 001-012, EPA must prepare for will not have a significant economic
-------
16908 Federal Register I Vol. 58, -No. 130 / Friday, July 9. 1993 / Proposed Rules
Adm Ini trut orofEPARagl o n VI I I
‘ ‘ -‘ ‘ “i notified the Governorof Montana that
MS-1-56S9FRL.46fl-13. . “ EpAbellevedthattheazeasround
gr Whitefish should be xedes natedu”.
plannIng Purposes; Montana; fbn1at mmnt for PM
)eslgnatlon of Whitefish puio -, 107(d)(3liB). the Governor of Montana
lonaiimnentgjsa : •. wu r equlredtoeubrn lttoEPAthe
designation he considered atmroorlate
oaicT: U.S. ivironrnoutal Protection for the area around Whltefishwlthln
5flCY(EPA)..::r:. . Z l2OdayssfterEPA’.notlficatlon.The
tCflON: Notice of proposed ru]einAlng . EPA received the Slate’s response for ____
Whitefish, Montana on November 13,
IU& AItY: Pureuant to the Clean Air Act iae . Now, the EPA roust promulgate
Is amended in 1990, EPA Is authorized the redesignatlon that It deems
o promulgate new dedgn*tlons of areas necessary and appropriate, consistent _____
or portions thereofl U non ft11!lment with section 107(d)(3)(C) of the Act.
or the PMIO (naitlcle . with an - •Based upon EPA’. review of the State
erodynamlc hameter lees than or equal - submittal for Whitefish, EPA ii
o a nomInal 10 mloromoter.) National. proposing redeilgn*tlon which Is -
mb1erit Air Quality Standards consistent with the request submitted by
NAAQS).Intb lsnotlce,EPAI ‘ thoGovernorofMontana.EPA I
)ropo.lng to revise the PMIO requesting comments on today’s
teslgnatlon for a portion of Ftatheed.• proposal and will consider any relevant
ountv, Montana. Previously, consistent comment in *klng final action
sith the Act. EPA-notified tf e Governor today’, proposal.
f Montana that the area around Section 107(d)(1XA) sets out
Nhlteflsh, Montana should be definitions of nonattalnment,
edesignated from unrl*.affiAble to at 1nment, end unclassifiable. The EPA
onat’ ’n”ent for PM1O. The - has proposed that Whitefish. Montana. ___
edesigostlon is based upon violations addressed In todays notice, be.
f the PM1O NAAQS which were redeiIgn tod nonattnl ment. A
nonltored durIng February and March nonattalnment area Is defined as any ____
f 1992. - - - - area that does not meet (or that
AIES All written comments should be significantly contributes to ambient air
nibm lttedbyAugust9,1993. - - q u a ty I nanosrt 3 azesthatdo.snot
woeassss: All comments should be meet) the national primary or seconder,
ambient alt quality standard for PM2O
iddressed to: Douglas t L Ski., 1ef .. , 1o7( (1xAju)1. Thus, In
lr Programs Branch (8AICF-AP). EPA determlnlng.the appropriate boundaries
Region VIII, 999 18th Street, suIte 500, - for the nonatlainmont areas proposed
Denver, ) 80202—2466. today, EPA has considered not only the
Information supporting today’s action ares where the violations of the PMIO
an be found at the following location: NMQS are occurring, but nearby areas
IIA Region VIII. Air Programs Branch. ch 1ficantly contribute to such
99 ‘18th Street. 6th Floor. South Tower, - -
Denver, Colorado 80202—2468.
The Information may be Inspected -: IL Bickgroond ferPMlO
between 8 am . and 4 n.m., on On July 1, 1987, the EPA revised the
weekdays, except for legal holidays. A- . QS for particulate matter (52 FR
reasonable fee may be as d for -‘ 24634), replacIng total suspended
opyI ng.. - - -. - - t. -. -, . -• particulate. as the indicator far
FOR FURThER PFO A1ION CONTACTI particulate matter with a new Indicator
Call. Videtich. Air Programs Brsnch.• celled pj o, that Includes only those
EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street, suite - p ij with an aerodynamic iiIam ter
500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405, - -‘ lees than or equal toe nomInal 10 -
(303) 2!2-1754. - - - miorometers. At the same lime, EPA set
-- ii,-.
SUP aIENTART IFORMAI1OII. - forth the regulations for I’nplementlni
the revised particulate matter standaras
LGenur .I -. -- - andarmo mced EPA’s State - -
The EPA Isauthâz zeä to inftlat ‘ .- ImplementatIon plan (SIP) development
redesignatlon of areas (or portions policy, elaborating PMIO control
thereol) as nnn*ftainrnent for PMIO - - strateglee necessary to assure attainment
pursuant to section lilld)(3).of the Act, and malntonanca o the PMIO NAAQS
on the basis of air quality data, planning — - -
and control conaidira Jons, or any other • Th . ‘A ha. con . usd thads 5alUoe of
air cnrullty-related cc. . iderat1ons th D n mt va. to tat%Ihe men matetal or
Adidnlstrator deenu spproarlate. -. C thhati0O to a ioiatIan In a
are.. Tb. Agmnq belluva. liii re ’oaeais to
Following the process outlined In -. , .n _____
section 107(d)(3), on July16, 1992. the • Impact I. rsipib.d.
Nib
tee. generally 52 FR 246721. The EPA
- adopted sPM1O SIP development
policy dividing elf areas of the country
Into three categories based upon their
probability of violating the new,
NAAQS: (1) Areas with a strong
likelihood of violating the newPMlO
NAAQS and requiring substantial SIP
adjustment were placed In Group I (2)
are .. that might well have been
attaining the PM1O NAAQS and whose
. dstlng SIPS most likely needed I . ..
adjustment were placed In Group D and
(3) eros. with. strong likelihood of -
attaining the PM1O NAAQS and.
therefore, needing adjustments only to
their preconsiruction review program
and monitoring network were placed In
Group III (53 FR 24672,24679-24682).
At that time, Whitefish was categorized
asa Group III area.
Pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(B) of the’
Act, areas previously Identified as
Group land other areas which had
monitored violations of the PMIO
NAAQS prior to January 1. 1989. wore.
by operation of law upon sctment of
• the 1990 Amendments, designated -
nonattainment for PM1O. All other areas
of the Country, such us the Whitefish
area, were aimilarly designated
- unclassifiable for PMIO (lee sedlon
107(d)(4)(B)(lII) of theAct 40 R
81.327(1992) as amended by57 PR
56782,56772 (Nov. 50, 1992) (PMIO
designations for Montana)). Alter EPA
adopted the PMIO NAAQS, EPA
IdentIfied and listed the Group I and
Group U areas hi a federal Register
notice published on August 7, 1987(53
FR 39383). In that notice, EPA Inilfr.Imd
that Group UI areas consisted of that
portion of eState not placed In Group
I or U. Desoriptions of the areas
Identified as Group I and U areas were
later clarified ma Federal Righter
notice dated October 31,1990 (55 FR
45799). That notice also Identified
Group U areas which violated the
standards prior to January 1,1989. EPA
announced all areas which were
designated nonattalninent by operation
of law for PM1O upon enactment of the
1990 Amendments In a l’iddal Register
notice dated March 15,1991(58 FR
11101). In addition, EPA baa published
a follow-up notice correcting the
boundaries and designation, of some of
the areas In light of comments received -
addressing that March 1991 notIce (see
56 FR 37654 (August 8. 1991)). Formal
codification In 40 R part 81 of those
areas designifiod nonattainmant for
PMiOby operatIon of law upon
enactment woe announced In o Federal
Register notice dated November 6, 1991
(56 FR 56 94). The November 6. 1991
Federal Register notice was
-------
- - ‘sr- - - - -- - :
- . - :-P.dassI I Msr’ UVöI.*No. IOtPziday, JUly9, 1e3 !I apcaed i
subsequontly a .d wMo,onb 3O F thII .11cn1o7(dX1XA)(I) ‘k NI ones W A July lB. 1$ .
• 1992 (3711 36762).- -’provtdss thate ee shall 4ettar . on R .b ’ 13. 1892, the
- . ,, , :;ç: ’ of thk as y4nt 4ng thePMIO Gov&norofMontaua asquested that -.
V — NAAQ .S c i ccuitrih.t1o IR ifIvt. Qtv of W 1 fi Ii and swrouiidlug .
As noted sb - In aneathy & . idnity,iu aPastion ofPletheed
W o ftheAci A anthwiusd __
• tt*In tfor aaed • apo nfate the wty . w’ .Elp..r ; -deWled boimdaths are pzóvkled In the
‘ anloipi e thdlvlz1on In wb ithe . tobb below. Based on the I’
reconled botwien Fshni*iy 4 and Marth ___ __ ___
13, 1992, ru p’ ’g born 163 to 333 p$I . -. that this would bchrd. both - oonsttMa8isit boundarils lII. &bpi
m3 . EPA the Goverraci of -- - • area , 1 Ij”rni the PMIO NAAC SIul . the Th he
•MontanaanJuly1
Montana should be iede,(grn tad
m 4 m. ffiaIJe to , wi H.1nmi .nt ,
PM1O. We. O ’RJO4 ]
: & i i stthe
ibove.
I V. ofTiday’. achieiwi ovary tiuse years uutU.•
WbiI .b, -tb. area Is i Ig d attainment i
UtheWhiteflshrofMo a Is S .l wbjch dIn xatrets 89 aannihI
. : i. tai1 i. d w.1 11ai.. . rt when EPA as tiaft.,d Ii bei
takes final sotlon on today’s proposal , ? ement .
• such area will be fied as modatats 158(4,1
PMIO nonaP Iniii 4 area b ersdcn’ p
QflowdmeofthedA4 a& .il( -
esvtI 188 (a) ). Montana lust ivloñIt
?.nlniplarnmrtit lon plentó EPA ‘
areswttb1n 18 months afturfinal’
-enrtaday’spropaue lmid
•thfta nm e ntbsd
meeting the nqufrem rt.
‘ntis I of the Ad (bean
:18o(ax2xB) of the A4
• .Th.11 AAd1
plan far the area
otherh4ng,. the
:i,aukeme • r
- i.E Ithsrai
sIrquajfty mOdeling ) that the
-lirovide kr slnmout ãf the]
NAA as arcpeditlouslyu 1 5
butnolat.zt *eendi
f lliA year after thi within. 18 moiithi from the P ’’”” BtItUII
______ as nonatta1nmen à a ed s1gn t1oo , to coIncide 11th the due 5iOa and doe. not In
d.manatzetlon that attainment by such ‘ -date foi the rest of the moderate PM 1O sgulatoiy requirements on
- datef. Impructlcable r.-. . ouat*aIrnnent the extant that the area mud ed now :
.2. Previsions to asome that mesonablj •‘ - -• - . águladons, based en Its nona
. IWils urnitrol nw,wa . (lnclndfng V. Riiiue biPublic • EPA will review the eøid of
iiab’y a ,allsble cardrol tethnology) The EPA Is, by this notice. proposing.: those nell tUe . at the
—are beplemauted wIthin 4 years of the : i--that the PMIO deaf atIar far a pcutlan :strne the State arJ rnlts limOs iIguhth
• & . tbd
- fldiud Ca irn . —Th• Csi d lat arsi w nbig si
- ally Wended byise 6am tkMisi Tamiuia. .al r (UThI)
uJostee 189000 mE, 5310000 I est to 93800*
- 5370000 n*4 , bali to 133000 mE 5381000 n#4, east tel
sitS, 5381 nt i S, arid nails to 896000 mE, 5370000 WI
andI
a date
the
ireqa lredbyi
tb. Ad (see 57 PR 13498 at 13510—
and 13543-44); SedIanlT*b) of the
d i . that such dati.bill not be -
i3yeari t h e
,Addoss:
-------
67334 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 243 I Tuesday. December 21., 1993 / Rules and Reguiations
NMEIB on July 8. 1988). and July 16. 40 CFR Pail 81 .‘ - . - ‘s Sidles -
1990 (as revised and adopted by the
NMEID on March 9. 1990). Air Quality - -
SteØien H. RJthIMI, Qiel, noia.. -
Control Regulation 707—Pennits, Designation of Areas forAlr Qu ity end . .. : -
Prevention of Significant Deterioration P , ngPurp sas - •.. . -. EPA Region V-iT West . :‘ .‘ -.
(PSD) and its Supplemental document. - -. — - . ‘ StiNt. Q O .
is approved as meeting the requirements AGBICY: Environmental Pr e Jon , ’ - .. 11111015 60604, (312) 3 . : - -
nil. -
of part C. Clean Air Act for preventing Agency (EPA). FOIIenA. Chef. Ak New Meidee,
significant deterioration of air quality.. ACTION: Final rule. - Pro aies Braid’., EPA . .
(b) The requirements of section 160
through 165 of the ci Air Act suMMARY: Pursuant to section ’107(dX3) - Region VI. 1445 Ross Av- . -.
Dalas, lame - .. -.
met for Federally designated Indian . of the Clean Air Ad (Ad). EPA is takuig 75 733 (214) 655 -
lands. Therefore, the provisions of . final action to redesignate areas (or - ... -
§ 52.21 (b) through (w) are hereby P 11 i0 5 thamof)as nonattaininent for - Dogi t 11. SNe. Chief. Ak Colorado,
incorporated by reference and made a the PM—la (particles with an. Pregraon Branch. EPA Moi na.
part of the applicable implementation aerodynamic diameter less than or equal Region VIII. 999 1851 -
plan. and are applicable to sources to a nominal 10 miaometers) and sulfur Street Denver Place—
located on land under the control of dioxide (SOi3 national ambient air sijta 500. Denver, Cole-
Indian governing bodies, quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA is 8 ”2405. (3m)
(c) The plan submitted by the taking action to redesignate these areas 3”1 750.
Governor in paragraph (a) of this section as nonattainmant due to violations of L) L Caldnc. Chief. Ak California. M-
for Prevention of Significant the NAAQS far these pollutants. Programs Stanch. EPA rena.
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Deterioration is not applicable to Ad requires that the States containing g
Bernalillo County. Therefore, the - such nonattainment areas develop plans Ca11on a 94105, (415)
following pLan descnbed below is - to expeditiously bring the areas-mto - . - 744-1219. .
applicable to sourcas located within the attainment with the NAAQS for both. Georve Mel. Chef. Ak Pro- Idoho. Or--
boundaries of Bernalillo County pollutants. , sans Brord . EPA Re- egon. end
(including the aty of Albuquerque). - FECT1VE DATE: January 20. 1994. . - peti X. 1200 Slidh Aye- -Wamh tL
i seaae, was, i
This plan, submitted by the Governor of ADORESSES Information supporting -. 98101 6) 442-ins,
New Mexico on April 14. 1989. August today’s action can be found in
7,1989. May 1. 1990, and May U. 1993. Docket No. A—92-22. The docket Is’ ‘ - - -
and respectively adopted on Ivfazth 8.-’. Located at the U.S EPA A1rDo cket. i.- - - ‘ “-‘ .“
1989, July 32, 1989, April fl;i990 .’and Room M-iS0o,WatersIdeMell LE-i31;.. ThD’Als authorized to re de nate -
February 10.’l99Zby the A1büq1 èrt uel’4o1 M s et sw waeb1 (oriiot ions’theieoQas’ -
.“ñonáttainment fdr,PM O nd S0 2 , -
Be ualilLI CountyAIr’Quality Control - 20460. The docket may be Inspected
Board, containing Regulation 29— — - - from 8:30 a.*n. to 12noon and.frcun 130 pursuant to section 107(d)(3) of he’
Prevention of Significant Deterioration - - p.mn.to 330p.m. on wee ays e cept -’’ Ad. 1 on the basis of air quality dati ’
and Its April 11. 1990, Supplemental for legal holidays.-A reasonable e 4 , P ”8 and conirplainsideratlons. or-
- any’othirair qi slity-relat d ‘. ‘:. ‘. - -
document, Is approved as meeting the- -. be charged far copying. In addition, the considerations that the AdmInistrit w -
requirementsof pail C Of the Clean Air public may Inspect lnformation
Act forthepreventlonofslgniflcant’- pertainingtoapai u1arareaattbe ’ d0 Pp0Phiat0
Following the process outlined ink.
deterioration of air quality. ‘.-.‘. -: ‘ ,‘. r p ve EPA Regional Office which ‘k’: iection’lOfld(3. in January and — , -.
4. Sectlon’52.1636 is revised to read - - serves the OmetlW ff ct d -“ Febnrary of 1991. EPA notified the’’
as follows: —‘ ‘- - -. - is located, ..; :-.- - -; - . ‘- Governors of the affected States that
§52.1636 vt áy “::, — , ‘FOR RIRThER I FORMATION ‘ -‘ EPA believed certain ereasthodid be”
(a) The requirements of section 169A. - Larry Walhiiw (PM-10),’SOzIPartioulate - redesignated as nonattainment fat PM-
of the Clean Air Ad ale not-met for the. Matter Progr ms Branch Air Qw fty:’ 10 and SQr. Th ,EPAIdeut ed hose
State of New Mexico. outside the’ - - - ‘; k4 gment Division (MD .i5)L Offlde areas fri a Federal Ragistànolice
boundaries of Bernalillo County, of Air Quality Planning and Standards. published on April 22.1991(56 FR
because the plan does not indude US. EnvzmwnentSL Protection Agency; 16274). Under section 107(d)(3)(B) of
approvable procedures meeting the Research Thangie Park. North Carolina the Act, the Governors of oath of the
requirements of 40 R 51.305 and 27711. (919) 541—0906. - - - -. affected States were required to submit
5 1.307 for protection of visibility in SUPPLEMENTARY DIFORMA11ON: The to EPA the designations that he or she
mandatory Class I Federal areas. contacts and addresses of the RegionaL considered appropriate for each area in
(b) Regulations for visibility Offices are: question no later than 120 days after
monitoring and new source review, The notification. However, for reasons of
provisions of § 52.21. 52,27. and 52.28 admInistrative efficiency, the EPA
are hereby incorporated and made part s, Baker. Chief, Ak t-iew York. the States to submit the
of the applicable plan for the State of Pr g wes Branch, EPA designations by March 15. 1991. (the
New Mexico. outside the boundaries of Region II, 26 Federal date the lists of designations for all
Bernalillo County. Plaza, New York, New owne and carbon monoxide areas were
(c) Long-term strategy. The provisions York 10278, (212) 264— due from the Governor of each State
of § 52.29 are hereby incorporated and 2517. purauant to section 107(d)(4)(A) of the
made part of the applicable plan for the Mania Sprlc. Chef, Ak Pro- Olstii dCo- ‘Act). Under section 107(d)(3)(C) of the
State of New Mexico, outside the grams Branch, EPA Re- kintle. - -
boundaries of Bernalillo County. 9 10 (1 II I, 841 CheStflhl POIV10)1Va iRef.tsn s herein are iO the Dean Au Ad. u
n sa. and mended (1990 Amendmen!s I, The Clean Air Ad
IFR Doc. 93—31038 Filed 12—20—93. 8.45 aml Penruytvai a 19107, (215) West V - Iscodified. a, amended, in the US Code at 42
8ILUWG COOS 5io .6O.D 597-9075 ginia U.S C. 7401. ef seq
Re o11ces
S es
-------
Federal Register I Vol 58, No. 243 / Tuesday. December 21. 1993 1 Rules and Regulations 67335
Act. EPA promulgates the re’Iecignation adjustment, were placed an Group &(3) result of these comments. hasdecided to
submitted by the State. making audi areas with a strong likelihood of - defer ica on the areas at this time. A
modifications as EPA may deem - attaining the PM—b NAA ä --- more detailed explanation for why EPA
necec ery. The EPA proceeded to-... therefore.needing adjustments only to 4$ deferring action on these areas is . -
propose redesignatioa tonoñattainment their p constndionrevzew pregram.z : - provided in the “Response to -‘ -
for many F? 1-1O and SO areas where - and monitoring netwcá. were phaaid in Co ieuts ”a”ctioo beloii. -
such action wai not inconsistent with Group 111(52 FR 24672. z4679-24682). . The 10 arena that EPA Is taking final’
the recommendations of the affected Pursuant to sections 107(dX4MB) and action on in today’s ootkzro the--
State(see 57 FR 43846 1 September 22. 188(a)of theAct,areas previously ‘— foil ‘g ( l)P wu.Ar izou n ;1Z)L
1992). The EPA is taking final action as- identified as GroUp 1(55 FR 45799, ‘ ‘ Qty” ,(3J Saurnento
proposed, except for the changes- - -.. .. October31. 1990) and other-arena whidi County. Cahlornin; (4San . nwiino ,
described below which vere made in had monitored violations of the PM-b County. C Ii 5 .wnia ”(5the Steamboat’.
response topubiicccmoients. NAAQS poor to January 1; 1989 were. Springs Area Aimhod Colorado’ (6)
Section 107(d)(1) (M) of the Act sets’ by operation of liw upon enactment of ShoshoneCountj. Idaho (pelt); (7)’ -
out definitions of nonattainment. the 1990 Clean Air Ad Amendments Thompson Falls. Montana (8) NewS
attainment, and unclassifiable. A (Pub. L No. 101—549,104 Stat. 2399). York County. New York3 (9) Oakridge.
nonattainment ama is defined as any designated nonattainment and classified Oregon; and (10) the aty of Weirton.
area that does not meet, or that as moderate for PM-la Formal West Virginia. These 10 areas are
significantly contributes to ambient air codification in 40 CFR part 81 of those classified as moderate PM—b
quality in a nearby area that does not - - areas was announced in a Federal i- nonattainmeut areas by operation of law
meet, the national primary orsecondary Register notice dated November 6.1991 at the time of their nonattaininent
ambient air quality standard for the (56 FR 56694) (see also 57 FR 56762.- redesignatioa (see ion 188(a) of the
relevant pollutant 2 (see section November 30. b992) All otherareas of Act). Note also that the complete
107(d)(i)(A)(i)). Thus. in determining the country were designated - descdptions of the nonattainnient
the appropriate boundaries forth. WidasSifi able for PM-b by-operation of boundaries for these 10 areas are out
nonanAlnmeut .dd .d . law upon enactment of the 1990 - - in the regulatory language at the end of
today’s final rule. EPA has considered Ainendmertts (see section ‘ today’u notice.-’ - -
not only areas where violations of the 107(d)(4XBXiii)Of the Ad).’ - -. The EPA received. . .mn . tc ’ -
relevant NAAQ have been monitored In January end Fabruary of 1991. EPA concerning the aedesignatfon of some of
and/or modeled, but also nearby areas n0t of these during the public o0mm1 t
whIch signlfl ntIy contribute to such .•. which mood violations of the PM-b - peziod’provided hr the September 22 .
violations. -‘ . -: . - :.. , - . standard after January 1.- 1989 tt EPA’ 1992Trkua Register notice lad his” -
- believed thMl sear r asshculdbe i . . providedad.talledieapáseto1hess . .. -
IL Toda .Zdfee ,‘ - gir L ,sigpi l
4 PM-iC ’ - ., 1 -, , - it InaFoderalRegasterantaca - ajJ - - —
- - •. . - .. -‘-. .,- . ‘. publishodonApnl-22.1991( FL-e,,- - .. 0
On July -i. t987.EPA revised the . - 162;4) AidemfledthoeePM—l9 -
NAAQS k late mat (521 R— ,. j PA no dtl : — YoUowi agtba’OeaA
24634);Teplangto*a susperuled -’,L Go emerrofaIfededStaãthat1ho’ ” - ’ - .Ameno 49EPNpthlishad-a.
- -- -areas PM-In de ntionohoWd4,e —’ .- -liSt4 sines Id1ntifledby1h.SIateaas
particulate unatferwitha new mdl tor :ievj
cellad-Pld doythse- . : ’ notification, theG feedi ’
partides wfthm aerodrraefr dlameer ‘4men ’ *ovidedfoidevigna’ tc - -
tess than or equal tea nommaibo.. .: - - - EPA tim redesignation be crab of areas based ontheirstAtus ,. ’,. . — -‘
mianmeters.-At the seine time. EPA ,et- co pproprh ate foresth ea. -t lmmodlately.bof&.enactmentofthe -
forth regulations arimpleme he .” The ‘A -. 1 ”dtopnrpose. i .- ’199OAmendments. For €‘pie, any..-
revised particulate matter standards and tonana tainr,nr1 elem- area pry yd ig ted as not’
amroencodWiSt unpleme on TorJtl4.10 fatlieS t.- 2 aggt c ratthlol gthopraaaryorseceodarySOr
plan (Sn’) development poIicy -- -“ - - :7eleraIRe ernôlice . ’ - w ’ - NAAQSas of the datè!of enactment of -.
elaborating PM-b conirul strategies” ‘ Today, A Isi*lriag final action to —‘ the 1990 Amendments ares designated
necessary to ensure attainment and - - redesignate as nonatfRinn nt fO PM .40 - nonattalnment for SO by operation of
maintenance of the PM-b NAAQS’(see 10 of the areas previously proposed for - law upon enactment, pursuant to
52 FR 24672). The EPA adopted a PM- redesignation in the September 22.1992 section 107(4XIXCXi) of the Ad. In
10 SIP development policy dividing all - Federal Register notice. The EPA is - addition, any area designated as’,
areas of the country into three categories deferring action on two of the remaining - attainment or unckcrillabla (or “cannot
based upon their probability of violating areas and is no longer taking action to ‘be dassified”) Immediately before the
the new NAAQS: (1) Areas with a strong redesignate Bernalillo. New Mexico. to enactment of the 1990 Amendments was
likelihood of violating the new PM—be nonattainment for PM—jo. The two also designated as such upon the
NAAQS. and requiring substantial SIP ‘areas that’EPA is deferring action on are enactment of the Amendments pursuant
adjustment, were placed in Group I; (2) the following: (1) Kootenal County, - to sections b07(d)(1KC) (‘ii) and (lii) of
areas which may have been attaining the Idaho (pad); and (2) Benton. Franklin. the Act. For the current status of SO 1
PM—b NA.AQS. and whose existing and Walla Walla/Th counties, areas, readers should refer to the
SIP’s most likely needed less Washington. excluding the initial PM— codification tables currently set forth in
_________ - 10 nonattainment area of the city of 40 R part 81 (1991) and to any
tilts EPA baa auis ued the deCniiioe of Walla Walla, Washington. The EPA
nonatta Iueeot Ieea lo require soot. material or received comments on these areas ‘A&t EPA proposed its PM-to iionaltaiztniem
ai 5 i’.ifica t coiztnbutioa to. viotatioe dunn • redealgn.tioo for New York Coumy, th . Natural
area me t4ency belieies tbai it is riasonaltie to g y PU IC commen R3OIMVSS Defense C il lied. petition
conclude that something greater titans ia period provided in the September 22. req’ , ti , this EPA pmttply proceed to I ’rnal
impact is required. 1992 Federal Register notice and, as a action. Toda .’s rinal action diaposes of that reqi ,e-s
-------
67336 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 1 Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
EPA received comments on these areas
during the 60-day public comment
period provided in the September 22.
1992 FederaL Register notice, and as a
result of these comments has decided to
defer action on the areas at this time. A
more detailed explanation for why EPA
is deferring action on these areas is
provided in the comment section below.
The two areas that EPA is taking final
action on in today’s notice are the city
of Weirton, West Virginia and Warren
County. Pennsylvania (part). The EPA
did not receive any adverse comments
concerning the redesignation of these
areas during the public comment period
following the September 22. 1992
Federal Register notice. Therefore, EPA
is taking final action as planned to
redcsignate these areas to
nonattainment.
subsequent modifications to those SO 2
tables that have been published in the
deral Register (see also 56 FR 56706.
)vember 6. 1991).
As described above, EPAIs
authorized to initiate the redesignation
of additional areas (or portions thereof)
as nonattainment for SO 2 , pursuant to
section 107(d)(3) of the Act, on the basis
of air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air quality-
related considerations the Administrator
may deem appropriate. The EPA
believes that monitoring and/or
modeling information may be used in
determining the attainment status of an
area and in establishing SO 2
nonattainment boundaries that are
consistent with secti.:n 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of
the Act. As indicated previously, a
nonattainment area is any area which
does not meet the relevant NAAQS or
which significantly contributes to a UI. Response to Comments
violation of the relevant NAAQS in a In the September 22. 1992 proposal.
nearby EPA provided a 60-day comment period
In January and February of 1991, EPA ending on November 23, 1992 in order
notified the Governors of the affected to solicit public comments on all.
States that EPA believed that certain aspects of the proposaL For.those areas
areas should be redesignated as that EPA is redesignating in today’s
nonattaininent for SO i due to violations action, EPA has responded to the public
of the primaiy and secondary standards. comments received and,-as appropriate.
In a Federal Register notice published made modifications in Light of audi
on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16274). EPA - comments. In certain lns ncas EPA is
ientified those SO 2 areas for which deferring redesignation of areas. Where
PA had notified the Governors of EPA is deferring iedesIguatlo I of en -
‘ected States that an area’s SO . area, EPA will publish its final
..isignation should be revised to determination on the area in a separate
nonattainznent After notification, the. notice and will respond to relevant
Governor of each affectedState was public comments at that time
A. PM :Arizon’--Portk of ha’.
appropriate for each area. In the - . . .
September22. 1992 Federal Register Comments were received contending
notice, the EPA proceeded to propose- that the PM-b violafionsi nded in
redesignation of seven areas to Payson were due to smrrces.in the-
nonattainment for SO 2 . VicinitY of the monitoring equipment
Today. EPA is taking final action to - - -Comments w reoeived requesting that
redesignate, as nonattainment for SOi, - . industry in thoPayson area be further
two of the areas previously proposed for evaluated to determine if compliance
redesignation in September 22, 1992 with the PM—1O NAAQS can be -
Federal Register notice. The EPA is achieved through the current State
deferring action on the remaining five permitting programs. One cominenter
areas. The five areas that EPA is requested that EPA delay the
deferring action on are the following: (I) desIgnation of the area as nonattainment
Allegheny County. Pennsylvania (part); until sufficient information became
(2) the District of Columbia (General available to evaluate the extent of the
Service Administration’s Central problem in the area. One commenter
Heating Plant); (3) the District of further contended that areawido
Columbia (General Service violations were not recorded which
Administration’s West Heating Plant); would justify a nonattainment
(4) Madison County. Illinois (part): and designation for the area. This particular
(5) St. Clair County. Illinois (part). The commenter furthercontended that the
_________ proposed boundaries of the
nonattainment area are unwarranted
and would constitute an extreme and
unnecessary hardship upon the area.
The EPA notes that particulate matter
sampling has been conducted in Payson
since 1974. A monitor measuring total
Ifle EPA believes thai those tools which are
easonably reliable can be used in determining.
tdei section iO?(dHl)(AUi) of the Act, whether an
a “does nut meet” or “contributes to ambient air
lity in a nearby area that does not meet” the
ivant NAAQS (ace also 57 FR 13545. April 16.
992).
suspended particulates (TSP) began
operation in downtown Payson in 1974.
Significant violations of the TSP
NAAQS were recorded annually until
1977 when the monitoring site was
relocated to the Tonto National Forest
Ranger Station, 2 miles north of the
original site. In 1980, the monitor was
again relocated to the original site and
again recorded significant annual
violations of the TSP NAAQS through
1986. In 1987. PM—1O monitoring was
begun and violations of both the 24 hour
PM-to NAAQS and the annual were
recorded in 1989 and 1990. These
violations thus provided an ample basis
for proceeding with a nonattainment
designation for Payson (see section 107
(d)(1)(A)(i), (d)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR
50.6).
That comn-ienters contended that
some monitors in the area have not
recorded violations, and that Payson
may only have a localired problem,
does not change the foci that Payson has
violated the PM—b NAAQS and should
therefore be designated nonattainment.
Rather, these comments are relevant to
the scope and nature of the PM—b
nonattainment problem. These issues
are preasely what the SIP development
process which follows from
nonattednment k4gi mtIon Is Intended -
to a and to address. This Is also the
case with the comments suggesting that
EPA impose source specific control
measures or rely on -the State permitting -
process Instead of designating the area
nonattainnlenL The Ad calls for States -
containing areas designated -:
nonattlinment to submit to EPA for
approval a plan that will expeditiously
bring the area back Into attainment.
During the SIP development process.
comprehensive wnkeions Inventory
data will be llected end monitors and
modeling iijll be employed to assess the
scope end-nature of the problem and
reasonable measures will be
implemented to address the problem
(see. e.g., sections 189(a), 172(c), and
l1O(a)(2) of the Act), The Act provides
for EPA review of the SIP to assess its
sufficiency and to make it federally
enforceable (see. e.g.. sections 110(k),
302(q). and 113 of the Act).
The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEOJ
conducted a special monitoring study in
i99o to, among other objectives, identify
the sources (both point and area) that
a Total suspended paniculates (TSP) was the
origidil air quality indicator fog the N QS for
particulate matter. Tb. TSP was a measurement of
all particulate matter in the ambient air. regardless
of size. In July 1957. EPA revised the NAAQS for
particulate matter to include only those pailtcles
with an aerodynamic diameter teas than or equal to
nominal 10 mictomelers (PM—to)
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No. 243 I Tuesday. December 21. 1993 I Rules and Regulations 67337
contribute to the high PM—ic
concentrations in Payson The results of
that study mdicate that the highest PM—
10 concentrations occur in the winter
months and that residential wood
combustion, an areawide PM—b air
quality problem, is the m significant
contributor to PM—Ic concentrations
during this time. These results conflict
with the commenters daim that the
elevated PM—tO concentrations are the
result of particular point sources.
Further, in January 1991. EPA
provided the State of Arizona with
notification that Payson should be
redesignated to nonattainment and
requested the State to submit the
appropriate boundary description for
the Payson area. The State responded in
May of 1991 by designating the
nonattainment boundaries EPA
proposed for the Payson area in the
September 22. 1992 Federal Register
notice. The EPA has not been informed
by the State that the nonattainment
redesignation for the area should be
changed. In redesignating an area to
nonattainment . EPA accords significant
deference to the State’s judgment unlem
further information is received which
indicates that modifications to the
State’s submittal are necessary (see. e.g..
section 107(dX3) of the Ad).;
Furthermore. EPA has the authority
under section 110(kX6) of the Act to.’
correct the boundaries of a
nonattainmeot area where, for example,
SIP equivalent Information.submitted to
EPA reveals that the previous -
boundaries were in error (see 56 FR
3 7656. notes 6—7 (Augusta. 1991), and:.
57 FR 56762—63 (November 30, 1992)).
For example, EPA would consider-
exercising Its authority under section-
a 10(k)(6) if the SIP development process
reveals that the boundaries issued today
are clearly Inappropriate and other - ;
information persuasively supports a
change.
Portion of Mohove County
In its proposal to redesignate a
portion of Mohave County. Arizona, as
nonattainment for PM 10, EPA
requested information addressing
whether and to what extent the Mohave
Power Plant (MPP) in Laughlin. Nevada.
contributes to the PM—to nonattainment
problem and the appropriateness of the
proposed nonattainment boundaries for
Mohave County in light of any such
information (57 FR 43848). The Nevada
Bureau of Air Quality (NBAOJ and the
Southern California Edison Company
(SCE), operators and co-owners of the
Mohave Power Plant, responded to this
request.
The SCE claimed that a study
conducted by Desert Research Institute
(DRI) indicated that MPP has a less than
1 percent impact on annual average
ambi nt PM-it) ie iels in Mohave Valley
and that Fugitive dust emissions horn
construction activities contribute up to
75 percent Similarly. NBAQ indicated.
that the study showed that less than I
percent of the PM—to measured at
Bullhead City from September 1988
• through 1989 was from MW stack
operations and that 75 percent was from
local soiL However. NBAQ also
indicated that the calculations r nn *
distinguish local soil dust [ mm MPP
operations from other sources of soil
dust, but that MPP operations cover
only a small fraction of the local area
and water is applied to minimize
fugitive dust.
In today’s action, EPA is fInalizing the
Mohave County PM—to nonattainznent
boundaries as proposed. However, as
stated previously. EPA would consider
exe!r sing its authority under section
I iO(k)(6) of the Ad to correct the
boundaries of this noniin in ,n.nt ag if,
for example, information obtained in the
SIP development process reveals that
the boundaries Issued today are in error.
The EPA also received comments
from SCZ and BAQ contending that
the violations monitored in Mohave
County were duo to exceptinn i events
and that EPA should not prooled .vith
a designation for this area on the basis
ofsuchdata.
On July26. 1990, ADEQ informed
EPA.that an excee1Ialw of the 24-hour
PM-to NAAQS was recmdedin
Bullhead City In 1989. The data were
from a monitoring site operated by DRI
for SCI. Sampling Is acted once’
every 6 days (see, e.g.. sectIon 3.1 of 40 -
Rpait5O. appendix I C ). Additionally.
ADEQ reported that the annual PM-tO
NAAQS was violated In 1989. In Its
letter to EPA, ADEQ stated that although
it had no input Into the selection of tire
monitoring site, based on g
observations, the site appeared lobe
representative of the central Bullhead
City area. Further. ADEQ reviewed a
summary of DRFs qualityassurance
prugram and found 1(10 be satisfactory.
The NBAQ claimed that there were
elevated wind speeds on 2 days when
the 24-hour NAAQS exceedances
occurred, as well as construction
sources that contributed to elevated
values. The SCE contended that the
annual PM—to exceedance in 1989 was
an exceptional event caused by
increased construction activities and
that strong winds that created dust
storms contributed to the 24-hour
NAAQS exceedance in 1991.
Section 2.4 of 20 CFR part 50..
appendix K. has been partially
superseded by the changes made to the
Ad in the 1990 Amendments (see
section 193 of the Act). Section 2.4
defines an exceptional event as ‘
uncontrollable event caused by natural
sources of particulate matter or an even
that is not expected to recur at a given
location.
The 1990 Amendments added sectior
188 (I) to the Ad which authorizes the
waiver of certain PM—to requirements
based on the nonanthropegenic -
contribution to the PM-Ic problem in
the area (see draft guidance announced
in 57 FR 31477, July 16, 1992). Th.e
premise of section 188(1) is that areas
having a nonanthropogenic contribution
to the PM—b problem will be
designated nonattainment. In fact, this
provision would be meaningless if EPA
did not designate areas on this basis ,6 -
Thus, recurrence alone, and not the
source of the exceedance, remains
relevant in determining whether an
exceedance qualifies as an ‘exceptional
event” under section 2.4.
The comnienters did not provide
supporting Information or data showing
that the high winds and construction
activities did, in fad. haves direct
causal nexus to the PM-to HAAQS
exceedances er, if so, the magnitude of
the contribution from these sourcad (see
Citizens for Clean Air vzEPA 959 F.Zd
- 839.846-48(9th CIr. 1992) (aphaldlng
EPAirejection of pub&coutments the’
were not accompanied with specific
suppoiting information)). Further, the
comments simply asserted that these -
activities were exceptional. The - -
comments did not ‘address the -.
likelihood of the’recurrence of these’
activities. The commentets did not ‘ -
demonstrate that elevated winds aUegea
to have contributed to the exceedances
are unlikely to roast. In fact, the SIP
development process is intended to
prevent exceedances horn - -
anthropogenic activities such as
construction by providing for planning
by the State and local community to
help ensure such activities adequately
mitigate their contribution to PM—Ic air
quality problems. Accordingly, EPA
believes that the available air quality
data provide an ample basis to proceed
with a nônaltainment designation for
the Bullhead City area. Further, the
•See U.S.v. Northc Village. Inc.. 112 S.O. loll.
1015 (1992) (relectlng a statutory interpretatIon that
“violates the willed nile thai a statute must. If
possible, be construed in a fashion that every word
has some operative effort I (citation omitted):
Bois ieCascadeCotp.v.EP.4.942 F.2d 1427. 1432
(9th C li’, 1992) (lufnder accopted canons of
statutory ln lerptetation. we must interpret statutes
as a whole, giving effeet to each word and making -
e ery effwt not to interpret a provision in a mann
that renders other provisions of the same statute
inconsistent, meanuigtess or suprrfluont”l (chat
omiitedl.
-------
67333 Federal Register / Vol. 58.
No. 243 / Tuesday. December 21. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
State of Arizona has recommended that
EPA redesignate this area as
- nattaininent for PM—1O (see section
(d)(3)(C) of the Act).
lifornia—Sacramento County
The EPA received a comment
contending that the PM—b
concentrations of 155 pg/rn’ measured
at the Stockton Boulevard monitoring
site in 1989. and a measured exceedance
of 153 iig/m ’ at the Citrus Heights site
in 1990. were both marginal
exceedances of the NAAQS for PM—to.
and should not be used as basis for
redesignating Sacramento County to
nonattainment.
Pursuant to 40 CFR. part 50. appendix
K. an exceedance is defined as a value
which is measured above the level of
the 24.hour standard after rounding to
the nearest 10 pg/rn’ (i.e.. values ending
in 5 or gs’eater are rounded up).
Therefore, the PM—ia concentration of
153 pg/rn’ measured at the Citrus
Heights site would not be considered as
an exceedance of the PM—b NAAQS.
However, the PM—b concentration of
155 pg/rn’ is considered to be an
exceedance of the PM—Ia NAAQS. The
exceedance was measured according to
an EPA reference method and Therefore
should be considpred valid. -;
Further, the contention that the:_
asured exceedance is maz inal is
hout validity. The PM—b NAAQS..
cify a level of air quality, the
ettainment and maintenance of which,.
based on air quality criteria .reflecting -
the latest scientific knowledge and
allowing for an adequate margin of
safety, is requisite to the protecticrn of -
the public health (see sections 108 and
109 of the Act). The NAAQS is a
designated level, not a ziesignated range.
of PM—la above which the air quality is
consi8ered unhealthy.
The commenter also contended that
the PM—b exceedance of 187 pg/m S
measured at the Del Paso Manor
monitoring site in 1990 occurred due to
extremely cold temperatures which led
to an unusual number of fireplaces
being in operation at the same time. The
commenter therefore contends that due
to this unusual and isolated chain of
events, the measured exceedances
should not be considered as a basis for
redesignation of the Sacramento County
area to nonattainment.
The commenter, in this instance, has
conceded that, residential wood
combustion contributed to the measured
exceedances of the NAAQS for PM—b.
The commenter also concedes that the
edances were due to the operation
large number of residential wood
as in a highly populated area which
a significant public health risk.
Site number 05-067—0006 in
Sacramento: exceedances were
measured on December 25, 1990 (187
pg/m3). This monitoring site is located
in the county, east of the city of
Sacramento.
In addition, monitoring data from
1989. 1990. and 1991 indicate that
Sacramento County has experienced
elevated levels of PM—la. In several
cases (described below), these levels
represented greater than or equal to 80
percent of the PM-ia NAAQS. These
observed concentrations do not
represent exceedances of the PM—ia
NAAQS. Nevertheless, these data were
The purpose of the SIP process is indude both the area violating the PM-tO
basically to identify and control such NAAQS and any area signiflcemly
sources of PM—b that contribute to contributing to the violations. However, a
violations of the health based standards. boUfld&y other than the county parimeter or
Further, the commenter did not offer municipal boundary may be mare -
supporting evidence showing that the - appropriate. Affected States utay submit
unique events identified, such as cold- information indicating that, consistent with
section iO7(d)(1)(A)(i),a boundary should be
weather and high residential wood alternatively defined (51 FR 43848).
combustion are unlikely to recur (see
Citizens for Clean Air at 846—48) The EPA indicated that the “PM—b
Therefore, the comments serve to SIP Development Guideliiie” (EPA. 450/
validate EPA’s decision to redesignate 2—86—001) (Guideline) contained -
the area and initiate the SIP guidance on the information that should
development process. be submitted to support such alternative
The commenter further contends that boundaries.
PM—b concentration levels which The Guideline recommends
exceeded the PM—ia NAAQS in the employing the following techniques
Sacramento County area during the singly or in combination to alternatively
3 years occurred in a specific define area boundaries: (1) Qualitative
Sacramento County and were not analysis of the area of
county.wide exceedances. The representativeness of the monitoring
commenter therefore contends that if station, together with consideration of
redesignation of the area is necessary, terrain, meteorological, and sources of
only the portion of Sacramento County emissions; (2) spatial interpolation of air
where the exceedances were measured monitoring; and (3) air quality
should be redesignated. simulation by dispersion modeling
The EPA provided the State of (Guideline, pages 2—9 through 2—10).
California with notification that The EPA received no comments from
Sacramento County should be the State concerning the boundaries for
redesignated to rionattainment in the area in response to the September
January of 1991 (see section 107(d)(3)(A) 22. 1992 propoial. Thus, the State’s only
of the Act). In that notification, EPA relevant guidance to EPA suggests that
qu ed the Stite to subiiiit thd . . . the State supports titç general ..;
appropriate boundary description for . designatiân of this area as-. . :-.: ‘ . -
the Sacrarnento ounty area. In a nonattainment -and, given the nature of -
response dated March 15. 1991 the State California a PM—b problems, large
affirmed all federally.identifled PM—to boundaries for planning purposes (see -
nonattalilment areas and addressed the section bOl(d)(3)(C)). - . -- •.j . -.
boundary issue as follows: :- . Further, three exceedatnces of the PM—
IWle understand that ills EPA’s ‘ - 10 NAAQS have been observed in -
use county boundaries as the defeult. though - Sacramento County at tWo different
procedures set forth In EPA’s - monitoring sites. - - ... -
documents may also be applied. Given the -Sacramento Health Cinter. Stockton
nature of the emission sources coniribdting Boulevard - -
tO California’s PM-iO problems. we teed to - • .
think that large ulonattainmeut i al ri Site number 06-067-04001 in—
- are appropriate for planning purposes. We Sacramento: an exceedance was
would like an opportunity to confirm that for - measured on November i8,498 (155
each particular area, though, and will pg/rn’) and December18. 1989(158 pg!
provide supplemental comments shortly. m3). This monitoring site is located in
The State also requested EPA to use . the city of Sacramento.
the State’s recommendations as the
basis for its rulemaking. The EPA Sacramento Del Paso Manor
receive no further comments from the
State. and therefore proceeded to
propose Sacramento County as the
nonattaininent boundaries for the area.
In the September 22. 1992 notice
proposing to redesignate Sacramento
County as nonattainment, EPA
described its policy for establishing
PM—ia nonattainment area boundaries:
Generally, the PM—tO nonattainment area
boundaries are presumed to be. as
appropriate, the county. township. or other
municipal subdivision in which the ambient
particulate matter monitor recording the PM—
10 violation(s) is located. The EPA has
presumed that such boundaries would
-------
Federal Register / Vol.58, No. 243 I_Tuesday. December 21 , 1993 / Rules and Regulations 67339
collected from five different monitoring
sites in the County and provide
additional evidence of the scope of
elevated PM—Ia concentrations in the
County.
Elevated PM—to Concenfrations in
Saaamento County
1989
Site 06-067—0001: 139 ig/m3
Site 06-067-0002: 125 MgFm’
Site 06-067—0006: 142 ugFm’
Site 06—067—0283: 120 ig/m3
1990
Site 06—067—0001: 153 igJm3
Site 06 -067—0006: 135 pg/m3
Site 06—067—0006: 124 pglm3
Site 06-067-0010: 140 igJmi
Site 06—067—0010: 134 iiaJmJ
Site 06-067—0010: 120 l1g!m
1991
Site 06-067—0006: 127 rig/ma
Site 06-067—0010: 134 118/rn’
The commenter that requested EPA to
provide boundaries that are only a
portion of the county did not
specifically suggest alternative
boundaries and did not conduct the
analysis recommended by EPA’s policy.
However, the commenter did suggest
that “an extensive review of ambient air
monitoring data, emission inventory
data, and meteorological data could be
performed” to determine a boundary for
the area. Such “extensive? data
collection and analysis is what the SIP
development process will involve. -
Previously, EPA has indicated that it
would consider using its authority
under section l10(k)(6) of the Act to
correct the boundaries of a
nonattainment area where, for example,
SIP equivalent Information submitted to
EPA reveals that the previous
boundaries were in error (see, e.g., 56
FR 37656. notes 6—7 (August 8,1991).
and 57 FR 56762—63 (November 30,
1992)). Thus, this authority provides
another mechanism for the
consideration of further information on
this issue.
Finally, PM—la air quality problems
are generally areawide. The commenter
concerned about the scope of the
boundaries indicated that residential
wood combustion contributed to at least
one of the air quality exceedances
monitored and also indicated that PM—
10 levels in the area are affected by
motor vehicle emissions. These are
precisely the types of sources that give
rise to broader areawide PM—to air
quality problems.
Colorado—Portion of Routt County
The State of Colorado submitted
comments indicating that on May 28,
1991. the Routt County Commissioners
adopted a PM—b ñona [ tainment
boundary (or a portion of Routt County
which included the city of Steamboat
Springs. as well as certain surrounding
areas in Routt County. The adoption
incorporated a map indicating the
boundary of the area in question.
Subsequently, on June 20. 1991, this
boundary was adopted by the Colorado
Air Quality Control Commission. The
State requested that EPA issue a final
boundary consistent with that adopted
by the State. In today’s final action, EPA
has adopted a final boundary for the
affected portion of Routt County that is
consistent with the State’s
recommendation and is taking final
action to redesignate the area.
Idaho—Kootensi County
The EPA received many comments on
its proposed nonattamment
redesignation for this area. The EPA is
still assessing these comments and is
not making a final decision at this time.
The EPA expects to make a final
decision for this area within the next
few months and will issue a notice in
the Federal Register announcing its
final decision at that time. -
Idaho—Pail of Shoshone County
The 1990 Amendments authorize a
State, on its own initiative, to submit to
EPA a revised designation for an area in
that State (see section 107(dX3)(D)). The
city of Pinehurst. a portion of Shoshone
County, was designated nonattaimnent
for PM—la by operation of law upon
enactment of the 1990 Amendments (see
section 107(d)J4)(B), 40 R’S8l.313
(199211. After the 1990 Amendments.
EPA received information from Idaho
requesting that EPA expand the
nonattainment boundary for this area to
include additional townships along the
Silver Valley (see 58 I 37658 (August
8, 1991)). In the September22, 1992
proposal for today’s action. EPA
proposed expanding the boundary
consistent with the State’s request (57
FR 43849).
The Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality (IDEQJ
submitted information indicating that it
is in part rescinding its request to
expand the PM—b nonattainment area
boundary for Pinehurst. The IDEQ
requested that EPA expand the -
boundary to include an area lust slightly
larger than the city of Pinehurst. The
IDEQ indicated that during the SIP
development process for the city of
Pinehurst it obtained information that
allowed ii to further refine the PM—to
nonattainment boundary (or this area.
Because the State has withdrawn a
portion of its previous request. it is no
longer pending before EPA. Therefore.
in today’s action EPA is approving for
redesignation to nonattainment the
more circums ribed boundary requested
by the State which includes an area
slightly larger than the city of Pinehurst.
The EPA also notes that the State has
indicated to EPA that the moderate PM—
10 SIP developed for the city of
Pinehurst covers the slightly expanded
boundary. The EPA will assess this
during its review of the moderate area
SIP for the city of Pinehurst. The
moderate area plan for Pinehurst is
ultimately approved by EPA. and it
covers the expanded areas outside the
city, then it would be unnecessary for
the State to submit a separate moderate
area plan addressing the area
encompassed in the slightly expanded
bouqdary.
New Mexico—Bernalillo County
In the proposal for today’s action.
EPA indicated that the city of
Albuquerque provided information
demonstrating that since a 1989
exceedance of the annual PM—to
NAAQS. the same site (#35—001—1013 or
“the Alameda site”) had monitored a
downward trend in the annual values
(57 FR 43848). The EPA further
indicated that the downward trend was
likely attributable at least In part to
steps that the City had taken to reduce
PM—la emissions.. For example. an area
near the monitor that was suspected of
contributing to the PM—la problem had
been paved in order to reduce dust
generated from various activities in the
area. Nevertheless, EPA proceeded with
proposing the designation because
certain measures taken to reduce PM—il
had not been submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision and, therefore, EPA had no wa
of ensuring that the measures would be
permanent and federally enforceable.
Since the proposal, the State of New
Mexico has submitted these measures h
EPA as SIPL revisions. One reS’ision
involved a topsoil disturbance program
that, among other things, prohibits the
disturbance or removal of certain
amounts of soil without a valid permit.
The EPA approved this submittal in a
direct final rulemaking notice published
on February 23. 1993 (58 FR 10970). A
second submittal contains a winter
woodburning curtatiment program (or
the city of Albuquerque. Section
107(d)(3)(A) of the Act provides that.
among other things, “planning and
control considerations’ are relevant in
determining whether the Administrator
should proceed with a redesignation.
The EPA believes the control measures
adopted by the State are addressing the
PM—tO air quality problem that
prompted EPA’s proposed redesignalion
-------
67340 Federal Register / Vol. 58,
No. 243 / Tuesday , December 21. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
for this area.’ Further, an assessment of
recent data indicates that the downward
trend of the annual NAAQS at the
Alameda site appears to be continuing.
Accordingly, at this time. EPA is not
redesignating Bernalillo County as
nonattainment for PM—tO. The area will
retain its unclassifiable designation.
Today’s action in no way precludes
EPA from redesignating this area as
nonatlainment at a later date should
information reveal a PM—to air quality
problem with either the 24-hour or
annual NAAQS. In fact, in the
September 22, 1992 proposal. EPA
specifically indicated that it was aware
of potential violations of the 24-hour
NAAQS in Albuquerque and was
assessing the situation. The EPA is
continuing to review this issue.
Washington—Part of Benton, Franklin,
and Walla Walla Counties
The EPA received many comments on
its proposed nonattainment
r designation for this area. The EPA is
still assessing these comments and is
not making a final decision re a ding
the redesignation of this action at this
time. The EPA expects to make a final
decision concerning this area within the
next few months and will Issue a notion
in the Federal Register announcing Its
final decision at that time.
B. Sulfur Dioxide: District of -
Columbia—Two Areas in Washington.
DC ,
The EPA received a comment from a
commenter who contended that the- area
within a 1 kilometer range of the
General Services Administration’s
(GSA) central heating plantandthearoa
within i.s kilometers of GSA ’s west
beating plant should not be
redesignated to nonattainment until
EPA and the District of Columbia have
completed the process of negotiating a
compliance plan with GSA. The
aforementioned compliance plan is
required under the terms of the
enforceable compliance agreement
entered into by EPA, the District of
Columbia. and GSA. It is the District’s
intention to incorporate the terms of the
flnel compliance plan and compliance
agreement. along with a technical
analysis. demonstrating that the
emissions from GSA ’s two heating
plants no longer cause violations of the
NAAQS for SO 2 into a formal SIP
revision to be submitted to EPA.
A-s previously stated in the September
22, 1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR
23846). EPA proceeded with the
— ‘Noic aso that planr.ing and control
cons dcrationri have informed EPAs decision to
defer action on the SO, areas discussed below
redesignation of the two areas
surrounding the GSA heating plants
because the District of Columbia had not
submitted the aforementioned SIP
revision to EPA. Since the date of the
redesignation proposal. EPA has worked
very closely with the District of
Columbia and GSA to resolve this issue.
The District has committed to submit a
SIP revision for the areas by cber 31,
1993. This SIP revision consists of
requirements to reduce emissions at the
sourtes in question and provide an
attainment demonstration for the area.
Therefore, EPA has decided not to
finalize the redesignation to
nonattaininent at this time, pending
review of the forthcoming SIP
submission. The EPA reserves the right
te finalize the proposed redesignation of
the area if the SIP revision submitted by
the District of Columbia is ultimately
disapproved by EPA.
Illinois—Portion of Madison and St.
Clair Counties
The EPA received several comments
addressing its proposed $02
nonattainnient redesignations for
portions of these two counties. At the
outset of the tudesignation process, EPA
noti ed the Governor of Illinois that,
based upon available information, EPA -
believed that Madison and St. Clair
Counties should be redesignated
nonattainmant for SO (56 FR 16274,
April22. 1991). In the Stata’s response.
it largely agreed with EPA (see, e.g., 57
FR 43846). However, during the
comment period on EPA’s proposed
action, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted
comments claiming that recent
developmaeute may .liirnnaite the need
for redesignation of these areas. The
IEPA informed EPA that it is working
with sources in these areas to develop
permanent and enforceable permit
revisions which will serve to address
the $02 air quality problem in these
areas. The State has committed to
submit these changes to EPA in the form
of a SIP revision by tober 31,1993.
and as far in advance of that data as
possible. Therefore, the State has
requested that EPA not proceed with the
nonattainment designation for these
areas at this time. Others commenting
on behalf of industry in these areas took
a similar position to that of IEPA.N
The EPA is deferring final action at
this time on the nonattainment
‘On. mment raised additional issues -
including aI!e ationa about the procedures and -
tecbmcal basis associated with EiA’s proposed
redesignation for the affected portico of disoii
County Because. as iadtcated below. E PA i not
taking fleal SOlon Ofl this area at this time. EPA is
deferring rrrtponse to these Con ’JUeflts.
redesignation for these areas in light of
the recent planning efforts by the State
and certain sources in the areas.
However, EPA reserves the option of.
issuing a nonattainment redesignation
for these areas at a future date. In
particular. ii the State dcesnot s’iI’mit
the SIP revision for these areas by the
October 31, 1993 commitment date
which addresses the SO air quality-
problem in these areas; EPA intends to
assess whether a nonattainment
redesignation for these areas should be
finalized and would likely proceed with
such a final redesignation at that time.
Pennsylvania—Portion of Allegheny
County
As stated in the September 22, 1992
Federal Register notice (57 FR 23846).
EPA’s rationale for proposing
redesignation of the portion of
Allegheny County inclusive of Lincoln.
Liberty. GLassport. and Port Vue
Boroughs and the city of Clairton to
nonattainment is due to monitored
violations of the 24-hour standard for
SO 2 . The 24-hour standard was violated
in 1986 and 1988.
The commenters contend that the
principle source of SOz emissions in the
proposed nonattainment area. U.S.
Steel-Claidon Works, has Invested a
substantial amount of money and efibit
into making enhancements to its coke
oven gas desulfurizatiou facility.
Furthermore, it Is suggested that the
changes have led to documented -
impmvements in air quality in the
ClaIrton area.” The cemmenters
contend that the recent actions on the
part of US. Steel are adequate to protect
the NAAQS for SO 2 in the proposed
nonattainment area. The commenters
provided information correlating the
monitored exceedances with specific
sulfur-removal equipment failures and
outages. The commenters believe that
the recent upgrading of the
desulfurization facility at the Clairton
Works has remedied these previous
equipment malfunctions which
produced the monitored exceedances of
the NAAQS. Therefore, the area should
not be redesignated to nonattainment,
In response to above comments, EPA
is encouraged by the progress made by
U.S. Steel in reducing its emissions of
S02. Therefore, EPA is not taking final
action at this time for the “Clairton
area.” The EPA will work closely with
the State of Pennsylvania and Allegheny
County as it codi lies these signifIcant
improvements to the desulfurization
facility into the federally-approved SIP
for Allegheny County (through the
Pennsylvania SIP). However. EPA
retains the right t f!nalize the proposed
redesignation of the ar-en f Allegheny
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 243 I Tuesday. December 21. 1993 / Rules and Regulations 67341
County does not submit a SIP revision
for the “Clairton area” as expeditiously
as possible.
IV. SLgnificance of Today’s Action
A. Significance for PM-b
Areas redesignated as nonattainment
in today’s action are subject to the
applicable requirements of part D, title
I of the Act and will be classified as
moderate by operation of law Isee
section 188(a) of the Acti. Within 18
months of the redesignation. the State is
required to submit to EPA an
implementation plan for the area
containing, among other things. the
following requirements: (1) Provisions
to assure that reasonably available
control measures (including reasonably
available control technology) are
implemented within 4 years of the
redesignation: (2) a permit program
meeting the requirements oF section 173
governing the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources of PM—b: (3)
quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every 3 years until the area is
redesignated attainment and which
demonstrates reasonable further
progress, as defined in section 171(1).
toward timely attainment; and (4) either
a demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan will provide for
attainment of the PM—b NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the end of the sixth calendar year
after the area’s designation as
nonattainment, or a demonstration that
attainment by such date is impracticable
(see, e.g., sections 188(c). 189(a), 189(c),
and 172(c) of the Act). The EPA has
issued detailed guidance on the
statutory requirements applicable to
moderate PM-b nonattainment area
(see 57 FR 13498 (April 16. 1992). and
57 FR 18070 (Apnl 28. 1992)).
The State is also required to submit
contingency measures, pursuant to
section 172(c)(9) of the Act, which are
to take effect without further action by
the State or EPA, upon a determination
by EPA that an area has Failed to make
reasonable further progress or attain the
PM—b NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date (see 57 FR 13510—
13512. 13543—13544). The EPA is
hereby establishing the schedule for
submission of contingency measures as
called For iii section 172(b) of the Act.
The affected States are to submit
contingency measures for the areas
redesignated nonattaininent for PM—iD
in today’s action within 18 months of
redesignation.
B. Significance for SO 2
The EPA is. by today’s action,
redesignating two areas as
nonattainment for both the primary and
secondary standards for SO 2 . The
affected States must submit
implementation plans to EPA within 18
months after promulgation of the
nonattainment designations for SO 2 .
meeting the requirements of part D, title
lot the Act (see section 191(a) of the
Act). The implementation plans must
provide for attainment of the SO 2
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than 5 years from the date
of the final nonattainmant designation
(see section 192(a) of the Acti. As with
PM-b, EPA has issued detailed
guidance on the development of SIP’s
for SO 2 nonattainment areas that are
consistent with part 0, title 1 of the Act
(see 57 FR 13498).
VL Miscellaneous
A. Regulafor,FIet ibiIityAct
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
5 U.S.C 600 et seq.. EPA must prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis
sic ic ing the impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C 603
and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities (5 U.S.C
605(b)I. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for’profit;
enterprises, and government entities
with jurisdiction over populations of
less than 50,000.
Redosignation of an area to
nonattainment under section 107(d)(3)
of the Act does not impose any new
requirements on small entities.
Redesignation Is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and
does not impose any regulatory
requirements on sources. To the extent
that an affected State must adopt new
regulations, based on an area’s
nonattainment status, EPA will review
the effect that those actions have on
small entities at the time the State
submits those regulations. I certify that
the redesignation action announced
today will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed as provided by
section 307(b)(1) of the Act within
February 22. 1994. Filing an
administrative petition for
reconsideration of the rule for purposes
of judicial review norutend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review of the rule may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
the rule (see section 307(b)(1)). This
action may not be challenged in any
subsequent proceedings ta enforce its
requuements (see section 307(b)(2)).
VIL Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of siction 6 of Executive
Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 Q’R ! 81
Environmental protection. Air
pollution control, National parks.
Wilderness areas.
Dated: Decembu 13. 1993.
Carol M , Brownar,
Administrator.
Therefore, 40 O ’R part 81 is amended
as follows: -
PART 81—(AMENDEDJ
1. The authority citation for pail 81
continues to read as follows:
Authority 42 U.S.C. 7401-767 1q
2. Section 81.303 s amended in the
table for “Arizona—PM—b” by adding
a second entry for “Gila County” and by
adding an entry for “Mohave County” to
read as follows:
§81.303 ArIzona.
a . a S
Arizona—PM—1O
Designation ciassiscation
Designated area
Date Type Date Type
Gda County (pa).
Payson: liON, Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22—27, and 34—36 of R9E; January 20, 1994 Nonattainment January 20. 1994 Moderate
TIIN, Sections 1—3, 10—15, 22-27 and 34—36 of R9E; ItO—
I iN, R1OE. liON, Sections 4—9, 16—21, and 28—33 of RIlE;
Ti iN, Sections 4—9, 16—21, and 28—33 of Ri IE.
-------
67342 Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 243 1 Tuesday. December 21. 1993 / Rules and Regulations
Arizor —PM-1 0—Continued -
Designated area
Date
o at
a
Type
. Date Type
Metiave County (Part):
Bullhead Coy: T21N, R20-21W, n*rSng lake Mead Na nal January 20, 1994 Nonaltainment. January20. 1994 Modo .
Recreation Area: T2ON. R20-Q2W: TI9N, R21— W eschjd-
uig Port Mohave lidan Rase vaDon ,
. I S
* * . S S
3. Section 81.305 is amended in the table for ‘California—PM—iO Nonattainment Areas” by adding entries for “Sac-
ramento County” and “San Bernadino County” to read as follows:
§81.305 CalifornIa.
a S S • S
CALIF0RNIA—PM-1O NONAUAr IMENT AREAS
Designated area
D e on
Q on
Date
iype
Date
Type
. . .
Sacramento County
S
January20. 1994
Nouenter 15,
is a
January 20.1994
.
Nonaflairvnerd.
Noft .ud1.
‘
Nona auerd.
-
S
Jam y 20, 1994 Moderate.
N ttmac 15,, UodQrate ,
,
Jar sy 20.1994 Wo ate.
Bemadino, Inyo, and Kern Counties Searles Vaaey pla,vting area
Hydrologlo U ‘18090205.
San Bemadoo Coudy (patfl esckadei that portion located hi the
Searles.VaUey Planting area, and exdidng that area hi the South
CoastA Badft -
.
S S .
a
— S
S
S
• . a a
4. Section 81:306 is amended in the table for ‘Colorado—PM-lO Nonattainment Areas” by addingan entry for
“Routt County” to read as follows:
§81.306 Colorado. - -
a a a • a
-------
Federal Register! VoL 58, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21. 1993 I Rules and Regulations 67343.
CoLoRADo—PM—b NONATTAINMe4T AREAS
Ded ted area
Date Type ‘ Date Type
I . I
Ro County : ___
The Steantoat Sfrnjs Axes Airshed as or1o $ed by the Roidi January 30,1994. N w Ial ,..,ent . Janiety 30.1994 Moderate.
Coim Conwriesioners on May 28. 1991 ar th. Colorado Ak
Otofity Contiol Con saionen June 20.1991.
.
8. Section 81.313 Is amended in the table for ‘ldaho—PM—iO Nonattainment Areas” by adding an entry for “Shoshona
County” to read as follows:
481.313 Idaho.
S • • • .
tDAHO—PM-1O NONATIAINMENT AREAS
o_ area
o_
-- c-.-n
Date
Type
—
Type
S hone Co dy (Pw :
1 t w i c i Stk J ne Coitty e, 1 vlqg the kdtlat PM .-10 . in-
Januesy 20,1994
Nwk.ilaI.ubId.
Jaremy 20,1994
&ate.
dng the Swati list 01 Sordheeat 01 Sec i 31 of
Range 2 s , T a.ih 49; Soidh pswt 01 S i of
Range 2 seat, To u 49 north Se i 601 Range 2 e ,
•
- . .
.
T nst 48 nasiheast hit 01 Se ’on 6 01 Range 2 e ,
Tcwnsh 48 nortliweat queller 01 sectIon 801 Range 2 east,
TonneM, 48 Noith arid Oit poillon 01 Shoelione
cow y designated no , 1 iteliwlw* for P 11-40 n Nàven*er
.
.
15, 1990. . -
•
Clty.d P Wuet ........................________
N aiidw 15
iesa
Na...&J. er1.
Noventer 15,
199
Moderate.
. S .
S
•
.
• • . S •
7. Section 81.327 is amended. Inihe table-for “Montana—PM—b Nonattainment Areas” by adding an entry for
“Sanders County” to read as follows: -.
481.327 Montana.
• S S S S
Mo NTANA—PM-I 0 NONATrAINMENT AREAS
Desk
— area
Date Type Dale Type
Sanders County (Past):
Thoir ,son F 1ts and vicinity: incluc 5ng the following Sections: Janijaiy 20, 1994 Nonitainnent. Januwy 20.1994 Moderate
R29W, T2IN, Sechons: 5,6. 7.8.9. 10, 15, and 16.
S S • •
-------
7344 Federal Register I Vol. 58,
No. 243
/ Tuesday. December 21. 1993 / Rules and
Regulations
8. Section 81.333 is amended by
ounty” to read as follows:
adding a
(able for “New York—PM—b” and by adding
an entry “New York
181.333 NewYoilc.
a • a a a
NEw Y0RK—PM-1 0
Designated area
.
Des i gna on
Qassthcation
Date - Type
Date Type
New York County
January 20. 1994 Nonattainment. January
20, 1994 Moderate.
• • . a •
9. Section 81.338 is amended by amending the table for “Oregon—PM—to Nonattainment Areas” by adding an
entry for “Lane County” lo read as follows:
§81.338 Oregon.
• • • • a
OREG0N—PM--1O NONAUA NMENT AREAS
I
a
Designated area
Date . Type . Date -. ‘ Type
. . . . . a , . S
.ane Coi ty (part) Oakndge: The Urban Growth boundary area.......... January 20, 1994 Nonattainment. Januaiy 20,1994 Moderate.
• • a S S
to. Section 81.339 is amended in the table for “Pennsylvania—S02” by revising the entry for “Warren County”
to read as follows:
§81.339 PennsylvanIa.
a • a • S
-------
Federal Register / VoL 58. No. 243 / Tuesday, December 21, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 67345
PENNSYLVANIA— .S0 2
area
s*wi Ierds
Does nat meet
.
9ed
Better than
-
• •
• a
•
a
a
Vi. P4otlhwest Peansy$vania Intrastate ACCIt
(A) Warren CouMy
Conewango T*p .
-___________ a
..._...._
_.._.
a
a
a .___..___._
. •
x
a
a
•
a
S
•
Mend T p
aerendon Born ._. _.__-__
WaiTenBoro
Pleasant T ap ._________
Ginde Twp
• .
S
S
• a
a
ii. Section 81.349 is amended in the table for “West Virginia—PM—b Nonattainment Areas” by adding an entry
for part of “Brooke County” and ‘Hancock County.” to read as follows:
§81.349 West VirgInia.
a a a • •
WEST VIR G i N IA—PM-i 0 NONAT1AINMENT AREAS
Designated area
D
O
Date
Type
Date
Type
• . a •
•
4
.
•
S
Hancod and Breoke CounOes (Pad) The city at Walden
Jantery 20.1994
Nonettakenent.
Jarn y 20.1994
Mode .
• a a
a
a •
a
S
a S S S S
12. Section 81.349 is amended in the table for “West Virginia—SOs ” by adding an entry for ‘Hancec± County”
to read as follows:
* 81.349 West Virginia.
• a S S S
WEST VIRGINIA—SO 2
a ma
Does not meet
. Better than
. . a a
•
•
S
Hancock County (Pan) The city of Weiflon , including Buder and Cby
Magustedat Dtstdcts
Remainder of State .... .......
a
a
——-.. - -.-. —
..-——
-...-
-------
Federal Register 1 Vol. 58. No. 66 / Thursday. April 8, 1993 / Proposed Rules - A) (,/
Ib) Effective date. This regulation
becomes ef1 ctive at 8:45 p.m. July 5.
1993. It terminates at 9:30 p.m. July 5.
1993 unless terminated sooner by the
Captain of the Port. The rain data for
this project Is July 11. 1993 at the same
limes.
(c) Regulations. In accordance with
the general regulations In 165.23 of this
part, entry into or movement within this
zone Is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port or his on scene
representative. -
Dated: March 29, 1993.
H. Bruce Dickey.
Captain. U.S. Coast Guard. Captain of the
Pert. Longisland Sound.
LFR Dcc. 93-8271 Filed 4—7—93; 8:45 amj
Su.LIlS coca 4S1G-14-M
POSTAL SERVICE
39 CFR Part 111
Purchasing of NDCBUs end Parcel
Lockers
AGENCY: Postal Service.
ACTION: Proposed nile.
SUMIIARY The proposed rule change
would modify regulations on
centralized delivery receptacles by
eliminating the regulation, Domestic
Mail Manual § 151.4, that requires
procurements of neighborhood delivery
and collection box units (NDCBUs) and
parcel lockers to be handled at the local
level in lots not to exceed 100 units. The
proposed change would not modify
Postal Service regulations for Installing.
maintaining and replacing NDCBUs and
parcel lockers nor place any additional
requirements on mailers for recipients
of mall.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 10. 1993.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be addressed to the Approved Sources
Program Manager. Procurement Quality
Assurance. U.S. Postal Service, 475
L Enfant Plaza SW. N. Bldg. Suite 4000.
Washington. DC 20260-6204. Copies of
written comments will be available for
public Inspection between 9 am. and 4
p.m.. Monday through Friday. in Suite
4000.955 L’Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington. DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark NepI (202) 268—4642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed rule change would delete
Domestic Mail Manual § 151.4, because
purchasing units in lots of 100 at the
local level Is not efficient or practical.
and does not serve the purpose for
which it was adopted. See 46 FR. 14263
(March 5, 1981). When the Postal
Service recently restructured the -
number of field procurement offices -
decreased from 89 to 10. making local
purchases Impractical. Also, at the time
of the original rule tbe Postal Service
bought under 20,000 unIts yearly, while
It now buys about 100,000 NDCBUs and
parcel lockers yearly. These purchases
are made directly from preapproved
suppliers. The current rule burdens the
Postal Service with e rsselve
administrative, quality control, and
purchasing costs. it also places
extensive costs upon suppliers who
choose to participate in numerous
procurements. The many small
contracts (at least 1,000 per year) have
also made it difficult to ensure
consistent, acceptable product quality.
In 1981 some companies and
ozgiinlz*tlons voiced concerns that the
procurement of central delivery
equipment would negatively Impact
suppliers and distributors of related
products, Including apartment mall
receptacles. These concerns never
materialized. The change will not affect
the approval of currently authorized -.
manufacturers.
Although exempt from the
requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S C 553 (b).ic)) -
regarding proposed rulemaking by 39
U.S.C 410(a), the Postal Service Invites
rnn ment on the following proposed
revision of the DOJOOStIn Mail Manual,
which Is Incorporated by reference In
the Federal RegIster. 39 CFR 111.1.
List of Subjects In 3SCFRParI 111
Postal Service. -
PART 150—COLLECTiON AND
DELIVERY
-, 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR
part iii continues to read as follows:
Authority 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101.
401,403,404. 3001—3011, 3201—3219.3403—
3406.3621.5001.
4151.4 (Removed]
2. Delete § 151.4. whIch reads as
follows:
151.4 Receptacles TO BE purchased by the
Peetal Ser.lce. -
Neighborhood delivery and collection box
units (NDChUs) and parcel lockers to be
purchased by the Postal Service must be
procured In lots not exceeding 100 unIts.
Amendments to the provisions of this section
may be made only after notice Is published
in the Federal Register with opportunity for
public comment.
- An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR
111.3 to reflectth ls change wlllbe
published lithe proposal Is adopted.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel. Legislative DMsIwt.
(FR Dcc. 93—6250 FIled 4-7—93:8:45 aml
s&&ito coca iris-ia-s
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFRPar I52
(NM-12-1-1456; FRL-4812-1j
Approval end Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New
Mexico; Revision to the Stats
Implementation Plan AddressIng PM-.
101cr Anthony
AGENCY. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed ruJmn 1r4ng.
SUMMARY: This action proposes approval
of a revision to the New Mexico State
Implementation Plan (SW) addressing
PM-TO for Anthony, New Mexico.
including a request from the State. per
section 1 88( I) of the amended Clean Air
Act (Act), for a waiver of the aI$ Inment
datg for Anthony. EPA may grant such
a waiver where EPA determines that
- anthropogenic sources do notcontrlbute
significantly to violations of the PM-b
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) In the area. PM-TO Is defined -
as particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
toanoni ln a ibOmlaometers.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
action must be received In writing on or
before May 10. 1993.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this
action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Dlggs, Chief, PlRnnlng
Section. at the EPA Regional Office
listed below. Copies of the documents
relevant to this proposed action are
available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons
wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the
appropriate office at least twenty-four
hours before the visiting day. -
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 6, Air Programs Branch (6T-
AP), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202—2733.
New Mmaco Environment Department,
Air Quality Bureau. 1190 St. Francis
Drive, room So. 2100. Santa Fe, New,
Mexico 87503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Mr.-
Mark Sather, Pknning Section (6T—AP),
Air Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region
18190
-------
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 86 / Thursday, Apr11 8, 1993 I Proposed Rules 18191
8,1445 Roes Avenue. Dallas, Texas - nonatta1nm t ajea. was reviewed sources do not algnlficantly contribute
75202—2733, Telephone (214) 655—7258. aga nat the apeliceble requirements. The to PM—b levels that exceed the PM—b
sI. sJ Tarn p jAy m . Act also specibes that those moderate ambient standards In the area. As
PM-iD no” ’ ” t areas designated outilned below, the State of New
L Backçosad cp tsab ment under section 107(d)(4) Mexico’s SW revision for PM-iD
Anthony, New Me .d o , was - of the Act were to submit SW. to EPA concerning Anthony. a moderate PM. - - -
da4patiia nonaIt 1n v1a , t for PM-iD - - by November15. 1991, and outlined . nonat nment area. was reviewed
and rkisalfied as moderate under certain required Items to be Included egalnat the applicable requirements. The
sections 107(d)(4XB ) and 188(a) of the the SIPs. These required Items, due reader Is referred to the Anthony PM-
Act. upon ona’tnent of the Clean Air November 15, 1991, unless otherwise- 10 SIP submittal and EPA’. uupporllng
Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990.’ noted. Include: (1) A cmprehm a4ve, technical Information for pertinent
Please reference 56 Federal Register acourate, and current inventory of actual details regarding each requirement
(FR) 56694 (NovemberS. 1991).and 57 emIssions from all sources of PM-lOin Them Items are available for public
FR 13498,13537 (April 16. 1992). The the mmaff.lnment area (section -. . review at the addresses Ind icated above. -
requliemontsfor 172(c)(3)oftheActh(2)apermlt- fl.Today’sA’aiou - s -.
rno P 4-iOLttalnment areas program to be submitted by Juno 30,
are set out In subparts I and 4 of part 1992, whIch meets the requirements of. Section 1 10(k) of the Act sets out
provisions governing EPA’. review of
D. title I of the Act. Subpart 1 contaIns section 173 for the construction nd SIP submittal. (see 57 FR 13565-13566).
provisions generally apnilcable to nil operation of new and modified major In today’. action, EPA Is proposing to
nona Alnm t areas an subuart 4 stationary source. of PM-1O (section grant approval of the plan revision.
contains provisions .peclflca ly 189(aliWAfl: (3) a demonstration Including waiver of the moderate area
applIcab1 to PM-b nonatthlnment (Indu air ouality modeling) that the attainment date, submitted to EPA on
areas. At times, subparts 1 and 4 overlap plea provides (or attainment of the PM- November 12,1991, for Anthony, New
- or conflict. The EPA has attempted to 10 NatIonal Ambient Au QUS IIt3? Mexico because It meets all of t e
- clarify the relationship among these Standards (NAAQS) as expeditioUslY as -applicabl, requirements of the Act.
varlousprovlslone in the General p tJcshle btjt later then DecembeL.:
Preamble and, as appropriate, In today’. 31.1994, or a demonstr tion that. Analysis of State Submission
notice. - ..- at t aInment by that date Is ImPract Icable
The EPA baa issued a ’General . (section 189(aX1XB)); (4) provisions to
Preamble” describing the A’s -. i . . ti at e h1y Available -: The Act reQUires States to observe
preliminary views on bow the EPA- Qm MeaSUNS u Aa , Inchidleg -certain proceàural requirements In
intend . to review SIPs and SIP revisions Jlaem Iy Available Control developing Implementation plane and
submitted under title I of the Act, Tethno1 cn. amtmi cif PM- - plan revisions for submission to EPA.
Including those State submittal. -- -. 10 wIll be implemented no - Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides
containing moderate PM4O . i)ecember 10,1993 (sections 172(cX l) that each Imple *at4nn fan
nonattalninent area S W requirements and 189(a)(l)(Cfl. For . e. submitted by a State must be adopted
(see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, lnaig ficant (de mlnlmls) quantitie. of after reasonable notice end public
1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28. p - o, the EPA’s policy Is that uld hearing? See also section 110(1) of the
1992)). The reader should refer to the be unreasonable and would not -. Act Also, the EPA must determine -
General Preamble for a wore detallOd constitute RAQiI to require controls on whether a submittal is complete and
discussion of the Interpretations of title source (please referenceS? FR therefore w .ante further EPA review
I advanced in teds ‘sproposal and the - 13540). Also, su RAQd and action (see Section ib0(k)(b) and
suoporting mlionals. In today’s ___
1 ,ifamsiHng action on the Anthony, New end RACF, technical and econnvnlnal FR 13585). The EPA’s completeness
___ Oimth llity determinations are be criteria for SW submittals are set out at -
Wex1 , moderate PM-b SW, the EPA- - (57 FR 13540-44); - 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Is proposing to apply Its Interpretations. quantltative 4 1 on reduction - - part 51, appendIx V (1991), as amended
tnH ig Into consideration the spedflc milestones Which are to be achle ed - oy 56 FR 42216 (August 26. 1991). The
factual Issues presented. Thus, the EPA
EPA attempts to make comoletenees
.w111 considerany timely submitted--- - ‘ ryth1OO veers until the area Is determinations wIthin 60 Jays of
- ildesignated Sitalnm,nt and which
_____ receiving a subinladon. However, a -
co ’ ts before tatting final action on demonstrate reasonable further progress - submittal Is deemed complete by
By o dated - -. (RFPJ toward attaining the PM-b -.
1991, the Governor of New - NAAQS (sectloi 189(c)); Ce) - - operation of law If a completeness
detei,n lnaHon Is not made by EPA six
submitted to EPA the SIP revision amtlngancy measures due Novembe - - months after receipt of the s ih nl&on
PM—ID concerning Anthony t’iew - - 15, 1993 (please reference 57 FR 13543), - After providing adequate notice, the
___ that are to be Implemented If EPA - -
Meadco that was intended to MUsty determines that the felled State of New Mexico held a public
certain Clean Air Ad requirements due; wake itpp or to aitain the unwary - hearing on November 8, 1991, to
entertain public coñmrent on the
on November15. 1991w As outlined standards by the spplicabfe daiS Implementatlnn olan for Anthony.
below, the State of Now MaY4o ’s SW (section 172(cX9)); and (7) control - - Following the pii 1Ic hearing, the plan
revision for PM—b concerning
Mhm y , twoderste PM-b - - - - requirements for major stationary - - was adopted by the State and signed by
_______ - - - sources of PM—ID precursors, unless the the Governor on November 8. 1991. The
_____ EPA determines Inappropriate. The Ad, EPA -
____ in section 189(e), states th&t COfltrOI November 12,1991. ass proposed
— i-’- that do aol moat i sb.t requirements applicable to major -
— 1 _ j• blaot r qaollty to a stationary sourom of PM-b will also be revision to the SW.
doUS l mOat) lb. P 1 540 . .*.. ..l applicable to major stationarY sources of - -
“-dI gus. Pub. LN0 101-
‘S.ctloa 172(cX7) of lb. Ad isquirsi that plo
esa r sw. neej. -. PM-b precursors, except where the --. _______ moot lbs -
M Aat.es — -&sz U.S.C. rear at q. - Administrator determines that such •, a ’i 1fovl.baosd— -’ 11 .3U). -
-------
11192
F.der.1 Regjdea L ‘JoL 5L No.66 1 Thi adey. ApriL L 1993 1 Pi ieaed Ias
Secthxi 172(cJ(3) of the AaLrnq.kss
that nonaft tnm nt plan provisions
IncIude ccrnprehen v,, a ste . .and
current
from ii! iwwi afze?.vmit po1 tz I D
.h.
r i ubwit d hr m oaa rr& - —- ’
AnIh.au! p c_ ,mL.af 1 m lmm . M . ___ t1 ai
inventoty r po4nt sn atm for ___end wfl& eIà I
both the Anthony nmattefmneotatea a eepar .Vids) I
and for Dana Me entT.The __________
tonatt ent areel, Ilketid Dans ‘ ‘ ‘
• Ana County b thtMthany - PMIO NAAQSbyDat mb& 3T.1W4 ,
non tt.1nm tg , the Stete calculated
o tons/year of PM-1 - - - .I--1 . . ... from. • M” & the tnIt PI&-1a
— . w âLiiiu ,Jy ,sr foai nonattat ntasSumiaiLu
ceitain ease (39.7 Iá .ar d ’ ’ C ____ -
unp..4 rena 9. yesr1xmen modailng) . hr 41tg
paved rr.114 PCrDn meidd. fs
State caicelatsd 72.1 thlsiyref PM—
10 einl,4 .frem p t uu.w a1
502.3M s#y
___ ho a
tate L . 1L o 1
C Ri y e . 4 g 10 —’
due Thea .
.
signt6omt lya M ssI -
. v ahendth.Stata’s’ b
say.omt. A hen a
eeU1 L
•
overwh&mfn 3 Iy domf eased . .
PM—to amblant c i trationa In the
J4
source _ . L __ I
untfMatblvcou Quabra.. / -
The & i h an(soun aflhMIU
Dons Ass County • - cumb
Anthony) Is mmatzthutpo snfc._____
wãn Eo sail from part1afl - - &
areas su aa wel.mansgedrari4á
and dasert ..u fndknt .wI in the
Inventory. Moreover. ahrnpo9rr.fr -.
sources u.s whole. after the
ImplementatIon fi JIfrPm .tlfli*
The SIP revtaion was revIewed by
EPA . .h . mtfr .
ft , m ft sJ with
the corsple reer teafa ‘uicef
above. A Iseea J ,JDecem 30,’ -
1991. was & 1 , 5 rded to the Governor
tndI. -fln ± mp4 .tuui . eth
u”hv iMu.t awf the neat pito ba ken
tnthe r, ASuded,tn -
todey’ . 1u. . EPA propoms to ipperve
the New I dco PM-t0 S W submlttat
for Anthony end h It pithily
comment an theactInu. .
radIu&of hn ,.y . on ambient PM-to
omissions ware cond a
hi dftcent .ss ómenbyd!apersfon
modithig & M india
P jtht..uun eendaItather
*_in _ —
andiw u ,djuu&arw Insi nmcenr
3. N IfoenSomas,RauIui.
Peme
Thu 3t d1f.w ardawb reified
ArQ-I y re vZk ss (A 7
799 In ardor toarist reqe ’ en
In sectIonal23 end ‘ 1.jtiXA)etth.
• Act for restIom and upomdan
of new end win& 1
of
w1th .thsSInIn amd en&A
Cez an .June25 .19 wsm
* 3.
• lot, for a *4n oithadaadsrd 1 -
i.,k.ya the A inf.ly.frw
that nt i ithro c sourcee a
10 contrlb i ____ - • -
violation of the PM-to r—’-- InI
area.” SectIon 199 (11 also pervidis that
the AdminiaDateriney waive wig
. I ti&tw.i.t ajqjfli ubEOto uurfout Z-
30 ncnatt unt “whom the
that -
intLwpI .wjwi af PM-tO Jo nut
conbthtd . 4 .tft - .”Pytu the ‘dolation.
of the PM-tO . Ii1 [ In the sme.EP
has lemed dmftg ñdaucu ad&amfng the
lLupluia wtailiOU of c on t (O See ?
FR 19705 3 19921. The theft
guf ce d a lb 1L . qi . uu
of aedion 105(i thd attamp to
the tare legat tuidhi
end cl , ihu,v .
in partI . EPA rt .d that
lnterpzet on, of uui .Iuu That
hodt Oabawthes%dtEho—-- . . 1 j ,
ama wan renIndi -
Ot 1tf 5l nuwzviat Utt 1 .rn.UUt 9
____ -
souroarbuto 4 .l1k t1 I a
vIne ofth,PM- 1% A thwerw
would notbe v .4i . .Mfred for the -
foreeeeeble•& ui. if 1. wul a
ipe . . . Rn t da undir . ctIon
188 ( f ), the atthkm Jots appfrcabfr
threw. w be ’vece Thur. th
inndar er
iiiaw..r .th -:
-5 pi.slfr.bI. but ne latarthan . - -
Doceabsi 31 .1994(9.. Iin .
189(eXli(B]Wofth. M t Mt u4.
the Stat. mud share thts”’ by
DWnun 1 ” 33, .
bectlan 1aa(. I13W) ifl - -
Stata o M -
dsmmi 4tbsLt .ly of
the- NAAQ tinAathong is •
hi Th.4J4D d
Iàtb)
because there simply w J l eatbeen
appL ..blb . .n ..L.. . ...t date tiat the ewe
cannot pru cebtysflak th.aren
- Mu to t
1%,i WIIJ&kteII it.& - -
• a.L...t_me. barn the u.Jh ,u.
.L. ......Is
-the mom s it test that bngreea
.
noeaDaIntewar. ss
I4maMa toisn s a,e-t no
tons/yenrJbam ahr ther
eappart A .....i I fl ji th -•
.H r ” . afthePhb -l9____ -
1n . for • -.
, I AM1I av.fl. ’ _Pb -19.. P - —-‘---‘ - • - 4 ef L.. e. -
meesuTes Anthon i rotLpaseeat t.qmfrems1Ip _IhetIn, eft.L....L.tbn
possible fitti ottb. PM-IA . . ,dsnet
• NAAQ$ The oomwh1 . 1 gIy -
sources &TM -IAf ’ .tp 4 . the - • 4hePM4OPMAt *u. zvlre ’ef
Anthoav area am urn . 1IIh ..1w .ar 11f . anL statutweeseu . - --
co.st ea_&g.L:: M he.weythat . ...JS
_______ - render a pzovlslonmearore
• nullity. ____ -
he yre ry
gIdanoe IPA a ,snesJ -
lnterpretod oaofuuctlon rMI!f 1oavei
___________ this rasuft. togiv.mom4n teg .r
______ sten rfe ssc 189(1 ) endteen r .
that a peisot1e yanJeaIngwsi—.. of’s
__________ modmete me. att urast te
___ ____ wee granted ssm flhent with
___ ______ legal standard set out In the AntUnder
______ thIs .. iutet1en . e __ .L.. arm
mebfng . - .r.-.-m .t -
fdsalbed belowLcro not IYt ,I .t
a1gal r Ilfly in v n of the PM-10
I N AAQSIn tha AnI! iwiy
area. The Stat. efnrs haa __
In the S W a waiver if the . “. ‘“ ______ ____________
dat . for £ thony. -: ‘ a — wa omare —’y
8vc on t8a(f [ kth. •- -It - hr.
—iS C , . .L . ‘f -
•; he Rdmiofrtitar-may” )uâIv. . enLfc tok fLtL(tiat - -
-------
federal RegIster 1 VoL 58 No.66 F Thursday, AprIl 1, 1993 F Propdsed Rules
- sew
sig&fi imtly to violation of the PM-b
standard, EPA must also determine that
anthropogenic sources In the area do not
contribute ,IgnlRcantly to violation of
the PM—b NAAQS before granting such
an at Inm t date waiver for a
moderate area. If such a determination
Is made, then the . tf Inynant date for
such a moderate area could be waived
- and the area would not be rrlan’ fled
as serious. 3
The contribution of reesonbbly
controlled anthropogenic endrelons to
exceedancas of the PM-jo NAAQS In
Anthony were estimated considering,
among other th4ng. , emissions Inventory
Information, dispersion modeling and
particulate analysis of filters from afr
quality sampling. Filters from 1989 and
1990. IncludIng 1989 PM—b
excoedcs , of the 24-hour NAAQS
(greater than 150 pg/rn’), were analyzed
by the State. The analyses showed that
the particulate. on the filters, for both
hlghandloww lnddaye,w ,re
characteristic of the local soil
• compositions. The filter, had a large
coastal component, Indicating that
airborne soil was the dnminant
contributor to the ambient PM40 -:
‘ Dnvsntr ons. Including the 1989 24-
hour PM—b exceedancas.
The State also conducted a point
source modeling analysis. The analysis
Included point sources within a 50
kilometer radius of Anthony, Including
some point sources within the State of
Texas. The Industrial Source Complex
Short-term (ISC ST) model was used In
• the evaluation, and th mavimum
• predicted 24-hour Impact from •
historical and current point sources wà
• 2.86 pg/rn’ of PM—b. The cumulative
annual average was predicted to be 0.69
ig/m ’ of PM—b. Th modeling shows
that Industrial PM—jo point source
emrjgsjons tviatgnlflrisntly affect the
Anthony nonatlainment area. -
The PM—b ml’ Ion Inventory for
Anthony further shows that
anthropogenic sources as a whole Ce.
point source emisMons unpaved roe
n Iona) contribute less than 40 tons
per year to the Anthony area ambient
air. In terms of ambient air quality
Impact. EPA estimates that
anthropogenic sources us a whole
contribute 1... than 5 pg/rn’ to the
violation of the 24-hour PM-b NAAQS
In Anthony and less than 1 pg/rn’ to the
violation of the annual NAAQ . -
Accordingly, EPA believes that
anthropogenic sources do not contribute
iignlflr ndy to the violation of the PM-
10 NAAQS In the Anthony
nonaftaininent area and that the -
Imposition of serious att Imnm t
requirements would not advance the
statutes PM—b *ft.1nni nt objective in
any slgnl& nt way. Therefore, EPA I,
proposing to waive the moderate area
attainment date fur this area as
authorized under section 188(f) of the
Act. Further tedmifal Information
supporting EPA’i proposed action is
available at the U.s. PA address
Indicated above.
5. *AQA and RACY for Control of PM—
10 -
longstanding definition of RACY Is the
iowest emission limitation that a
particular source Is capable of meeting
by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility
(see 57 FR 13541). Thus, EPA
recommends that available control . -
technology be applied to those Iidstlng
sources In the area that are reasonable
to control in light of the attainment
needs of the area and the feasibility of
controls.’
A State should submit a reasoned
Justification for partial or full rejection
of any available control measure
(Including any available control
technology) that explains, with
appropriate documentation, why each
rejected control measure Is infeasible or
otherwise unreasonable and, therefore,
does not constitute RA I (or RACY) for
the area. In those PM—b nnn ttRIIrnlent
-areas where mobile sources ‘ Igr’Rcontly
contribute to the PM—b air qtrality
problem, States also must address the
section 1080) transportation centre?
measures (see 57 PR 13581).
The State of New Mexico In the
Anthony SIP reviewed RAQII4 and
RACY for control of PM—b, considering
the guidance put forth by EPA In the
April 2, 1991. Memorandum from John
( ‘ .nIrsgnI to the Regional AirDivimon -
Directors entitled “PM-la Moderate
Area SIP Guidance: Final Staff Work -
Product”. This guidance we. largely
Incorporated Into the Generel Preamble.
-Following Is an analysis of the measures
employed to control PM-la In Anthony,
New Mexico. - :... -
a. Unpaved roads. About one third of
the streets In Anthony (about 10 muss)
are unpaved. Qzrrent control measures
to suppress road dust Include pdwlng
toll spraying) roads and double
penetrating roads (grading followed by.
treatment with oil and large te,
followed by treatment witho an
s rnaU aggregate). Priming roads helps
suppress dust for about a year and
double penetration helps suppress dust
for about five years. In 1990. four streets
were primed In Anthony and other
streets were treated by double
penetration in cotijunction with the
Installation of new sewer lines. These
measures will continue until funds are
available for paving the remAining
unpaved public roads In Anthony. ‘
Done Ma County and State funds, t
road projects are conducted per year in
each State Road Co n’nIeIoner DIstrict.
As noted, the Initial moderate PM-la
noñattalnment areas must submit
provisions to assure that RAQi4
( lndwllng RACY) are Implemented no
later than December 10, 1993 (see
iectlnni 172(c)(l) and l89(aXl)(C)). The
General Preamble contains a detailed
discussion of EPA’. fntw noiafion of the
RAQ.1 (including RACT) reoukement
(see 57 FR 13539—13545 awlS? FR
13560-13581). The EPA’s bihirpretatlon
of thIs requirement is set out here only.
inbroadterma. -
The State should first Identify - . -
available control measures, evaluating
- them for their reasonableness In light of ____
the feasibility of the controls and the
tainni1Uit needs of the area. A State
may reject an available control measure
lithe measure Is technolcglcally
h if,..lb le iwthecostofthecontrol ls
___ • unreasonable. The SIP must -
- demonstrate attAinment of the NAAQS
as expeditiously is pr 5cticable but no
later than December 31. 1994 (unless the
State demonstrates that attainment by
that date Isimpracticable). Therefore, If
- - a State adopts less than all available
- measures but demonstrates, adequately
-. and appropriately, that RFP and
___ attainment of the PM-b NAAQS is -
• assured,andappllcatlonofallsuch
- available measure. would not re.ult in
• - . tt 1ntn nt any fester, then a pian vhlth
• -iquIr.. Implementation of less than all
-. available measures maybe approved as
meeting the RAQd requirement. As a
suggested starting point for determining
RAQVI. EPA has Identified available
control measures for sources of fugitive
dust, residential wood combustion, and ____
presaibed burning (see 57 FR 18072—
18074 (April 28, b992)). The State -
______ should add to the list of available.-
•P4O . I iá, measures In an area any measures thit _______
11 sudoco could quthi7 uwsfv _____ public cAnhincoiters dsmfln.tT tu rniy ___________
d sbv - ‘1L ’i - well be reasonably avallableins • - - ___
thu d wiv st aloes. £ - - f Thu D’A h11 iuuusd W’ ’ k 1
du oes udg th IO1UtN. - ___ __
thet steuld bs ‘ ‘— sd In
___ The RACY fur a particular source Is •
• Z at d In thu , ‘ ‘ - utths, , alhailAPly de!erndned. The EPA’s rn ieors-ieo,4).
-------
I.dirg Ii i , I Ia ,, )io. 414 71t a1.ji & 1. 3 ‘I I
ta, & th. BnskAnth , t-a
SIP. Thu thsSk dNmv
toc eda, ..D_LI1Lf
Cou y that the ‘du* -
measures dtad. wskir
condnu.tobs.1mpkme . -
kL. A L U_
- I RAQ wh1 k a t
New Merino .
b. md’ - ” 1 Ths$tM.-,V ’-’-
thatonly a1r t 0.7 t.a&oe
1A 1 a1 th.Mt&mij
onm ’ mm .t
21 wIth. avo other
In addWon, ft aho Mbe n iitb
most developer. aim rnqi’f” ta pays
newYy sstabIlabe pdvat . rowkpar the
iestied oember TI. 19901
Laud Sub&rldon Ragulo on&of Dons
Ma Ccunt ftk thu bnpor nf to note
that In. lettbri Oc er 2! 199Z.
fmaLjmfith M Puns. Dons A & u %
P1I.mJ. . Dljestor end Aafsterf
Manager . Jestith ).t -
S iotiiy ofth N wM xfca
Environment Department, the mt
com t Eto ftnpmen nfen
enk inp aft Dome Mw iM p. isles.
legulatlomeb policies ead
including the.. ff
PM—b SiP *h I,dtJO,U Ib. I ,PdU.t
In the Antho s t p.sdts ref -
MthPM-IGSW)Jtauther. W i.
1den beth. dt Anthy
__________ -
• paved ioad s.a4a
does not I
th,in--Jh
1n v -’- theslI
-en
water rsssesess . LI _
S. IJ adiki irg. c ___i L _
pran& .f 10.a lon.thae tres a
. reasonably controlled. Any r ’
f ernissloen en ath bui.itte —
the n u.I1€ ____
hi.1g 1 1fia .i PM-
Nevertheless, the Dons Ms SIR .
Roed Department maintains the aveà I,-. u-
p lle rv.à MWiomT, hidm g Ih.aiz. ef iih.. ..y k&
cleanup of roads after heavy rains er
on p.’siziomt. — C.en £ :.
Again. $IstsdNs. don ’ approved Inth.N.esk .-I .—
received .p rn .i&L1mm May .1I12,M3 P1
Co thi did en the S ts -l 1 .AIL&5J
cited beth. £ honp £F,Indad1 -.. b rü ” s*
iIai n .end dsearçefpeas -. . th,Stet&a
oad’ t. he’,’— ire SIP over t y snsga
.&i. .sa4 A.eaomess&Io. -_..a. • veasonahle. . L !-âJa . adess b
y :::
- bon he) ±
c. Rout trucks. The SIat.s.oml .
t gp - .
heal tr io k _ ih _ .. .
: for the dsI I h4-
üá Iui bmen
• pzoposlngtoap . lssh.iafa—’l—-_
the A 3S*tmbr.J .l
do ai sl ’ .L—J., he .e
strengthen the
by its
t 2 1 t . ,the Cauiaty———- 4ee
— osn — - ‘‘ —
wourdb.eu omfsaJ1 4i t .
pays III of the rsmainInenpesd roads
lnAnthanpatonst lma.Asarodsge -
road width of U feat,.ths Slats
stlmatedthd IL womLd c esev -
seoo xI twpave the r.in.cni.g
unpivetmads thAnthony. The State
- tho es matadthat only 36 Tthnsper -.
yser of ? -Wemt 4 onr come%from,the
uIu & roe&ahr the Anthony • -
nonat’ 1 ” ent eros. As Indfi ete In -
— ,fea . beIe .,that
euã.si is heenompied’endpsve
rose 1 waI egeslrommves
as awbilti, Jesol
SlpIfl .su$ -te *qosIty
preblam In Anthony.P r rence -
thetmhmi t wean ? for.
d1acuadereonth,1.sI 1gnsxf s ifont
sir kilp t of liuj, rodINà
anthro - 1 . -ri t senheth..
AMb.. , auainsnt .
___. ._dp.mMhlI .R -
9 an ed ben ai
truck iL 1 Agaln BA Sdsssa .
_ I- w I p%(
sources. ev bola blew ‘- -.
Statepelley — ollhenL ”- t
he c ,and theStateben
_L_. . .. t I b___i 5 . , -
ordInsn AW,.-; , .,ts
tre h b’—n 1 a -. __ -t
•
• g New Mudss - -
f. W.edfownha (ks11 ha frôTh.
ifS-b - “--fl — - dii.ts wa b ’
- - t_ - _.._ _t S _s_._I_ La
____ p . . hn.h boiath.. ati th slI
___ TuIIS. rliciusen t-
5 & beth .Amtheny PU iQ SIP.
• IncIu”gthensnring of a.& taw .. wam.es vmitam
___ ___ • wilL onadmie Inb. 4 .’ — d discussed
.nforoed A proposes ts .pps..the require contro son. j ’ PM-b
____ Counig mmItmonta regaeMmhsvl .our. Fiber sealgees dtbwPM-
truck peUcyss cwitml ureab., a.d. 24-bout excee end 1I
______________ PAQ .4 which stmnglban . the Nm . (inr]Iailn1. low wIsddiiy , — “—
____ M 14 SIP. - •: - • - - 24. Il tb wead &*
£ U .n tpif j .n.a I L as . • not a4gaI S o wt i . .hwth. .
County recalves on average less tl.1. the 1 9 - Aonlyowit
I 4. ..iS.- ptsthr . 1O pro iew 9 5 Inches of precipitation, per auar. andes. •dd1t1orra 1 $ and 1
the area. U A .. thgil ld he a result. tSar. sit many dry 1 4isty pads. (througb Ma 1990)-also l cats .
os notowiatltu and vacant Tots In Anthonydn aloes. that wood mink , was- not agetloast
RA km-EPA the statst. vicinity to-the Anthony PM -1G “ ‘° “ conthbuioz t&thsPM-1 c . ’ -
( .. ‘ - .a _ LDj aibb&e. .. ...Ii.à I a a vecai lot (across the street. mesausod on these Sitar.
— •- (57 PIL • south-west ofthemonfttp ’t 1 Ty onthls9&tm anel
13507. J uestMle, the oLNew. vegetated lot (east oLthtmm1&M l and consisting efzp ff” ”
M sigb Duen Csu In . abailfield (about 1000 f aL1kwSot0L of both PM-b ifitere and soil eamples.
1nipIseaer ag —‘-- .1 —- . fou - the monftort The parking e . Isp ” ’ in ApJ n laIt LI.of thee -
unpaved reads be Aatbeap - . adjacent roadto the tsnvegatdod..waa - AnthonpW: -
nonattainment area as tlI . i ..sed above. uaed, b.IlSeld.rsungavauf.The - — ‘-—-of v .Wthr s
Tha . the’u th.” wa .... monitor ItseItehu slk aas.prn Es. .. State ceaefd ea A
authority - • p t.tha. ”
:tore .thse,somt.Msnèm • • - e groun $.d r .sLeaIs — }. ceaeaffonofv ’ bfclesalao a -
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 66 I Thursday. April 8, 1993 1 Proposed Rules
18195
nünimis. Due to low Income levels,
road recreational vehicles are -
unc T mon In or around Anthony.
Aerial photographs did not portray any
areas near Anthony with the distinctive
patterns of off-road vehicle use. Again,
RAC .i does not require controls on
Insignificant PM-b sources.
h. /*griculturol lands. The State
im.Id ,s , and EPA egress, that PM—tO
emissions from croplends are
Insignificant. No agrk.iiltural fflHi g
takes place In the Anthony
nonatthlnment area. Further, most
farmlands In Done Ana County are
located along the Rio Crande river flood
plain. an area cont*lnlng more rich and
well developed soils. As discussed
earlier In this notice, RAQ4 does not
require controls on insignificant sources
of PM—b emissions. Please reMence
• the technical support document for
additional Information regarding the
Insignificant amount of PM-tO
smlsml n from agricultural lands
affecting the Anthony nonattatonient
-area.Jn addition, workbytbesoll
• conservation service has shown that
essentially all Of the Done Ana County
croplands are In compliance with the
Food Security Act (please reforence
Appendix F of the Anthony SW).
I. Rwtgelanda/L?esezt. The Anthony
nonattalnment area consists of the
township limits (about three kilometers
by one kilometer). Rangelands/desurt
area very ‘Igr’ 4 ficant contributor to PM-
10 emissIons In the Anthony area, an
area surrounded by sandy, dry and
partially vegetatetherrain. Anthony Is
located In a Chihu.1 uan desert
grassland ecosystem About 88% of -
Done Ana County is r1 .ffied as
rangeland, and the State estimated Dma
Aria County PM—b emissions from
rengelands/desert at 502,584 toni par
year (please note that this Is an -
underestimate due to calculation en’ozs
as detailed above end In the tedmical
support document. Th. corrected
estimate should be at least 628,032 tons
per year). These estimates of PM—to
emissions were derived from the
Modified Windblown Dust Equation
detailed In the EPA document Control
of Open Fugitive Dust Sources (EPA-
450/3—88-008), and reflects reasonable
estimate of nonantbzopogenlc PM—tO
mnlitsions from the open rangeland and
desert areas In Dons Ana County.
The desert portion of what EPA has
categorized as rangelands/desert Is Inc
natural, largely undisturbed state. Thus,
any PM—jo emissions from these lands
are reasonably considered to be of
nonanthropogenic origin. For the
reasons set out below (and In supporting
technical Infonnation) , EPA also
believes that PM—to emission, from the
surrounding rengolanda are also
reasonably viewed as being of -
nonanthropogsnlc origin.
• Uveatmi grazing In the Anthony area
(Mimbres Resource Area) I . managed
-under Federal law. The r levant law
includes the Taylor Crazing Act of 1934,
the Federal Land Policy and
- Manag .nent Act of 1976 and the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.
The Bureau of Lend Management (ELM)
Is the Federal Agency charged with
managing the rengelauds. The ELM
emph si’ime prevention of deterioration,
end conservation o1 soil reeowces. ELM
management practices rely on
rotational, ssnn*I grazing of the area.
Ongoing multi-year studies point to
proper rotational grazing as helping to.
produce Improved raugeland. in
addition, a mInl,nni amount of nIut*i
are allowed to graze per section (640
acres) under ELM lease agreements. The
• allotments around Anthony average
about three to four n1msI par section.
As managed under Federal law, these
• animals do not generatielgnlficsnt
amounts of airborne particulat. matter
ánd,lfanythlng.bavetl eeffectof
stabiIl’4ng the saiL Th. technical -
support document contains detailed
Information on the Improvement In the
r g.lRnd conditlonin Southwestern
New Mexico over lb. last 40 years. This
shows that over the last 40 year. grazing
activity managed coi si.tent with
Federal law has Impivv . .d Dana Aria
County rengeland condition, which
help. reduce wind erosion end PM-to
• emissions. Removing au m’lm ls and all
an c Influence frcpa the
rangelan around the Anthony ares -
would most likely tesult In a
deteriorated rengaland condition, - -
resulting In Increased soil erosion and
Increased airborne particulate matter
• (Please the technical support
document). The reasonable management
• of therangaland allotments around the
Anthony area has largely, and perhaps
entirely, eliminated airborne particulate
matter from theee rangelands that Is
attributable to cattle grazing and related
activities. Therefore, the remulnlng PM-
10 am1 f one from rengeland. are
ettributable to nonanthropcgenic -
sources and, as Indfr ad, these residual
emissions are the dominant contributor
to PM-tO violations In Anthony
Even though the Dana Aria County
rangelands are being managed as
recommended and required by the ELM,
the soil compositions are such that the
Doria Ana County rangelands/desert are
Inherently (naturally) susceptible to
wind erosion. Therefore, even being
properly managed and actually -
Improved, the rtng kiidi/desert In the
- -Anthony area constitutes do ,n1n nt
source of PM—b emissions.
Please reference the techulcal sup
document for additional Informatlo
regarding the drniilnant amount of
nonanthropogenic PM—1O em1es1on .
from rengelandsldesert effecting the
Anthony nonattnInmm t area. Again, the
technical support dbcument also
centains detailed Information on how -
reasonable rangeland management In
Southwestern New Mexico over the last
40 year. has resulted In Improved
iengelaod condition In Doria Aria
County. The tar] nl, ,l support
document also references published
research substantiating the benefits of
properly managed rangeland grazing.
j. Pourt sources. As discussed
previously, an assessment of point
sources revealed that such sources have
a de minimis Impact on PM-to air
quality In Anthony. Statutory
requirements for RACM (Including
RACfl do not require the Imposition of
potentially available controls on such
ources In such circumstances.
IIACM(lnduding RAC77 for Co it V i of
PM-jo Summary - - -
EPA Is proposing to find that the State
of New Mexico’s PM-tO SIP for the
- Anthony nonat ment area Includes
adequate RAQ 4/RACI’-as discussed In
- detail above. EPA views the State’s i
burning regulation (A R 301),
previously approved by EPA, U.
reasonable, enforceable, and responsible
for malnunin4ng the PM-to emissions
from trash burning at lower than de
, nlithnls levels. EPA proposes to
approve the revised AQCR 301 to -.
Include the definition of “open
burning” In order to strengthen the New
Mexico SIP. Remiilnlng anthropogenic
sources us whole are de n ,inlmk and
statutory requirements for RAQ,i
(Including RACT) do not require the
implementation of further controls. EPA
Is also proposing to approve the
County’s commitment to Impkmanthrg
and enforcing .11 Doria Ana County
rules, regulations, policies and • -
practices, Including those Identified In -
the PM-to SIP which reduce airborne
dust In the Anthony area (October 29.
1991. letter from the County to the State
discussed In detail above). These
a mmItments regarding County coritrol
measures are being approved as
measures beyond RACM which serve to
strengthen the New Mexico (Anthony
PM-to) SW. The State of New Mexico
also stated In the adopted Anthony PM—
10 SIP (page 10) that It “remalnisi
committed to the dust control measum .
Implemented by Dana Aria County’:
will as the ‘moderate area control
strategies as agreed to In (the) S W
-------
18196
Federal Register I VoL 58. No. 66 I.Thursday. April 6, 1993 I- Proposed Rules
submittal and the established air quality
monitoring schedule.” The State ratIfied
Its commitment toT a November 21, 1991,
letter from Cecilia Willinmi, Chief, Air
Quality Bureau, to Gerald Fontenot.
Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region
6. EPA today Is also proposing to
approve the State’s commitment found
In the Anthony SIP and In the
November 21. 1991, letter. The
dominant sources of PM—la
concentrations In the Anthony area,
nonanthiopogenic sources, are the
surrounding rangalandaldesert which
are not feasibly controllable
8. Milestones and Reasonable Further
i io g ress . -
Section 189(c) of theAnt requires that
plan revisions for moderate PM-ID
nouatt nment areas contain
quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every three years until the area
is redesignated to attainment. The
milestones must also demonstrate to
EPA that reasonable further progress
(RFP) toward attainment of the PM-b
NAAQS I. being met (see 57 FR 13539).
EPA has attempted to reconcile the
quantitative milestones end periodic
reporting celled for In section 189(c)
with EPA’. proposed decision under.
sectIon 188(f) to waive the moderate
area aM ,unant date for Anthony. EPA
hae Indicated that at this time the -
anthropogenic and feasibly controllable
FM-iD source contribution Is
Insignificant. Therefore, significant
emission reduction progress In Anthony
isnotfeas lble.Inlightofthese
circumstances. EPA believes It Is -
reasonable for Anthony to satisfy ‘.
section 189(c) by reporting every three
years. beginning on November15, 2994, -
Information addressing a potential
_____ in circumstances In the area
(including, for example,.a rhange In the
snthropogenlc/nonanthropogenlc source
mix) that may, in twit, warrant further
air quality protection efforts. - -
Specifically, the State should report to
EPA every three years the following
information regarding the Anthony
nonattainment area: (1) The status and
effectiveness of the existing controls, (2)
algnl 8 cent . 4tang e in the Inventory due
to new source growth or other activities,
and (3) en evaluation of any ddiUonal
controls which maybe feasible to -
reduce exposures end/or bring the area.
Into
Reasonable furtherpr sa Is defined
in 1lm 171(1) of the Act as such -
annual Inaenumtal reductions in
eunhaions of the relevant air pollutant as
srerequlredbypsrtDormay .. :-
be required by the
Aitininiat,ator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable
NAAQS by the applicable date Since
pert D does not dictate annual -
in ementa1 reductions far moderate -
PM-ID areas, EPA has broad dliaetlon
In determining RPP under section- - .
171(1). For the reasons stated above,
EPA Is proposing to concludaet this -
time that annual Incremental reductions
- In eedseinna are not reasonably required
for the purpose of ensuring timely -
attainment of the PM-lO NAAQS in the
Anthony oserattainment area.
7. Contingency Meesurà - .
As per section 172(c)(9) of the Act. all
nonattainment SIPs must contain
contingency measures (due November
15,1993) that are to be implemented If
the area fa l lito makeRPPorto attain
the NAAQS by the applicable date. -.
These contingency measures are to be
Implemented Immediately after EPA
determines failure of RFP or et aiitv iit
of standards. Again. for reasons
.explalned In the “Milestone, and -
Reasonable Further Progress ” - -
discussion above, conth%—cy measures
are not applicable to the Anthony
nonattainment area. -- - - :- -
8. PM—b Precursors ‘ - - -
4nn 189(e) of the Ad states th t
control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM—la are
also applicable to major itatlenary
sources of PM—jo prec more va . yL
where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not aig 1flcantly
contrlbute to PM-b levels that exceed
-the PM—b ambient standards In the
area. The General pt,amhln conthlna
guldanna addressing how EPA Intends
to Implement section 189(e) (see 57 FR
13539—13540 and 57 FR 13541—135(2).
The Anthony nnitaInmant area does
-not contain any major aIinIi y sources
of PM-b precursors or any .Igeiflrant
minor stationary sources of PM-1O
• precursors. and stationery sources as a
whole (La. within a50 kilometer radius
of Anthony) provide an In igniHcant
-contribution toAnthony’s ambIent PM-
10 concentratIons as demonstrated
through dispersion modellng Thus,.
ambient PM—b precursor . -
concentrations In the Anthony -
nonattalnment area do not .lgrilflcantly
contribute to PM-la levels that exceed
the PM-b NAAQS In the ares. and EPA
Is proposing to grant the Anthony area
the exclusion burn control requirements
as authorized under section 189(e) of
theAct. -
9. EnforceabilIty Issues .
• All required measures and other
elements In the SIP must be enforceable
by the State end EPA. See sections
17Z(c)(6), 110(a)(2XAI and 57FR 13556.
The EPA criteria addressing the -
enforceability of SIPs end SIP levlalow
-werestatedinaSeptember23, 1 987,
memorandum (with ettadiments) from).
C aig Potter, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, et el. (see 57 FR -.
• 13541).lnaddltlontoenformable
raquIrements nonattainment area plan
provisions must contain a program that
provides for enforcement of the control
measures and other elements In the SIP
(see section 11O(a)(2)(C)). -
The State of New Mnvioo has a -
program that will ensure that certain -
control measures contained In the -.
- Anthony PM—ba SIP (b Air Quality
Control Regulation 301) are adequately
enforced. The State has also received.
documentation In the form of a letter -
frum.Dona Aria County dated October,
29,1991, that the County Is committed
to Implementing and enforcing all -
County ivies, regulations, polides and
practices, including those Identified In
the Anthony PM—b S W. - -
m.i p sti . of Today’s Action -
- Mdi . -.
TheEPA*oday lapropoeing to - : .
approve the Anthony, New Ma 4
moderate PM-b SIP. All required S W
Items have been adequately addz d
as discussed In this Federal Register
Notice, end the State of New Mexico has
- conducted a comprehensive RAQ 4F -‘
RACranaIyaIsLTheEPAIaa]so
proposing to appwvv the State’s request.
per Ion188(f)oftheA c t .fora
waiver of the attainfnaltt date for - -
Anthony. EPA has determined that -)
- anthropogenic sources do not contribute
irlgnfficantly to the PM-1O NAAQS
violations-In the Anthony - - - -
nanattainynent area. This proposed -.
action Is non-precedent setting. and the
-proposed decision to grant awalver Is’
based o a Current raadlng of the law -
and on facts specific to the Anthony,
New Merdon nonatt.In .nent area. As
EPA refines Its policy concerning
waivers, areas may face different -
procedural and substantive showings.
Based on the above evaluation, the
EPA proposes to approve the Anthony.
New Mexico, moderate PM-b
nQnat’ 1 ’ ent SIP, Including the waiver
of the attalnmant date for Anthony per
section 188( 1) of the Ad.
Request for Public Comments
- PA requests comments on all aspects
-of today’s proposal Including EPA’s
proposal to waive the attainment date
for this area as authorized under section
188(1) of the Act. As Indicated at thern
outset of this notice, EPA will consider
any oommA t$a received by May 10,
1993. ., --
-------
- F.dar.1 Register / Vol. 58, No. 68 1 Thursday, AprIl 8, 1993 I Proposed Rules - - . 1811
Regulatoiy oc8 .:
Under the Regulatory Fls dbI1ltyAct,
5 USC 600.1 seq., the EPA must
prepare a regulatory flexibility alalysis’
assessing the Impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entItles. 5 U.S.C 603
and 604. AlternatIvely, the EPA may
ontlfy that the ml. will not have a
significent Impact on a substantial
number of small entitles. Small entities
Include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and govunilnent
entitles with Jurisdiction over
populations of less than 50.000.
S W appwi.ls under suctIon 110 and
iubchapterLpaztD.oftheActdonot
asete any new requirements, but -
simply approve requirements that the
State Is abesdy Imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP-approval does
not Impose any new requirements, I
artify that It doetnot have a significant
Impact on any.mell entities affected.:
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-Stat, relationship under the
Act, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal Inquiry Into the economic
yi,u ’hian of State action. The Act
forbids the EPA to base Its actions
concerning SIPI on such grounds.
Union Rl.cbr’c Co v. U.S. H.P.at. 427
U.S. 246, 236—CC (S. a 1976); 42 U.S.C
7410(a)(2).
WVLEMDffARY WO A1IO Several
parties, Including one state agency and
the Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials, have
requested that EPA extend the comment
period on the February 11,1993
universal wastes proposal (58 FR 8102).
Additional time Is requested to allow
coordinated discussion of the Issues
- wlthIn end among state agencies (and
other organizations) In order to develop
oomprah n ve comments on the
proposaL Bemuse EPA believes that the
quality of a final universal wastes rule
maybeg r sat ly lmproved if -
Implementing agencies and the.
regulated monIty are able to fully
explore the many issues raised In the
proposal prior to submitting m Its,
thAgencyhudstapmmnedth a tan . -
extension of 30 days Is au upriate.-
AODIC’f Environmental Protection
Agency. .
ACfl0tP Notice of Intent to delete Hydro
Flex Carporation Site from the National
Priorities List; request for comments.
IU fiY : The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region VII annormom Its
Intent to delete the Hydro.FMx
Corporation Site from the National
Priorities List L) and requests public
comment on this actian. The NPL-
-constitutes appendix B to the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution,
Contingency Plan (NQ’). which EPA.
promulgated pursuant to sectIon 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 ((ZRQ.A), as amended.
This action Is being taken because EPA
and the State of 1at . have determined.
-that no fund.fininred remedial action is
appropriate at this Site, and that actions
iakeniodateareprotect lveofpublic
• health, welfore and the environment
DAtU. ( nmivien 5 000cnrnlng this site
maybesubmlttedonorbeforeMay 10,
1993. - - -
*DC#81W Comments may be mailed to
Catherine Barrett, Waste Management
Division! Superfund Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VII, 726 MInnesota Avenue,
Ian.as City, 1 ’ 68101.
• ,c R ThER If0 iA1i0N NTACT ,
Comprehensive
liava llableforpiibliczev lewattheEPA
Region VII Waste Management Division
Records Center located at the above;
address and at the Topeka Public
Library, 1515 SW ioth Street, Topeka,
Kansas. - .
To obtain copies of dorin ai,ts In the
public docket contact: Barry Thlezer,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VII, 728 MInnesota Avenue,
) an q City, 66101, (913) 351—
7515. . . • - —.
thj BrARV .,aenAfloi .
Table of Contas .
L In èzcdon -
1L NPL DeI.dse ofeste -
m. Deledsa ? r d
• aci1 i: Proposed nrl. er’ternalan of
comment period. - . - - -
D.tsd:AprItZ 1993. -
- -; .. -
Assistant Sure_me ç .g USP1 Acting
Aióte n tAdmthktratss.
(FR Dcc. 038204 Piled 4—7-93; $ 45 am)
sei s coeaussur .
0(JNMi RT In response to J - -
requests, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Is granting aSOday
extension to the 7ITnIuaT1t period for the ________________________________
‘universal” wades proposed rule - - - . a
puMI,h d ue February 11,1903(58 FR 40 CFR PWt 300 • - .:. -.
8102). - . . . .- . . -
- DArU: C’ n’nants on the February 11, -
1utIonsI OR end Hemrdous - -
1993 notlceof
FR 8102) mud tted on fore SUb$tSflCS$ PollUtion Contingency
May .12. 1993. Plan; National Priorifiss List Update
ADCRE5SE Persons who wish to
comment an the February 11,1993
notice must provide an original and two
copies of their mants, Include the
-docket number (F-.93-SCSP-. mpj,
and send them to: EPA RCRA Docket
(OS-305), --U.S. EPA. 401 M Street SW.,
Wn hIngton, DC 20460. The RCRA
Docket is located at room M2427, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401.
- M Street SW., W ’hIngton, DC 20460.
___ Thedcckutlsouenfrom9s.m.to4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
________ tederal holidays. To review docket
material., the public mud make an
appoIntment by rAIlIng (202) 260—9327.
a mmdmum of 100
pqes _7 Ltory docket at no
- . - cost Me14t1m*1 copies coat $0.15 per
page. - - -
Executive Ordez l229 l - - -
R n TIem $ C A1lON C0I(TACT For
The Office of Management and Budget general Information, canted the RCRA/
has exempted this rule from the ..- S d a jin. thU free at (800)424-
9348. In the Washington, DC ‘
ementaofSecftori 3 of Executi call (703) 412—9810.
Sub jests p - - For inlozmation regarding specific
Mr pollution control, Hydrocarbons, aspects of this nothm, contact Charlotte
Mooney, Office of Solid Waste (OS—
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen • 332), U.S. A, M Street SW.,
dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeepfng requirements, Sulfur - u1 toui DC 20460, telephone (2Q2)
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. 260-6026. .- - -.
Aetbi1ty 42 U.S.C 7401—7671q.
Dated: March 13,1003. - -. - -
WJ.Uath.way,
Acting R*aalAdnthábutor(U)..
IFR Doc. 03-6276 FIled 4—7—03; L45 an -
4OCFRPwI 260,211 262, 264,266,
2 V0, end V3 - - -.
- . 5:
me seso-*ois - - - . . -
Hsm,dous Waste Management -
System; Modification ot th H....tdous
Waste Recydk’ig Rsgulstosy Pru am
ii ICI P m&ai44i i -
-------
hISS
IagW / VoL , $,. l Thrsdiy.ApilI 8 1953 I P!t oesd lu.
IV. Baste tetand.d Site IiIk
L lntrodoc
The Environmental
(EPA) Region VE Its intent to
delete the Hydro.ilezCorpomtlon Site,
Topeka. Kansas. from the Natlonil
Priorities List (NPLL appendix B of the
National Oil and Hazar 5-’-’-— -
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). 40
0R part 300 as amended. and requests
comments on this deletion. Tb. EPA
Idmtt4fi , sites that spçesr Ic, p if
t8g! 4Rr T1t iliktø d iTtr health. we lthr.
or the environment and t f lna
NPL as Lbs Itatof ee . SR en
the NPL may be the subject of li.1
1om by the Haindous -.
Response Trust Fend
(PuOd h Piasmeat to S 395 435(e 3 ) of
the N(P, any site dilated from th.M L
remainS eligibi. for
remedial ction if caadI eiwet the sits
warrant snob iin __ - , -
pm ed ds .l&stlug of thfo Sit.
days aftas hBt.bI an of this n’4kn be
the Ped. 1 l i _ y
9 dUds espleitie the
aUnt. far deleting sites freur
Section discienes pcocaduas thil -
EPA 1. ng for this ‘t1 SectI o IV
dksi9I au the lfydiv.FIee Carperetico
Site and enpisies bow the Site meets lbs
deletion m mm l i. -
a ? . Deletion OitasIa
The N establishes the aUnia that
theAeucyuaeetodeletesftufromtbe
NPL In accx danc. wIth 40 R
300.425t.J, sites may be deletodinun
the ? . where no finiher - -..-. , is
appropriate. In ni Wrrg this
determln*tIon, EPA will consider, in
consulteti en with the SiMrn whether any
of tb.aUsrle in 5300.fJ5(NI}UJ
through (lii) have bean net
Befãre dedding to delete a sPa, EPA
must fret deternlns ib M sc ens tekan
at the site are pretectivi if public
haalth , wef andLbe
and a O faither d — I
E1t am qprep te. in the
W7 ili 30O .425(e)(23 qn 3t
dilating. sate fr * ti*
thsPsbovs ,1cIUU
- eth* which result III
d 151 1 , .nI p s!
on ,- 4 ”g t n sft
1 heAk à waniimitedss
.ed icthd , I ic EPA ’s
p.UCJte iiw di . iltedisad evy
hve jW s r that the remedy
ieinS 1 fl 5 P i*tv. if and
the S°’ l t. A S-year mel Is
apprOP sliydro .p1ex and will he
udu 7. At that thus WA. in
Lb. Sto ,
determine whether human health d
the environment remain protected.
Deletion of. sits the t I ’Ldcus
azn&thme
R 305 u 3) -
EPARegIoiYIwlaer pe.nd -
evaluate public comm ts before
making the final dedslon to 4& . The
Agency believes that deletion
procedures should focus an notice and
comment at the loont level C ’7nmnc 11ts
from the locel c’wununity are often the
most p- 41 — 1 to deletion deddn-
The wen esed fur
di . Intended deletion of Mm
1. EPA nn VEbM _i.anA
delet . bea pespassaith. isiesent
docm 1
2. TIes S . of Ia . han cop ceresd
with tbsdel 4 m . Li... .
3. m fltW$Ij Ll na1
___ Nottee of letant to Delete, niece) a
has bom p*Iah. l is thelcual
newspaper and he. been distributed to
appropthta fadereL M ant hen) -.
officials mu ether isbeest.d p.tlen
This ie nmS1en a thIrty (303
d p—. tp-isJ .stha
disLilon pechage, whish Masts A$1 8,
1993 May IL
1993.
4. EPAhasmadeall relevant
documents available In the Regional
repository tl ar -y) .
t }stlon alsfte.frem*eNPLdoas
not itself create, aI creseob any
Individual’) rights or ahhgitlone.
The - ------‘ rentveddertog the
noticit mid 4 .-- --- ’nt Md wifibs -
evaluated bofa.. , the final de Ion to
delete. EPA wEB prepare.
Sgmm4iy W Ith wEB
address any comments received during
the public period. - -.
occurs after
- i.g I Admlnlslratxw pla .i a final
• R .gls’ . The NPL will re1la any
de1 tlona in ks i ed Brul update .
Public notices and copies sEth..
Reepaneivenoas Siimmaiy will b. made
ev allRhlaby Region VU..
IV. Bests Ow eeded Sit. I sdoe,
The 11.3. EPA and the Kansas
Departme ofRealik and Environment
(XDRE) In! nd to e the Rydro-PIeX
CO?pctttjo Sits from Lb. Natfnnel
-- Priorities IJ’( Wijbecanm o i . .mi .c.iiia
ectisitiss atth. MIs s
completed. __
The Sit. Is t etad In nertb,,
Topeka. I ‘and oapaen , 2.5
ease. The City of TOPIhe Wst
Dsp
surface water .Uuctoze.al.uig the
Y —Riv which am
appem ly 6.200 fast uthaa4 of
the llydro .Thx Site. he
on thfiwatir ‘ upply lithe the
Site wssadded to the ?WLon March 30,
1989. The VanwD .partmgut of MIsith
aid Environment ( XDIIE ) completed a
Pr Mm1i ery Auwmsat/Slte___
Investigetisa in March 1687. . T1R
Installed end aampl°d these monitsaleg
wells, they alan sampled ft . psissts
wale. 1 in setigitien lw” d te
gioimt water was contaminated with
chromium a copp’c l”us) m 1t
ofo1biteprivatswsllw .pl g - -.
Indicated chiomban lewlabdow
d arSbm14 mi ii - ipurlsvsla -
between non-datactsbs vs!s end 72G
mlasgrsmalllter @5(1). Th,a.v.hi.s
meet at.snd Federal rIn b g wat
Mantk d . end di net reflect -
umtaminit1evskofpithflc hk
i ’ - ro . ..-‘. .
____ . 1
between with lfyds PIan.-
Casposatfo., I was algead he the
Hydro-Plex sits In asdarta a -
Remedial l d ! 5 ,4L JP ath l t .y
Study (RYFS). Desed on des l..L ..m..*1 . . .
aoddataobtainmibyth. —’44’
Investigation and the ICDHE ‘j” ”
chromium and copper ooncentrethxis
met thinking water standards.
In a It.aud of Dudeton signed March
9.1992, the Regional Adminfitsatsa far
EPA It4 . VU selected the No Action.
alternative as the final remedy Owthe
Hydro.#hn Sits. The EPA, in - . -
consultation with ICDHE, had
determined that the Site did not pam a
- algirificent threat to public h,ilth ,
weReraaadthevu,fw..rn ..t.
Use 4
conducted Included development end
Implementation of a comw fty
relations plan for the R i a .tI ItI. , and
- publication In the local namupaper of.
• noticeInL L thsp ubllcoIthe -
Public ( ) mn 4 Peeled and the
availability of the Propnri 11i Plan.
EPA. with concurrence of KDi , baa
determined that the Hydro-Flex. Site -
pose . no s¼nlflomt threat to public
health or the environment end,
therefore, th dng of further remedial
measures is not appropriate... -
IMted March 22, 1953., - . -
WiWemlics, •.‘
Acting &g - - ’ - 5di.r .
k _va. - - -.. -.
IFR 93-I399 4-7- -
aIiimc .-i -
-------
r
4vTh ôA)’(
F,N4
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 173 I Thursday, September 9, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 47383
report data. The 1992 data will be
updated by December 31. 1993. and
subsequent updates will be made by
July lit of each year.
(II) Retain annual emissions reports
forat least three (3) years. - -
(lii) Develop and submit Emissions
Statement Status Reports (ESSR) on a
quarterly basis each year until all
applicable sources have submitted the
required annual emissions reports. The
report will show the total number of
facilities from which emission statement
data was requested. the number of
facilities that met the provisions, and
the number of facilities that failed to
meat the provisions. Sources that are
delinquent In submitting their
emissions statements will be
Individually listed If they emit 500 tons
per year or more of VOM or 2500 tons
per year or more of NO. The report will
also contain the emission data requested
In Appendix F of the July 6, 1992 Draft
Guidance on the Implementation of an
Emission Statement Program. -
(Iv) All sources subject to the
- emission statement requirements must
report. at a minimum, the Information
specified under subpart C of part 254 of
chapter II of subtitle B of title 35 of the
Illinois Administrative Code.
(A) Incorporation by reference.
Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35:
Environmental Protection, Subtitle B:
Air Pollution, O apter II: Environmental
Protection Agency. Part 254: Annual
Emissions Report, adopted at 17 IllInois
RegIster 7782, effectIve May 14, 1993,
(B) Other materIal. June 2, 1993.
commitment letter.
(FR Dec. 93—21924 FIled 9-8—93:8:45 inr3
coca s sse
40 CFR Pest 52
(NMI2-1-4872 FRL-47004J
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New
Mexico; Revision to the Stats
bnplemsntatlon Plan; Addressing Pit-
l ofosAnihony - -
AOBICV Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rulem.klng.
s av : This action approves a
revision to the New Mexico State
Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing
PM—iC for Anthony (a moderate
nonattainment area for PM—b),
lnclnilh g a request from the State, per
sectIon 188( 1) of the amended Clean Air
Act (CAA). fore waiver of the
attainment date for Anthony. The EPA
may grant such a waiver for a moderate
PM—b nonattninmertt area where the
EPA determines that anthropogenic
sources do not contribute significantly
to violations of the PM—b National
Ambient Air Quality Standazth_
(NAAQS) in the area. PM-IC Is defined
as particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
*o a flominAl 10 mla’oineters.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become
effective on October 12,1993. -‘
ADORESSES: Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the following
• locations. The Interested persons
wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the
appropriate office at least 24 hours
before the visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, AIr Programs Branch (6T—
AP). 1445 Ross Avenue, suIte 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202—2733.
Mr. Jerry Kurteweg (ANR—443), - -
Environmental Protection AgencyL
401 M Street, SW.. Washington. DC
20460. -
New Mexico Environment Department.
Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St. Francis
Drive, room So. 2100, Santa Fe, New
Mexico 87503.
- FOR FURTHER IIFO IATION CONTACP. Me.
Mark Sather. Plimning Section (6T-AP),
Air Programs Branch. U.S
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 6,1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202—2733, Telephone (214)
055—7258.
WPLEMDflARY PIFORMAT1ON:
L Background -
Anthony. New Mexico (located in
Dons Ana County, New Mexico). was
. . . designated nonattainment for PM—b
and classified as moderate under
sections b07(d)(4)(B) and 188(e) of the
CM. upon enactment of the Clean Air
Ad Amendments (CAAA) of 1990.’
Please reference 58 Federal Register
(FR) 58894 (November 0, 1991) and 57
FR 13498,13537 (April 10, 1992). The
air quality planning requirements for
moderate PM-lO nonattainment areas
- azesetout lnsubparts land4ofpart
D,tItleIoftheCAA.
The EPA has Issued 1 ”Ceneral -
PreambW’ desalbing the EPA’s -.
preliminary views on bow the EPA
I The 1990 Amendments to the aen Au Act
made chan ea to the air quality pi...i.in
requ1r ents fw aries that do not meal (or that
.I tIflcantIy contribute to ambient air quality In a
nearby area that does not meet) the PM—tO National
Ambient Air Quality Standard. (see Pub L No.
101-549.104 Stat 23991 1dms .s be,eln are to
tbsa Air Acts. . .,, 4.i4• 42
7401 d
intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions
submitted under Title I of the CAA,
Including those State submittals
containing moderate PM—iC . —
nonatt iInment area SIP requirements
(see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 10,
1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992)). • - .
Those moderate PM—b
nonatsainment areas designated
nonattainment under section 107(d)(4)
of the CAA were to submit SIPs to the
EPA by November 15. 1991. The CAA
outlined certain required items to be
Included In the SIPs. These required
Items, due November 15, 1991, unless
otherwise noted, include: (1) A
comprehensive, aocurate, and current
Inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of PM—b in the nonattainmeni
area (section 172(c)(3) of the CAA); (2)
a permit program to be submitted by
June 30, 1992, which meets the -
requirements of section 173 for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources of
PM—IC (section 189(a)(1)(A)): (3) a
demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan provides for
attainment of the PM—iC NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 1994, ora
demonstration that attainment by that
date Is Impracticable (section
189(a)(i)(B)): (4) provisIons to assure
that Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RAC .4), including
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACfl, for control of PM-
10 will be Implemented no later than
December 10. 1993 (sections 172(c)(1)
and 189(a)(1)(C)). For sources emitting
Insignificant (do minimis) quantities of
PM—b, the EPA’s policy is that It wouldr
be unreasonable and would not
constitute RACM to require controls on
the source (please reference 57 FR
- 13540). Also, when evaluating RAQ I
- and RACr, technological and economic
feasibility determinations are to be
conducted (57 FR 13540—44); (5)
quantitatIve emission reduction
milestones which are to be achieved -
-every three years until the area is
redesignated attainment and which
demonstrate reasonable further progresa
(RFP) toward attaining the P1410
NAAQS (section 189(c)); (0)
contingency measures due November
15. 1993 (please reference 57 FR 13543),
that are to be Implemented if the EPA
determines that the area has failed to
make RFP or to attain the primary
standards by the applicable date
(section 172(c)(9)); and (7) control
requirements for major stationary
sources of PM—b precursors, unless the
EPA determines Inappropriate. The
-------
47384 Federal Register I Vol.58,
No. 173 / Thursday. September 9. 1993 I Rules and Regulations
CAA, In section 189(e). states that
control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM—to will
also be applicable to major stationary
sources of PM—tO precursors, except
where the Administrator determines
that such sourcee do not significantly
contribute to PM—b levels that exceed
the PM-tO ambLent standards In the
area.
IL Response to Comments
The EPA received no comments on its
April 8. 1993 (58 PR 18190—18197).
Federal Register proposal to approve
the Anthony moderate nonattainment
area PM—tO SiP. including tbe waiver
request. -
Final Actioii
Section 110(k) of the CAA sets out
provisions governing the EPA’s review
of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565—66).
In this final action, the EPA Is granting
approval of the Anthony. New Mexico.
moderate nonattainment area PM-to
SIP. Induding the waiver of the
moderate area aunh m nt date for
Anthony. because It meets all of the
applicable requirements of the CAA.
This SIP revision was submitted to
the EPA by cover letter from the
Governor dated November 8. 1991. On
April 8,1993, the EPA announced its
proposed approval of the moderate
nonattainment area PM—to SIP for
Anthony. New Mexico. Including the
waiver of the attainment date for
Anthony (58 FR 18190-18197). In that
rulemaking action, the EPA desaibed in
detail its Interpretations of Title I and Its
rationale for proposing to approve the
Anthony PM—to SIP, including the
waiver request, taking into
consideration the specific factual Issues
presented.
The EPA requested public comments
on all aspects of the proposal (please
reference 58 FR 18196). and no
comments were received during the
‘ omment period, which ended on May
10, 1993. This final action on the
Anthony PM-to SIP. Including the
waiver request, Is unchanged from the
April 8. 1993, proposed approval action.
The discussion herein provides only a
broad overview of the proposed action
the EPA Is now finalizing. The public is
referred to the April 8, 1993. proposed
approval FR action for a full discussion
of the action the EPA is now finalizing.
The EPA finds that the State of New
Mexico’s PM—to SW for the Anthony
nonattainment area meets the RAQi/
RACF requirement. The EPA views the
State’s open burning regulation (Air
Quality Control Regulation (AQCRJ
301), previously approved by the EPA,
as reasonable, enforceable, and
responsible for maintaining the PM—b
emissions from trash burning at lower
than de minimis levels. The EPA is
approving the revised AQCR 301 to
Include the definition of ‘open
burning” in order to strengthen the New
Mexico SIP. Remaining anthropogenic
sources as a whole erode ininimis and
RACM (induding RACF) does not
require the implementation of further
controls. The EPA is also approving
Done Ana County’s cominitnient to
Implementing and enforcing all Done
Ma County rules, r guladons, policies
and praâtlces, Including those Identified
in the PM—to SIP which reduce airborne
dust in the Anthony area (October 29.
1991, latter from the County to the
State). These commitments regarding
County control measures are being
approved as measures beyond RACM
which serve to strengthen the New
Mexico (Anthony PM—to) SiP, The State
of New Mexico also stated In the
adopted Anthony PM—to SIP (page 10)
that it “remains committed to the dust
control measures Implemented by Dana
Ane County.” as well as to the
‘moderate area control strategies as
agreed to In Ithel SIP submittal and to
the established air quality monitoring
schedule.” The State ratified Its
commitment in a November 21,1991,
letter from Cecilia Williams, Chief, Air
Quality Bureau, to Gerald Fontenot,
Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region
6. The EPA Is approving the State’s
commitment found In the Anthony SIP
and In the November 21. 1991, letter.
The overwhelmingly dominant sources
of PM—b concentrations in the
Anthony area are nonanthropogenic
emissions from the surrounding desert
and residual nonanthropogenlc
emissions from surrounding rangelands
which aie not feasibly controllable,
Anthmpogenic sources as a whole,
after the Implementation of reasonable
controls, do not contribute significantly
to violation of the PM-b NAAQS in the
Anthony nonattainment area. Therefore,
the EPA is granting the State’s request
to waive the moderate area attainment
date for Anthony pursuant to section
188(f) of the CAA. This final action on
the State’s attainment date waiver
request is non-precedent setting, and the
decision to grant a waiver is based on
a current reading of the law and on facts
specific to the Anthony. New Mexico
nonattainment area. As the EPA refines
Its policy concerning waivers, areas may
face different procedural and
substantive showings under section
188(f).
The EPA is also granting the Anthony
PM—to nonattainment area the
exclusion from PM—to precursor control
requirements authorized under section
189(e) of the CAA. Finally, to satisfy
section 189(c) of the CAA (regarding
quantitative milestones and RFP). the
State of New Mexico must report to the
EPA every three years. beginning on,
November 15, 1994, the following
Information regarding the Anthony
nonattainment area:
(1) The status and effectiveness of the
exlstln? controls;
(2) Significant changes in the
Inventory due to new source growth or
other activities; and
(3) An evaluation of any additional
controls which maybe feasible to
reduce exposures and/or bring the area
into attainment.
Nothing in this action should be
construed as permitting or allowing or
establishing a precedent for any future
request for revision to any SIP. Each
request for revision to the SW shall be
considered separately In light of specific
technical, economic, and environmental
factom, and In relation to relevant
statutory and regulatory requirements.
This action makes final the action
proposed at 58 FR 18190. As noted
elsewhere In this action, the EPA
received no adverse public comment on
the proposed action. As a direct resuh.
the Regional Administrator has
reclassified this action from Tablet to
Table 2 under the processing proosdures
established at54 FR 2214, January 19,
1989.
Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 600 at seq.. the EPA must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
assessing the impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C 603
and 604. Alternatively, the EPA may
certify that the rule will not have a
significant Impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
Include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and government
entities with jurisdiction over
populations of less than 50.000.
SIP approvals under section 110 end
subchapter I, Pail D. of the Cs’iA do not
auete any new requirements, but
simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SW-approval does
not impose any now requirements,!
certify that it does not have a significant
impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the
CA /I. preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The Act
forbids the EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v U.S. E.P.A.. 42 ?
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58, No, 173 I Thursday, Septembor 9. 1993 I Rules and Regulations 47385
U.S. 246:256.-66 (5: Ct. 1976); 42 U.s.c.
7410(a)(2). .
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA’
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed In theUnlted States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by November 8, 1993. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the. ‘!
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does lt
extend the time within which a petition,
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. .This action may not
be challenged later In proceedings
enforce Its requirements. (See section r.
307(b)(2).) . ‘ &s ..: •‘ :
Executive Order i 229 l ’, .w ;Ji ‘.,:;
- This actIo i has been classified as a.
table 2 action by the Regional. ... .
Administrator under the procedures
published In the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214—2225). On
January 6, 1989, the Office of” . . -
Management and Budget (0MB) waived
tables 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR.
2222) born the requirements of sections
3 of Executive Order 12291 for a periodS
of two years. The EPA has submitted a
request for a permanent waiver for table
2 and 3 SIP revisions. The 0MB has.•
agreed to continue the temporary waiver
until such tJme as it rules on the EPA’s ’
request; r.’,t:, . .1.
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 52,’ : ‘.
Air pollution control, Environmental \
protection, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation.
by reference. Intergovernmental - !.: ,, .
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Sulfur dioxide,.Volatile
organic compounds. .
Note: Incorporation by’reference of the SIP
for the State of New Mexico we. approved by
the Director of the Federal Register on July
1. 1982. .‘ i’—’- . ..
Dated: August 23 1993.. . . ‘: ‘ . I
Jo. D. WinIcle,’ ‘ ‘ • , :S’ ‘t,
Acting Region al Administrator 6A)..
40 ‘R Part 52 ls ”amende4 as follpws
I .. ,,,
PART 52-A ENDEDJç, ,I 4.
1. TheAuthority citation for part 52”
‘contiitues to ’read as follows: ‘
• , , .. . . . . . . ..
Autburt2y42 U.S.C.7401—7671q.
Subpart GG.-NewMezIc ’ ..,
1. Section 52.1620 Is amended by ” . ’
adding paragraph (c)(5O) to read as
follows: g , . . , t’.’ ’
• % t.J .
S2.1620 Id.ntlficat!onof plan. .
- . ,‘ ; ?: i 1 I ,i r. 3 , r .
(c) • •
(50) A revision to the New Moxico
SLate Implementation Plan (SIP)
addressing moderate PM—la
nonattainment area requirements for
Anthony was submitted by the Governor
of New Mexico by letter dated
November 8, 1991. The SIP revision
included, as per section 188W of the
Clean Air Act, a request for a waiver of
the attainment date for Anthony.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Revision to New Mexico AirS
Quality Control Regulation 301—
Regulation to Control Open Burning,
section I (definition of “open burning”),
as filed with the State Records and
Archives Center on February 7, 1983.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) November 8. 1991, narrative plan
addressing the Anthony moderate PM—.
10 nonattainment area, including
emission Inventory, modeling analyses.
and control measures.
(B) A letter dated October 29, 1991.
from Judith M. Price, Done Ann County
Planning Director and Assistant County
Manager, to Judith M. Espinosa. ‘ ,•..
Secretary of the New Mexico
Environment Deportment, in which the
County committed to implement and
enforce all Done Ann County rules,
regulations, policies and practices, -
including those Identified In the draft
PM—b SIP which reduce airborne dust
In the Anthony area. The Dons Ann
County rules, regulations, policies and
practices identified In the draft Anthony 4
PM—b SIP are identical to those
identified in the final Anthony PM—b
SIP.
(C) A letter dated November 21, 1991,
from Cecilia Williams, Chief. New
Mexico Air Quality Bureau, to Gerald
Fontenot, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
EPA Region 6, expressing satisfaction
with the October 29. 1991. commitment
letter from Judith Price to Judith
Espinosa.
(D) Anthony PM—la SIP narrative
from page 10 that reads as follows: “The
State remains committed to the dust
control measures Implemented by Dona
Ann County, moderate area control
strategies as agreed to in this SIP
submittal and to the established air
quality monitoring schedule.”
(FR Doc. 93—21921 Filed 9—8— 3; 8:45 aml
siu.mo coos ssoo-ae-
ACTiON: Final rule.
SUMMARY: in this action, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approves
numerous amendments to the Lane
Regional Air Pollution Authority’s
(LRAPA) rules for the control of air
pollution In Lane County, Oregon as
revisions to the Oregon state
Implementation plan (SIP). These
revisions were submitted by the Director
of the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) on May
30, 1986: December 5, 1986: May 8,
1987: March 3, 1989; March 12, 1990:
June 8, 1990; and November 15, 1991 in
accordance with the requirements of
section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(hereinafter the Act). In accordance with
Oregon statutes. LRAPA rules must be at
least as stringent as the ODEQ statewide
rules.
EFFECTiVE DATE: This action will be
effective on November 8. 1993 unless
notice is received by October 12, 1993
that someone wishes to submit adverse
or critical comments. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be
published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be addressed to: Montel Livingston. SIP
Manager. Air Programs Branch. AT—062,
Environmental Protection Agency. 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101.
Documents which are Incorporated by
reference are available for public
inspection at the Public Information
Reference Unit, Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC. Copies of material
submitted to EPA may be examined
during normal business hours at the
following locations: Air & Radiation
Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency, Docket OR22—l—5635, 1200
Sixth Avenue, AT—082, Seattle.
Washington 98101. and Oregon -
Department of Environmental Quality.
811 S.W. Sixth, Portland, Oregon 97204.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David C. Bray. Air Programs Branch,
AT—082, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washingtpn 98101, (206) 553—4253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 30. 1086 the Dkector of the
Oregon Department of Environmental
40 CFR Part 52 ‘ Quality (ODEQJ submitted a completely
revlsed and updated implementation
(OR—22—1—6635; FR1415023 plan for the State of Oregon. Included in
this updated plan were then current
Approval and Promulgation of rules for the Lane Regional Air Pollution
Implementation Plans; Oregon : Authority (LRAPA). Further revisions to
AGENCY: Envtronmental Protection’ the LRAPA rules were submitted by the
Agency. Director of the ODEQ on December 5,
-------
EL A 8
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 194 I Friday, October 8, 1993 / Proposed Rules
(our business qualifies and in what way
uid to what degree this proposal will
conoinicaUy affect your business.
An Initial Regulatory Fle dbi1ity
Analysis discussing the Impact of this
proposal on small entities Is available in
Lb. docket for Inspection or copying
where indicated under “*ocaEesEs. ’
The analysis indicates that the only
businesses which will be directly
affected by the amended bridge opening
schedule, the excursion boat operators.
will be able to adjust their schedules
without Impact on their businesses.
However, one marina operator whose
marina is located upriver from the
bridge feels that the scheduling change
will Indirectly affect him. He feels that
the change will cause him to lose
business because boat owners will
relocate their vessels down river, below
the bridga.
Collection of Information
This proposal contains no collection
of information requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 etseq.).
Fsdarsliem
The Coast Guard has analysed this
proposal In accozcbrnce with the
principles and criteria contained in
Exacutive Order 12612 anè has
determIned that this proposal does not
have sufficient federilism Implications
to warrant preparation of a Federalism
AS wOflt.
The Coast Guard has reviewed the
environmental Impact of this proposal
and’concluded that under sectIon 2.8.2
of the NEPA Implementing Procedures,
COMDTINST M16475.1B, this
is categorically excluded from
envtlonmAntal documentation because
promulgation of changes to drawbridge
regulations have been found to not have
a significant effect on the human
environment. A Categorical Exclusion
Determination Is available In the docket
for inspection or copying where
indicated under “A ORE$Ifl.”
List at Subject . In 33 ( RPart 217
Bridges.
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATiON REGULATiONS
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
‘tmend Part 117 of Title 33, Code of
eders1 Regulations. as follows:
1. The authority citation for Pert 117
ontlnues to read as follows:
Autheiity 33 U.S.C S499’. 49 C ’R S 1.46:
33 RS1.O5(gi.
2. Part 117 Is amended by revising
paragraphs (b) Introductory text. (b)(1)
and (b)(2) of § 117.687 to read as
follows:
5117.687 SLCroIxRIvsr.
• • • • •
(b) The draw of the S3& Bridge, Mile
234. at Stiliwater, shall open on signal
as follows:
(1) From May15 through October 15,
Monday through Friday. except Federal
holidays:
(i) From 8a.m. to 10p.m.. every hour
on the hour:
(10 From 10 p.m.to 8a.m.. if at least
two hours notice is given.
(2) From May 15 through October 15,
Saturdays, Sundays. and Federal
holidays:
(I) From 8 a.m. to midnight. every
hour on the hour:
(ii ) From midnight to 8a.m., if at least
wo huts notice Is given.
Dated September 23. 1993.
Paul M. Blayesy,
ftearAdmbvi. U.S. Coast Cuaid Commande
Second Coast Guard Dlsfrict.
IPR Dec. 93—24607 FIled 10-793:6:45 am)
sties coca is*ie.s
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
4OcPRPastS2
(1X-14-1-6115 47$7-2j
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality miplimsotedon Plans; Tens;
Rsvla$on to the Stats bnplsmsntatlon
Plan AddressIng P15-10 for El Paso
ICV U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ( EPA)
ACUKhL Proposed rule’ni&lnI
! UtIRY This a on proposes approval
of a ievlsiem to the Texas P14-10 State
ImplementatIon Plan (SW) for El Paso.
Texas. P14-10 Is defined as particulate
matter with an aerodynamic dima4er
less than or equal to a niwnii l 10
micrometers. The EPA is also proposing
to approve the P14—10 SIP for El Paso.
Texas, as meeting the requirements of
section 1798 of the Clean Air Act (CAM
regarding Implementation pians end
revisions for International border areas.
0a1ES Comments on this proposed
action must be received In writing on or
beforeNovember8. 1993.
AW8 Written comments on this
action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Dlggs. Chief. Planning
Section. at the EPA Region 6 Office
Indicated. Copies of the documents
relevant to thi, proposed action are
available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the following
locations. The Interested persons
wanting to ex mlne these documents
should make an appointment with the
appropriate office at least 24 hours
before the visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch
(6T-AP), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202—2733.
Texas Air Control Board, 12124 Park
35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR RJRT1IER UtFORMATION CONTACT Mr.
Mark Sather, Planning Section (6T .AP).
Air Programs Branch. U.S. EPA Region
6.1445 Rose Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202—2733. Telephone (214) 655—7258.
S1WPLE NTARY elFoRuAms:
El Peso. Texas. was designated
nonatairnnent for PM—I a and classified
as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B)
and 188(a) of the CAA, upon enactment
of the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) of 1990.’ Please reference 56
FR 56894 (November 6, 1991. codified
for Texas at 40 CFR 81.344) and 57 FR
13498, 13537 (April 16, 1992). The air
quality planning requirements for
moderate P14-10 nonattalnment areas
are set out In subparts I and 4 of part
D, title I of the CAA. Subpart I contains
provisions generally applicable to all
nonats.iTI nent areas and Subpart 4
contains provisions specifically
applicable to P14-10 nonattainment
areas. At times, Subparts I and 4
overlap or canflbt The EPA has
attempted to clarify the relationship
among these various provisions In the
General Preamble and, as appropriate,
In this action.
The EPA has issued a “General
Preamble” describing the EPA’s
prellmInasy views on how the EPA
Intends to review SIPs and SiP revisiocs
submitted under Thi. I of the CAA.
lncln IIng those State aubmittals
conI nIng moderate P14—10
n itaalnment area SIP requirements
(see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 18.
1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28.
1992)). The reader should refer to the
General Preamb l° for a more det a. led
discussion of the interpretations of Til.
I advanced In this proposed action and
the supporting rationale. In this
ruimnoking action on the El Paso T.s.is.
moderate P14-10 SIP, the EPA is
‘Th.i99O ’— ’-’ ’teth.asas .tJ .:I
dg n4fi ’ 4 di 6 .i ib. iii quili’. ; . .
iequlrauauu f ume that do uat meal
•r 4 -”i cm tbi .to qui .’i a.
that doss mau l) tb PM .0
- ‘-l -. air quality staud.rd. (iss PubI,c a.
101445.104 S1aL 235*
th AfrAet,aa—.— &42U5C .,•,.
seq.
iVL 5
52467
-------
Federal Re ter / Vol. 58, No. 194 / Friday, October 8, 1993 / Proposed Rules
propoung to apply its rpretationa,
taking Into consideration the spedflc
f 4umI i A presented. Thus, the EPA
will consider any timely si.h... It..d
COmmant* before taking final athon on
this pv osaL
On November 15. 1991. the Governor
of Texas submitted to the EPA the SIP
revision for PM-b concerning El Paso,
Texas. The CAA specifies that States
containing those moderate PM—to
nonattainnient areas designated
nonattainmeut under section 107(dX4)
of the Act were to submit SIPs to the
EPA by November 15. 1991. and
outlines t iL required items to be
included in the SIPs. These required
items, due November 15. 1991. unless
otherwise noted. include: (1) A
comprehensive. accurate, and cunont
inventory of actual emissions from all
of PM—b in the nonattainment
area ( section 172(c)(3 ) of the CAA) (2)
a Ip iawtobesubmfttedby
June 30. 1992. which meets the
requirements of sectIon 173 for the
coestruction and operation of new end
modified major stationary sources of
PM—to (section 189(aXIXA)); (3) a
demonstration (Including air quality
modeling) that the plan provides for
attainment of the 131-10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December
31. 1994, or a demonstration that
attainment by that date is imprac t icable.
(section 189(a)(IXBTh (4) provIsions to
assure that Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RAO4). Including
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACfl. for control of PM—
10 will be Implemented no later than
December 10.1993 (sections 172(cXl)
and 189(a)(1)(C)). For sources emitting
insignificant (de minimis ) quantities of
PM-to, the EPA’s policy is that It would
be unreasonable and would not
constitute RAC 4 to requue controls on
the source (please reference 57 FR
33540). Also, when evaluating RA 4
and RACT. the technologicel and
economic feasibility of the cuntruls
relevant considerations (57 PR 13540-
13544); (5) quantitative ‘ t on
reduction milestones which are tube
achieved every three years until the area
is redesignated ate inInent and which
demonstrate reasonable further pio s
(RFP) toward attAinifig the PM—b
NAAQS (section 189(c)); (6)
contingency measures due November
15, 1993 (please reference 57 FR 13510-.
13512 and 13 43—135 11), that are to be
Implemented If the EPA determines that
thearea baa failed to make RFP or to
attain the primary standards by the
applicable date (section 172(c)(9)); end
(7) control requirarnents for major
st*ttin ary sources of P7 .1-10 precursors.
unless the EPA determines
inappropriate. The CAA, in section
189(e). states that control requirements
applicable to major stationery sources of
PM—b will also be applicable to major
stationary sources of PM—b precursors.
excupi where the Administrator
determines that such sources do not
significantly contribute to PM-b levels
that exceed the PM—tO ambient
standards in the area.
As outlined below, the Stats of Texas’
SU’ revision for PM—tO con uudug El
Pem, a moderate 131—10 , Inltninrnrlt
area, was reviewed ‘ igri 4 n t the
appHr hI requirements. The reader is
referred to the El Paso PM—to SIP
submittal and the EPA ’s supporting
terhnwitl Information pertinent
details regarding each requlzexnuit.
These items em available for public
review at the addresses ind4r .ti d above.
SectIon 110(k) of the CA.A sets out
provisions goveening the EPA’. review
of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13585—
13568). In this action, the EPA Is
proposing to grant approval of th. plan
revision submitted to the EPA on
November 15,1991, for El Peso, Texas,
because It meets all of the applicable
requirements of th CAA.
AnalyáofStdsS ’
1. Pr’oc.durral Background
The CAA requires States to obisew
certain procedural requirements in
developing ImplementatIon plans for
sub im to the EPA. Section
110(aX2) of the CAA provides that each
ImplementatIon plan m hmt d by a
State mud be adopted alter reasonable
notice and publicliwtng.2 See also
semica 11 l) of the CM. Also, the EPA
mud determine whether a submittal Is
complete and therefore warrants further
EPAzwd 9t n ( et—1 4 .ni
aiO(kX1) sod 57 FR 13585). The EPA’s
compleli...t criteria for SIP submittal.
are out at 40 CFR part 51. appimsiiHi
V (1992). The EPA a mpts to make
completeness determinations withIn 60
days of receiving a submission.
However. a submittal Is deemed
complete by operation of law If.
completeness dmination Is not made
by the EPA six mnn*h . after receipt of
the wbw .c .in
After providing adequate notice, the
State of Texas heki a public hearing en
September 5, 1991, to entertain public
comment on tire PM—to lmplernenthtlon
plan for El Paso. Following the public
hearing the plan was adopted by the
$5 172fr )c1ttaCAA tsça is. th pIm
n .e t.
spp1 — . etc m iiO(.XzI
State and signed by the Governor on
November 5,1991, and submitted to the
EPA on November 15, 1991. ass
proposed revision to the SIP.
The SIP revision was reviewed by the
EPA to determine cmunpleteneu shortly
after its submittal, in eccordanon with
the completeness aiteria referenced
above. A letter dated December 31.
1991, was forwarded to the Governor
indicating the completeness of the
submittal and th. next steps to be taken
in the review pw As noted, in this
action, the EPA proposes to approve the
Texas P7.4-10 SIP submittal for El Paso
and invites public comment on the
action.
2. PM-b Emission Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the CM requires
that a n*Irntami.nt plan provisions
Include a comprehensive, accurate, and
current Inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of relevant pollutants in
the area. Further. section
1b0(a)(2J(IQ gs” eUy authorizes the
EPA to zequed any data ne’ Ty to
parfurm air quality modeling for the
purpose of predicting. among other
thing . Impacts on the PM-to NAAQS.
The State of Texas included two
inventories In the El Paso PM—to
Moderate SIP (1) An Inventory for El
Paso County (the Qty of El Paso is
located In El Paso County) based on
actual aInI ons for the year 1990; and
(2) An Inventory far El Paso County
based on permit allowable L 4ons
(where appropriate) for the year 1994.
For 1990, the State calculated 1,082
ton5/y r of PM-to th 4 ons from
point sources, 1,891 tons/year from area
sources, and 4.640 tons/year from
mobile sources ( Inrhia . PM—ia
mmI. . from paved and unpaved
roads), for a tote] of 7,413 tons/year a!
PM—to Projecting for 1994.
and accounting for growth factors. the
Stat. calculated 1.413 tons/year of PM—
10 m n 1 .tions from point sources. 1.740
tons/yee from area sources, and 4.399
tons/year from mobile sources (induàs
PM—to emissions from paved and
unpaved roads). a total of 7.552 toes!
year of PM-tO emissions. It is importad
to note that there were calculation erens
In the two emission Inventories
submitted by the State. These
calculation sours are diecemed in d I
In the Te.4mk 1 Support DocumnmL
Only one of the errors resulted in gristly
different emissions estima This er
involved PM—to . ,nlsrdons from
agrfcuJtwni HIHng . instead of 120 toes!
year, the 1990 Inventory should have
calculated PM—1O emissions from
agricultural t4lHng operations to be
1.025 tons/year. The State was ai
re-examine Its a ” ent
-------
Federal RegiMes / Vol. 58. No. 194 / Friday, October 8, 1993 I Proposed Rules
52409
demonstration, as discussed below in
Section 4. to ea ount for this additional
amount of PM—to emissions.
By cover letter dated November 20,
1992. from Lane Hartsock. Deputy
Director of Air Quality PI nning, Texas
Air Control Board (TACB). to Thomas H.
Dig . Chief of the Air Plpnning Section.
EPA Region 8. the State submitted a
revised emissions inventory addressing
the calculation errors. The State used
this revised Inventory for an additional
attainment demonstration which will be
discussed In Section 4 below.
3. Nonaltainmeat New Sourte Review
Permit Proçam
The State ol Texas has submitted new
source review regulatory revisions to the
EPA. These revisions. submitted by
cover letter from the Govemor dated
May 13, 1992, were submitted In pert to
meet ruquiieunsnts faund in sections
173 and 189(aXIKA) of the CAA for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources of
PM—tO. These revisions were due
independently of the November 15.
1991. moderate PM-to noniP ’ ”ent
area SW requirements addressed in this
action and will be addressed In detail In
a separate Pedemi Register notice.
4. Demonsfrotion of Attoinnient of the
PM-tO NAAQS by December31. 1994.
but for Emissions Emanating From
Mexico
As noted, the Initial moderate PM—b
nonat inTI nt areas must submit a
demonstration (Including air quality
modeling) showing that the plan will
provide for attainment as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than
December 31. 1994 (see section
189(aHl)(Bfli) of the CA/i).
Alternatively, the State must show that
attainment by December 31. 1994, Is
impracticable (section 189(a)(IUBMUII.
There have been several air quality
studies conducted in the El Paso/Juarea
air basin. Special receptor modeling and
otherstudles In El Pasoand aaosa the
United States border in Juares. Mexico,
conducted by the TACB, the ‘A. the El
Paso City-County Health District
(EPCX lD). and Mexico’s Seaetariat of
Urban Development end Ecology
(SEDUE) (now biown as the Seaetarlat
for Social Development or SEDESOL).
have included PM-to end
meteorological moliltoTIng in ’ oth El
Paso end Juam. u nds analyses of the
monitoring data, trajectory analyses
demonstrating PM-b transport from
Iuarez into El Paso. and laboratory
analyses of air samples. The meet
extensive study was performed In
Decauzrbs,’of 1990—en 18 day project
entitled the “El Paso/juarea Wtnter PM—
to Receptor Modeling Scoping Study.”
Results from the study showed that
generally. PM—b concentrations were
higherin Juarez,Mexfco, than in El
Paso, and a monitoring station In Juarez
consistently reported higher P14-10
values than any other station during the
special study period. In addition, when
high PM—b 0 concentrations were
measured in El Paso, trajectory analyses
showed that many of the air parcels
came from source regions within Jisarea
or areas outside Juarez In Mexico.
SectIon 1798(a) of the CAA provides
that notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a SIP required under
the CA/i shall be approved by the
Mminktrator 1f (1) The plan meets all
requirements applicable to it under the
CA/i other than a requirement that auth
plan demonstrate attainment and
maint nra of the relevant NAAQS by
the specified a nment date; and (2)
the submitting State establishes to the
sa’4 on oItha Administrator that the
SIP would be adequate to attain and
maintain the relevant NAAQS by the
specified attaInment data, but for
emissions emanating from outside of the
United States. See generally 57 FR
13569-13570. In addition, for PM-b
nonattalninent areas, section 1790(d) of
the CAA specifies that notwlthdandlng
any other provision of law, any State
that m tthIhhii . to the Uti o of
AiImini ,ator that, with respect to a
PM—to n l htainni nt area In mach
Slate, such Slate would ha,. attained
the NAAQS for PM-la by the applicable
attainment dais, but for emissions
emanating from outside the United
States, than mach PM—to ,,, N$$.f,imant
azea lnt h e$t.t .sbailnotbemibjedto
the re . 4 a 4fir.tion to s.ri
provisions of section 188(bK2) (failure
to attain after th. applicable attainment
dat.). The EPA has construed this
re l fi tion restriction to also extend
to ov n 188(bX I) of the CA / i that
pertains to r la fi tion before the
atrkiniv t date where the EPA
determines an area cannot practicably
timely attaIn (57 FR 13569, footnote 42).
The State of Texas references section
179B of the CA/i when presenting their
demonstration. As set out in mere detail
below, the Slat. has submitted a
demonstration showing that the El Paso
PM—tO moderate nonatlainment arm
would be In attainment of the PM—tO
NAAQS both currently and by
December 31. 1904, based on dispersion
modeling of United States (El Paso
County) PM-tO e ni rons alone. Based
on the EPA’s. review, the demonstration
appears to be nt4tf ory. Accordingly.
the EPA Is proposing to approve the
demonstration as showing that the SIP
provides for timely attainment of the
PM—li) NAAQS but for emissions
emanating from Mexico.
The State of Texas used five years of
hourly meteorological data (National
Weather Service data from the El Paso
International Airport for the years 1985-
1989) and two sets of emissions
Inventory data for El Paso County (1990
actual point, area, and mobile source
emissions. and 1994 proWcted allowable
emissions) to model PM-to NAAQS
impacts In El Paso County. The State
used a Geuevi n Plume Multiple Source
Air Quality Algorithm (Regional Air
Model (RAM)) for modelIng 1990 and
1994 PM—tO emissions, and also used
the Valley Screening method far
estimating PM-tO..NAAQS impacts of
significant elevated point sources an
mountainous terrain, such as the nearby
Frenfrlin MountaIns (1994 inventory
only). PM—to reductions due to some
State-adopted control measures
addressed In this proposal were not
Inchidedin the modeling of the 1994
emissions Inventory.
Based on the Gaussian Plume
Multiple Source Air Quality Algorithm
(RAM) modeling rime, the 1990 annual
average PM—tO design concentration for
theftveyear etudyper lodwas4 o.I Oug I
m3, below the annual PM-to NAAQS of
50 ug/mi. Th. annual PM-b NAAQS is
attained when the expected annual
arithmetic mean concentration is less
than or equal to 50 ug/m’ (40 CFR 50 6).
The 1990 24-hour PM—b design
concentration for th. five year study
period was 91.45 ug/mi. below the 24-
hour PM-b NAAQS of I 5O ug/m). The
24-hour NAAQS Is attained when the
expected number of days per calendar
year with a 24-hour average
conrantratlon above 150 ug/in’ is equal
toorlessthanone(4O RS0 61. For
1994. the mo 4Ing runs produced a
m*vimum annual design conciin’rsuoa
0141.64 uglm 3 and a maximum Z4•hour
design c.i.w nbadon of 11408 a 1 m’.
both below their respective NAAQS
threshold levels. Please reference the
Ted nfr 1 Support Document aAd the El
Paso PM—tO SIP for pertinent d taaIs on
the above modeling demonstrai.oas.
As mentioned above in Secuon 2. the
Stat. was asked to re-examine the
att.Ininit demonstration using a
revised Inventory. The State submitted
a revised aielnmit demonstration by
cover letter dated November 20 I 9Q2. to
the EPA. This additional modet:. g
resulted In Insigni f icant increases is the
maximum predicted PM—tO
concentrations In El Paso County Re4
on the revised modeling runs. hi teso
annual average PM—la design
concentration for the five year is alp
period was 40.45 ug/as’. below he
annual PM—b NAAQS of 50 u ’ —.
-------
52470
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 194 / Friday, October 8, 1993 / Proposed Rules
1990 24-bout PM-to design
concentration for the five year study
period was 93.52 ug/m3. below the 24-
hour PM—to NAAQS of 150 ug/m3. For
1994. the revised modeling runs
produced a m imum annual design
concentration of 41.92 ug/in3 and a
ma dniuin 24-hour design concentration
of 114.19 ug/m), both below their
respective NAAQS threshold levels:
Please reference the revised El Paso
PM—to SIP documentation from Lane
Hastscck dated November 20, 1992, for
pertinent details on the above revised
modeling demonstrations.
Complex terrain saeening for the
1994 inventory was performed on all
elevated point sources which had 24-
hour average emissions of 0.5 gram per
second or more. The Valley Saeening
method was used to determine PM-to
impacts on elevated terrain at plume
height for each of the significant
sources. Predicted Impacts on the
nearby Franklin Mountains at plume
height for the indicated sources were
negligible.
5. RAQf and RACT jbr Control of PM—
20 arid Additional Control Measures
As noted, the Initial moderate PM-b
nonattainment areas must submit
provisions to assure that RACbI
(Including RACT) are Implemented no
later than December10, 1993 (see
sections 172(cXl) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the
CAM. The General Preamble contains a
detailed dl,r”ualon of the EPA’s
interpretation of the RAQA (Including
RACT) requirement (see 57 FR 13539—
13545 and 13560—13581). The EPA’s
interpretation of this requirement Is set
out here only In broad terms.
The Stat. should first Identify
dvallable control measures, evaluating
them for their apin h1a e In light of
th. feasibility of the controls and the
attainment needs of the area. A State
may reject an available control measure
if the measure Is technologically
tnf,iisible or th. coot of the control is
unreasonable. The S W mud
demonstrate attainment of the MAAQS
as expeditiously as pr iclfr hle bat no
later than December 31. 1994 ( ““ the
State demonstrates that attahimant by
that date Is Impracticable). Therefore 1 If
a State adopts less than all 5 nIkht
measures but demonstrates, adequately
and appropriately, that RPP and
att lnn1 mt of the PM-to NAAQS Is
assured, and application of all such
availabLe meesure would not result In
a ” ”t any fester, then a plan which
requires implementation of less than all
available measures may be approved as
meeting the RAQ 1 requirement As a
suggested starting point for determining
RAGd, the EPA has identified available
control measures for sources of fugitive
dust, residential wood combustion, and
presaibed burning (see 57 FR 18072—
18074 (April 28, 1992)). The State
should add to the list of available
measures In an area any measures that
public commentars demonstrate may
well be reasonably available in a
particular circumstance.
The RACT for a particular source Is
milsiily determined. The EPA’s
longstanding definition of RACT Is the
lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting
by the application of control technology
that Is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility
(see 57 FR 13541). Thus, the EPA
recommend. that available control
technology be applied to those existing
sources In the area that are reasonable
to control In light of the attainment
needs of the area and the feasibility of
controls.’
A State should submit a reasoned
4ftr*t4a n for partial or full rejection
of any ava1bht contrnJ measure
(Including any available control
t iwilcgy) that explains, with
appropriate documentation, why each
rejected cuutrol measure Is lnfp.4 4 or
otherwise unreasonable and, therefore,
does not constitute RAQ 1 (or RACY) for
the area. In those PM—tO nnn*tMIm, .i4
areas where mobile sources a%nifi itly
contribut, to the PM—tO air quality
problem, States also mud address the
se on 1080) transportation control
measures (see 57 PR13581) .
The SW for moderate PM-to
nonattainment areas subject to sMilco
1793 must similarly provide forthe
fvpt.n.nt.fli.i of poI. dt.fly ivithil,
c irJ measures may not be
“reasonabir available and.
wáuldndh r equ liedbyRAQd
(including RACY) whore It can be
shown that the PM—to NAAQS could be
att .bMd as expeditiously as pv.rtfr.hle
in the nonattainment area disregarding
emissions co.n.ing from outside the
United States . B7 directing the EPA
under section 179B to approve the SIP
or SIP revision for a moderate PM-to
ares showing that it would timely attain
the NAAQS “but for” foreign a laa1ons
and by excluding such an area .from
r 4 fir tlon to serious, Congress has
avoided p in H bg such areas by not
mib4ig them responsible for control of
. ini 4 ons .in.u.ting from a Ibrelgu
country over which they have no
‘lb. A b liemd ‘ ‘ “ Øc.I d fm . .iC
p s thg.bseldb . —‘iW ,d In
d.( Ii ii , RACT to. psdcuI.co s (use 37
FR leOlS—11014).
jurisdiction. The rerIs’-tfflcation
exclusion avoids subjecting such areas
to the more stringent or “best” available
control measures applicable In serious
PM—b nonattsinment areas (section
189(b)(l)(B)). Further, section 179B(a)(2)
by its plain terms requires the State to
establish only that the SIP submitted
would be “adequate” to timely attain
and maintain the NAAQS, ‘but for”
emissions from outside the United
States.
Thus, no State Is relieved from
meeting all other applicable moderate
ares PM-to S W requirements, including
the requirement to Implement RACM.
However neither Is any State required
to shoulder more of a regulatory and
economic burden thee States not
thniIiirly affected, by having to
Implement measures that go well
beyond those which the SIP
demonstrates would otherwIse be
adequate to attain and maintain the PM-
10 NAAQS “but for” emissions
n.u*thig from outside the United
States. Such a requirement would be
IIwa1 tent with the apparent purpose
of section 17gB. Nevertheless, because
the NAAQS reflect public health and
wolfer. standards, the EPA encourages
states to reduce . rn ” '’ . beyond the
,I i4.num necessary to satisfy the “but
for” test In order to reduce the PM—to
conomtraflons to which their
populations are exposed byvhtue of the
additional contribution from
international transport.
The State of Tame In the El Paso SW
reviewed RAQd and RACY for control
of PM-to. Following is an analysis of
the measures employed to control PM—
loin El Peso, Texas.
A. Fugitive Dust Control Measures
An evaluation of available fugitive
dud control measures forthe City of El
Paso Is included In appendix N of the
El Paso PM—to Moderate SIP. The Slate
of Tame has incorporated provisions
Into the TACB Regulation I which
control fugitive particulat, emissions
from m ,ialn handling constructon.
roads, streets , alleys, and parking Lots in
the El Paso area. A Memorandum of
Undemtanding (MOU). dated November
5,1991, between the City of El Paso and
the TA , Included In the SW
submittal, will serve as the basis for
dqfinlng the division of responsibility
for. end th riimmitmente to carry cot.
pertinent provisions of Regulation L to
any event, the TACE has the ultim .
enforcement authority to ensure th.
ImpIam ”ntatlon of these fugitive dua
control measures. Each pertinent — “i —
of Regulation I will be discussed b.iose
Even though the TACE demonatrst.d
that the El Paso PM-tO nonat’ ir
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 194 / Friday. October 8, 1993 I Proposed Rules
52471
area would be In attsinment by
December 31. 1994. without including
J.he fugitive dust control measures, the
tate of Texas is implementing control
measures for fugitive dust in the El Paso
area. The State has authority under
section 118 of the CAA to require these
controls, and the EPA is proposing to
approve the following provisions of
TAO Regulation I as control measures
beyond RAQ4 which strengthen the
Texas SIP. Moreover, as discussed later.
the EPA I . proposing to treat these and
the other control measures that go
beyond the minimum RAQ.1
requirement as fulfilling the
requirement for contingency measures.
Section 111.141. This section i tes
certain provisions In Regulation I
applicable to the El Paso area (including
the Fort Bliss Military Reservation
except for tactical trsining areas) and
also cites appropriate compliance dates.
with compliance being no later than
December 31.1991. for some provisions.
and no later than December10, 1993. for
the rmftu 4 nlng provisions.
Section I1J.143. Part one of this
section requires maximum control of
material storage piles through
appilcedo. of water or suitable
chemicals or other coverings. Part two
of this section requires proper
ins’ ll ’ 4 on, maintenance end use of
hoods, fans, and filters to R,wl m ,
collect, and dean nimions of any
dusty materials (if applicable). Finally.
part three of this section requires
covering of all open bodied trw±s,
trailers, and railroad cars transporting
materials which can aeete airborne
particulate matter in public areas within
the City of El Paso. It Is Important to
note that this section was previously
adopted by theTA( on June18, 1989.
after proper public notice and hearing
(public hearings were held on February
1—2.1989). ThIs section was previously
submitted to the EPA by cover letter
from the Governor dated August 21.
1989.
Secdon 111.1 45. ThIs section requ Ires
dust control (e.g.. paving or chemical
stabilization) at all cons*r m and
demolition sites In theCityof ElPaso
including control of ai points to
paved roads. It Is important to not . that
parts I and 2 of this section was.
previously adopted by the TAC on
June 10.1989. after proper public notice
and hearing (public bearings were held
on February 1—2.1989). These par t i
were previously submitted to the EPA
by cover lettar from the Governor dated
August 21.1989.
Section 111.147. Part ens of this
section requIres dust control measures
(La.. paving, watering. chemical
Sh%h4fi .HO 0 ) frw the following unpaved
surface. in the El Paso area: industrial
facility roadways, public thoroughfares.
commercial roads, residential roads,
allays (paving at the rate of at least 15
miles per year). and levee roads. Part
two of this section requIres removal of
soil or other materials from roads by
means of mechanical sweepers.
including removal of sand applied on
public thoroughfares for snow or Ice
control in the City of El Paso. in
iM1H 00 , a sweeping schedule and
recordkaeplng of such activities is
specified. Also, this section gIves the
P Hv Director, with the
concwvence of the EPA, the option of
granting a waiver from paving
requirements for industrial roadways.
provided the roadway owner can
demonstrate that the cost of paving is
economically unreasonable compared to
other forms of dust control specified In
section 111.147(1). It is Important to
note that parts 1(B) through 1(D) of this
section were previously adopted by the
TAC on June 16. 1989. a orooer
public notice and hearing (puLlic
hearings ware held on February 1-2.
1989). These parts were previously
submitted to the EPA by cover letter
from the Governor dated August 21.
1989.
Section 111.149. This section requIres
parking surfaces in the City of El Peso
with mere than five parking spaces to be
paved or uniformly covered with raveL
Temporary p fr4ng lots m app(
water or asdtthl oil or chemicals to
cu trul duet. while all parking lots with
more tbm 100 frIng spaces must be
pav o d o r uv dbyaneq uIval e nt
methodtoveringasdetermlnedbytbs
E,imuthw iredor of the TA . The
equivalent method shall not include the
ttHil 1ofw 5Jtemsterjala from
Industri a l pru It Is Important to
ng thet this section wes previously
adoptsdbythsTA( on June18, 1989,
aftmjwoper public notice and hearing
(public bearings ware held on February
1—2. 1989,. ThIs section was previously
submitted to the EPA by cover letter
from the Governor dated August 21.
1989.
9. Off.’rosd Reaeatinnal V ’1’4 4
The Stat. considers, and the EPA
agrees, that P P . 1— 10 i ions due to of-
road reaeatlooal eDhfrh,are do
mI,ii ,n1 . According to the EP iD.
ther. is no . 4g, 4Cr t off-road vehicle
use IntheQtyolElPuo. Asdiscussed
earlier, where sources of PP.4—10
contrIbute iigp4fir.ntly to the PP.1.-to
problem In th. area, the EPA ’s policy Is
that It would be unreasonable to require
the 5u w. to implement potentially
available control measures. Therefore,
such potentially availabl, control
measures are not “reasonably” available
and RAC 1 does not require controls on
insignificant PM—b sources (57 FR
13540).
C. Resid ifi*l Wood Combustion
Control Measures
An evaluation of available residential
wood combustion control measures for
the City of El Paso is inciwled in
appRndli 0 of the El Paso PM-b
Moderate SIP. The State of Texas has
incorporated proviainns into Regulation
I(section 111.111(c)) which require an
episodic curtailment program to be
implemented in the City of El Paso
regarding wood combustion. This
program mandates operating restrictions
for solid fuel heating devices in the City
of El Paso, Including the Fort Bliss
Military Reservation, during periods
when National Weather Service data
iwIb ites that an atmospheric stagnation
condition exists or Is predicted to exist.
The pIuw contains exemptions to
account for burn down periods, sole
of heat, and temporary power
l s . The City of El Paso also enforces
an episodic curtailment program
regarding wood combustion under
Cirapter 9.38 of the City Code. This City
orvllnanr . was submitted as part of the
SIP. The TACB and the City of El Paso
are working together on producing
pamphlets and other materials for
e .Ii .. .ffng the public regarding
re k rf. ) wood combustion devices
andwoodsmoks,ascalled for Lath.
November 3, 1991, MOU between the
QtyandtheTA .Asinthecas.of
fl Ithv dust centrul m , this
MOU betv .an the City of El Paso and
the TAG, submitted as a part of the
SIP. u as the basis for defining the
division of reeponsthllity for, and the
Ahn to onry out, the
provisions of Section 111.11l(cl and
Oiaptsr9.38 of the City Code, both
concerning solid fuel heating devices.
Nevertheless, the TACB Is responsible
for the u1$m Implementation and
enforcem_ent of this prugram. The TAO
is Implementing thee. residential wood
combustion control measures even
though attainment of the PM—b
stanlards for the El Paso area was
demonstrated by Dermnhe , 31. 1994.
without lderatlcn of these adopted
control measures. Thus, the EPA is
proposing to approve ihe El Paso
residential wooà combustion control
meamnes as control measures beyond
RAQII which strengthen the Texas SIP
As discussed fUrther below, the EPA t.
proposing to treat these and other
control measures that go beyond the
minimum RAOd requirement as
fnlfifliiig the requirement for
omdogenqmeaemes.
-------
52472
Federal Register / Vol. 58, tb. 194 I FrIday, October 8, 1993 / Proposed Rules
D. Prescribed Burning Control Measures
Prescribed burning, Induding
agricultural or silvicultural burning, is
controlled by the TACB Regulation I
under Sections 111.101, 111.103,
111.105, and 111107, whIch detail
prohibitions for outdoor burning and
general requirements for allowable
outdoor burning. Please reference these
sections of Regulation I attached to the
Technical Support Document It Is
important to note that these sections
were previously adopted by the TACB
on June 16, 1989. after proper public
notice and hearing (public hearings
were held on February 1—2,1989).
These sections were previously
submitted to the EPA by cover letter
from the Governor dated August 21,
1989. As staled earlier, the TACB Is
implementing these prescribed burning
control measures even though
att nment of the PM-ID standards for
the El Paso area was demonstrated by
December 31, 1994, without
consideration of these adopted control
measures, end the EPA Is proposing to
appiuv these and other measures as
fulfilling the contingency measure
requirement.
E. Point Sources
For El Paso, RACE Includes control of
e dsting stationary point sources for
stack, process, and fugitive particulate
emissions. RACE for a particular point
source Is determined on a case.by.ass
basis and considers the technological
and economic fou ibllity of redudug
emissions from that source. The State of
Texas Included an analysis of RACL’ for
El Paso point sources that had total
suspended particulate emissions equal
to or greater than 25 tons per year. 1
— — stack. pro is , end
fugitive p rtlciili .f a mIiIons , Is found
in appendix P of the El Paso PM-b SIP.
This analysis was comprised of.
current listing of RACT (appendix P1 at
specific emission points of PM-b for El
Paso point sources. App ndlx P
provides a description of control
equipment and emissions In tons per
year for the point sources. The TA(
enforces RACT through fedarally
enforceebl. permit conditions. The EPA
is proposing to approve the El Paso PM—
10 SIP as adequately cou*ml!IIlIg RACE
for stationary point sources.
In summary, the EPA Is proposing to
find that the State of Texas’ PM-b SIP
lot the El Paso nonatt I .ment area
includes adequate RAQ4/RACF as
discussed in astall above. The State of
Texas Included a listing of MC ?.
federally enforceabl, In approved
permits, being used at all major and
other stationary sources In the El Paso
area. In addition, the EPA views the
State’s prescribed burning, fugitive dust.
and residential wood combustion
controlmeasuresinRegulation landthe
City or lInenoe as conth gumcy measures
that go beyond the core RAO4 control
strategy. This Is discussed further
below. The EPA Is also proposing to
approve the MOU between the City of
ElPasoandtheTAC l lwh lchservesto
define the division of responsibility for,
and the commitments to carry out, the
provisions of Regulation land Chapter
9.38 of the City Code (City of El Paso
w ood cot re otd
6. Milestones and Reasonable Further
Section 189(c) of the CAA requires
that plan revisions for moderate PM-b
nonat nment areas contain -
quantitative milestones which are to be
achieved every three years until the area
is redesignated to attAinment The
milAvfmas must also demonstrate to the
EPA that reasonable further progress
(RPP) toward attainment of the PM-b
NAAQS Is being met ( see 57 FR 13539).
The A has $tlawptid to reona k
the quantitative mileefmt a. and periodic
reporting called far in section 189(c)
with the EPA’S proposed decision under
section 1793 to approv, the El Paso
PM-b SIP as meeting the requirements
for an International border ares
Implementation plan. The State
demonstrated that the El Peso
nonaftaMm it area would attain the
PM—b NAAQS both currently and by
December 31.1904. usIng and
projected United State. (El Paso Cuwty)
ud i aL . , Also, the PM—b
problem In the El Paso area Is
lat .uiaI4miaIIn scope (contribution
from MvicoL Therefore, the EPA
slj e ft I snn.hInforElPis oto
sati sectIon 169(c) by reporting every
three years, be.JimIng on November 13.
1904. the air quality progress aøiially
made In response to th. Implementation
of control measures. and Information
addressing a potential I 4 anr In
circumstances In the area that may, In
turn, warrant further air quality
protection efforts. Specifically, the State
should report to the EPA every three
years the following Information
regardIng the El Paso nonattainniant
ares: (1) The status and effectiveness of
the e dsi1ng controls, Including
quantlflr atlon of . ,nltal m reductions
achieved relative to those projected In
the El Peso P14 -10 SIP submittal, the
subject of this proposed action. (2)
i4gp lfi nt rhangR 5 in the Inventory due
to new source growth or other activities
(to allow far a comparison with the 1990
base year PM-b emission inventory,
and the projected 1994 PM—b emission
Inventory); and (3) an evaluation of any
additional controls which may be
feasible to reduce exposures and/or
bring the area into attainment
Reasonable further progress is defined
In section 171(1) of the.CAA as such
annual incremental reductions In
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
are required by part D or may
reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring att nment of the applicable
NAAQS by the applicable date. Since
part D does not dictate annual
incremental reductions for moderate
PM-la areas. the EPA has broad
discretion In determining RFP under
section 17 1(1). The EPA Is proposing to
approve as satisfying RFP the annual
Incremental reduction In emissions
provided for by the RACM (including
RACT) being Implemented In the area.
Section 189(c) provIdes that the
quantitative mlliafnnes also must
demonstrate RPP. Thus, the EPA will
the Statea compliance with RFP
for this ares In conjunction with
determining Its compliance with the
quantitative m4h. ....m requirement
described above. Thus, when the State
demonstrates the El Paso area’s
compllaiw with the quantitative
milestone requirement It should also
demonstrate that RIP has been achieved
during sack of the relevant three years.
As par sectbm 172(cX9) of the CAA.
all n ’ ” ” ent SIPs must contain
contingency measures (due November
15,1993) that are to be implemented if
the ares falls to make RFP or to attain
the NAAC by the applicable date (see
57 FR 13510-13512 and 13543—13544).
These wIting .m1y measures are to be
lurplamanead Immediately after the EPA
determines failure of RFP or attainment
of standards. The CM does act specify
how many contlopmcy measures are
needed or the magnitude of emissions
reductions that must be provided by
these measures (57 FR 13511). IIowver.
since the purpose of the contingency
measure requirement Is to proved. far
the Impimnantatlim of additional air
quality control , ,la.sure , beyond the
care control Mr.t to ensure that
. nniaaIm . rednrttrm prow Itame
to be made In the event of SIP failure
to produce RPP or tta4nment
contlnrncy measures must tm 0 1
other available trol meemues that m l
not Included In the RAQA (hxhi
RACfl control strategy.
As addressed In the dlscu on 01
control meemires, above, the
Implementing vma1 con ol - -
ln E lPs sothatars lnexcesa o fthme
-------
J
Federal Register_I Vol. 58. No._194/ Friday. October 8. 1993 I Proposed Rules
52473
ceeded to provide for timely attainment
“but for” emissions from Mexico and
that go beyond the RACM (including
RACE) requirement In this action, the
EPA is proposing to approve the fugitive
dust, residential wood combustion, and
prescribed burning control measures
previously discussed in this action, as
contingency measures for the El Paso
PM—ID SIP. Implementation of these
measures should result in a PM—jo
emission reduction of around 400-500
tons per year. These measures appear to
go beyond RACM (Including RACfl.
The State has demonstrated that the El
Paso nonatt*Inment area would be In
attainment of the PM—b NAAQS no
later than December 31. 1994, based on
U.S. emissions alone, without these
control measures.
Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA specifies
that contingency measures shall “take
effact • without further action by
the State or the Administrator.” The
EPA interprets this requirement to mean
that no further rulemaking activities by
theStateortheEPAwouldbeneeded
to implement the contingency measures
(57 FR 13312). The EPA expects all
actions needed to affect full
Implementation of the measures to
occur within 60 days after the EPA
notifies the State of Its failure to achieve
RFP or to attain (57 FR 13312).
The EPA Is proposing to accept the
control measures submitted by the State
of Texas that are In excess of those
necessary to provide for timely
attainment of the PM—jo NAAQS “but
for” emissions from Mexico, and that ga
beyond RACM (Including RACT). as
Fulfilling the requirement for
contingency measures because the
measures will provide for continued
emissions reduction progress beyond
the core control strategy. It lithe EPA’s
determination that since the State has
acted to implement these precautionary
measures along with the primary RAQ4
(including RACT) control strategy that
these measures essentlally.provld.
advance contingency benefit and satisfy
the requirement that they “take effect
without further action by the State or
the Administrator.”
The implementation of these control
measures in conjunction with the
primary control strategy should not
disqualify treating them as contingency
measures under section 172(c)(9) of the
CAA. Section 172(c)(9) Indicates that
the SIP shall provide for the
impLementatlon ’of contingency
measures to be undertaken If the area
fails to make RIP or to ely attain the
NAAQS. The State of Texas Is. in effect,
accelerating Its implementation of
contingency measures for El Paso.
Alternatively, these measures would be
undertaken at some later time f the area
failed to make RIP or timely attain “but
for” emissions from Mexico. It would.
quite simply. be absurd to penalize or
otherwise discourage the State from
tAking the arguably more precautionary
air quality management step of
accelerating the implementation of the
contingency measures.
Finally, the EPA notes that the
mAgnitude of emissions reduction
progress provided by these measures
appears reasonable in light of improved
PM-jo air quality on the U.S. side of the
border over the last three years. There
have been no exceedances of the PM—b
annual standard, and 3 recorded
exceedances of the 24-hour PM—b
standard (one In October, 1991, and two
In October, 1992 at one site), sInce 1990.
The three recorded exceedances were
168 ug/m3. 159 ug/m3. and 158 ug/mJ.
not too far over the 24-hour standard of
150 uglrn’. In addition, the TACB
commits to developing future
contingency measures provided that
adequate Information from Mexico
becomes available. It Is anticipated that
the EPA, the TAG, the City of El Paso.
and SEDUE (now SEDESOL) will
continue their cooperative effort In
studying the PM—1O air quality In the El
Paso/Juazea air basin. The EPA agrees
with the State of Texas that the PM-jo
a ir quality problem In the El Paso/Juarez
air basin Is International in scope, and
agrees with the State’s commitment to
provid, future contingency measures If
adequate Information becomes
available.
8. PM-ID PXecurson
Sec’ 4 on 189(e) of the CAA states that
control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM-ia are
also applicabl, to major stationary
sources of PM—jO precursors, except
where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not slgnlflcivntly
contribut, to PM-jo levels that exceed
the PM— ID ambient standards in the
area. The General Preamble contains
gultlanre addressing how the EPA
intends to Implement section 189(e) (see
57 FR 13530-13540 and 13541—13542).
The State of Texas used annular
denudar samplers during the December,
1990, special PM—1O study as a method
to differentiate between gas and
particulate phase compounds In the
ambient air. The results of the annular
denudar sampling showed that a large
majority of the sulfur compounds found
•AsauI ‘ - ‘- — .smpI1 Is oc. at my
plays4 . .cunor asoibu aa A
Iat ds buMus th. !— .‘-.IIusISS of uth
t. lqus c@ . mu. by cuss butu (u.s 57 FR
13339).
on the samples were in the form of
gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO,J, and not in
the sulfate particulate phase. suggesting
that secondary sulfate was only a minor
contributor to high PM—b
concentrations in the study. For
nitrogen compounds, a large majority of
the compounds found in the samples
were also gaseous, suggesting that
nitrate was also a minor contributor to
high PM—b concentrations in the study
The concentrations of the particulate
phase sulfates and nitrates constituted a
small fraction of the 24-hour PM—b
standard. reng ng from about 3-12 ug/
In 5 , or 2—8 % of the 24-hour PM—to
standard (150 ug/m3). It Is also
Important to note that the annular
denuder sampling was conducted
during a time of the year (December) in
which adverse meteorological
conditions would be expected in the El
Pasolluarez air basin. Further, based on
review of the PM—1O monitoring data
from both El Paso andjuarez. and of the
trajectory analyses. It Is very likely that
°mls’ 4 ons from Mexico contribute to the
PM—b precursor concentrations in El
Paso. Thus, the concentrations
referenced above are conservative
e 4mst . Based upon the preceding
study, PM—b precursors do not appear
to uigni r*ntly contribute to high PM—
10 concentrations In El Paso. Texas. and
theEPAlsproposlngtogrant the El
Paso area the exclusion from control
requirements as authorized under
section 189(e) of the CAA.
9. EnJbrceabilhty Issues
All required measures and other
elements In the SIP must be enforceable
by the State and the EPA (see sections
172(c)(6), lbO(a)(2liA) and 57 FR
13558). The EPA cuturla adcbessmg the
enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions
were stated in a September 23. 1987.
memorandum (with attachments) from 1
aig Potter. Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, etal. (see 57 FR
13541). The oriterla include, for
example: Ensuring that the r..ies
contained In the SIP are exp ILL.! in netr
applicability to the regulatediouices.
ensurIng that compliance dates are
clearly specified: ensuring that
compliance periods and test methods
are dearly noted; ensuring that sdsq’sit.
recordkeeplng is required; and u sunn9
that any exemptions or variances use
clear In their applicability and in bow
they aretriggered. In addition to
enforceable requirements.
nonattainment axe. plan provlssoe.
must contain a program that prov J.s
for enforcement of the control
and other elements in the SIP
section 11O(aXZ)(C)).
-------
52474
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 194 / Friday. October 8, 1993 I Proposed Rules
The State of Texas has an enforcement
proçam that will ensure that certain
control measures contained In the El
Paso P14-10 SIP (I.e., Regulation I and
the City Ordinance) are adequately
enforced. The State has also entered into
an MOU with the City of El Paso which
serves to define the division of
responsibility regarding. and the
commitments to carry out, the
provisions of Regulation I and Chapter
9.38 of the City Code pertaining to
control measures for fugitive dust end
residential wood combustion devices.
RACT for stationary point sources Is
enforced by the TACB through federally
enforceabl, permit conditions.
10. Sumznasy
The Covernor of Texas submitted tbe
moderate PM-tO SIP for El Paso to the
EPA an November 15. 1991. The El Paso
SIP analyzed P14—10 emissions from
point and ares sources around the El
Paso r gI. .i Using a Cat1t* An Plume
Multiple Source Air Quality Algorithm
(RAM). the State demonstrated that the
El Paso nonatt 4fiment area would attain
the PM-b NAAQS both currently and
by December 31. 1994. using current
and y uJ ted United States (El Paso
County) am 1 ons alone. The State also
conducted a comprehensive RAQ.f/
RACI’ analysis. Including a RACT
analysis for El Paso stationary point
sources. The State has adequately
addressed RACT for El Paso stationary
sources through federally enforceable
permits. Further, the State has adopted
certain provisions found In Regulation I
which Incorporate control measures for
fugitive dust. prescribed burning, and
residential wood combustion devices
that go RAQvI and that the EPA
is proposing to apy vv as fnlClHng the
requirement for contingency meemnss.
The State has also entered Into an 140 ( 1
with the City of El Paso which zv to
define the division of responsibility
regarding. and the commitments to carry
out, the provisions of the TAQ
Regulation! and Chapter 9.38 of the
City Cod. pertaining to control
measures for fugitive dust and
residential wood combustion devices.
— Action
The EPA i. proposing to approve the
El Paso, Texas, moderate PM-in SIP.
The EPA is also proposing to appwvv
the El Paso. Teas, moderate P14-In SIP
as meeting the requirements of section
1798 of the CM.. All required SW Items
hay, been adequately addressed as
discussed In this Federal Register
action, end the Stats of Texas has
conducted a comprehensive RACM(
RACI’ analysis.
Based on the above evaluation, the
EPA proposes to approve the El Paso.
Texas, moderate PM-1O’nonattainmeut
SW. Additional requirements, such as
the nonattainment new source review
program for the area, will be addressed
Independent of this action.
Request for Public ( ‘.n i. ants
The EPA requests comments on all
aspects of this proposal including the
EPA’. proposal to appruv the P14-10
SIP for El Paso. Texas, as meeting the
requirements of section 179B of the
CM. regarding Implementation plans
and ravIsion for i nternational border
areas. As Indicated et the aut nt of thir
acth,a. the EPA will o sthr ny
comraenta r ,iwrd by 33 days from
date of publicatfr .a.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
5U.S.C .6000tseq..theEPAmust
prepare. regulatory ftai ,4h4IIty analysis
asseaiug the Impact of any proposed or
final rule on email entities. 5 USC. 803
and 604. Alternatively, the EPA may
certlfythatthorulswlllnothavea
dgrl 8 rnns Impact on a substantial
number of email entitles. Small entitles
Include email businesses, small not.for-
profit entprpzlses. end government
entities with Jurisdiction over
pop .i6Ha .. of lees than 50.000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and
.ubchapterLpartD.oftheCudonot
oreste any new requirements, but
simply apprvvv requirements that the
State I. abusdy Imposing. Thereforea
because the Federil SW-approval does
not Impose any uw requirements. I
ontify that It doe. not have a %n4fl nt
Lmp on any small entitle. affected .
Itemover, due tothe nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the
CAA, preparation of. regulatory
fle dbthty analysis would r . n 4 tute
Federal inquiry Into the economic
ressvm’hleness of State action. The CM
forbids the EPA to base Its actimis’
concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co.v. U.S. E.P.A.. 427
U.S. 248. 238-08 (S. Ct. 1976 ) ; 42 U.S.C.
74 10(aXZ).
V.a,UI1 , Order 12291
The Office of Man*gi.ini.zat and Budget
has exempted this nile from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
LIdofSuh .ctsIn40C] Riart 52
Air pollution control. Envirnnvnantai
protection. Hydrocarbons. ___
!nt. , v. iaental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide. Particulate matter. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. Sulfur
dioxide. Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—767 1q.
Dated. August 20. 1993. -
WJ. Hath.way
ActingRegfonalAdmirdstrutw(&4).
(PR Doc. 93—24814 Filed 10—7—03:8:45 aml
ss coca -
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Ocesac and Atmospheric
AdmIrJ, !r3 l cn
fle lCFRP art34i
Ri.f Fish Fis Iwy of th. Gulf of
4e co; ruhlic Hearing
A icv: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Wfl0i# Notice of a public hearing.
eusmnn , Th. Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council (Coundi) will
convene a public hearing to receive
public teutlmawty one proposed
regulatory amendment for an
experimental ane.yea? move of the reef
flab longlin&buoy gear boundary line
from 20 fethoms to 15 fothoms In two
regions oft florida.
DATU Written 4, mmai%ts on the
proposed actions must be received by
November 12. 1993. The hearing Is
scheduled for Wednesday. October 27,
1993, from 7 p.m.to 10p.m.
a 5U Coiniv ’ nts should be
addressed to Steven M Atren. Gull of
Mexico Fishery Management Council.
5401 West Kennedy Boulevard. suite
331. Tampa. FL 33609. The hearing will
beheldattheMede lraBeech City Hall
Auditorium. 300 M nlt ’Ipa1 Dnva.
Madeiri Beach. Florida (813—391—9951)
FOR RD I O At1CN CONTAC
Steven 14. Atran, 813—228—2815.
SW t ENTARV W RM*’flON This
hearing isphyslcally acoassibl. to
people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language Interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
Beverly Badillo at the above Council
address by October 20.1993.
Dated . October 4, 1993.
a1 -L..d H.
D rof Office of Fisheries Coaa nea.
and Manageuzen’. National Mono.
(PR Doc. 93—24733 PIled 10-s-es. e u en.j
uuier com eri
-------
2 32 - Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
2222) from the requirements of Section
3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period
of two years. ‘EPA has submitted a
equest for a permanent waiver for Table
and Table 3 SEP revisions. 0MB has
agreed to continue the waiver until such
time as it rules on EPA’s request. This
request continues in effect under
xecutive Order 12866 which
mperseded Executive Order 12291 on
September 30. 1993.
Nothing in this action should be
onstrued as permitting or allowing or
establishing a precedent for any future
request for revision to any State
Implementation plan. Each request for
revision to the State implementation
plan shall be considered separately in
light of specific technical, economic.
end environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements. -
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for ludiclal review of
this action must belled in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
approprinte circuit by March 21. 1994.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by’
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control. Incorporation by
reference. Intergovernmental relations.
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Sulfur oxides.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the
State Implementation Plan for the State of
Connecticut was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register on July 1. 1982.
Dated: November 24. 1993.
Patricia L. Meaney,
Acting Regional Administmtor. Region L
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52—(AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority 42 U.S.C. 7401—7671q. -
Subpart H—Connecticut
2. Section 52.370 is amendedhy
adding paragraph (cl(63) to read as
follows:
952.370 IdentIfication of plan.-
• • * a a a
(c) a a
(63) Revisions to the State
Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection on March 11.
1993.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter from the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
dated March 11. 1993 submitting a
revision to the Connecticut State
Implementation Plan.
(B) Connecticut State Order No 7019
dated March 11, 1993, and effective in
the State of Connecticut on February 19,
1993.
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) Air Quality Modeling Analysis to
Demonstrate SO 2 CAAQS/NAAQS
Compliance at the Hamilton Standard
Division of United Technologies
Corporation Windsor Locks CF; June
1991.
IFR D cc. 94— O63 Filed 1—14-44 :8:45 am)
UJ N4 F
4 OCFRPart52
[ TX-14-i-0091; FRL-4825-eJ
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revision to the State Implementation
Plan (SIP)Addresslng PM.-1O for El
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: This action approves a
revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for PM—b in
El Paso. PM—b is defined as particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers. The EPA is also approving
the PM—lu SIP for El Paso. Texas. as
meeting the requirements of section
179B of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
regarding implementation plans and
revisions for international border areas.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become
effective on February 17, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents
relevant to this action aze available for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons
wanting to examine these documents
hould make an appointment with the
appropriate office at least 24 hours
before the visiting day.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region 6. AIr Prograutsliranch
(6T-A), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202—2733.
Mr. Jerry Kurtzweg (6101), U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW., Washington. DC 20460.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin.
Texas 78711—3087.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACt: Mr.
Mark Sather, Planning Section (6T-AP),
Air Programs Branch, U.S. -
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 6.1445 Ross Avenue. Dallas,
Texas 75202—2733, telephone (214) -
655—7258. -
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background . .
El Paso. Texas. was designated
nonattainment for PM—1O and classified
as moderate under sections 107(d)(4RB) -
and 188(a) of the CAA. upon enactment
of the Clean Air Ad Amendments
(CA.AA) of 1990.’ Please reference 56
Federal Register (FR) 56694 (November
6,1991), and 57 FR 13498 end 13537
(April 16,1992). The air quality -
planning requirements for inode ate
PM—b nonattainment areas are set out
in subparts one and four of part D. title
IoftheCAA.
The EPAhas issued a “General
Preamb1e”desa ibing the EPA’s
preliminary views on how the EPA
intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions
submitted under title I of the CAA.
including those state submittals
containing moderate PM—b
nonattainment area SIP requirements.
See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
Those moderate PM—b
nonattainmenLarea$ designated
nonattainment under section 107(d)(4)
of the CA.A were to submit SIPs to the
EPA by November 15, 1991. The CAA
outlined certain required Items to be
included in the SIPs. These required
items, due November15, 1991, unless
otherwise noted, include: (1) A
comprehensive, accurate and current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of PM—b in the nonattainment
area (section 172(c)(3) of the CAA); (2)
a permit program to be submitted by
June 30, 1992, which meets the -
requirements of sectioii 173 for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources of
PM—b (section i89(a)(l)(A)); (3) a
demonstration (including air quality
modeling) that the plan provides for
attainment of the PM—la NAAQS as
‘The 1990 CAAA made significant changes to the
air quality planning requirements for areas that do
not meet (or that significantly contribute to ambient
air quality In a nearby area that does not meet) the
PM—tO National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) (see Pub. L. No. 101—549, 104 Stat. 2399).
References herein are to the CMA. 42 US C
7401e1 seq. -
-------
- Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. Ii I Tuesday, January 18, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
2533
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31. 1994. or a
demonstration that attainment by that
date is impracticable (section
189(a)(IIIB)); (4) provisions to assure
that Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM). including
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT), for control of PM—
10 will be implemented no later than
December 10, 1993 (sections 172(c)(1)
and 189(a)(1)(C)). For sources emitting
insignificant (de minimis) quantities of
PM—la. the EPA’s policy is that it would
be unreasonable and would not
constitute RACM to require tontrols on
the source. Please reference 57 FR
13540. Also, when evaluating RAC2VI
and RACT, technological and
economical feasibility determinations
are.to be conducted (57 FR 13540—
13544); (5) quantitative emission
reduction milestones which are to be
achieved every three years until the area
is redesignated attainment and which
demonstrate reasonable further piogress
(RFP) toward attidning the PM—b
NAAQS (section 189(c)); (6)
contingency measures due November
15. 1993 (please reference 57 FR 13543),
that are to be implemented If the EPA
determines that the area has failed to
make RFP or to attain the primary
standards by the applicable date
(section 172(c)(9)) and (7) control
requirements for major stationary
sources of PM—la precursors, unless the
EPA determines inappropriate. The
CAA. In section 189(e), states that
control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM—ia will
also be applicable to major stationary
sources of PM—lO precursors, except
where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not significantly
contribute to PM—la levels that exceed
the PM—b ambient standards in the
area.
Response to Comments
The EPA received one comment letter
from Chevron U.S.A. Products Company
on its October 8, 1993 (58 FR 52467—
524 74). FR proposal to approve the El
Paso moderate nonattainment area PM—
10 SIP, including the proposal to
approve the El Paso PM—b SIP as
meeting the requirements of section
1798 of the CA.A regarding
implementation plans and revisions for
international border areas. The letter
expressed overall agreement with the
EPA’s proposal to approve the El Paso
PM—b nonattainment SIP, but also
posed one question regarding the three
year progress report discussed in the
section entitled “Milestones and
Reasonable Further Progress” (58 FR
52472). Chevron expressed overall
support for the three year PM—la: -
progress report requirement. beginning
November 15, 1994, but questioned
whether the EPA should require as a
part of the report an evaluation of any
additional controls which may be
feasible to reduce exposures and/or
bring the area into attainment Chevron
stated that since the EPA has found that
the El Paso area would not need any
additional PM—1O control measures but
for transborder PM—la, they did not see
how any additional controls could be
justified as feasible for El Paso under the
CAA.
The EPA. in this final rulemaking
action, is approving the El Paso PM—laS
SIP because it shows timely attainment
of the PM-la NAAQS based oli United
States (El Paso County) emissions alone.
Nevertheless, because the PM-b
NAAQS reflects public health and
welfare standards, and because PM—la
NAAQS exceedanoes are still being
monitored In the El Paso nonaP lnment
area, the EPA Is encouraging the State
of Texas to evaluate the feasibility of
further reductions In El Paso County
PM—la emissions beyond the amounts
accounted for by the control measures
put in place by the PM-b SIP being
approved in this action. Additional
reductions would furtherreduce the -
PM—b concentrations to which the El
Paso County population Is exposed to
by virtue of the additional contribution
from international transport. Any
additional control measures found to be
feasible by the State of Texas would be
subject to full public notice and public
comment The State of Texas has
committed, provided that adequate
information becomes available, to
develop a contingency-plan for PM—la
in the El Paso area. The State also
anticipates the continuation of a
cooperative effort to study PM-b air
quality in the El Paso/Juarez air basin.
Final Actioi
Section 110(k) of the CAA sets out
provisions governing the EPA’s review
of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-
13566). In this final action, the EPA is
granting approval of the El Paso, Texas,
moderate nonattainment area PM—la
SIP because it meets all of the
applicable requirements of the CAA.
This SIP revision was submitted to
the EPA by cover letter from the
Governor of Texas dated November 5,
1991. OnOctober 8, i993, the EPA
announced its proposed approval of the
moderate nonattainment area PM—la
SIP for El Paso (58 FR 52467—52474). In
that rulemaking action, the EPA
described in detail its interpretations of
title land its rationale for proposing to
approve the El Paso PM—la SIP, taking
into consideration the specific factual
issues ‘presented.
The EPA requested public comments
on all aspects of the proposal (please_
referenQe 58 FR 52474), and one
comment letter was received dun
comment period, which ended
onNovember 8, 1993. This final action
on the El Paso PM-b SIP is unchanged
from the October 8. 1993. proposed
approval action. The discussion herein
provides only a broad overview of the
proposed action that the EPA is now
finalizing. The public is referred to the
Octobet 8, 1993, proposed approval FR
action for a full discussion of the action
that the EPA is now finali,ing.
The EPA finds that the State of Texas’
PM—l0S lPfortheElPaso
nonattnlnment area meets the RACMJ
RACF requirement The State of Texas
Included a listing of RACT, federally
enforceable In 8ppzvi ed permits, being
used at all major and other stationary
sources in the El Paso area. In addition,
the EPA views the State’s prescribed
burning. fu tive dust, and residential
wood combustion control measures In
Regulation land the El Paso City
Ordinance 9.38, as contingency-
measures that go beyond the core RACM
control strategy. The EPA Is also
approving the memorandum of
understanding between the City of El
Paso and the Texas Air Control Boc-’
(TACB) (now the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commi ic
which serves to define the thvisioz
responsibility for, and the commitments
to carry out, the provisions of
Regulation land Chapter 9.38 of the
City Code (City of El Paso episodic
curtailment program regarding wood
combustion).
The State of Texas referenced section
179B of the CM when presenting their
modeling demonstration Tor El Paso.
The demonstration showed that the El
Paso PM—b moderate nonattainment
area would be in attainment of the PM—
10 NAAQS both currently and by
December 31,1994, based on dispersion
ntodeling of United States (El Paso
County) PM—la emissions alone. After
review, the EPA found the
demonstration to be satisfactory. Details
of the EPA’s evaluation were discussed
in theOctober 8,1993, proposed
approval action and in the EPA’s
Technical Support Document
Accordingly, the EPA is approving the
demonstration as showing that the SIP
provides for timely attainment of the
PM—b NAAQS but for emissions
emanating from Mexico.
The EPA is also granting the El Paso
PM—la nonattainment area the
exclusion from PM—la precursor
requirements authorized under se c
-------
2534 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. Ii / Tuesday, January 18, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
189(e) of the CA/i. Finally, to satisfy
section 189(c) of the CAA (regarding
antftative milestones and RFP). the
te of Texas will report to the EPA
ery three years. begLnning on•
wember 15,1994, the following
Information regarding the El Paso
nonattainment area: (1) The status and
effectiveness of the existing controls,
including quantification of emission
reductions achieved relative to those
projected in the El Paso PM-ia SIP
submittal; (2) significant changes in the
Invento!y due to new source growth or
other activities (to allow for a
inparison with the 1990 base year
PM—b emission inventory, and the
projected 1994 PM—1O emission
Inventory); and (3) an evaluation of any
additional controls which may be
feasible to reduce exposures and/or
bring the area Info atfnlnment
Nothing in this action should be
constnze&as permitting, allowing, or
etablWiirig a precedent far any f atwe
request for revision to any SIP. Each
request fat revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately In light of specific
technical, economical, and
environmental factors, and in relation to
relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
This action mAkm , final the Ion
proposed at 58 FR 52467 (October 8,
As noted elsewhere in this
.ction, the EPA received no adverse
?ublic comment on the proposed action.
As a direct result, the Regional
Administrator has reclassified this
action from table one to table three
under the processing procedures
established at 54 FR 2214. January 19,
1989, and revised via memorandum
from the Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation to the Regional
Administrators datedOctober 4,1993.
Miscellaneous
Under the Regulatory Flexzbility Act,
5 U.S.C. 600 at seq.. the EPA must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
assessing the impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603
and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may
oertify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
Include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and government
entities with jurisdiction over
populations of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D, of the CAA do not
create any new requirements, but
simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP.approval does
not impose any new requirements. I
certify that it does not have a significant
impact on any small entities affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the
CA/i, preparation of a regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The C/iA
forbids the EPA to base Its a ’ ctions
concerning SIPs on such grounds
(Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A.. 427:
U.S. 246.256-66(1976); 42 U.S.C.
74 10(aX2)).
Under section 307(b)(i) of the C/iA.
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed In the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by March 21,1994. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the
purposes of judicial review, nor does It
extend the time within which o petition
for judidal review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This ii4nn may not
be challenged later In proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
Executive Order
This action has been classified as a
table three action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures
published In the Federal Register on
January 19.1989(54 FR 2214—2225). On
January 6. 1989, the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) waived
tables two and three SIP revIsions (54
FR 2222) from the requirements of
section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for
a period of two years. The EPA has
submitted a request for a permanent
waiver fortabletwoandthree SIP
revisions. The 0MB has agreed to
continue the waiver until such time as
it rules on the EPA’s request. This
request continues In effect under
Executive Order 12866 which
super eded Executive Order 12291
onSeptember 30. 1993.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the SIP
for the State of Texas was approved by the
Director of the Federal Reglsteron July 1,
1982.
Dated: December 23, 1993.
W. B. Hathaway,
Acting RegionalAdministrntor(6A).
40 CFR part 52 Is amended as follows:
PART 52—jAMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. l 4 Ol— 7 671q.
Subpart SS—Texas
2. Section 52.2270 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(79) to read as
follows: -
§ 52.2270 IdentificatIon of pbn.
* . * * .
(79) A revision to the Texas SIP
addressing moderate PM—b
nonattainment area requirements for El
Paso was submitted by the Governor of
Texas by letter dated November 5, 1991.
The S W revision Included, as per
section 179B of the Clean Air Act, a
modeling demonstration providing for
timely attalnment of thePM—10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards faa El
Paso but for *mkalo emanating from
Mexico.
(I) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Revisions to Texas Mr Control
Board (TACB). Regulation I, Section
111.101, “General Prohlbitlon” Section
111.103, “Exceptions to Prohibition of
Outdoor Burning” Section 111.105,
“General Requirements for Allowable
Outdoor Burning” Section ui.1a7,
“Responsibility br Consequences of
Outdoor Burning” Section 111.143,
“Materials Handling:” Section 111.145,
“Construction and Demolition,”
Subsections 111.145(1), 111.145(2);
Section 111.147, “Roads, Streets, and
Alleys,” Subsections 111.147(1)(B),
111.147(1)(C), 111.147(1)(D); and
Section 111.149. “Parking Lots,” as -
adopted by the TACB on June 16, 1089.
(B) TACB Order No. 89-03, as
adopted by the TACB on June 16,1089.
(C) Revisions to TACB. Regulation L
Section 111.111, “RequIrements for
Specified Sources,” Subsection
111.111(c); Section 111.141,
“Geographic Areas of Application and
Date of Compliance;” Section 111.145,
“Construction end Demolition,”
Subsections 11l.145(first paragraph):
111.145(3); and Section 111.147,
“Roads, Streets, and Alleys,”
Subsections 111.147(first paragraph),
111.147(1)(first paragraph),
111.147(1)(A), 111.147(1)(E),
111.147(1)(F), and 111.147(2), as —
adopted by the TACB on October 25.
1991.
(I)) TACB Order No. 91-15, as
adopted by the TACB on October 25,
1991.
(E) City of El Paso, Texas, ordinance,
Title 9 (Health and Safety), Chapter 9.38
(Woodburning), Section 9.38.010,
S
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 11 / Tuesday. January 18. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
2535
“Defi.nthons;” Section 9.38.020. “No-
Burn Penods;” Section 9.38.030,
“Notice Required;” Section 9.38.040.
“Exemptions;” Section 9.38.050.
“Rebuttable Presumption;” and Section
9.38.060. “Violation Penalty.” as
adopted by the City Council of the City
ofEl Paso on December11. 1990.
(ii) Additional material.
(A) November 5. 1991. narrative plan
addressing the El Paso moderate PM—b
nonattahjiment area, including emission
Inventory, modeling analyses, and
control measures.
(B) A Memorandum of Understanding
between the TA( and theCity of El
Paso defining the actions required and
the responsibilities of each party
pursuant to the revisions to the Texas
PM—iD SIP for El Paso, passed and
approved on November 5. 1991.
(C) TACB cortlficetion letter dated
July 27. 1989, and signed by Allen Eli
Bell, Executive Director, TA( .
(D) TA( certification letter dated
ober 28.1991. and signed by Steve
Spaw, Evacutive Director. TACB.
(B) El Paso PM-la SIP narrative from
pages 91-92 that reads as follows:”..
provided that adequate Information
becomes available, a contingency plan
will be developed In con)undlon with
future El Paso PM-1O SIP revisions. It
Is .ntfr4pated that EPA. TACB;the Oty
of El Paso, and SElXJE Will continues
cooperative effoet to study the PM—ID
air quality In the E lPasofjunreza lr
basin. Based on the availability of
enhanced emissions end monitoring
data, as well as more sophisticated
modeling techniques (e.g.. Urban
Airshed Model), futwe studies wi U
attempt to better defi’ e the relative
contributions of El Paso and Juarez to
the PM—ID problem in the basin. At that
time, a contingency plan can more
appropriately be developed in a
cooperative effort with Me,dco.
(FR Doc. 94-1062 Filed 1—14—94:8:45 sin)
mime roes
40 CFR Part 52
[ G*-14-6-6?* FRL-4$SS-
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Planni IIornla Slate
Implementation Plan RevisIon; San
Joaqule Valley Unified Air Pollution
Con ol District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACflOii Final rule.
1992. The revisions concern rules from
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPa))
which is comprised of the following
eight air pollution control districts
(APC)s): Fresno County APU). Kern
County APU). Kings County APU).
Madera County APQ). Merced County
AP(D. San Joaquin County APCD.
Stanislaus County APCl). and Tulare
County APU). This approval action will
incorporate these rules into the federally
approved SIP. The intended effect of
approving these rules is to regulate
emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in aa ordanco with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act,
as amended In 1990 (CAA or the Act).
The revised rules control VOC
emissions from vegetable oil processing
and from can and coil coating
operations. Thus. EPA Is finalising the
approval of these revisions into the
California SIP under provisions of the
CAA regarding EPA action on SIP
submitials. SIPs for national primary
and secondary ambient air quality
standards and plan requirements for
nonatt nment areas.
EFFECTIVE DATE This action Is effective
on February 17.1994.
AOORESSEES Copies of the n i l. revisions
and EPA’s evaluation report for each
rule are available Ice public Inspection
at EPA’s Region IX office during normal
business bouts. Copies of the submitted
rule revisions are available for
Inspection at the following locationm
Rulem Hrg Section II (A-5-3). Air and
Tonics Division . U.S Eavl . ,’ ’
Protection Agency. P foa D C . 75
Hawthorn. Stre’t Sen Fr ’c1r” CA
94105.
Jerry lCurtrwsg ANR—443. Environmental
Pi ctIon Agency. 401 M” Street, SW.
Wa.hlagton. DC 20460.
Calibals Air Resonues Bond. Stationery
Serum Division. Ride Rval S
2020 “I. ” Street. Ser smenta . CA 55612.
San Josquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District. 1745 West Shaw. Suite
104, Presno, CA 93711.
FCR FURTHER DIFORMATTON CONTACt
Chris Stamos, Rulemaking Section II
(A-5-3). Air and Taidca Division. U.&
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region IX. 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105. Telephone (415)
744—1187.
SU .E ITaRV uuFO A11ON:
Background
On September 2. -1992 at 57 FR 40157.
EPA proposed to approve the following
rules into the California SIP SJVUAPQ)
Ride 461.2, Vegetable Oil Pror ing
Operations. and SJVUAPQ) Rule 460.4.
Can and Coil Coating Operations. Rule
461.2 wan adopted by SJVUAPO) on
April 11. 1991; and Rule 460.4 was
adopted by SJVUAPCD September 19.
199L The rules were submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARD)
to EPA on May 30. 1991 and January 28.
1992 respectively. The rules were
submitted in response to EPA’s 1988
SIP-Call and the CAA section
182(aK2)(A) requirement that
nonattainment areas fix their reasonably
available control technology (RACIJ
rules foe ozone in accordance with EPA
guidance that interpreted the
requirements of the pro-amendment Act
A detailed discussion of the background
breach of the above rules and
nonattainrnent areas is provided in the
NPR cited abovs.
EPA has evaluated the above rules Ice
consistency with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA
Interpretation of these requirements as
expressed in the various EPA policy
guiiisnre docaimpiwa referenced in the
NPR sited above. EPA has found that
the rules meet the applicable EPA
requirements. A detailed discussion of
the rule provisions and evaluations has
been provided at 57 FR 40157 and In
terhnial supped (TSI)s)
available at EPA’ . Region IX office
(TSDs fur Rule 461.2 end 460.4 dated
April 30, 1992 and March 12, 1992
r esper y ) ,
Response to Camments
A 30 .day public comment period ws
provided at 57 FR 40157. EPA received
no comments on rule 460.4. EPA
received comments on rule 461.2 horn
three souro (1) The National
Cottonseed Products Aseodatlott
(“N(PAl (2) the J.G Boswell Company.
(“Bogweil”) and (3) the Institute of
Shortening and Edible Oils. Inc
(“Institute ”). AU three commented on
SJVUAPQVs definition of volatile
organic compounds (“VOCs”)—.
su89antiog that the definition not
Include vegetable oil emissions. In
adtlifba 2 , the NQ’A and Institute also
recomummended that SJVUAP(D nil.
461.2 specify performance standards or
einI ons hinit rather than specific
equipment fur RACF amirols.
The nn nts are discussed below.
I. Definition of 1W
Swnmorj’ of ccmraerds.’ Rule 461.2
‘ses VOC as “any compound
at least ens atom of carbon
except for the following eiompt
compounds.” Vegetable oil Is not listed
as an iiainpt aimpound. The merits
stated that the rule should exempt
vegetable oil horn the definition of VOC
be of Its low voletility and hecaust
the EPA has determined that vegetable
SUMMARY: EPA is finnirring the approval
of revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed In
the Federal Register on Septemnber2.
-------
65326 Federal Register / Vol.
58, No. 242 / Monday, December 20, 1993 / Proposed Rules
_SIP approvals under sections 110 and
dsubchapterl, part D of the CAA
aeate any new requirements, but
‘ r’/ approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP-approval does
not impose any new requirements, it
does not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-state
relationship under the CAA, preparation
of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the
economic reasonableness of state action.
The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427
U.S. 246, 258—66 (S.Ct: 1978): 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)..
This action has been classified as a
Table 3 action by the Regional
Mministrator under the procedures
published in the Federal Register on
January 19. 1989 (54 FR 2214—2225). On
January 6. 1989. the Office of
Management and Budget COMB) waived
Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions (54 FR
2222) from the requirements of section
3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period
of two years. EPA has submitted a
- request for a permanent waiver for Table
pid Table 3 SIP revisions. The 0MB
i agreed to continue the waiver until
ch time as it rules.on EPA’s request.
This request continues in effect under
Executive Order 12366 which
superseded Executive Order 12291 on
September 30. 1993.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control. Hydrocarbons.
Intergovernmental relitions, Ozone.
Reporting and recordkeeping
req iiiements.
Authority 42 U.S.C. 7401 .-767 1q.
Date& December 5, 1993.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional ,tdminist rater.
(FR Doc. 93—30969 Filed 12—17—93: 8:45 am]
BlUiNG COOC 5 550-60-F
40 CFR Part 52
(CO 33-1—5013; FRL-4816-21
Clean Air Act Conditional and Umited
Approval and Promulgation of PM 10
Impiementatlon Plan for Colorado
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
gency (EPA .
. crou: Notice of ? roposed rulemaking .
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM 10 ) in
the Denver area, including: control
measures:.technical analysis (e.g.,
emission inventory, and attainment) and
other Clean Air Act (Act) SIP
requirements. The SIP revisions were
submitted to satisfy certain Federal
requirements for an approvable
moderate nonattainment area PM 1 o SIP
for Denver and, among other things,
contained enforceable control measures
and commitments to adopt additional
measures. One commitment remains
unfulfilled.
EPA is requesting comments on the
proposed conditional approval of the
SEP revisions. EPA will carefully
consider timely comment submissions
in determining further conditional
approval action.
EPA also proppses to approve the
control measures submitted to date by
Colorado to achieve the PM 10 NAAQS
(excluding the unfulfilled commitment)
for their strengthening effect EPA is
proposing to approve these measures for
this limited purpose because making
them federally enforceable will advance
the Clean Air Act’s (Act) NAAQS-
related air quality goals. By this -
“limited” approval, EPA is not.
proposing that these control measures
satisfy the specific Act requirement to
Implement reasonably available control
measures (RACM) (including reasonably
available control technology (RAC’fl) in
moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas.
DATES: Comments on the conditional-
approval action proposed in this notice
must be received in writing by February
18,1994, and should be labeled as
comments addressing the proposed
conditional approval. Comments on the
limited approval action proposed in this
notice must be received in writing by
January 19, 1994, and should be labeled
as comments addressing the proposed
limited approval.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to: Douglas M. Side, Chief,
Air Programs Branch. SIP Section-
(8ART—AP). Environmenta] Protection
Ageriy, Region VU!. 999 18th Street.
Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202—
2466.
Copies of the State s submittals and
other information are available for
inspection during normal business
hours at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region VU!. Air Programs Branch. 999
16th Street, 6th Floor. South Tower.
Denver. Colorado 80202—2466: and
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division.
4300 Cherry Creek Dr. South, Denver.
Colorado 80222—1530.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTAC-r;
Callie Videtich at (303) 293—1754.
SUPPI.EMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Background
The Denver, Colorado area was
designated nonattainment for PM 10 and
classified as moderate under sections
107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Act, upon
enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.1 See 56 FR 56694
(Nov. 6, 1991); amid 40 CFR 81.306
(specifying PM 10 nonattainment
designation for the Denver metropolitan
area). The air quality planning
requirements for moderate PM 10
nonattainment areas are set out in part
D, subparts land 4. of Title lof the
Act.2
The EPA has issued a “General
Preamble” describing EPA’s preliminary
views on how EPA intends to review
SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under
Title I of the Act, including those State
subrnittals containing moderate PM 10
nonattainment area SIP requirements
(see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 15.
1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,
1992)). Because EPA is describing its
interpretations here only in broad terms,
the reader should refer to the General
Preamble for a more detailed discussion
of the.interpretations of Title I advanced
in this proposal and the supporting
rationale. In the conditional approval
and limited approval actions on the
Colorado moderate PM 10 SIP for the
Denver nonattainment area, EPA is
proposing to apply its Interpretations
considering the specific factual issues
presented. Thus, EPA will consider any
timely submitted comments before
taking final action on these proposals.
Those States containing initial
moderate PM 10 nonattainment areas
(those areas designated nonattaininent
under section 107(d)(411B) of the Act)
were required to submit, among other
things. the following plan provisions by
November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that RACM
(including such reductions in emissions
from e dsting sources In the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a
‘The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act
made stgndicant changes to the Act. See Pub. L. No.
101—549.104 Slat. 2399. References herein are to
the Clean Air Act. as amended (“the Act . The
Clean Air Act is codified. as amended. in the U.S.
Code at 42 U.S.C 7401. e( seq.
2Subp I contains provisions applicable to
000attasnment areas generally and Subpart 4
Conta ins provistons specsfically applicable to PM ,o
nonauainmeol areas. At times, subpart I and
subpart 4 overlap or co ,sOlct. EPA has attempted to
clarify the relationship among these provisiotu in
the “General Preamble” and. as appropriate. i.’%
todays notice and supporting information.
iUMMARY: EPA proposes conditional
4pproval of the State implementation
ptan (SIP) :evisions ubmitt d by
Colorado to achieva attainment of the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 242 I Monday, December 20. 1993 I Proposed Rules
66327
minimum. of RACT) shall be
implemented no later than December
10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including
aix quality modeling) that the plan will
provide for attainment as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than
December 31. 1994 or a demonstration
that att inment by that date is
impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are
to be achieved every 3 years and which
demonstrate reasonable further progress
(RFP) toward attpinment by December
31, 1994; and
4. Provisions to assure that the control
requirements applicable to major
stationary sources of PM, 0 also apply to
major.stationary sources of PM, 0
precursors except where the
Administrator determines that such
sources do not contribute significantly
to PM 10 levels which exceed the
NAAQS In the area. See sections 172(c),
188. and 189 of the Act.
Some provisions are due at a later
data. States with initial moderate PM , o
nonattainment areas were required to
submit a permit progam for the
construction and operation oi new and
modifiad major stationary sources of
PM, 3 by June 30, 1992 (see section
189(a)). Such States also must submit
contingency measures by November 15,
1993 which become effective without
further action by the State or EPA, upon
a determination by EPA that the area
has failed to achieve RFP c to attain the
PM , o NAAQS by the applicable
statutory deadline. See sections
172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13510—13512 and
13543—13 544. EPA. will address these
requirements, as appropriate. In future -
actions.
U. This Action
SectIon 110(k) of the Act sets out
provisions governing EPA’s review of
SIP subinittals (see 57 FR 13563—13566).
Section 110(k)(4) of the Act authorizes
EPA to approve a plan revision based on
a commitm nt of the State to adopt-
specific enforceable measures by a date
certain, but not later than one year after
the data of approval of the plan revision.
Section 110(k)(4) further provides that
any such conditional approval shall be
treated as a disapproval if the State fails
to comply with such commitment.
EPA also has authority under sections
11o(k)(3) and 30 1(a) of the Act to
approve, for the limited purpose of
strengthening the SIP, provisions that
do not meet specific Act requirements.
but which nevertheless advance the
Act’s overarching air quality protection
goals. As desaibed below. EPA is
proposing to grant a conditional
apDroval of Colorado’s SIP submitted for
the Denver moderate PM , o
nonattainment area on June 7, 1993 and
a limited approval of the control
measures contained in that SIP and
subsequent subrnittals desaibed below.
A. EPA’S Proposed SIP Processing
1. Proposed Conditional Approval
EPA is proposing to grant conditional
approval of the Denver PM , o SIP as
adopted by the C .. ado Air Quality
Control Commission (AQCCI on May 24.
1993 and submitted by the Governor of
Colorado on June 7, 1993. This
submittal contained, among other
things, several control measures.
commitments to adopt additional
specific control measures by.a date.
certain, and an attainment
demonstration based on the adoption of
all control measures, including those
that are the subject cf commitments.
The State made a submittal dated
September 3, 1993 in which it fulfilled
two commitments (revising Regulations
No.4 and No. 16). In addition, the State
submitted information on October 20,
1993 which fulfilled another
commitment (revising Ragulatloc No. i).
EPA is considering these additional
submittals in proposing the conditional
approval announced today.
The State’s submittal demonstrates
attainment of the PM,o NAAQS by
December 31. 19943 following the
adoption and implementation of the
commitmants made by the State. At this
time, the State’s remaining commitment
is to revise permit limitations at two
stationary sources (Purina Mills and
Electron Corporation). The State has
committed to submit these permit
revisions to EPA no later than December
1.1993. The unfulfilled commitment
impacts, among other things, whether
the control measures will provide for
timely attainment of the PM 5 0 NAAQS
and whether the RACv( (including
RAC1I requirement is met There tore.
EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve Colorado’s submittal for the
Denver area. Once the State fulfills its
‘remaining commitment. EPA will
determine whether Colorado’s
‘The Clean Air Act calls for attainment as
- expediticurly as practicable but no later than
December 31. 1994. Section IaB(cXl). Tb. State s
submittal sometimes refers to December 31. 1994 as
the attainment date and at other times implies 1993
as the attainment date. EPA Interprets that when the
State refers to attainment by 199$ It means
att n ,t byjanuaty 1.1995. EPA Is proposing to
conditionally approve the States demonsuatlon on
the bans of the de mm m ii i differential between the
two dates and the ct that, at timnt. It refers to the
attainment date as December 31. 1994. The State
should promptly inform EPA tI EPA has in any
cianner misinterpreted the date by which the Stats
is protecting attainment in the Denver Mauopolitan
000attaininent arsa.
submittals for the Denver area satisfy
the applicable PM, 0 SIP requirementc
and are fully approvable. EPA
announce such action in the Fe
Register and provide an opport
public comment and, if appropr.ate,
may announce such action as an
outgrowth of this notice. If EPA finalize.
the conditional approval proposed
today and the State fails to fulfill its
cotnmiunent. this conditional approval
will be converted to a disapproval’ (see
section l10(k)(4)).
As described in further detail in Part
113.4. below, EPA has concerns about
the accuracy of the attainment
demonstration. These concerns stem
from information, contained in a
technical appendix to the SIP.
suggesting that the contribution from
PM, 0 precursorsS was underestimated
in the attainment demonstration. Since
- the SIP demonstrated attainment of the
150 g/m3 24-licur PM, 0 standard by
projecting that the control measures
(including the unfulfilled commitment)
would reduce worst.case 24-hour
ambient PM, 0 leve’s to 149.9 Mg.’rn 3 ,
virtually any increase in secondary
PM ,o levels would result in predicted
violations of the standard.
Accordingly. EPA is requesting publit
comment on Its proposed condO”
approval of the SIP. Such cocax
must be submitted by February
1994. and should be labeled as
comments addressing the pronosed
:conditlonal approval. Through this
notice. EPA is also requesting the Ctate
to submit timely comments by February
18, 1994, addressing the Issue of the
contribution of precursors to the
attainment demonstration and any othe!
information relevant to the
approvability of the attainment
demonstration. This Issue. is described
in more detail in Part 11.3.4. below and
in EPA’s Technical Support Document
(TSD) that is available for public review
at the EPA address indicated above.
EPA will carefully consider timely
submissions from the State and public
‘This approval w Il become a disapproval upon
EPA notiacatien of the State by letter. EPA
subsequently will publish a notice in the IoUces
Section” of the Fedenl Register announcing suco
action and explaining it, implications. U EPA
determines that it cannot Issue a anal conditional
approval or if the conditional approval Is coavettet
to a disapproval, the sanctions clock under section
1 7 9(a) will begin. This clock will begin at iii. time
EPA Issues a anal disapproval or at th. w. EPA
notifles the State by letter that a conditional
approval has been convened to a disapproval.
‘Primary emissions of sulfur dioxide. r
oxides, and volatile organic compound
converted La the atmospoere toparticu
nitiates. and organin compounds that c
PM.. levels. These emissions, called P1
precursors. aie also raferrcd to as secondary
emissions in this notice.
-------
56328 Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 242 I Monday. December 20. 1993 / Proposed Rules
determining whether it should
alize this proposed conditional
proval. l.f necessary. EPA will
undertake fu.rther technical analysis of
this issue.
There are different scenarios that
could logically result from this
proposed conditional approval. EPA
may conclude it is appropriate to
finalize the proposed conditional
approval. Alternatively, if. for example,
the State fulfills its remaining
commitment (i.e., submits to EPA the
revised emission limits for Purina Mills
and Electron Corporation) and EPA
concludes that the control measures and
attpinment demonstration are
sufficiently sound. EPA would consider
notifying the public, reopening the
public comment period, and proposing
full approval of the plan. EPA requests
public comment on whether EPA would
be required to reopen the public
comment period before issuing such a
final full approval. Another alternative
is that EPA may conclude that the
attainment demonstration is inaccurate.
If so. EPA would not grant the
conditional approval and would take -
approoriate action, including working
with the State to address the deftciency.
. Proposed Limited Approval
As described above, the
appropriateness of finalizing the
proposed conditional approval will
depend on, among other things. EPA’s
conclusions regarding the accuracy of
the attainment demonstration after
considering public comments, the
State’s views, and other relevant
analysis. Nevertheless, the SIP
submitted to EPA by letter dated June 7,
1993 and the State’s subsequent
submittals fulfilling its commitments
contain control measures that will at
least make significant progress toward
the goal of attaining the PM 10 NAAQS.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve these control measures for the
limited purpose of strengthening the
SIP.
A final “limited” approval would not
mean that EPA has approved the control
measures as satisfying the specific Act
requirement for the State to implement
RACM (including RACI) in moderate
PM 10 nonattainznent areas. $ee sections
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1XC). Rather, a
limited approval of these measures by
PA would mean that the emission
iitatioas and other control measure
requir mentz become part of the
aopiicnbie implementation plan and are
federnl!y enforcea la b EPA. See, e.g..
sect ocs 3Cl2 o, and 113 t,f the Act.
EPA may x : such limited
approval undt’r52i.ticn 11O(k)(3) of the
Act in haht nf t e gener l authority
delegated to EPA under section 301(a) of
the Act which allow EPA to take actions
necessary to Carry out the purposes of
the Act. EPA requests comments within
January 19, 1994, on this proposed
limited approval of the plan. Comments
on the proposed limited approval
should be dearly labeled as such and
should address whether the control
measures strengthen the SIP and
advance the PM 10 air quality pmtection
goal of the Act, not whether the SIP
meets specific Act requirements.
After considering any timely public
comments, EPA may immediately take
final action on the proposed limited
approval, perhaps even before the
public comment period on the proposed
conditional approval closes. EPA Is
considering proceeding expeditiously
with the limited approval because of the
importance of adopting those control
measures submitted by the State into the
federally-enforceable applicable
implementation plan for Denver.
3. Summary of Proposed Actions
In sum. EPA is proposing two actions
on the SIP submittals described in this
document and supporting information—
a conditional apprcval and a limited
approval. EPA is proposing a
conditional approval and requesting
public and State comment on the
proposed conditional approval within
February 18. 1994.
EPA Is also proposing to grant a
limited approval to the control measures
submitted to EPA thus far for Denver
and requests public comments within
January 19, 1994. on this action, EPA
proposes to approve these measures and
make them federally enforceable
because they will make significant
notable progress toward the overarching
9M 10 attainment goal of the Act. In
finalizing a limited approval. EPA
would not be concluding that the
measures fully satisfy the specific Act
reauirement to implement RA
(including RACT) in moderate PM 10
nonattainrnent areas.
Finally, as indicated above, these two
proposed actions involve different
factual and legal determinations.
Therefore. EPA has tailored the time
provided for public comment to reflect
this. For the same reason, after
considering any timely public
comments, EPA may very well take final
actions on thase different proposals in
separate notices.
S. Anal vsis cf Scate Submission
1. Procedural Background
ThG itct ‘equinis States to observe
certain procedurai requirements in
daveooicg im le’ner.t3t1ofl plans and
plan revisiori for submission to EPA.
Section 110(a)(2) of the Act prov des
that each implementation olan
submitted by a State must 1 e adon ted
after reasonable notice and publi
hearing.s Section 110(1) of tha Act
similarly provides that each evlsion to
an imp Iernentaticn plan submitted by a
State under the Act must be adopted by
such State after reasonable notice and
public hearing.
The EPA also must determine
whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review
and action (see section 1i0(kllu) and 57
FR 13565). The EPA’s completeness
criteria for SIP su’oinittals are set out at
40 ‘R part 51. appendix V (1992). The
EPA attempts to make completeness
determinations within 60 days cf
receiving a submission. However, a
submittal is deemed complete by
operation of law if a completeness
determination is not made by EPA six
months after receipt of the submission.
After providing reasonable notice, the
State of Colorado held a public hearing
on May 20, 1993 to entertain public
comment on the implementation plan
for Denver. Following the public
hearing, the plan was adopted by the
Stare. On June 7, 1993 the Governor
signed and submitted the proposed SIP
revision to EPA.
The SIP revision was reviewed by
EPA to determine completeness shortly
after its submittal, in accordance with
the completeness criteria set out at 40
CFR part 51, apper.dix V (1992). The
submittal was found to be complete on
June 15, 1993 and a letter dated June 15,
1993 was forwarded to the Governor
indicating the completeness of the
submittal and the next steps to be taken
in the review orocess.
As previously noted, the submittal
contained certain commitments to adopt
specific enforceable measures by a date
certain in the future. Most of these
commitments have been fulfilled and
submitted to EPA. After providing
reasonable notice, the State of Colorado
held public hearings cn August 20. 1992
end June 24, 1993 to entertain public
comments on revisions to Regulation
No.4 regulating the sale of new
woodstoves and the use of certain
woodburning appliances during high
pollution days. On August 15. 1991 and
June 24, 1993 the State heard public
comments on the originally adopted.
and revisions to, Regulation No. 16
concerning material specifications for.
use of and cleanup of street sandin3
materials. On Auust 19, 1993 a public
haaring was held to receive comments
in aadi cn. secno2 17:(c)(?) of the ?Ict reauires
?at 1 jlan o O i3*O i (or noeauIaii ent area, meet
‘e app ac b!a pro’ILUO!U 01 ecuon I 1O(aJ(2J.
-------
Federal Register I VoL 58. No. 242_1_Monday, December 2 , 1993 / Pcpose i R i!es
663:
on Regulation No. 1 which contains.
emissions limits at three Public Service
Company power plants and restricts the
use oi oil as a back-up fueL Following
the public hearings. Regulations No. 4.
No. 16 and No.1 were adopted by the
State. On September 3. 1993 the
Governor sig red and submitted the
revisions for Regulations No.4 and No.
16. On October 20, 1993 the Governor
s gned and submittad the Regulation
No. I revisions to EPA. On November
15. 1993 EPA informed the Governor
that the two submittals. to revise
Regulations No.1. No.4 and No.16
were found to be administratively and
technically ccmplete.
The uni ilfilled commitment involves
control measures that bear on whether
Colorado’s PM 10 submittals for the
Denver area will meet, among other
things. the RAO4 (including HACT)
requirement and the requirement to
provide for timely attainment of the
PM 10 NAAQS in the area (or to
demonstrate that the moderate area
cannot practicably attain by the
applicable statutory deadline and
therefore should be reclassified as
serious). Accordingly. as described in
Part IL A. above, EPA proposes to
conditionally approve the Colorado
PM 10 SIP uhmir 1 ais for Denver
pursuant to section .1o(kK4) of the Act
and invites public comment on the
action.’
Finally, since the Denver PM 10 SIP
requirements due November 15, 1S91
were nct submitted by that data, as
required by section 189(a)(2)(A) of the
Act. EPA made a ending, pursuant to
section 179 of the Act, that the State
failed to submit the SIP and so notified
the Governor in a letter dated December
15. 1991 (see 57 FR 1S9C6(May 8.
1992)). As ncted, the Denver PM 10 SIP
was submitted on June 7, 1993. EPA
found the subruittalcoinplete pursuant
to section 1IC(kll l) oithe Act and
notified the G.,vecicr aaordiaglyin a
letter dated June 15. 3993. This
couraleteness det . ’ rminnHon
the &ate’s de&iency (I.e.. its ailtne to
submit a SiP for the area) and,. therefore.
stopped the sanctions cie under
section 179 of the Act
2. Accurate Emissions Inven 3ry
Section 172(cl(3) ci the Act requires
that nonattainment pla.i
include a comnrehensjve. accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of relevant pollutants in
the nonattainmer.t area 5 . The emissions
inventory also should. induda a
comprehensive. accurate, and current
inventory of allowable emissions in the
area (sail. e.g., section 110(a)(2)(KD.
2ecausa the submission of such
inventories is a necessary adjunct of an
area’s etti ir.r’ect demonstration (or
demonstration that the area car ’ nt
practicably attain), the eirJssions
in7entcries must be received with the
SIP revision cont th ’ing the
demonstration (see 57 FR 13539).
Colorado submitted an emissions
inventory for base year 1989 (based on
actual emissions) and an emissions
inventorj forats inmeut year 1995’
(based on allowable emissions). The
winter 1989 inventory is intended to
recresent all souras of primary PM 10 . as
wall as all SCu r cas of the PM 10
precursors (citro:en osidas and sulfur
dioside (NOx an 5O j). The ;recurscr
emimi one are imoortarim because filter -
analyses erfcred in conjunction with
chemical mass halance modeling
indicatad that a si ’t i,ortian
(33%) of the PM 10 monitored consisted
oisecmidary ammoni sulfate and
nitrate.
The winter time 1989 base year
inventor7 identified reentrained road
dust (44 E), wood burning (18%) and
street sanding (8.5%) as the prinripal
contributors to pthnary PM 10 . Other
primary PMio sources include unpaved
road dust contributing 7% and pcint
sources contributing 4% oi the total
k M 10 .
The secnnr i y emissions, 35% of
total PM 10 . are divided between NO,c
and SOS. For NOx. the stationary
sources contribute 44% of the total.
with vehicle exhaust at 35% and natural
gas from residential and commercial
usages at 13.5%. The prime sources of
SO 2 include stationary sources with
93% of the total SO ernissiansand
vehicle exhaust with 5%. For further
details see the TSD which is available
for public review at the address
indicated at the beginning, of this notice.
3. RAQV( (inchthing RACE) and
Control JaR. ’.55
noted, the initial moderate PM 10
nocattRinn’ect areas must submit
provisions to assure that P .AC 4
(including RACT) are implemented no
later than December 10. 1993 (see
sections 172(cl(1} and 189(a)(1)(Cfl. The
General Preamble contains a detailad
discussion of EPA’s icteroretation of
RACA (including RACT) (see 57 FR
13539—13545 and 13560—13561).
Four source categories were identified
as the major contributors to the PM 10
nonattainment problem in Denver. The
followrng Table identifies these scurces)
source categories, their respective
control measures and associated
emissions reductions expemad to be
achieved in the Central Business District
(CBD). and the . ifective dates of these
measures. Mazy of the cuntrol measures
implemented in the CED are also
implemented area-wide as indlca’ed in
the TSD. Gaaei’ally. the CBD is where
excaadances ci the standard have
occurred an& therefore. an. important
focus for the imDlementation of some oz
the control meajures. Note that
comparing the 1989 base year q
emissions inventory to the 1 3I
a 2i”n63t year allowable emis L ,
inventory rtha entire ncnatti .in nent
area there is actually an increase in
PM 1 o ‘ ions. This is due to the fact
that the suburban area of Denver has
grown over the past several years.
Nevertheless, the State demonstrates
timely a T1ment area-wide, ncm r ing
adoption of the unfulfilled rnmrn tmer
To show timely et ainment of the
standar& woodburzixig and affective
street sanding and sweeping controls
had to be develoced. As a result. of the
controls, as well as the other contro [
strategies (described further in the TS]
the CBD shows a reduction in P M 1 0
emissions from base year 1989 to the
aWth1TT ent year 1995, as well as
demonstrates timely athi nm nt of the
standard.
DENVER CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PM 10 Sip Control Strategies
Scurce
C nhroI
PMT, Ø flI I Eifectt
Reiiden Wooc* Burning. (These centzcf rnmsures Htçti po on day wood burning res icticn program .._._ E*ssflc
ore imptemented area-wtde.). (and revtsIons). ( I3t
‘A.i deac bed pr , ’iouslv, EPA aho ç?oeoaea a
! ited ac .. .-. . ,ioi the ?M,oco ,iuol me w
su uad to date (or Deever tci as U atoa pi rpoa.
of stren thsnuig the SIP.
‘The L Is ed nIdaDcw on PV-t0e iiutcns
lo s &ort nor t (Os ol the Cow Air
Act A n o ,ii au i the Ictm ci the 198 PM-;O
SIP DeVeJCF Oant provided
to this docueo aopear3 w ce coi
rev ,,ed Act.
‘See Eco ots 3.
-------
GS330 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 242 / Monday, December 20, 1993 / Proposed Rules
DENvER CENTRAL BUSINESS DIsTRICT (CBD) PM 10 Sip Control Strategies—Continued
Source
PM 10 emissions
reduc on (tons/yr)
E Jtec we
date
Street Sandir.g and Sweeping of Paved Streets. (Most
of these control measures are implemented area-
Requirements that new or remodoled construc on
use a new dewier wood burning approach.
Conversion program from exiseng wood burning to
cleaner burning technology.
New stove and llreplaca Insert cer flcatlon .......__....—
Matenai spedicatlons for street sanding matenal ......
.. . . . .. . ..._..
....-..-....._. . ..
111193.
Fall 1S92.
111193.
8I91.
....... . . . ...... . . .. . ...
146.7
._.. . ... .......
wide.).
-
.
t.ocal management plans.
Enhanced street sanding and sweeping In Central
Denver and the 1-25 Corridor.
...._.... ._..._
1111/93.
Stationary Scurcas
Mobile Sources. (fl.ese control measures are lmple-
merited area-wide.).
Ifror point sources.. ..._. _. .
Rasmcmnsonoduse’ . _.. ...... . .......... . ._.___... . ...
Regulation limits for preoursor emissions ....._..__..
Ught duty vehicle, light duty tiucic NO 1 standards......
129.1
0
(b)
(D)
..... . .. . ....... .
12I1I93.
1111193.
111l95c.
12(10193.
.
Urban bus particulate standards
.
Diesel fuel sulfur Ilniftaeons
.
MAC light rail rme
Exjress bus service from Denver to new Denver
International Airport
CommuterCheck program
•
.
ECOPass
CU Student bus pass
Total reducticn - .. . .. _
—
+6O
173.6’
t is with the RACM (in uding RACT) provisions of the SIP, these control measuras are dascnbed further In the TSD.
.n order to prevent growth in regional scale precursor emissions (NO 1 and EOi) from ottsemr.g the benefits of gmisslon reduction measures
in the C3D. allowable emission rates for stationary source PMis preairsor emissions will be limited through fegtsatorv c li use restrictions and
precursor flmtta cns at three power plants. These measures are discussed In Part It. 3.5.. arid In greater detail in me T O to mis cocument.
cCcritrols become enforceable measures on October 30, 1933. However, the controls are being implemented for maintenance of the NMOS.
and wili become eftecave on January 1. 1995.
dEmissions from mobile sources Increase from 1989 to 139$. However, If the mcblle source controls tmplew.enled as a result of the SIP had
not been made the projected Increases would have been significantly hlghar
‘The “Total Reducton” shown toes riot equal me emissicn reductions and Increases for the SiP ’s credited control strategies depIcted In the
Table above. The “Total Reducticns indudes emission Increases and deceases Irom a total di 18 source categories not all of which are rep-
resented In the SiP’s control strategies decicted in the Table aeove. The total percent reduceon from eli 1119 sources within the caD, including
SIP reduction strategies. Is 6.1% (173.6 (onstyear) from the 1989 (actuals) base year to the 1335 (allowaoles) attainment year.
A more detailed discussion of ‘the
individual source contributions and
their associated control measures
(including available control technology)
can be found in the TSD. As indicated.
the State is in the process of revising
emission limits for two sources and has
committed to submit those revisions to
EPA no later than Deceniber 1.1993.
EPA has reviewed the State’s
documentation and proposes to
conclude that it adequately justifies the
control measures that will be
implemented. Therefore, by this
document. E’rt s proposing to
conditionally approve the Denver PM 10
plan as meeting the RAC4 (including
CT) requirement. Sea sec.ion
D(k)(4) of the Act. Howtr.rer, EPA has
ne concerns about hather the
nLrol neeswes containod in and
co.nznitted to in the !P will provide for
rneiy ‘inemment ee Pert IL B. 4..
below). W i:la EP.Vs cu nt judgernent
is to propose to ceterx ne that
implementation of Colorado’s PM 10
nonatt inrnent plan for Denver,
Including the unfulfilled commitment.
will result in the att*in ant of the PM 10
NAAQS by December 31. 1994, EPA
will give careful cânsideration to any
comments bearing on this proposed
determination.
In addition, as desaibed Pert IL A. 2.
above. EPA is proposing a limited
approval of the control measures
submitted.by the State of Colorado.
excluding the outstanding revisions of
the permit limits at the two stationary
sources. EPA is proposing to grant a
limited rpproval to the submitted
ccntrol inaasures (with the above-
mentioned exclusions) because they
szrangthea the evisting SIP and
epresant a significant t.nprovement
over what is cu.rrec tiy in tho SIP. As
indicated above. EPA is not proposing
to fully ap?rove these coc ol measures
under sect ion liOikWl) s atisfying the
speciflc requirement to implement
RACM (including RACT) in moderate
PM 1 e nonattainment areas.
4. Demonstration
As noted, the initial moderate PM, o
nonattRinrnent areas must submit a
demonstration (including air ouality
modeling) showing that the plan will
provide for att nment as exueditiously
as practicable but no later than
December 31, 1994 (see section
189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). Alternatively,
the State must show that attainment by
December 31, 1994 is impracticable.
Colorado conducted an attainment
demonstration using dispersion
inoduling for primary PM 10 end
proportional rollback modeling analysis
for secondary particulate concentrations
for tn t , Denver area. This demonstration
iniflcates that the NAAQS far PM 1 0 will
be azza ned in enver by D c*rinber 31.
1994 at a modeled conceatr tion of
.49.9 :..g!mi a.sd ‘viii be matntained in
future vegrs. Durmn; review or t”cbiical
tnformi.tion suppcrticg the SIP. EPA
-------
Federal Resister I Vol. 5a, No. 242 / ivforidau, December 20. 1993 I Popasçd Ru!es
6633i
examined information e}aiingta the
contribution of PM 10 p usors to
overall P%f, concentrations which
caused concern about the accuracy of
the SIP’s attainment demonstration. See
the information presented later in this
Part for further information about this
issue. ) The 24-hour PM 10 NAAQS is 150
cnicaograms/ctzbic meter (pg/m3). and
the standard is attained when the
expected number of days per calendar
year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 pg/rn) is equal
to or less than one (see 40 CFR 50.6).
The EPA recognizes that the margin
between the attainment demonstration
(149.9 jrghn3} end the 24-hour standard
(150 pg/rn)) is narrow. The standard will
be achieved only if the State adheres
strictly to the impleixzentation of u l
measures required by the SIP.
EPA’s concern about this narrow
cta.-gin is underscored by information
potentially bearing on the accuracy of
the artainment demonstration. During
review of the technical support
documentation of the SIP, EPA
examined information contained in
Volume 14. ApvendixB which caused
concern about the accuracy of the SIPS
149.9 pg/rn) attainment demonstration.
The information includes an analysis of
filter data and the conclusions
presented regarding those data. The
filter data were collected during 6 days
of PM 10 concentrations ahove 220 pg/rn)
(six of the nine samples exceeded the
24-hour 250 pg’m3 standard). The filters
were collected in February 1986,
December1981, December1992 and
January 1993. The State conducted an
analysis o(the filters, known as a
chemical mass balance analysis. which
involves ex miT rTg and estimating,
from the monitoring filters, the
contribution of various sources with
respect to the recorded PM 10 levels.
Statistical analysis of the filter data.
presented in Volume 14. appendix B.
suggests that the contribution from PM 10
“precursors” (ie.. nitrogen a,ddes and
sulfur dioxides) l x x the base year winter
season may be 5.2 jig/rn 3 greater than
onginaily calculated. When this value is
proportioned to the atr inn,ent year. the
value of the precursor contribution to
total PM , o is calculated as 9 pg/rn)
greater than the precursor contribution
in the attainment demonstratf on. Since
the attainment demonstration provided
with the SIP is 249.9 pg/rn). virtually
any increase in prec’.n ’sor PM ,o levels
would result in predicted violations of
the standard.
The methods that should be employed
to analyze the filter data and how to
consider such information in light of
other available data involve complex
technical judgments. Because of this.
the EPA. in this notice, is encouraging
the State to submit timely comments
addressing the issue of the precursor
contnbution to the atmicment
demonstration. and any other
information relevant to the accuracy of
the attainment demonstration. As
indicated in Part Ii. A. above, EPA will
determine whether to finalize the
proposed conditional apuroval or take
alternative action after cons dering.
among other things. the information that
the State and public submit relating to
the precursor issue and the accuracy of
the attainment demonstration.
Finally, because there have been no
exceedances of the annual average PMio
standard in the Denver metro area, an
attainment analysis of the anunal
standard was not performed. EPA
proposes to find that the controls
adopted to protect the 24-hour standard
are su c1ent to maintain the annual
standard. Th control strategy used to
achieve the 24-hour standard is
suznmarxzed in the part above titled
“RAC f (including RACE) and Other
Control Measures.” For a more detailed
desaiction of the attaimant
demonstration and the control strategy.
see the TSD acccmpmying this
document
5. PM 10 Precursors
The control requirements which are
applicable to major stationary sources of
PM , o, also apply to major stationary
sources of PM , e precursors unless EPA
determines such sources do not
contribute significantly to P M , o levels in
excess of the NAAQS in that area (see
section 189(e) of the Act). The General
Preamble contains guidance addressing
how EPA intends to Implement section
189(e) (57 FR 13539—13540 and 13541—
13542).
An analysis of air quality and
emissions data for the Denver
nonattainment area demonstrates that
exceedances of the PM ,o NAAQS are
attributable both to direct particulate
matter emissions from wood burning.
street sanding. street sweeping. and
other mobile sources, and to precursor
emissions from stationary sources.
Further, the dispersion and chemical
mass balance modeling for base year
1989 identified precursor emissions of
NO, and SO as contributing 35% to the
ambient PM ,o concentration.
(Percentage contribution from
reconciliation results of the two models
on the highest monitored day. December
17, 1987. at the Welby site.)
Consequently. major stationary sources
of these precursors are required to
cemply with all control requirements of
the PM, 0 nonattainment area plan
which apply to major stationary sources
of FM , o (i.e. RACT or iaderata areas.
best availaole control tech.aology
(BACI7 far serious areas, and Ne
Source Review C’ISRI permitting
requirements).
Mzndicatad above, EPA propo
condicionaily approve the State’s
submittal as meeting RAC’ f (including
RACt). EPA’s proposed conditicaal
approval of RACI’ extends to those
control recui.-ements apoicable to the
major stationary sources of PM , o
precursors. Specificaily, EPA proposes
to find that the emission limits and
commitments mentioned above are
reasonable and conditionally
approvable because they provide for
timely attainment of the PM , o NAAQS.
Additionally, these measures help
ensure maintenance of the NAAQS. The
State is currently in the process of
developing a NSR program for new and
modified major stationary sources of
PM , o precursors. This requirement was
due independently of the specific PM, o
requirements addressed in this
document EPA will act on the NSR
requirement in a separate notice.
Furthardiscussion of the data and
analyses addressing the contribution of
precursor sources in this area is
contained in the TSD accompanying
this document.
6. Quantitative Milestones and
Reasonable Further Progress (RE
The PM 1 ,, nonattainmexit area pieu
revisions demonstrating attainment
must contain quantitative milestones
which are to be achieved every three
years until the area is redesignated
attainment and which demonstrate RFP,
as defined in section 171( 1), toward
attainment by December 31. 1994 (see
section 189(c) of the Act). RFP Is
defined In section 171(1) as such annual
incremental reductions in emissions of
the relevant air pollutant as are required
by part D ormay reasonably be required
by the Administrator for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable
NAAQS by the applicable date.
In considering the quantitative
milestones and RFP provisions for this
initial moderate area, EPA has reviewed
the act3inment demonstration for the
area to determine the nature of any
milestones necessary to ensure timely
att iinment and whether annual
incremental reductions should be
required in order to ensure at? nment
of the P 1 4 , 0 NAAQS by December 31.
1994 (see section 171(1) of the Act). EPA
is proposing to conditionally approve
the PM, 3 SIP for the Denver —
nonat? fnment area as demonsti
at?2lninent by December 31. 19E
is also proposing to condidonaliy
approve the submittal as satisfying the
-------
E6332 Federal Re ster_I Vol. 58, No. 242 / Monday. December 20. 1993 1 Proposed Rules
ial quantitative niilestone
uirernentto and proposes to
ditiocally find that the emissions
reductions prolected meet RFP.
Further, to demonstrate continued
maintenance of the standard, the State
has adopted new allowable emission
limitations for three Public Service
Company sources—Cherokee. Arapahoe
and Valmont. (In the original June 7,
1993 SIP submittal, the Governor
committed to adopt and submit these
limits by October 30. 1993. The adopted
limits ware submitted to EPA on
October 20, 1993.) The effective date of
the new limits is January 1. 1995. These
limits will further reduce precursor
emissions in order to assure on-going
maintenance of the NAAQS through
1997.
The assurance that the initial
milestone and reasonable further
progress will be achieved is based upon
the State adopting and Implementing
the particular control measures
contained in the SIP which are
addressed in Part 11.8.3. “RACM
(including RACT) and Other Control
Measures” of this document. However.
this includes consideration of a
iminitment which has not yet been
et or submitted to EPA as enforceable
ission limits through permits or
gu.lation revisions (i.e.. permit limits
at Purina Mills and Electron
Corporation). Conseçiently, EPA is
conditionally approving these control
measures as meeting RAQvf (including
RACI’) and thus is also proposing to
conditionally approve the SIP as
meeting the initial milestone and
reasonable further progress.
7. Enforceability Issues
All measures and other eleni nts in
the SIP must be enforceable by the State
and EPA (see sections 172(cX6) and
l10(a (2)(A) of the Act and 57 FR
13556). The EPA iteria addressing the
enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions
vere stated in a September 23. 1987
memorandum (with attachments) from J.
Craig Potter, Assistant Ariminictrator for
Air and Radiation, et aL (see 57 FR
13541). Nonattainmont area plAn
provisions must also contain a program
that provides for enforcement of the
control measures and other elements in
the SIP (see section 110(a)(2)(C ) of the
Act).
The State of Colorado has a program
I iat will ensure that the measures
.aTh. e iuic reduction proçeoi made pnorto
e aitaic a u date 01 Dcceiber :1. i594 (only 46
W3 beyond the NaF WinZ 5. 1994 1S3tO0O CaiJi
will lausfy the fint aes n. req . uemant (57 F
133391. Tha di jm Ls Uznin diff.rent .1 cuk s
i adinutrativ ,v mmc uc .iUe to reqwre separal.
r.L1 .3to0 . end al a nmo t datnousi,auoca.
contained in the SIP are adequately
enforced. In addition to the specific
authority cited under desciprions of the
control measures, the State’s ALtorney
General has provided an opinion citing
the authorities contained in the
Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and
Control Act which provide the State
with the authority to enforce state air
regulations against local entities. and
enforce local air poilution requirements
when local entities fail to do so. This is
consistent with section 110(a)(2)(E) of
the Act.
The Air Pollution Control Division
(APW) has the authority to implement
and enforce all emission limitations and
control measures adopted by the AQCC.
as provided for in C.B.S. 25-7-111. In
addition. C.R.S. 25—7—115 provides that
the APCD shall enforce compliance with
the emission control regulations of the
AQCC, the requirements of the SIP, and
the requirements of any permit Civil
penalties of up to S15,000 per day per
violation are provided for in C.B.S. 25—
7—122 for any person in violation of
these requirements, and aixninal
penalties are provided for in C.B.S. 25—
7—122.1. Thus, the APCD has adequate
enforcement capabilities to ensure
compliance with the Denver PM o SIP
and the State-wide regulations.
The particular control measures
contained in the SIP submittals apply to
the types of activities identified in Part
U. 8.3. and the discussion following.
including: residential wood burning;
sanding and sweeping of paved roads;
mobile sources; and reductions of
secondary particulates from major
stationary sources. As explained in the
following discussion, the con ol
measures appear to be adequately
enforceable. Accordingly. EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the
control measures and also grant limited
approval of the measures to strengthen
the federally approt ed SIP. However.
EPA will form a judgment about the
enforceability of the control measures to
be submitted in fulfillment of the State’s
commi ent when EPA receives and
reviews those measures. The TSD
contains further information about
enforceability requirements. including a
discussion of the personnel and funding
intended to support effective
implementation of the control measures.
a. Residentioi Wood Burning Cont.-ols.
1. High Pollution Day Wood Burning
Resthctzcns: Regulation No.4 .equizes
the APCI) to implement rnd enforce
wood burr.tng restrictions in areas
without existing local enforceable
ordinances. To ensure proper
enforcement, the AP contracts with
local health departments to execute the
en orcerncat provisions oi the
Regulation. In communities where local
ordinances regulating wood burning
were in place prior to January 1. 1990.
the local government is responsible for
enforcement of its ordinance, induding
issuing fines, penalties, warnings, and
conducting inspections. (Local
ordinances cover approximately 85% of
the Denver metro area.) The State has
authority to enforce local ordinances, in
place prior to January 1. 1990. if local
governments fail to do so.
2. Clean Wood Burning Technology
for New or Réincdeled Construction:
Beginning on January 1. 1993 state law
requires that new or remodeled
fireplaces in new or remodeled
structures must be gas appliances.
electric devices, or low emissions
fireplace inserts meeting the EPA Phase
U New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS) or State adopted Phase III
- requirements. (EPA’s Phase U and
Colorado’s Phase 111 requirements are
equivalent.) Under the law, the fireplace
restrictions must be adopted as building
code revisions by each local government
and be enforced through the normal
code enforcement programs of each
community. This requirement became
effective on January 1. 1993.
3. Encourage Conversion of Existing
Wood Burning Units to Cleaner Burning
Technology: Legislation passed in 1992
required that the lead air quality
planning organization (the Regional Aix
Quality Council) develop and
implement a flnan&! Incentive
program to provide subsidies toward the
purchase of new cleaner technologies.
Additionally, retailers must report the
number of purchases of certified stoves
or inserts, and gas or electric fireplaces
to the Colorado Department of Revenue
and submit a SI fee (or each
certification of conversion. Under the
program, the Department of Revenue is
responsible for tracking conversions to
cleazer technologies, reported by
retailers, and reporting the status of the
conversion program to the AQCC.
4. New Stove and Fireplace Insert
Certification: State law prohibits the
resale and/or installation of any
uncertified wood burning device in the
metro Denver area after January 1. 1993.
The law is enforced through the
building code provisions of the various
local governments within the Den er
ares.
b. Street Sanding and Cleaning
Controls. 1, Material Specifications for
Street Sanding Materiali Regulation No.
6 sets specifications for fines and
durability of new and recycled sanding
materials, and reauires that sand
providers and users conduct testir.g and
recort the quality of sanding materials
and amounts used during the winter
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 58. No. 242 / Monday, December 20, 1993 / Proposed Rules
65333
season to the APCD. The Regulation is
enforced through authority provided to
the State by statute.
2. Local Management Plans:
Regulation No. 16 requires State and
local agencies that apply Street sand to
develop and submit a plan for reducng
their use of sand by 20% from 1989 base
year levels. The agencies are required to
adopt ordinances or resolutions to
support the plans, to submit the plans
by September 30. 1993. and to
implement the plans by November 1.
1993. The agencies are also required to
submit annual reports to the AP
documenting the reductions in sand use
achieved through implementation of the
plans. The Regulation is enforced
through authority provided to the State
by statute.
3. Enhanced Street Sanding and
Sweeping Practices in Central Denver
and the Interstate 25 Corridor
Regulation No. 16 requires Denver to
implement a management plan
providing for a 30% reduction in sand
use. In addition, the SIP requires Denver
to sweep all streets in the CBD within
four days of a sanding event. Because of
modeled violations of the NAAQS in the
1—25 corridor south of the CBD, the SIP
requires the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) to sweep 1—25
and its ramps within four days of a
sanding event. The Regulation is
enforced through authority provided to
the State by statute.
c. Other Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Measures. The SIP contains a
varety of mobile source control
measures included in the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments in addition to the
Street sanding and swee , ing controls.
These mobile source measures include
the new light.duty vehicle, light.duty
truck NO standards, urban bus
particulate standards, and diesel fuel
sulfur limitations. Particulate emission
reductions are also incoroorated for two
existing State programs, the diesel
inspection and maintenance program
and the oxygenated fuels program
(Regulations 12 and 13). These programs
were developed independently from the
PM 10 SIP but are included because of
their particulate matter reduction
beneflt. The Act required programs are
enforced by the federal government
while the State regulations are enforced
by the APCD.
The SIP also includes a number of
transportation control measures to slow
growth in vehicle miles travelled. These
are not measures that were developed
specifically for the SIP, but measures
that are already planned or underway in
the Denver area and accounted for in the
mobile source modeling for the
attainment year. These measures axe
assumed to be implemented by 1995
and have been included in the
transportation modeling supporung the
attainment and maintenance
demonstrations. The Regional
Transportation District (RTD) is
imolementing these measures through
its Transit Development Plan which has
been adopted by the RTD Board of
Directors. -
The measures for which the SIP takes
credit within th ’e transportation
modeling include the MAC Light Rail
Line and additional express bus service
to the new Denver International Airport.
Also, several programs aimed at -
attracting new ridership are being
implemented. These new programs
include the CommutetCheck program.
ECOPass, and the CU Student Pass
Program. Through the Implementation
of these and other marketing programs.
transit ridership is expected to increase
by 20% between 1989 and 1995. A
complete desa-iption of the measures
included In the SIP Is found In Section
VIII of the SIP.
The Act requires that all federally
funded tra isportaUon measures be
included in a conforming Regional
Transportation Plan and Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Because
the implementation of these measures
must conform to the SW. any changes to
the federally funded measures included
in the attainment demonstration must
go through a coniorznity analysis before
they can be implemented. The e dsting
TIP has been found to conform with the
SIP. Currently, the local metropolitan
pl rnning organization is revising its
Regional Transportation Plan as
required by the Intermodel Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act. The
conforming transportation plan was
adopted in October 1993.
d. Stationaiy Source Measures. To
control emissions from stationary
sources. Colorado (APCD) enforces 1oth
permit limitations and regulations.
through authority provided under State
statute. The June 7, 1993 SIP submittal
contains commitments for the State to
revise permit limitations at two
stationary sources and to revise
Regulation No. I to control emissions at
stationary sources. The Governor
submitted the revisions to Regulation
No. 1 on October 20, 1993. The
commitment to revise permit limitations
at two stationary sources must still be
fulfilled. The State is scheduled to
fulfill the commitment by December 1.
1993. See the discussion under Part II.
D. contained i the TSD for more
information on the permit and
regulation revisions at stationary
sources.
8. Contingency Measures’
/‘s provided in section 172(c)(g) of the
Act, all moderate nonattainment area
SiPs that demonstrate attainment
include contingency measures (sec
generally 57 FR 13510—13512 and
13543—13544). These measures must be
submitted by November 15, 2993 for the
initial moderate nonattainment areas.
Contingency measures should consist of
other available measures that are not
part of the area’s control strategy. These
measures must take effect without
further action by the State or EPA, upon
a determination by EPA that the area
has failed to make RFP or attain the
PM 10 NAAQS by the applicable
statutory deadline. Colorado chose to
submit the contingency measures
separate from the PM 10 SIP
requirements addressed in this
document. EPA will take separate action
on the contingency measures when they
are submitted by the State or as
otherwise appropriate.
III. Request for Public Comments
The EPA is requesting comments on
all aspects of this proposal. As indicated
elsewhere in this document, EPA will
consider any comments received by
February 18, 1994. on the
appropriateness of the proposed
conditional approval action. in additj -—
EPA will consider any comments
received by January 19, 1994. on
proposed limited approval of the c
measures. Comments should be lab vu
in a manner clearly indicating whether
they address the conditional approval
proposed, limited approval proposed or
both proposals. Any combined
comments addressing both proposed
actions must be received by January 19.
1994, (i.e., the close of the comment
period on the proposed limited
approval).
IV. Executive Order 12866
The 0MB has exempted this rule from
the requirements of section 6 of
Executive Order 12866.
V. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 600 et seq.. EPA must prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis
assessing the impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entities. 5 u.s.c 603
and 604. Alternatively. EPA may certify
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small not for-
profit enterprises, and government
entities with jurisdiction over
ponulations of less than 50,000.
lP approvals under sections 1
301, and subchapter!, part D of the cz
-------
“ 66334 Federal Register / Vol 58. No. 242 I Monday, December 20 , 1993 I Proposed Rules
:onditional SIP approvals wider
n 110 and subchapter I. part D of
LCt do not eate any new
...4ulrements. but simply approve
requirements that the State is already
imoosing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose
any new requirements, I certify that it
does not have a significant impact on
small entities affected. Moreover due to
the nature of the Act, preparation of a
regulatorj flexibility analysis would
constitute federal inquiry into the
economic r asocableness of stare action.
The Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A.. 427
U.s. 246,256—66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
If the conditional approval is
converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k)(4). the disapproval will
not affect any existing state
requirements applicable to small.
entities. Federal disapproval of the State
submittal does not affect its state-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s
disapproval of the submittal does not
impose a new federal requirement
Therefore, EPA certifies that such
.a approval action would not have a
Lficant impact on a substantial
ber of small entitles because it
- Jd not remove existing state
requirements nor substitute a new
federal requirement.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection. Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
ergovemmental relations. Nitrogen
dioxide. Particulate matter, Reporting
a d recordkeeping requirements. Sulfur
thoxide, and Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: December 2, 1993.
Jack W.McGraw,
. ‘tcnng Regional Administrator.
(FR Dcc. 93—30970 Filed 12—17—93; 8:45 arel
nw c coca eso-so-p
‘a CFR Parts 52 and 81
(CHOG-1-GCSS, OHO1-t—5C48, 0H32—1—
5775; FRL-4813-43
Approval of Maintenance Plan and
Daslgnatk.n of Areas for Air Cuality
Planning Purposes; Ohio
‘Icy; United States Environmental
ection Agency (USEPA).
o;i: Proposed rule.
‘J lIAP•I: ThiZ action respouds to a
r . cuc•st from the State of Ohio to
:edesigna:e Columbiana. Jaiferscn and
Preble Counties. Ohio to attainment for
ozone based on supporting monitoring
data the State has submitted. Under the
Clean Air Act (CAA). area designations
can be changed if sufficient data is
available to warrant such change.
USEPA is proposing to disapprove the
redesignation requests for these areas as
revisions to Ohio’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.
The redesignations are being
disapproved because the areas lack
maintenance plans and adequate
demonstrations that the improvement in
air quality was due to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions. [ a
addfflon USEPA must approve
corrections of the enforceability
deficiencies in the volatile organic
compound (VOC) reasonably available
control technology (RACT) rules before
these areas can be redesignated to
attainment for ozone.
DATES; Comments on this requested’
redesignation and SIP revision, and on
the proposed USEPA action must be
received by January 19, 1994.
ACDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to:
William I.. MacDowell, Chief.
Regulation Development Section. Air
Enforcement Branch (AE—17J3, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 77
West Jackson Boulevard. Chicago,
Illinois. 60604.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5. Air and Radiation Division.
77 West Jackson Boulevard. Chicago.
illinois, 60604.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT’.
Angela Lee, Regulation Development
Section,Air Enforcement Branch (AE-
17J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Region 5, Chicago, Illinois, 60604,’ (312)
353—5142.
SUPPLEMENTARY DIPORMATTON: Under
section 107(d) of the pre.amended Clean
Air Act (CAA), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) promulgated the ozone
attainment status for each area of every
State. For Ohio. USEPA designated
Columbiana, Jefferson and Preble
Counties as nonattainment areas for
ozone. See 43 FR 8962 March 3, 1973),
and 43 FR’ 45993 (October 5, 1978). O
November 15. 1990. the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) were
enacted. Public Law No. 101—549, 104
Stat. 2399. codified at 42 U.S C 7401-
767lq. Pursuant to section 107(dX4)(A)
of the amended Act, the Preble County
Area. Steubenvi ie Area. and
Columbiana County Ama in Ohio
retained their .esignacions of
r.onat:ainmect for ozo:e as a result of
monitored violatior.s of the ozcne
National Ambient Air Quality Stancard
(NAAQS) dunn 3 1988 and 1989.
The Steubenville Area ccns;sts of
Jefferson County which is a trns;tjoual
nonat?airlment area for ozone. Preble’
County is also a transitional
nonattainment area for ozone.
Columbiana County is an incomplete
data nonattainment area for ozone. See
56 FR 56694 (November 6. 1991). The
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) requested that Preble County be
redesignated to attainment in a letter to
USEPA dated May 23. 1986. The CEPA
requested the redesignation of Jefferson
and Columbiana Counties to attainment
in a letter to USEPA dated July 14. 1986.
USEPA has provided guidance on the
redesignation process as set forth in
section 107(d)(33(E) of the amended Act
in two memoranda. The first, dated
September 4, 1992, was issued by John
Calcagni. Director. Air Quality
Management Division, Sub ject
Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment
(Redesignstioa Memorandum). The
second, dated September 17. 1993. was
signed by Michael Shapiro, Acting
Assistant Adminictrator for Air and
Radiation, Subject State’
Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to
Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after
November15, 1992. These guidance
memoranda were used in the evaluation
of Ohio’s submittaL’
After careful review of the request and
supporting data, USEPA has concLuded
that Ohio has not demonsuated that its
request meets all of the requirements for
redesignatlon pursuant to CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). Section 107(d)(3)(E)
requires that USEPA make the
determination that certain criteria have
been met before redesignating a
nonattainment. area to attainment The
reaui.red criteria are discussed In the-
following sections.
Section 107(d)(3)(EJ(i). USEPA Must
Determine That the Area Has Attained
the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS)
Consistent with the requirements of
40 CFR 50.9. the most recent three years
of ozone air quality monitoring date.
1990—1992, for Preble. Jefferson and
Stark Counties do not show any
violations of the czone NAAQS during
that period. Since there are no monitors
in Coluir.biana County. the mo itoring
data for Stark County. which is located
upwir.d of Columbiana County. is used
in the eva!uation of the air quality in
Co uinbiana County.
-------
11998
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 157 I Tuesday. August 16, 1994 / Proposed Rules
A 1 ’
A review of the environmental effect
of the proposed measurement rule
changes concludes that the proposed
change W I 1 1 not have a significatit effect
on the quality of the human
environment. An environmental impact
statement is not required under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969.
Finally, the Administrator of the
Panama Canal Commission certifies that
these proposed regulations meet the
applicable standards provided in
sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive
Order No. 12778.
List of Subjects In 35 Pail 303
Advance reservations. Booking
system. Order of transit. Panama Canal.
Vessels.
reasonable fee may be chai ed for
copying.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table olContents
I. Introduction
II. Designations and Classilicat ions
A. Designations
B. Classifications
- C. Reclassifications
D. Appendix K and Waivers
RI. International Border Areas
A. Statutory Requirement
B. Policy
N. Serious Area SIP Requirements
V. Waivers for Certain PM—to Nonattainmerit
Areas’
A. Historical Perspectives
B. Waiver Provisions
C. Application of Waiver Provisions
D. Waiver Policy Description
VI. Best Available Control Measures (BACi4I
A. Requirement for BACM
B. EPA ’s Historical Interpretation of
Control Technology Terminology
C. BAf2aI for Serious PM-1O
Nonapainhteent
0. Procedures for Determining BAQVI
E. Selection of BA 4 for Area Sources
F. SeI ’ ’ of Best Available Control
TeiwiI gy (BACI’) for Point Sources
Vfl. Contingency Measures.
VIII. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable
A. General Discussion -
B. Reasonable Further Progress -
C. Quantitative Milestones
I X. Other Requirements - . -
A. Executive Order 12866 -‘:.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act ,’-’, :..
In aceordanne with I R 5.9(c), thIs
document is published in the proposed....
rules ctegoly.- . . ......
I. IntrtIduciioii” .
Issues are discussed in thfs bcument. -
regarding policy and guidance that.wlli
be applicable to areas that have been
designated nonattrdnsnent Tor PM40..
and recleedfied as seriousiz a . Thts ‘
document also discusses issue ’, .
regarding policy and guidance on
attainment date waivers potentially:’
applicable to all areas that have been
designated nonattaisunent for.PM—10, .
well as policy and guidance on waivers
of certain other requirements applicable
to PM-b serious nonattainment areas:
and requirements for international
border areas in PM—lU nonattainment
areas.
Initially. all areas designated as
nonattainment for PM—b are classified
as moderate areas (see section 188(a) of..’:
the Clean Air.Act (Act)).’ Subsequently.
‘The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Ad
made significant changes to the air quality planning
requirements for siess that do not meet (or that
significantly contribute to ambient .ir quality In a,
nearby area that does not meet) the PM—tO national
ambient air quality standards (see Pub. I .. No. lOt-
S49. tot Stat. 2399). References herein are to the
Clean Air Act, as amended. 42 U.S C. 7403. ci sat.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
(FRL-6052--2]
State Implementation Plans for Serious
PM-b Nonattainment Areas, and
AttaInment Date Waivers for PM—b
Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title 101 the
Clean Air Act Amendments 011990
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Addendum to General Preamble
for f iture proposed rulemakings .
SUMMARY: This addendum to the
General Preamble for the
Accordingly. for the easons set forth Implementation of Title I of the Clean
above, it is proposed that 35 CFR part Air Act Amendments of 1990
103 be amended as follows: principally describes EPA’s preliminary
views on how the Agency should
PART 103.-GENERAL PROVISIONS interpret various provisions of title I
GOVERNING VESSELS with regard to requirements for PM-b
(particles with an aerodynamic diameter
1.,Tbe authority citatfon for part 103 less than or equal to a nominal 10
is revised to read as followç - micrometers) serious nona ninInent
Authouityt 22 U.S.C 3791. E.O. 12215.45 -. area StateLmplementation plans (SIP’s).
FR 6O43. 3 O’R, 1981 Comp.. p.257. -. This document also addresses policy
and guidance on attsinment date
2. Paragraph (e) of § 103.8 is revised waivers potentially applicable to all
to read as follows:. . ‘ that have been designated
§ 1 .8 P ssence In the transit schedule; aonat inment for PM—b, waivers of
order of tiassl8nq ,veu,BM - certain requfzei%emtii applicable to PM—
• a a • 10 serious nonnttninment areas, and
requirements for international border
(e) Booking Fees. (1) For vessels - - areas an PM—to uonatteinment a eas.
measured in aecordance with Although the guidance Includes various
§ 135.13(a) of this chapter. the fee for’ statements that States must take certain
booking shaIll* $0.26 per PCIUMS Net these statements are made
Ton. ‘. : ‘ ‘ - - ‘ - pursuant to EPAs prellminmy.
(2) For vessils subject to the .‘. ‘ ‘.. ‘ interpretations, end thus do not bind
transitional relief measures of § 135.31”.: Stales and the public as a matter of law.
of this chapter and measured in - This addendum is an advance notice of
accordance with §l35.13(b)ofthis ‘how EPA generally intends to take -
chapter. the fee for booking shall be .‘ action on SIP submissions and to
$0.23 per Panthna Canal Gross Ton as - interpret various PM-ID related title I
specified on the last certificate issued by provisions. - . -
the Panama Canal Commission between FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
March 23.1976 and September 30. Charlene E. Spells. Air Quality
3994. inclusive. - Manage t Division; Mail Drop 15.
(3) The minfinum booking fee for any Office of Air Quality Planning and
vessel is $1,500. - ‘ Standards. U.S. EPA. Research Triangle
• * a a • Park. North Carolina 27711. (919) 541—
- - 5255. - , -
(Existing collections of information are - ____
approved under Office of Management ADOPc S! References cited herein are
and Budget (0MB) control number - aVailable from the Public Docket No. A-
3207-0001. Modifications are being 92—23. The docket is located at the Air
submitted to 0MB for approval.) and Radiation Docket and Information
Center. Room M—1500, Waterside Mall.
Dated: August10. ‘ MaIL Code6b02, 401 M Street SW.,
Gilbesto Guardia F., - - Washington. DC.20460. The docket may
Administrvtor. Panama Canal Commission. be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 12noon
(FR Doc. 94—20049 Filed 8—15-94:8:45 aml and from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. on
BILUJ4G coos se-o-oi-p . weekdays.. except for legal holidays. A
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 / Proposed Rules
41999
in accordance with section 188(b) of the
Act, “The Administrator may redassify
as a serious PM—b nonauainment area
a any area that the Administrator
determines cannot practicably attain the
national ambient air quality standard for
PM—b by the attninment date (as
prescribed in subsection (c)) for
moderate areas” or any area that fails to
timely attain. The EPA took final action
on January 8, 1993 to reclassify 5
moderate areas that were initially
designated as nonattainment for PM—b
upon enactment of the 1990
Amendments (see 58 FR 3334). The EPA
is considering reclassifying additional
areas from moderate to serous.
This guidance document is being
• published as an addendum to the —
General Preamble for the
‘-Implementation of Thle I of the Clean -
. Ijj Act Amendments of 1990 (General
Pibamble) published April 16, 1992 (57.
,,FR 13498)2 Among other things , this
PM—b nnnnffehm eht area guidance
describes EPA’s preliminary
views on how EPA should interpret.
‘various provisions of title I with regard
jo requirements for PM—b serious area,.
SIP’s. Although the guidance includes
-various statements that States must take’
certain ct1oua these statements mu
made pursuant to EPA’s preliminary.
Interpretations, and thus do not bind the
States end the public as a matter of law.
Of course, the use of prescriptive
language Is appropriate in those
instances where the policy is simply
reiterating statutory manflates which
provide that States must ke certain
actions.
Possible approer]ie, to implementing
the provisions In section 179B
applicable to international borderireas,
general SIP requirements of section
172(c), the pec1flc .requlrements In
subpait4ofpartDoftltlellu serious
PM—b nonattainment areas, the issues
involved and the means of resolving
thsei iumaredisrnseedinthe -
following sections. The topics discussed
include SIP requirements such -
provisions to assure that best available
control measures (BAQwI) are
implemented; waivers for areas
impacted by nonanthropogenic sources;
treatment of international border areas;.
requirements for quantitative
milestones, reasonable further progress
(RFP) and contingency measures.
2 A auppL m..MaI notice .ses published at 57 FR
18070, April 25.1907. which provides certain
appendices to the April16. 1992 General Ptesmbl..
Subsequent references in this notice to the General
Preamble are Inclusiv, of both documents.
c. Reciassijkotions
1. General Conditions
A moderate area can subsequently be
retIii i9ed ala serious nonattainment
area under two general conditions. First,
EPA has general discretion under
section 188(b)(1) to rerlascify a
moderate area as a serious area at any
time the Administrator determines the
area cannot practicably attain the
NAAQS by the statutory attainmeflt date
for moderate areas.’
Second, under section 188(b)(2) a
moderate area is rerleccified as serous,
by operation of law after the statutory
attainment date has passed if the
Administrator finds that the area has not
attained the NAAQS. The EPA must.
publish a Federal Register notice..
identifying the areas that have failed to
attain and were reclassified, within 6
The ‘A’e interpretation of the r ’ ’ 1
provisions In section le8lbX l) isdIr”— In detail
in section IILC.i(b) of the General Preemble (57 FR
at 13537—38).
0. Designations and Classifications
months following the attainment date
(see section 188(b)(2)(B)). ’
2. Reclassification of Initial PM-it)
Nonattainment Areas -
A. Designations -
Section 107(d) of the Act provides
generally for the designation of areas of
each State as attainment, nonattainment Section 188(b)(1)(A) provides an
or unclassifiable for each’pollutant for accelerated schedule by which EPA i
which there is a national ambient air reclassify appropriate initial PM—b’
quality standard (NAAQS). Certain nonattninment areas. The EPA proposed
meeting the qualifications of section 011 November 21.1991 (56 FR 58656) to
107(d)(4)(B) of the Act were designated reIaSSlfYb4 of the 70 initial moderate
nonattainment for PM—b by operation areas as serious. The 14 areas EPA
of law upon enactment of the 1990 proposed to reclassify were identified
Amendments (Ülithi PM—b . largely based on the magnitude and
nonattainment areas). A Federal frequency of ambient PM—bO
Register notice announcing all of the measurements above the 24-hour.’
areas designated nonattainment for PM- NAAQS’of 150 microgramsjr cubic -
10 at enactment and classified as meter ( ig1 jn 3 ) during calen years.
moderate was published on Mardi 15, 1988—1990. The EPA took final action
1991 (56 FR 11101). ‘A follow-up notice ° 8, 1993 (58 FR 3334) to
correcting some of these reclassify 5 of the 14 areas. The final
designations was published August 8,’ decisiOn to rerlaccifY the 5 areas was
1991 (56 FR 37654). The nonattainment based on the criteria utilized in the.
areas were formally codified In 40 G R proposal, comments received in’
part 81. effectIve January 6,199Z (56 response to the proposal and on EMs &
56694, November 6,1991). All those,:, preliminary review of the ,SIFs for thern
areas of the country not designated . areas.
nonattainmeut for PM-b at n ctment’. In
were designated undanalfiahie (see -. decision to irI cc 4 fy an
10 nonattainment area before
section 107(dR4)(B)(W) of Ict). - ‘ the attainment date will be based on
B.aa s sifruons.; ”.: :. ..:’ •‘ ____
monst ialingthatth eNAAQScam iot; -
• Oncean aiea is designated :.- , be attahied in the ares by -.
nonattainmeat, sectIon 188 of the Act -
outlines the process for classification of December 31,1994 (the statutory
the area and establishes at t nlnment date specified In section
attainment date. In a n1ance with. . 188(c)(1) for Initial PM—b
section 188(a), all PM—b nonattamment nonattainment areas).
areas are Initially dassifled as màderate 3. Roe 4 a ’tSifiCalion of Future PM-b
by operation of law ta ti eir . Nonattainment Areas
designation as nwiattainment. - , Section 188(b)(IXB) rovides a
timeframe within wbIc EPA Is
reclassify appropriate areas decigTinL .
nonattaininient PM—b subsequent to
ena ent of the 1990 Amendments.
____ Appropriate areas are to be redneaffied
as serious withIn 18 months after the
required date for the State’s submission
of a moderate area PM—b SIP. 1 l ’he
statute requires that these moderate area
PM—b SFs be submitted within 18
months after the area is designated
nonattainment (see section 189(aliz)(BD.
Taking these provisions together. the
statute thus requires that EPA reclassify
appropriate PM—b moderate areas
designated nonatlaixunent after 1990 as
serious within 3 years of such
designation. -
Because the moderate area SIP’s are
dtsi’before this reclassification deadline,
EPA anticipates that any determination
that such areas should be reclassified
• will be based upon facts contained In
ThIs directive does not rcs*gidn’Asgsnen -’
authority. but simply aperiflea ihet It Is to be
exeeclsed.es appropriate, In accordance with
certan dates.
-------
42000
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 157 / Tuesday. August 16. igo.i I Proposed Rules
the moderate area SIP demonstrating Appendix K and accompanying
that the NAAQS cannot practicably be gui nr (both preceding the 1990
attained by the statutory deadline. The Amendments to the Act) provide in part
EPA may also consider reclassifying that measured exceedances of the PM-
moderate areas For which a SIP has not 10 NAAQS which are believed to be
been submitted whenever itbecomes influenced by upcontrollable events
apparent (e.g:. because of an extensive caused by natural sources of particulate
delay in submitting the SIP) that an area matter or by events that are not expected
cannot practicably attain the standards to recur at a given location are flagged
by the applicable attainment date. The and excluded from decisions as to
EPAmayalsodeterminethatanarea whetherornottheareashouldbe
cannot practicably attain the standards designated nonattainment.e Therefore, if
. ythe applicable date when the State it is established that exceedancas are
submits an incomplete or otherwise caused by natural sources, a State may
inadequate SIP for the area (i.e.. a SIP be permitted to avoid designating the
which would not assure timely area as nonattaixtment, even though the
attainment) and the State does not act exceedances are expected to recur. -
expeditiously to correct such The savings provision of section 193
deficiencies, of the amended Act provides, among
The EPA does not believe that other things, that regulations and
generally reclassifying moderate areas as guidance promulgated or issued by the
serious rewards areas which delay Administrator prior to enactment of the
development and implementation of 1990 Amendments are to remain in
PM—b control measures. Rather, EPA effect according to their terms except to
believes its policy aeates an incentive . th. extent that they are inconsistent
for the timely submittal and effective . with any provision of the amended Act.
impleen tMion of moderate area SIP SectIon 188(1) of the amended Act
requirements and facilitates the PM-b pmv4d EPA with the discretionary
attaJomimi objective. For example, if an. authority to waive a specific date of
area that fails tosubmit a timely. attainni nt . for a PM—to nonatthinntent
area SINs rerbtanffied. ‘ .area where it Is detanniniid that.
does not obviate the requirement that . nonanthropogenic sources contribute
the area pihinit end Implement the - significantly to the violation of the
moderate area SiP r q i1rements.. ‘ -‘ j aii j to waive -
Accordingly. In addition to reclassifying certain nonattainment area sip
such areas, EPA would allo determine :. requirements where the Ailininistrator
that the State had failed to submit a - determines that anthropogenlc ’souices
PM-b SiP andthe areàcould be of PM-1O do not contribute significantly
to sanctions undar sections 110(m) end - to the violation of the standard In the
179 f lts delay. As provided under. area. These provisions take as a-
section l7 (a) of the Act, States - ‘.; .... fi arental premisethat areas
containing areas for which EPA has experiencing violations of the NAAQ.S
made such determinatlbns have up tO 18 due to nonanthropogenic sources are to
months from EPA’s determination to - be designated as nonattainment. If areas
submit a complete plan or plan revision- : - werepern ilted to avoid bein
before EPA Is required to Impose either d nated as nonattainmentLuse
the highway fowling sanction or the• - -. their violations are caused In whole or
reqwrement to provide two.to-one new, part by iuicontrollable natural events.-
source offsets descnbed In Section then this statutory provision would
179(b). lithe deficiency baa not been have tobe read as having no legal effect
corrected 6 montbsafter the first ‘--k - or significance. However, this would
sanction applies, then the second - .. canons of statutory construction
sanction must apply? The EPA’s - which direct that statutory language not
determination also triggers a - . be ted as mere surplusage.
requirement for EPA to impose a .. Consequently, although appendix K
Fede al implementation plan under . appears to be preserved in part by
section l10(c)(l) of the Act. In - section 193, the provision permitting
conjunction with the possible - - the treatment of “uncontrollable events
imposition of sanctions. EPA may issue caused by natural sources’ as
a determination to reclassify the area to exceptional events, and therefore - - -
serious. -. - * . -. excludable from nonattainment
D. Appendix Kand Waivers decisions, is inconsistent with the
provisions of section 188(f) and should
Appendix K to 40 CFR part 50 . therefore be regarded as no longer
provides guidance on the interpretation ________
of ambient air quality data to determine 2.4 of appendix K of 40 (YR pert
the air quality status of an area.. - 5o and Guideline on the Identifimtion and
Use of Air Quality Data Affected by Exceptibi al
5 5ee58 FR 51270 (October 1. 1993). Events. EPA—45014.-86-OOT. July 1986.
having legal effect. Similarly, any EPA
guidance permitting such exclusion of
these events is inconsistent with the
amended Act. For this reason,
exceedances which are attributable to
uncontrollable nonanthropogenic events
may not be discounted or deweighted in
any manner, but must be Fully
considered in determining whether
violations of the NAAQS have occurred -
and whether designation as
nonattainment is wairanted.. Future
determinations relevant to exceptional
events should therefore focus on the
remaining type of exceptional event -
identified under section 2.4 of 40 CFR
part 50, appendix K, namely whether
the events—anthropogenicor
nonanuiropogenic—are likely to i ur at
the same location.
The EPA plans to make perfunctory
modifications to section 2.4 of 40 CFR
part 50. appendix K. In addition, -.
guidance on the Interpretation of air
quality data believed to be influenced
byspecialeventsandoonditlonswillbe
addressed in a separate publication that.
will replace the 1986 Exceptional ‘-
Events Guideline. :. . -.
ilL International Border Areas -
A. Statutory Requirement . - ..
Section 818 of the 1990 Amendments
added a new section, 179B . to subpart
1. partDof titleL Section 179B applies
to areas that could.attaln the relevant
NAAQS by the statutory attainment date”.
but for emkslons emanating from .. ,. -.
outside the United States (U.S.). Fór , .
PM—b non teahiTnent areas, sectioj, . -c
bl9B(a) provides that EPAmust approie
themoderateàreaS lPif(1)theSIP :.
meets all the applicable requirements.-
under the Act other than a requirement
that such plan or evIsion demonstrate
- attainment and maintenance of the PM—-
10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment:
- date, and (2) the State demonstrates to
- EPA’S satisfaction that the SIP would be
adequate to attain and maintain the PM—
10 NAAQS by the attainment date but
for emissions emanating from outside
• the U.S. In addition, section 1798(d)
- provides that if a State demonstrates
that an area would havetimely attained
the PM—b NAAQS but for emissions
emanating from outside the U.S.. the T
areamustnotbesubjecttothe -
- reclassification provisions of section -.
- 188(b)(2) Section,188(b)(2) provides -
that any moderate PM—la - -
nonattainment area that EPA. determines
is not in attainment after the applicable
attainment date shall be reclassified to-
serious by operation of law. Therefore. - -
the statute provides that areas that could
- attain but for emissions emanating from
outside the U.S. must not be reclassified
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 157 / Tuesday. August16, 1994 I Proposed Rules 42001
as serious after failing to attain by the. - 10 concentrations with a change in the - clearly wanted to avoid penalizing
applicable date. 7 . ‘- predominant.wind direction.— ’ - . States containing such areas by not
2. Comprehensively inventory PM—b making them responsible for control of
B POlICY . -. emissions within the U.S. in the vicinity, emissions emanating from a foreign
Assumng that a plan or revision ‘- oIthe nonattainment area and - over which they have no -
meets all applicable requirements, the demonstrate that the impact of thOse jurisdiction. Moreover, by excludi ig I
State must show that an area is eligible sources on the nonattainment area after area from reclassification, Congress ai
to have its SIP approved, and not be application of reasonably available elected to avoid subjecting such areas
reclassified as serious under section controls does not cause the NAAQS to . the more stringent control measuies
179B by evaluating the impact of . be exceeded. This analysis must include applicable in serious PM—ia areas. In
emissions emanating from outside the an influx of background PM-to in the - - addition. as set forth In section-’
U.S and demonstrating that the SIP- area. Background PM—b levels could 179B(a)(2), the second con’djtiorfwbfch’
would bring about attpinment but for - based, for example, on concentrations must bernet before ‘E pA may approve a
those emissions. Several types of ‘. measured in a similar nearby ’area not -‘ moderate -area plan showmg attainment’
information may be used to evaluate the influenced by emissions from outside. . but for foi eigii ëmlisions;b3? its plain
• impact of emissions emanating from - the U.S.” .‘) ‘ . ten ,Tequires theStateto àtablish’
outside the U.S. The EPA will consider 3. AnalyZe ambient sample filters for only that th pIan submitted would be
the information presented by the State . SPeCifIC types of - ‘adequate” to timely ‘attain nd ‘ - - -
for individual nonattPlnment areas on a from across the border (although not maintain the NAAQS, but for emissions
-ease-by-case basis in determining .. ; ‘ required, characteristics of emissions outside the U.S. Nothing In section
whether an area may qualify for •‘ -, from foreign sources may be helpful). -. 179B relieves the State from meetiirg all
treatment under section 17gB. Five-- - 4. Inventory the sources on both sides its applicê1il m derate ’axea ’PM—iO SIP
examplespf such information are listed ’ ofthe borderandcnmpaze the
below in Increasing order of ‘- , . -: magnitude of PM-la ,, requirements, includin the reqüIiem nt
‘sophistication (the State may.use one or’ originating within the u.s:totiiose -: . to lñrplement RAC LNonethelese iL In
emanating from out id he U.S. . . dOfli SO, States t, nf Iithtg s’ith-an area
“more âf these types of Information Or- - 5 Perform air dispersion and/or. , ..Wer5 lso. u1redbecause.of
- gôn’their ____
,to evaluate -. receptor modeling to quantify the . a ’-.’. contnbutions’to PM-lO violations
___ caused b , for 1gn.mkclons t shoulder”
i rnnr.niing relative Impacts on the 1 onaffninjrnent , e oinic’ -
the US. on the nonanjnnment., - area of sources located Within the u:s: burdenthan States flot similarly affected-
efirat tèeXaIDplOSdoflot. :edU0 81
leqithe the &àteb, - “ ‘ons (this ap rcacltamibines : ‘ ri jmp lemntnl ’ measuze,ah lth
a foreign country - --. , . , information a)llected from the .- -. :: .go,well,,b,yond those whIt h ihó SIP
- lLlVOflthI7 “. ‘dern tn* ieawotIld oiher dse be,.
iPlace several ambient PM—TO ‘- -- meteorological o niblánt ...- ‘ad.quate.to tlmelvaãali and-maintain
..iirànitors aid a meteorological station.’ —
,zneaEurkg wind spied and direction, monitoring network, and nalyais of’ • the PM -1ONAA S) su alequkeneni.
filters). - ‘.. .-‘ ‘ : Would nnf*f ny pswuilis StateS , . -.,
iI US. nonatthirnnént area neir the In addition to demonstrating that the - gintemational border areas
iiteziraftonai border! Evaluate and IP for the area would boadequate to “and effectlvly undermine the purpon
quantify any changes In rnoliit red PM’- timely attain and maintain the NAAQS ‘ of section 17gB. Indeed, to the extent a... -
________ - but for ienoniAmim .itinE âutslde the affected State can satisfacjorily
- - ‘As DOted, seetfon iraBid) etate t1 us.. the SIP must,conlinue to meet all - demonstrate that Implementation of
• .t _ 1um4rstlIe of the standards, bti for
. . “. .i..eman.tlng frcm uts e itie U.S.. -. applicable mdderate area IP ‘ - such measures dearly would not
not b.subleet t i 1e. (bp (2) u . . . requirements in order to qualify for the: advance the ot iWsment date, EPA-could
for fousi’ tosttaI4 By analagy to this provision special S W approval under section- - Conclude they are unreasonable and
.hd.pplylugcanona,ofststutcly construetlon. EPA. 179B. Among other thinge , the SIP must hence do not constitute RAQ’A.
will Dot i -l. . ..Ify before the applicable i . 1 . -
provide for the implementation of. Notwithstanding the above, In light of,
etantiards, but for emissions emanating hem reasonably available control measures the overall health and clean air -
outside thet IS. (see section iaS(bXl)). Tint. (RACM), including reasonably available objectives of the Ant, EPA does
section 17OB evinces a general congressional Intent’ control technology (RACT) ( e 57 FR encourage affected States to reduce
not to penalize areas where etnlssions emanating - ______
front outside the country sic the but4 use of the 13540)- In international border’areas, - em ss oiis beyond the minimum
‘PM-b nonatteinment problems. Further. UEPA .RAQ ilRACr must be implemented to necessai y to satisfy the “but for” test in
were to isdassify such areas before the applicabl, the extent necessary to demonstrate order to reduce the PM-to
attainment date, EPA. In effect, would be resdizig attainment by the applicable attainment concentrations to which their -.
section 1798(d) out of the statute. Specifically. - date if emissions emanating from populations are exposed.-
EPA proceeded to r. ratfy, before the appllàble
attainment dats, those areas qualifying for tregtment outside the U-S. were not included in - ,The SIP for an international border -
under se ion blOB, an area would never be subject the analysis. The EPA believes that this area must also include contingency
to the provision in sectiçn 1798(d) which prohibits interpretation of the degree of RACM measures as required under section
EPA from reclassifying such areas aftar the
applicable atIAi..” . .nt 4ate. Cenons of statutory the State Is required to implement in 172(c)(9) of the Act. Under section
construction counsel against interpreting the law moderate PM-la areas affected by ‘ 179B(a)(1), such SIFs must meet . . -
such that language is rendered mere surplusage. ‘ emissions emanating from outside the’ the.requirementiapplicable to it under
Finally, note that section 1798(d) contains a clearly u.s. is consistent with the purpose of - the Act” except that they may
erroneous reference to carbon monoxide instead of
PM-io. and that tliis ection contains section 179B. By directing EPA, under - 4emonatrate timely attainment by
errors (see. e.g. section 1198(c) referince to section section 17gB, to approve the plan or ‘ - discounting emissions emanating from
b86(b )(9). which does not exist). . -. plan revision of a moderate PM-b area outside the US: Contingency measures
S e 40 O R pert SBbor guidance on locating which shows it would attain the ‘ are additional measures included In the
PM-to monitors and “On-site Meteorological - NAAQS but for foreign emissions and - SIP that can be undertaken to reduce
Prog ani Guidance for Rcgulatoty Modeling,’
‘Applications,” EPA-45Ol4 47-O13, 1967 for ‘by excluding such an area from - - emissions if the area fails to make RF
guidance on locating mclcor,loglcsl stations. ‘ reclassification to serious, Congress or to attain the primary NAAQS by ti
-------
42002 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16. 1994 / Proposed Rules
applicable *ltiiinment date. In the area is requited undersection be implemented in the area. The EPA
international border areas. EPA will not 189(b). This revision must, among other intends to issue guidance in the future.
require the contingency measures for things. include provisions to assure that as appropriate, on applying for an
PM—la to be implemented after the area BAQ4 (including BACT) will be . extension of the serious area attainment
fails to attain if EPA determines that the implemented in the area (see section date.
area would have attained the NAAQS, 189(b)(l)(S)). In addition, a lEa serious area fails to attain by the
but for emissions emanating from. demonstration lincluding air quality applicable atteinment date (which may
outside the U.& However, the EPA will modeling) must be submitted showing be an extended attainment date).
require contingency measures to be that the pLan will attain the NAAQS another SIP revision is required within
implemented if it determines that the - either by the applicable attAinment date 12 months that provides br attsinment
area failed to make RFP in achieving the or. if an extension is granted under and until then for annual reductions in
required reductions in PM—b emissions section 188(e). by the most expeditious PM—b or PM—1O precursor emissions
from sources within the U.S.. or if the alternative date practicable (see section - within the area of not less than 5
area does not, in fact, obtain the 189(b)( IIIA)). percent of the amount of such emissions
emission reductions that were necessary. The SIP revisions to require the as reported in the most recent emission.
to demonstrate timely atthinn ent of the implementation of BACM must be inventory for the area (see section
NAAQS. but far emissions emanating submitted to EPA within 18 months 189(d)).
from outside the U.S.. after an area is reclassified as serious In addition to the specific PM-la SIP
(see section i89(b)(2)). The BAavt are to requirements contained in subpart 4 of
iv. &re. SIP Requirements be implemented no later than 4 years part D. title 1. States con Aining serious
The Act requires States to submit after an area is reclassified (see section must meet all of the applicable
several SIP revisions, as necessary. 189(b)(1)(Bll. The EPA’s policies general SIP requirements set forth in -
providing for Implementation of regarding the requirement to implement section 110(a)(2) and the nonatt&nmmit
increasingly stringent control measures - BAQwI in serious areas are disr, , ced in - area SIP requirements set forth in . -
and demonstrating When those control section VI of this document. . subpart 1 of part D, title I, to the eatent
measures will bing about attainment or The serious area attainm mt : are not otherwise
the PM-b HMQS. The first SIP demonstration required under section subsumed by. or Integrally related to
revision was due .Novembct15, 1991 for 189(b)(1)(A) mint be submitted to EPk the more specific PM-to .. -
the Inlti l moderate PM—ID • within 4 years after an 3 5iS The general SiP
nonattainment areas. For . re’ 4 ed based on a determination by. applicable to all.
redesignated nonattainment for PM-b EPA that the area practicably ntthl’un,.’t areas are disc imed In
in the fu ture under -section bO7(d)(3). attaIn the NAAQS by the statutory - the General Preamble at 57 FR. 13556-
theflrstSlPrevlsioñ*illbeduewithin deadlineformoderateareas.ftlsdue’ 13557.
18 months aftefthierea Is redesignated- within 18 months after an area in The iemaots spe icaUy
(see section 189(aX2)). him SIP revision reclassified for actually having failed to. applicable to serious areas under
must, among other Iting provide.foi attain the NAAQS by the moderate area P’ ma ilY in section
implementation of RAQ4 on sources In att ment dat (see section 189(bX2)). ‘ige Those requirements include: .‘ -.
the area (see sediorih’189(a)(1)(C) an4 . The new aU ’ ent date for Initial a. Currentactual and allowable
i72(c)(1fl. ’AU iailible tecbno1ogIcally .PM-?10 nonattainment areas that are seniwiona inventories that meet EPA..,
and economically fàsible control: • - - redEs eiAed as serious Into hO AS ‘ guidelines” (sb section VI.D. below).
measures would expeditious as pr esiile b. SubnilsLclon of a SIP, nndnr section
and therefore reasàè*able Tor adop lon.’ .t than December31. 2001. For 8Z AS that • 189(b)(1)(A), that includes a -
for areas that cannot attain the NAAQS ‘are designated manIt nmieai fee PM-tO demonstration that the plan provides for
by’the applicable attainment date: in the future and subsequently become ettait t by the applicable attatnesent
(December 3 l994 for Initial moderate: serious, the attainment date is lobe as - ; data (December31, 2001 for the areas
PM-1Onon ttä nment areasi(see 57p expeditious as prarikehle but no later ‘ initially dielgnated nonattaininont for
thantheendóftheteathcalendaryear PM_iObyoperationof lawltindRr . -
U EPA datennines that atubdetate j j after the area’s designation as section iol(d )ta) and no later than the
area cannôtpia .dieaI ly ittain the - 4 nonattntnment (see section i88(c)(2)). • end of the tenth year beglnningaftertho -
NAAQS by the applicable attainme t ;.: . If the State demonstrates to the • area’s indesignation for areas -.
date (or determines the area has failed . . . satisfaction of EPA that attainment by subsequently redesignated
to attain) and reclassifies the area as a , the statutory deadline for serious areas nonattainment). or a demonstration that
serious nonattainment area under ‘- - (as set forth in section 188(c) of the Act) attainment by the above date is not
section 188(b).a second SIP revision for is impracticable, the State must -. pi cable and that the plan provides
- — - -. - - demonstrate that the SIP provides for
- “ .
for attainment by the most expeditions
•Plote that if , iih . attainment by the most expeditious . -. alternative date practicable.” •
unreasonable because emissions from the ,ourom - alternative date practicable. The State ‘- -
affected eta Inslgniflcant or do minimia, such may apply to EPA for a single extension 57 l3538(A Il . 1992k
measures maybe eiduded from misideretlon as • of the serious area attainment date, •.
they would na represent RAQ t for that area (see ____ ____
57 Fit i .i o in lct te.ui a • under section 188(e) of the Act, not to p wg - oc. U .S. Euvko’ ’ t Proi-”—n
areas. measwas which go beyond those which the exceed 5 years beyond the serious area - - Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC. i993
SIP demoastiates would be adequate to attain and • attainment date. A State requesting an., Subsequant toadopthig requirements for BAQ*
maintain the standard, but for emissions emanating , extension under section 188(e) for an shmxtly aftet the nonattainmant area is reclassiliad
from outside the U.S.. would not beatnaidseed • as serious. it may be oscessamy for the State to ada *
‘remiably”auiabha-and therefore ndd be area must, among other things, - additional conuol meesuins in order to denwostaate
requited by RACM—aiace they would not advance demonstrate that the plan for the area that the SIP provides for attainment of the PM-tO
the attainment date (although States may elect to includes the most stringent measures NAAQS in accordance with section iaa(blD)(Mtfl.
If the State demonstrates, in accordance with
iniplement such measures in otder to reduce the that are included in the implementation. - section 189(bl(i)(A)(iiL that attainment by die
public’s seposure to P 54-10) (seeduscussion wider.’
International Border Areas olthisguldance - -. . ‘plan of any State or are achieved a - - appUcal . serious area attainment date is
document). .. - - .. -‘ . practice in any State. and can feasibly .. impracticable sod teaks an extension oltha
-------
42003
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 157 1 Tuesday, August 16, 1q94 / Proposed Rules
c. provisions, under sectic.1 : -- - Office of Air Quality Planning and The EPA’s policy focus shifted away
1 8g(b)U)(B),toassurethatBACM -. - S*andardstotheDirectorsoLEPA - from thetype and location of the
(including BACT) will be implemented Regional Air Divisions on March 4,- - emission sources (i.e., tradjtional or
no later than 4 years after the area is 199l.’ That supplementary policy is nontraditional sour , urban or rural -
reclassified as serious. : not applicable to serious area SIP locations) to the size of the particles
ci. A requirement, under section demonstrations. . - - emitted when the indicator for the -.
i89(b)(3). that the terms ‘major source” . fu; Certain PM—b . ‘. NAAQS was chanted in 1987 from to
and “major stationary source,” used in Nonattalament Areas . . -. suspended particulate matter to PM—lu.
implementing a new source permitting - . While revisions to the rural fugitive dust
program under section 173 :and control A. Historical Perspectives ‘ - policy were being considered, the policy
of PM-b precursors under section - The EPA in the pat icued muf was ontihuedduflng the initial phases
189(e), indude any stationary source or- its air pollution control efforts - -- of implementing the PM—jo NAAQS on
group of stationary sources located - - industrial point source emissions and,.’ an Interim ba 1s.’ However, EPA -.
within a contiguous area and under other traditional sources of air -believes that.the 1990 Amendments
common control that emits, or has the pollution.’ 3 For instãnce, EPA’s 197? ptovide a statutory altethathO ihit
potential to emit, at least 70 tons per -. - guidance on SIP development gave - wholly supplants the runi fugitive dus
year of PM-la.- •. - - -. - ‘ priority to control of urban fugitive dust policy (see sections 107(d)(4)(B) and
e. Contingency measures’ 3 (see: . after control of traditional sources, but 188(1) of thésniended Act; 56 FR 37659,
section VI I. below).’-.- . -. in preference to r iral fugitive dust,’on... (August 8.1991)). z
f. Quantitative milestones, (applicable the groun4s that (i) urban soil was - ‘. - - Va Prcvisions ,.. f ‘ ‘... - . -
C a.— . — —.
to both moderate and serious area SIP’s . believed to be con? initnated and, . -
under section 189(c)).: which 5 to be .therefore, potentially more - 1 e Act ns ame ded iñNov er
achiévedevery3yearsuntiltbearea’is thenativeson lniuu’areas;.(2) the i99O;wasdesignedtoassi rothat”
redesignated atthlnment, and which otentlal for rg ificant’ opu1àtibñ : aitalnment end miiñten iu ofJhè PM
demonstrate R1 P toward attainment byt. (p $ ssi I eclant health effects- ’ 0 5 afld 5
the applicable date. P - was li great i eni
includes arequizement4oi periodic ‘ resources ati as ‘ the
reports-demonstrating whether ‘the Z- --- :
milestones have been’inet (see section - .‘ -.
, ,. - . .. - -
.- g. Plan revisionswbidi pro nde foi *
at1 1nmnrt.of the PM-IC NAAQS d
nnuaLreducsofnotiessihan 5”-t ’ emi inn in b .. - .
panixul.of Inventoried PM-IC nd PM-. co fo1 f - ,,. The i
ConPM—lO
10 precursor emissions wflhln the area, so in dontristcont öl . Ighot adequate to
under section’189(d), if the s rfous arec.. ret uuremenfi foritiral asêe-far
fails to attain the stand mrdsr -. - - less ambitious.’ focussing on the ‘conirál’ ,attaln the NMQS.’subseqient revisit
11. As applicable, RACr-level, SACT -. àf major - — - must provide for implementation of
level, and new source review control of ‘attention given to ñaturai or ‘. additional, more stringent control -
PM-b pracussors from major stationary nonindustrial emlssldns. This jteflbcy of’ measures unfit the NAAQS are au fned.
sources of precursors in the airshed - giving a lower priority to controlling . — - Cón res .riccgnized that there may be
areas where the NAAQS may never be
(applicable to both moderate and. “‘ nonindustrial emissions in
serious area SIP’S under section 189(e)).. rural areas be ame kno*n as the “.Rurêl - attained because of PM—b emissions —
The demonstration required under Fugitive Dust Policy.” . -. -.. -. - from “noninthzvpogenlc sources,”
section 189(b)(1)(A) should follow the . ‘ - - ‘ - ‘ , — - and that the Imposition In such areas of
eilstlng modeling guidelines addressing sn I flfl - certain State planning requlrenienis. as
PM—b (e.g., “PM—ba SIP Development io, Init i al i tode ate iJo ttalnsnent Areas,” -.desaibod in the previous section, may
Guideline” Uune 1987); “Cuideline on memorandum (rum John Calcagmu and William not be justified. Therefore, under
Air Quality. Modelst’ (Revised)’ - Laxton to Director. Air Division. EPA Re 5suna sectiqn 188(f) of the Act, Congress.
* Pslarcb4 , 1991.
memorandum from Joseph Tikvart and EPA distingu hetween”tradlUonal” provided a moms for EPA to waive a
Robert Bauman dated July 5. 1990) and. and”nona-adit lonal” -. ... specific date for attainment and certain
any applicable regulatory requireme’nts.: “ot tjaditicnsl source” first appeared in official ‘ control aid planning requirements
A supplementary attainment - - - 1” °’ in 1976 in EPA’s “National Assessment of the -‘ when certain conditions are met.In the
Urb , Panlc ilate Problem,” EPA-45013-76-024, -
demonstration policy applicable to - July tom, and as coined as a CatCh-eli to refer nonattaiñment area. ‘ 1,
initial moderate PM—jo nonattainment.- - - thosg sources not treditionelfrconsidered In air - Section188(I) provides two types of.
areas facing special circumstances was IollutiOn control strategies, including con i, tio .waivers. First, the Administrator m y, -
issued in a memorandum from EPA’s and demolition, tailpipe emissions, tire wear, e d .on a case-by.case basis, waive any -
- various sources of lugitive dusL Since liter., the use requirement under subpart 4 applicable.
of the term has expended to include such source
attainment data pursuant to section ISSue), the Stale’ as prescnbed aajicullural and silviculturat b bIg. to any serious nonattainment area where
must demonstrate to the best of Its ability that lbs open burning. and residential wood combustion. EPA determines that anthriopogenic -
plan far the area includes the most stringent ‘°“Guidnnce on SIP Development slid New - sources o(PM—10 do not contribute
measures that are included In the Implementation ‘ Source Review in Areas Impacted y Fu 0 tive
plan of any.State or are achieved in practice in any Oust,” Sdward F. Tuerk, Acting Assistant, significantly to the violation of the
State, and can be feasibly implemented in the area.. Administrator for Mi-and Waste Msnagement,lo’,
“Contingency measures are other available -. Regional Administrators. - - . “See 52 FR 24116 Uuly 1.1987). - -
control measures, In addition to thou in the control “See. e.g.. “Model Letter Regerding State - .. “Il)C legislative history of the 1990 Amendments
strategy to eltain the NAAQS. that can be - Designation of Attainment Status.” David H. indicates that Congress intended that the term
implemented if EPA detertnlnes the area fails to - Hawkins, Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste “nonAntbropogenicv sourcesbfPM-10’referfo
make reasonable further progress or to attain the Management, to Regional Admlnistrstørs. Octobár - actlvltleswhere the bumSu role In the cause of
NAFtOS by the app1icable attainment dale Isee 7. 1077; soc also, “Fugitive Oust Polic r: SIP’s and s emissions is highly attenuated (see WR, Rep. N
New Source Review” (Augt 1 st 1CM). -‘ 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sass. 265 (1990)).
mctio; 172(c1 19) ),
-------
42004 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 1 Proposed Rules
standard in the area. Second, the The Act does not define the term area’s practicable abilities. These
Administrator may waive a specific date “contribute significantly” as it is used principles are discussed below in
for attainment of the standard where in section 188(f), nor does the legislative connection with each of the two waiver
EPA determines that nonanthropogenic history provide any useful giiJd e. 2 I tests.
sources of PM—b contribute - Where a statute is silent or ambiguous In selecting an appropriate
significantly to the violation of the with respect to the meaning of a “significance” contribution from
standard in the area. statutory term, a reasonable agency anthropogenic sources (for the purposes
Section 188(f) contains two different interpretation of the term must be given of deciding whether serious area
legal tests. The first test applies to a deference by a reviewing court (see requirements should be waived), £PA
waiver of the erious area requirements Chevron U.S.A.. Inc. v. Natural has elected to rely on the test of
and requ sos that EPA determine that Resources Defense Council, Inc.. 467 significance that is applied under new
anthropogenic sources do not contiibute U.S. 837,842-845(1984)). The EPA source peimitting programs. Under the
significantly before EPA grants such a thus believes it has the authority to new source review (NSR) permit
waives. The second test applies to a select reasonable criteria by which to program, the EPA requires State
waiver of an area’s att inmeat date and determine when nonanthropcgenic/ permitting programs to consider new
requires that EPA determine that anthropogenic sources in an area do/do major sources or major modifications as
nonanthropogenic sources contribute not “contribute significantly” to levels - causing or contributing to a violation of
significantly before waiving the of pollution which exceed the NAAQS. the PM-ia NAAQS when the source
attainment date. The first test is more as well as to consider for this purpose, would add, at a mininaum, over 5 hg/rn 3
stringent than the second. criteria utilized In other statutory to the 24-hour average or aver I pg/rn”
contexts. In light of the different legal to the annual average PM—b
C. Application of the Waiver Provisions tests set forth In section 188(1). the EPA concentrations In an area that does net
Several quedfrm’ must be answered believes that diffarent indicators of or would not meet the PM—1O NAAQS
before the waiver provisions can be s ficance are needed to serve thi (see 40 CPA 51.165(b)). Given that the
applied. Each of these questions statutory purpose of encouraging’ purpose of new source permitting’
discussed In the subsections that follow protection of public health and welfare orograms is also to protect air quality hr
1. What types Of sources should be while avoiding unreasonable centrol both attainmPiit and fl ttIiliim unt
considered anthropôgenic and actions. The criteria which EPA believes areas, EPA generally believes that the
nonanthrogogenic?.. . -. provide a reasonable approach to test of ItlgnIfir ut contribution to
.me legisiative history of the 1990.. mnHng such a determination, as well as violations under that program abould
andmenta caties that Congress a discussi n of the basis for selerting also be appIi h1a what determining
Intended that th e term these criteria, ate set forth below. significant contributions of
‘nonimtI vopogenic” souzuss of PM40 Generally, where a nonattainmeni anthropogenic sources uni section
refer to activities where the human role .- ‘area’s anthropogenic sources contrIbute 188(f) of the Ad. ft should also be noted.
in the cause of such emissions is highly. r very littleto violations, It Is likely that : , that, In detsrmiidng t ” th ce ” for
attenuated (see ,aR. Rep. Ne. 490 at - -controlling those m i ons to the extent purposes of section 188ffl,.th.
265). Naturally ocourring events sui h - feasible for the area wilibe Inauffident terms of that provision and its.- -.
.wfldflres volcanic eruptions, unusually,, to attain the NAAQS. Iniuch cases, it’-, underlying purpose dictate that EPA’
.hlghpollepcounts.audhigbwinds , .b...wouldbeunxeasouabletorèquhethe thderthelmpactofthe : .y . . .. :
\vhlch gáarate dust to implement more stringent and - anthrepogenic sources as a whole. -
;land are cicamplel of lonanthropogenic more ,cpensive controls on -• ‘consequently, where emissions from all
sources that EPA believes meet the;: : . ces ios the rwOuld - anthiop genlc sources as a whole’-’
InteOt ofConress.. , . ‘contribute little to attehtmentorto conthbute less than or equal to-S pg/rn
. Mithropogonlc sçuzces of PM—b..: reducing the publici exposure ti.- ‘. “ to 24-hour average design : .... .,..
eanlesions ate those zàultlng from. ; .. . : yairqua1it In iw Ier . concentrs* is and less than or equal to
human activities. SemO of the t ’whero nimrnthrópogenlc Prnleclon - I pg/ma to annual mean dacfgii -;“ -‘
traditional nd nontraditional’ . ‘ .. • ‘: . contributions are great, even afthe the ‘ ‘concentrations in a nonattainment area.
:anthropo enlcbsources generally :, .•; . area h s taken seasonable stops to - - after all RAQI have been “ - -
considered In PM-jO SIP’s are - uce them, at some point it may not itnpleznented. EPA qjJj gu 1 fly
commemial; Institutional, and -s - ‘ — -be feasible for the area to reduce ‘.. regard such contributions as’
residential fuel contbusdon fossil fuel- ñonanthropogenic (or anthropogenic) - - insignificatit for purposes of waiving
fired elecfriC power plants; industrial emissions sufficiently to effect any real requirements applicable to serious PM-
- pmcesses vehicular traffic on paved change in ambient concentrations. - - 10 nonattainment areas pursuant to
-and unpaved road ConstructiOn - - - - Consequently, It would be unreasonable section 188( 1 ).
activities; agricultural activities; and - t require the area to continue to pursue Generally. if an area meeting this test
other sources of fugitive dzst which are - control measures that are beyond the - has not yet been redassifled as serious
diiu tly traceable to human activities . and the area would qualify under this
- and which are reasonably foreseeable - . 2 ft that the term ‘contribute test for a waiver of certain serious area
incidents of such activities.ra - -. ‘ - . significantly” (or variatiotis of that tans) has bees requirements as deemed appropriate by
2. What criteria should be used in ini. ..t.d differently oughout the An e & in EPA (see discussion below), then EPA
determining when nonanthropogenic ‘ OZO IcaIbOD monoxide prc amo (see section
107(dX4UA)(ivl and (vfl , the new souico review will not require reclassiflcation.since
sources contribute significantly and in .pminc ptovlslonstfthe ‘ that action would have no practical
when anthropogenic sources do not -- n stut e .suctf o n slio(axa)wklxi lend
contribute significantly to violation of - 126(ah(l) (b). An agency Is permitted, but not
the NAAQS in the area’ - ox1%IIr (0 a similar m..mngtosimllat (onus - - Implemontation of RAcu (utciuding RACTI is
- - which appear in difierent pans of a statute. Thus. required in all moderate PM-TO nouau.inment
- ‘ - - ‘ although EPA is not bound to adopt the - areas and that requirement is not waived under the
‘Pb4-lOSlP iop tGu Ine.” EPA- - . in retationgiven the team”amtribute - - - provfsicxxs of section 188(fl . Therefore, the Issue is
450/2-86.002, U.S. Environmental Protection .. - significantly” in other parts 01 the stature. It is whether anthropogenic mutter still rnniribãte -
“s ° i Research Triangle Park. NC, 1987. p.5-5. likewise not precluded froor acoorduig this one of significantly to violations of the NAAQS In an area.
Table 5.1. - - - - similar language some interpretive weight after implementing RACM. -
-------
Li U uI c51 &cf I ua. , . i i iuesuay, August Ib, 1Y94 I k’ropoSed Z Uit s 42U$i5
effect. Generally, if the contribution of - significantly to violation of the PM—la showing that nonanthropogenic
anthropogel].ic emissions to the 24-hour NAAQS in a moderate area and whether emissions contribute significantly to the
design concentration exceeds 5 ig/m 3. such area therefore qualifies for an nonauainment problem. -
or if the contribution to the annual attainment date waiver. - - - As part of its policy, EPA will require
design coilcentration exceeds I pg/rn 3, The significant disparity between the that areas receiving waivers be revisited
even after the application of all RACM, legal tests set out in section 188(0, as periodically to reevaluate source
then the area should be reclassified as discussed above, may lead to an absurd contributions, to ensure that source
serious, and serious area requirements, result. In particular, if a moderate area emissions growth is reasonably
including BACM, should be . met the less stringent attainment date controlled, and to determine whether
implemented. The EPA will consider waiver test and the attainment date for additional controls to reduce the
exercising its authority to waive serious the wC was actually waived, the 81 public’s exposure to high concentration
area requirements on a case-by-case would never be reclassified. 3 The result of PM-la are available (see also the
basis where the anthropogenic source would be that a moderate area would be discussion under question 5).
contribution exceeds these levels, and it effectively relieved from the serious area 4. What happens if an area cannot
can be persuasively demonstrated that requirements without having met the meet the general criteria described -
because of unique circumstances, more stringent test that Congress . above? .... . -
anthropogenic sources do not contribute expressly required be met asa If evidence in a given nonattainment
significantly to violations of the PM—la prerequisite to a waiver of such - area suggests that nonanthropogenic
NAAQS in the area. requirements. In such an event, the emissions may co tzibute significantly
The EPA will consider - more stringent test for determining to violations but are not greater than 150
nonanthropogenic sources to contribute - whether to waive serious area — pg/rn 3 and/or anthropogenic souzra -
significantly (and hence grant an requirements would be.rendered contributions are relatively small but -
attainment date waiver) only if, after the meaningless. Moderate areas wo ild - ... not less than 5 pg/rn 3 , then EPA will , , - -
application of RAGA to - - -. -. quaiify for the attainmentdate waiver,.: review the situation on a case-by-case . -
vionanthropogenic sowons, their : be effectively relieved of all serious area.. .basis taithig Into aecount relevant
contribution to the 24-hour average . -requ1rements and never haveto meet.. Information sudi as the relative Z —:
design concentration exceeds 150 pg/ ---‘ the required test for such waiver. : contribution of nonanthropogenic—;..,.:
in 3, or their contribution to the annual - To avoid this absurd result and only emiailons/antbzopogenlc emissions and
mean design concentration exceeds 50 - grant a waver of the serious area - the effects of applying additional
pg/rn . Bemuse the basic purpose of - requirements consistent with the legal .controls to both types of sources.. - --
title I is to protect public health and - - standard set out in the Act, EPA has i-.. For moderate areas, If pPelinhiflafy, -
welfare through attainrnpnt and. ‘-c: . construed section 188(1) In the following data ( amianfri Inventory, filter analysis. -
maintenance of the NAAQS, EPA - “ “ er. A moderate area may cel etc.) persuasively Indicate that • - .- -
believes that before it may 3enerally ’ -‘ - qualify loran attainment date waiver if. opogen lc.senleslons may be- ‘:
presume a serious area’s - .. It also qualifies for a waiver of th- - innignJfr nt and that nonanthropogenic -
nonanthropogenlc emissions ‘ serious area requirements. Theiefote, ‘ sn si ions may be aignificant In an area,
contribution to be significant, tha i -. EPA must determine that antbropogénic but such dita are not decisive, then EPA
contribution should by itself prevent the sources In the area do not contribute wall consider grantin .a temporary or -.
area from attaining the NAAQS after significantly to the violation of the PM-.- conditional waiver of the moderate area’
reasonable steps have been taken to . 10 NA.AQS, and the serious area - attainment date for no more than 3 years
reduce or minlmi e their impacts. Areas requirements should be-waived before to allow further evaluation of the -.
which do not meet the above criteria, EPA can grant an attainment date - situation. Prior to granting a temporary
and other situations for which the waiver for a moderate area. If such a waiver, EPA and the State must agree on
general presumption is rebutted, will be - determination Is made, then the a protocol forevahiating the impacts of
reviewed ona case-by case basis (see attainment date may be waived and the anthropogenic and nnnnnflropogenic
question 4 below), - area would not be rerlamified. These emissions. The protocol must include a
Information derived from chemical special considerations would not be schedule with Interim milestones by.
and optical analyses of ambient filter relevant where EPA Is determining - which the StaId will complete its
catches, area emission inventories, and whether to waive the attainment date for analyses. The schedule should consider
dispersion modeling to determine a serious area since waiving the date in the need for the area to adopt and
na,dmum source impacts can be used to such circumstances would not asa implement BACM so as to meet the
avaluate the impact of anthropogenic matter of course have the effect of applicable serious area attainment date
and nonanthropogenic sources. Analysis ‘ relieving the area of the serious area (as expeditiously as practicable and, for
of filters collected with a network of requirements. An area already those areas designated nonattainment
monitors over a tong period (1 or more reclassified as serious could qualify for under section 107(d)(4)(B), no later than
years) should reveal the portions of - an attainment date waiver solely by December 31, 2001) in the event the
normal area PM—b concentrations _________ evaluation demonstrates that
attributable to background, - 23 II EPA waives a specific attainment date fore nonanthropogenic emissions do not
conanthropogenic, and anthropogenic moderate area censistent with its authority *indei contribute significantly to violations in
sources, respectively. -. - - the area. If the evaluation conclusively
3. Under what conditions will the be subject to reclassification under section 18a(b) demonstrates that nonanthropogenic
attainment date for a moderate area be because there simply would be no attainment date emissions are significant, then a waiver
waived? that the ales Cannot practicably meat or that of the serious area attainment date may
‘i’l. ST I - - 1. - area fails to meet. However, since section 18 5 (l)
ue eiiect o waiving we attainment authorizes waiving only the attainment date, the be granted. -
date for a moderate area is to relieve it moderate area would still be subject to all the If it is shown for any moderate
of the serious area requirements. remaining moderate area SIP requirements. no attainnje t area thet,-although
Therefore, special considerations apply ‘ ° r nonanthropogenic emissions mag be
to the determination of whether must. among other requirements, centinue significant, the application of controls
rionanthropogenic sources contribute pmvide for implementation of RAQVI. on anthroDoQenic sources would 1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 157 I Tuesday, August 16. 1994 / Proposed Rules
ippreciat iv reduce PM—jo . NAAQS at some time in the future 6. What requirements applicable to
:oncentrations in the area, then the area through available means. While EPA serious nonattainment areas under
vould not be granted a waiver of the does not expect States to exhaust their subpart 40! part D should be waived?
noderate area attainment date, but resources to meet standards that may be The individual subpart
vould be reclassified as serious. The unattainable, it does expect them to requirements (see section IV. abovel will
irea would then be required to continue efforts to minimi7P exposures be waived only after considering all
roplement BACM on non-de mini mis to unhealthy air, relevant circumstances on a case-by.
anthropogenic source categories (see Even thougji a specific attainment case basis for serious areas where
liscussion in section VI). However, date and serious area requirements may anthropogenic sources do not contribute
subsequent to such reclassification, the be waived indefinitely for an area significantly and where R,ACM have
area may later apply for a waiver of the where, respectively, nonanthropogenic been implemented. Currently. the
serious area attainment date if it can sources contribute significantly to section 189(b)(3) requirement to modify
demonstrate that even after - violations and anthropogenic sources do the definitions of “major source:’ and
Implementing BACM (and after not, the State should review theslatus “major stationary source” is the only
considering the extended attainment of anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic serious area requirement that will not be
and post-attainment provisions of , source contributions in the area every 3 waived.
sections 188 and 189 of the Act), years. Such a review would entail
nonanthropogenic emissions will determining whether nonanthropogenic L i Waiver Policy Description
prevent the area from attaining the sources still contribute significantly and Consistent with the discussion above.
NAAQS. anthropogenic sources do not contribute the EPA intends to implement its
5. For what period may a specific significantly to violation of the PM .40 authority to grant waivers under section
attainment date be waived? NAAQS in the area. Since emissions 188(f) in a manner described by the
When nonanthropogenic sources have from anthrepogenic sources increase dis rem presented in Figure 1. It is
been determined to contribute - with population growth and the location important to note that this diagram is
significantly to violations in an area that of new sources to the area, the provided for illustative purposes only
has been reclassified to serious, in contribution of anthropogenic sources t and should not be Interpreted contrary
acI nr with the above criteria, ‘ ‘ ioIatlons can become significant over to the policy as it Is described In this:
those sources may permanently prevent time. Therefore, the need for reinstating notice. The figure presents six dethion
the area from attlliTling the standards. a specific attainment date and/or, questions. A SIP submitted for a .-
Therefore the attainment date for such previoüsiy waived se rous moderate nonattainment area seeking a
areas coáld be waived indefinitely. requirements shpt ld be recnsidered - waiver Is expected to address
“However, the phrase waive a speciflc - poriedically. ‘ ‘ - . -‘ - tiaree questions:.- .. -.
date” does not require that the ‘‘ ‘ The EPA has theauthority under 1. Can the area attain the NAAQS bj,
attlinmant date be waived indefinitely’ section -172(c)(3) to require periodic the applicable statutory attainment date
(see’footnote23 on the effect of waiving’ updates of a nonattlinment area’s
the moderate area attainment data), nor emissions Inventory to assure that the (December 31. 1994 for the initial ‘:,‘,,
nonattainmeni areas) after- . .
does it lessen the State’s obligation tO . , requirements of part D are met. The EPA, imp1em en g RAQvI (including RACT).’
strive to expeditiously attain the,.. ‘ plans t o use’thls authority to for-contributing anthropogenic and-’
perioditifly review the waiverstatus àf.
‘ln osee where it Is feasible to Implement .,. -. areas, as described above. A nopantbmpogenlc sources? -‘
m aauzes that will SdUC IUtWS atteinment date and applicable. If the moderate area SIP demonstratess
OPO SfltC$O 5 (l 5 P n34ndIgreOus requirements should be relrthtated lIit ‘ that the area can attain with RACM’
vs etatloa Cr . .i.lt.M. U windbreaks), A baa ____
the suthoilty under ssctlo t88(e) to extend the.. -determined that nonanthrqpogenic ‘ (including RACF) by the attlinment’
analimient date k s serious area for up to S yesa ‘sources no longer contribute ‘‘ - date.Then the answer to this question Is
beond met if it Is possible that the NAAQS could - si nificantiy or anthropogenac “yes” and the waiver pmvision ’are not -‘
- .
be attained In the future. Such uzea should be
coeaiddbySa reseekngwIv1oftbe0flthIs8 t Y.t0:. ,,app l i e. . . ‘ -‘.. .-: :
ettainmstddatb, .,..-. .. . -- - ., - - vioLations i*i the area. “ - ‘ ILLIIO COOS I 5IS’lO ’P :,:, •- •
- -.‘ .‘‘- :-. -. , - = ‘ - - .. •“. .‘ “
- - - - — - - - ‘ S_’b
-------
FIGURE 1. WAIV ER .P LIcY,DIAGRAM
- ‘ . . ..k 2
2 I- * U s - ’.
• -, . • . •• - - . : • _- • . .
.2Anththpe - ’;
________ after RACM (>5u i(m3) ?
1.
Canarca
•
attalnwfth
RACM?
‘
-
•.:
•Yes
No waivers
•
- .. •• • .
• ‘. i •
• - •2 • I •
.1
3. Nonanthr. pogOnIo: .
soUrces. slgnfflcant? ’
(>‘ 18O’igfm3)
C “ - ,
I ,
— , ‘1 - , ‘ . ‘ • • . LI •
-, •2 • • .L’( . .t •••‘‘.
••. , I I O ‘ •. , •. S — .
• - —. •I’ •, 1. I I . — •: . •:#ç -, .. — •. . ,.
•I . •, —. •‘.• I I’ — • S - t .•
•.. •.• •. L • j .. ‘ — ?. - • . . .
• - •_¼ S •,.•• . • • ._ ij I ..
IF ) I_’ .gy1 . _ I
I — — ‘ 2 .2 • — — . ,, . ‘_:‘ -‘ -•‘ . •.;
I,
1. - - ‘.
4NO: ,• ••‘• :‘ • —
2
.
I I
. • ••
•
• -•
‘
I
- . - . 1
-
•
I
c
5.Canareaattalfl’ ••,
with an extension ••. - -
of the attainment
date’? 1 j
No’ .4;L(
L.
1. ..
.1)
No waivers
•1
I
I
Reclassify area
as serious
1. 12:. •I!•
(Walve attainment -.
•/
I - ‘
Grant an
extension
w/annualréduät loni
•of eàdssbn ?
I’ •‘ .•
I.
0
0
S.- ’
-------
42008
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 157 / Tuesday , August 16. 1994 I Proposed Rules
- ‘Tho EPA may want a g e extension of the
attammeet date for serious erees of no more than
5 years under the axtditiona of section 1 58(e) of the
Act. Guidanc, on demonstrating that a State
qualifies for an attainment data extension will be
issued in the future.
Z7 f an area Fails to attain the NAAQS by the end
of the extension period, then the State must plan
to achieve annual reductions of not less than 5
percent ot PM—iO and PM—tO precursor emissions
within the area, as reported ut the most recent
inventory (see section 189(d )).
contribute to violations, to attain the
NAAQS at any time in the future, a
specific attainment date would not be
waived. I ather, as discussed previously.
the State would be expected to follow
the provisions in sections 188 and 189
for attainment date extensions and
continued emission reductions until the
NAAQS are attained. However, if
emissions from anthropogenic sources
are reduced to the point that it is no
longer technologically àr economically
feasible to reduce those emissions
furthei, and the area still cannot attain
the NAAQS, ’thOn EPA may consider
waiving the serious area’attainmènt date
and appropriate serious area
requirements..
V i. Best Available Control Measures
A. Requirement for BACM
There are two circumstances, as
discussed earlier, under which a
moderate PM—b nonattainment area
may be reclassified as serious. I bst, an
area may be reclassified whenever EPA
determiea that the PM—ID MAAQS
cannot practicably be attáthe4 by the’
statutory attainment date?’ Such a”
determination may be madèbefdre the
attainment date If a’revlew of the SIP for
an area shows that RAQ 4,’ Including
RACr, will not practicably bring the
area Into attainment or If delays in
adopting, submIttiii g. and Implementing
SIP requ1re neths forinabasis for &
to conclude that añerea cannot “
practicably Miali the NAAQS bj ’the
statutory attainment 4ate. The second .
circumstanà Is henithè area s, -
reclassified by operation of law upon a
determination by EPA that the,area has
failed to attain the NAAQS oq schedule
(seesectionl88(b)7 ’ .,
Section b8 (b) estabjisbá di Ion I
control requfrexni ats for PM-bO .
nonãttaininent areas that are eclàssified
as serious by.EPA Under sectionf.
• 189(b)(1)(B); States must submit SIP..
revisions which provide for: .- .
implementation ofthO BACM for PM—1O
- emissions in thiCh areas. These SIP
revisions must be êubmltted to EPA
within 18thobth fifteranarea1j
reclassified and must assure that the -
measures are implemented no later than
4 yeaiu after the area is reclassified as
serious (see section 189(b) ( ) and (2)).
The EPA believes the requirement to
implement BACM in serious PM-b
nonattainment areas should, in one
lespect, be interpreted similarly to the
comparable req,uirement to implement
RACM in moderate PM—b -
The statutory attainment date for the initial
group of areas designated nonattainment by
operation of law upon enactment’of the 1990
Amen.Inw..,t’ under section 1O7 (d)(4), is December
31. 1994.
If an area cannot attain by the Case #3
statutory deadline, then questions 2 and If anthropogenic sources contribute
3 on the waiver policy diagram must be signiricantlyto violations, but.
addressed, and several cases may exist, nonanthropogenic sources conthbute
2. Do anthropogenic sources of PM—b less than 150 pglm3. then waivers will
as a whole contribute signiflca4tly to - be granted on a case-by-case basis as
violations in the area? discussed above in subsection C.,
3. Do nonanthropogenic sources of’ question 4. The eligibility for and timing
PM—to as a whole contribute - of serious area attainment date waivers
significantly to violations in the area? • would depend upon the answers to the
- last three questions on he waiver policy
Case #1 . . — - diagram. - . . -
4. Can the serious area attain by the
if anthropogenic sources no longer - statutory deadline after implementing
contribute significantly to violations in the serious area control strategy (i.e..
the area after the implementation of - BACM, (including BACT)), for
- RACM. then by default, significant anthropogenic sources?
nonanthropogenic sources must If the State can demonstrate that it is
contribute s ign ificantly.ZS In this case, possible to attain the NAAQS by the
the moderate area attainment date may statutory deadline for serious areas
be waived. The practical effect of’ the implementation of BACM,
waiving the attainment date fo a then a waiver is not appropriate. If
moderate area Is to relieve it from attainment by the deadline is not
reclassification aS serious and, therefozer. possible, then question 5 must be
to relieve it from certain serious addressed. , -
requirements. Therefore, a moderate 5. C the area attain with an
area may only qualify for an alfainment •extensloa of up to 5 years’of the
date waiver If it alsó qualifies for a’
waiver of the serious attainment date? -
• To answer this question, the State
(sea section V.C.. quOstion 3). The ‘ must determine if an extension of time’:
should reevaluat the impact of’ ‘ willmakeLttethno1ogicaI1yand
anthropcgeiilc sources on the area -:. - -:economina1ly feasible to implement ;
periodically to déterminb whóther or. . adthlional control measures that will -.
not they contribute significantly to;
violations.- . . ... - - - - • bring the area into attainment. Agam3f
. - l itisàib1OfoattaintheN QS,then
•-Caseii , . .: : :- . . a’ Ivertsnotippropr iate.If
at’ainment is not possible even with’the
-. If anthropogenic sources still .. -• extension of the attalnmenf -
contribute significantly to violations In j allowed under section 188(e). then ”
the area after the Implementation of ‘ —-questIonS must be addressed.
RACM (Le., contribute OVOZ 5 pghn3 tO • . 6. Can the area attain at any time after
PM-to concentrations),, then the 5r 5 ion deadline if emissions
would be reclassified as serious. •‘, within the area axe reduced annually ’by
Consequently, the serious area “ .• • - nt less than 5 percent? • ... .
requirements discusseddn section w;’ ‘ To answer this question, the State
obove. would have’to b Implemented’ . ‘ u detionnine if the implementation of
in the afea. .These ré4uirements include. - additional control measures, annually.
among other things, the application of “ would eventually bring the area into
BACM (Includiuig BAC J on SOUrCe , attainment. Sufficient additional control
categories that are still contributing’ measures would need to be
significantly to violations (see the implemented to achieve at least 5
discussion ofBACMinkection VI and percent annual reductions in the ‘ -
• footnote 33). - -• - inventory of PM—to emissions from
Subsequently, the area may qualify for anthropogenic sources. - -
a waiver of the serious area attainment If EPA believes that it is practicable -.
date if it is demonstrated that - for an’area, where both anthropogenic
nonanthropogenic source contributions and nonanthropogenic sources —
(i.e., contributions greater than 150 ig/
m3) would prevent the area from
attaining the NAAQS. - - -.
lt is likely that Congress intended all areas—
even those eligible For waivers—to implement
whatever measures were reasonably available.
Therefore, EPA believes the best reading of the
statute requires that the emission reductions
attributable to RACM (including RACT) should be
considered before evaluating the signilicence of
anlhropogenk contributions.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 157 I Tuesday, August 16. 1994 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment areas. Section 172(c)(l), word ..b ” and the overall sthjctijre environmental. and eco [ 0mm impacts
which applies to all iionattainment and purpose of title I of the statute. - and other costs, determines is :- ‘ . -
areas, states that partD RACM shall. B EPA’S Historical i i ,r . achievable for such faâihty through’ ‘
include “such reductions iii emissions Con ,1 Technology Ten tinology.-’ - applicatioa of production processçs and
from existing sources in the area as may available methods, systems, and
be obtained through the adoption, at a The Act uses several terms to refer to techniques * afor cäiitio’I of each ”
minimum, of reasonably available different levels of emission control such pollu(ant.”Thus. BAd ’ is to be
control technology a * a” Thus, technology required for existing or new determined for the PSD program ‘on a
moderate PM—la nonattainment sources: “reasonable (RACT),” “best. . ca by se basis taking into account
RACM plans, which are submitted to (BACT).” and lowest achievable - - the energy, ehvironmental, md
meet the requirements of section . emission rate (LAER). It is helpful to economic iñi iac(s añdother c sis ’ ‘
i89(a)(1)(C), must include provisions.’- consider EPA’s past and current”-. section 169(3 ’also requir s’tbai BACT
ensuring the adoption of pJ rJ ’ ( 57 . Interpretation anthmplementatlon of - be at least as fring t as ’anj
FR 13540, column 1). -. - - these various control levels in - -- ‘ ;•‘ corresponding new sourcepeifian.i ’
Fdr moderate PM—b areas -. determinifig the control level ‘r standaid (NSPS) ’ör atlonal e flissIoh -
reclnc cified as serious, the . . appropriate for BACM for serious PM t. t dard forh dous jjj •
.eonatt*inment control requirements 10 noiiattainment areas. - -. • . -. .. “ - ‘ - - \ . .
(i.e., RACM) are carried over and - The term “reasonably available” was - - -Under the PSD program,, BACF ’ .:ir
elevated to a higher level of stringency applied to control measures and control applies thrOugh tructioli permits :
(i.e., BACM). So, by analogy, t as - technology required to be implemented... issued to major new and jfl • ”
RAQ’vl includes RACF, in the same , at existing sources in nonatfAinment s . lifie&iti ’areaswheró the air 4uahitji
BAQYI includes BACFP Thus, just as - areas by the 1977 Clean Air Act ; Is better than ”ihe NAAQS (sèdtlou ;Y - -
moderate PM—b SIP revisions when Amendments (1977 Amendments) (42, , ;e 165(a)(4) of th ’Act.42 us:c ’
Implementing RAQ 1 under section- . :- U.S.C. 7502(c)(1)). At that time, EPA 7475(a)(4))ljj broad àve vIii BAC1’ \ ‘ ‘
489(a)(IXC) must provide for the.,-. . defined RACras thel west rnia ’ on-- deteiinined 1
adoption of RACr, cirnibirly, PM-1OSIP limitation that a paiticular-source-ja : : s. tethnolog
revisions under seclionl89(b)(1)(B), -,. capable of meeting by the application of , , -
implementing BAQf in oni us PM-b technology that is reasonably available control I
nonattninmenareaè, must include considering technological and en ic 1
provisions ensuring the adoption of .. feasibility.3’ Control measures were. ;; ‘ ,
JiACF. This punt wa explicitly -: :. . determiized to be reasonable
addressed I n the HouieC”nunittee ‘- considering their en gy the tecbnology. ’aud oi -,
Repor&’ Seriouiixeas n ust Iñclud in . ‘ environmental raps d.thfr .
their 6tII nI uiOfl provlsjons to require’. .. ann’ielf ed capital and operallngscst& ‘ l p1tal Bd 1 dà :‘
,thatthe best available c mt nl 1 .Jn EPA’s view, the cod olusihg -ç4. i farth’e frcIlitWIlre a s1a ofâ or ’
for the control o.f PM-W n ions are. control measure is rimauLwed - * major äw facility or iaajor -
Implemented no later than 4 years after re sönable if those same cods are borne., -niodlflcatioI of an existing rijt ::
the area is rlacvffied or reclassified as by other comparable facilities. Sinca. .-- .: abould be considered as a portion of th e
serious. Such pro 4 iisions must include . - Congress In the 1990 Amendments, did : overall costiof the new-facility ‘ “
the application of the b availahie . - not’niodify EPA’s Interpretations ci the. The term LAER refere t’othe level f 4 -
control tecitnology-to existing stat onary RAQ4 and RACE In the earlier 19Z L . . control required t. keauj’i-
sources” (H.R. Rep, No. 490,101st. - Amendments, it can be presumed to ‘- ‘- - preconstruction permit to’major new or
Cong., 2nd Sass. 266-67 (•)) - have given some end .weennitt toEPA’s. - major modified facilities In areas wbsre
‘Although section 189(b)(IXB) requires definition of the term. - - - - - , ,. the air quality Is worse than the NAAQS’
BACM (including BAd) to be - . Congress defined thet n “best ,: - . (i.e., nonattainment areas) (se oi . -‘ -
implemented in serious PM—b .- - available control tecbnolcsj” in section 173(a)(2) of the Act. 42 U.S.C. -
nonatb% nment areas, the Act does no - 169(3) of the 1977 Amendments for Use - 7503(a)(2)). In broad terms, LAER is -.
define either RAQ f / ‘ for p _ In implementing the requirement to - defined at section 171(3) of the Ad
10 nonattainment purposes. Where a prevent significant deterioration (PSD) the more stringent ami 1on rate based
statutels silent orambiguouswith ofairquahity underpartC,tltle 1, of that oneither themost tringentState -
respect to the meaning of a statutory’ Act. This definition was modified by -- emission limit’or the most stringent’’
term, the agency is authorized to adopt SOCtlOfl 403(d) of the 1990 Amendments. cpiisiion limit a hieved in pradiàe by’
an interpretation reasonably The BACI is cm ently defined for the’ - ‘ such class or category’ of source. Like -
accommodated to the purpose of the - - PSD progTSifl as an PTnlscinn limitation : ‘BACr, the -LAER level of control must
statutory provisions. 30 In considering based on the niaximumi degree of - beat least as stringent as the NSPS -
iow to interpret the provisions - - reduction of each pollutant ‘a:. - - applicable to the source. Unlike RACF -.
requiring BACM (including BACT) for emitted from or which results from any and BACr, the LAER requirement does -
serious PM—b nonattainment major emitting facility. which the - not consider energy or cost factors. In
EPA has looked at several factors: The permitting authority, on acase-by’.case general, the costs of achieving LAERm -
way in whIch timikr terms have been basis, taking into aaount energy, - ‘ a nonattainanent area must be
historically interprete I in other sections _______ - ‘ - - considered as a portion of the overall
or titles of the Act, the ordinary “See. for example, 44 FR 53761-63762:. - cost of investing ins major new or
grammatical usage associated with the major modified facility, as they are with -
- - (Si FR 43514 (December 4, ga j BACT in attainment areas. The EPA
nEven without the RAQ4 analogy, the best - RACr r quirements may be satisfied by echie,äng believes that t is reasonable to banclude
available technological control measures by their “RACr equivalent ” eneission ctioiia In the that in selectina the term “best” to -
plain terms ale a subset of the universe of best aggregate hem the full set of *wi i,ig - ,rnnl. , sr t ’nn f ,1PM b0 ‘-
available control messuzes - - sources subject to those requiremenis (see also . ‘ - . -
°Chevron, U . S.A.. Inc. v, Nctumlftesouxces EPA’s proposed economic incentives rule,58 FR senous nonattninment areas; Congress
D ’fcnse Council, Inc,, 467 U.S. 837,843-44( 1984 ). 11110,11123 Webuary is. resin. - likely considered how thetermhas bee
42009
-------
42010 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 I Proposed Rules
interpreted in other sections and titles. the reasons stated above, EPA believes reasonable to accord some interpretive
of the Act. Several other factors - it is reasonable to conclude that . weight to this use of similar langu e.32
(discussed below) support such a Congress intended a greater level of Therefore, EPA’s interpretation ot
conclusion, stringency to apply in areas that are BACM for serious PM—ID nonatthinment
C. BACM for Serious PM-IC required to implement “best available’ areas will generally be simihw to the.
Nonattainment - controls than in those required only to definition of BACF for the PSD program.
implement controls that are “reasonably The BAQ4I is the maximum degree of
A plain P.ngli h interpretation of the available.” - emissions reduction of PM—ID and PM—
term “besV’ implies a generally higher As noted earlier, an array of different 10 precursors from a source (except as
standard of performanrn than one that control measures is applicable under provided in subsection C. 3) which is
may be considered “reasonable.” In various title I NAAQS.related programs. determined on a case-by-case basis.
addition, the structural scheme A key factor, among others, In taking into a unt enelvj,
throughout title I of the Act is to require determining the level of control environmental, and economic impacts
the implementation of increasing ly appropriate for a given area from among and other costs, to be achievable for-
stringent control measures in areas with the different emission control measures such source through application of-
more serious pollution problems, vhile and technologies referred to throughout production processes and available
providing such areas a longer time to title I is the severity of the air pollution methods, systems, and techniques for
attain the apulicable standards. This problem In that area. In addition to the control of each such pollutant. For PM-
structural wLme reflects a basic general categorization of areas as 10, BACM must be applied to existing
underlying premise of title I. The ‘attainment,” “nonattainment,” and source categories in nonattaimTzent areas
premise is (1) That more stringent “unclassifiable,” the Act charact& that cannot practicably attain (or fail to
control measures are needed in cases - the severity of an area’s air pollution attain) within the moderate area
when the current confrol requirements problem by classifying the area. for timeframe and axe rer -iotcifiedas -
will be insufficient to bring a particular ex mplo, as “marginal,” ‘moderate,” serious .. . “.. -. -
area into attainmant ; and (2) that the . -“serious,” and so on. As discussed As noted above, EPA will Interprat
mole serious the air qualityprcblem, above, the different control measures are PSD BACF and PM—b BAQ’ 4 as - -,
the more reser h1e it Is to require required tobe Imolemented as.follows: generally because,despito the
States to lmpimnmiit control measures of For new (or modibed) sources, BACT iTnil ity In terminology, certain key.
greater strI ncy despite the greater. . applies In PM—ID iiiw4it ffinMn and differences e,dd between control ... .
measures are likely to attainnient areas under the PS1) . - measures applicable In the PSDand -.
rnn The Ad stob iLmrn the program, while LA applie. In . PM-b serious $tntm,.nnt area
greater bu*len Imposed In those areas - moderate and serious PM-ID - . . programs. The BACr under the PSD -
wham inor. 1 s controls are. nonattainnient areas under the - program applies only In aloes alrády
by the State nonatrainment NSR prcgram for - meeting the NAAQ , while PM—tO-
al time to Implement them. existing sources,.RAQ4 (lndudIngf BAQ’vl applies In areas whlchare
For example. under section 188(e) r RACF) applfà in moderate PM-to.’ r - seriously violating the NAAQS. This #
EPA Is gI e ai thozky tb .. : nonattafnmdnt areas, while BAQA ‘ . di enco In p olIcy goals, rguably;-. -;
dat for a serf ous PM-1O (IncludlngBACfl applies lit serfous- - . .. suggests that the PM-ID RAQ4 control-
nonanalnmnna a e be ond -: PM-b nonatlajnmentareaa. In eith standard ahouldbé more strilgent than
specified vicied .- case, the m&e serious the polIuUon: ’ - that foe PSI) BACr. (In the oth&hand
certain ’ conditions are met OEoof thäsa problam, the more stringent thtcentrnl’ ‘the burdeu of Installing efficient ‘- .
riwlitTtm* Is that the State must - -standard i%quired. - - - -. controls during construction of a -
demoáratstô EP A’s .atisfartion that ; It is app&ent that-In requiring the. - source or source modification is -
-‘ the)lan for that area Includesth mo application of BAO.1 to e dst1rag sources generally less onerous than retrofitting
‘stifirgónt measures that ire Ini4rnlad In :. In serloua PM-ID areas, Congress r an existing PM-ID sourci with t4mut p
the Impleniantatlci p’an of any Stite or : Implied that these sóurced should be -- controls. If one compares both programs
&eàchleved In a tice h any State, ‘ - subject toa moxe’stdngent level of’ - -. In tezmd of these iffe
and can fericlhty be implnmnmtsd in the :.; control than the application of RAO -.4 regulatory and emnomic burdens and -
ares.”.Thus unllsw this s ection, the Ad - required for existing sources in . the different policy purposes tend to
provides such areas an opportunity to - moderate PM-b nonattaiñment areas,. - offset each other. Nevertheless, EPA
:recefve additlonil time to attain the but not as stringent as the application of - . - - ‘- . - -. -
NAAQ&Th. consequence of receiving LAER required for new or modified - - - nUnde, a . 1 I d dplesofstatutosy - -.
additional time, however, is that the - sources in moderate and serious - lntefPZetatIon. sfpillarteiras l a statute r ” ’ ’ t ,
___ .auggestaMmilar nIngendenag s ucyIs - -
State must demonstrate that its PM-to . nonatrainment areas (or the degree at -. _ cot requirat. to give asimitir
implementation plan contains the “most, control required to secure an extension m ningto similar terws which appnir Jo dllTzient ‘.
stringent measures” that can feasibly be’ undersection 188(e)). - - ‘ - - paste of a statute. - - - -.
‘Tba term “coons categarici? In, which BAGS
implemented In the relevant area front . - . - - win be required, refers to s1 . 5 , . oIarea-wld. -
among those which are either included -
in any other SIP or have been achieved In view of the preceding discussion, - - SOllIrm large individual stationary sourersof
--PM—IOor PM—lO prec or cuuselcm that may be -
in uractice b any othel stats. - - EPA believes that as a starting point in reguiatsâ un Iera .peci cruie, generic emission
gimiLirly, the Act requires the - - interpreting BACM for PM-ID - limit, or.” ' ’d of performance ore specific
application of control measures that are nonattainment purposes, it is reasonable - control Ice SIP. For assinpie. the SIP may,
“reasonable” In moderate PM-b - - to consider the term BACF as applied in reguIate”” '° ’” from unpaved made.
construction a ities,resldeiitial wood
-nonattainment areas (RACM) and -. the PSD program under sectIon 169(3) aspizait concrete batch plante. etc., as -
control measures that are “best” an analogue. Because PSD BACF and source categories. Notethat, in some Lnstsnmu. an
(BACM) whenever a moderate en ” - ,. PM-ID BACM (which Includes BACT) - entire sourca category may coo of one large - -. --
g EPA believes it .-1ndividuaI stationery source that- Is regulated - - -
• can_not “ iracticably’? attain or fails to— - - are simi!ar term, ..separately under the SIP such as acing!. iron and -.
attain tho-NAAQ and is therefore - - -- - - . -- - - - - - -- : ‘- -- -‘ . the various - -
xéclassiffed as serious Accordingly. for - - proemses therein. -
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 157 I Tuesday, August 16, 1994 / Proposed Rules
42011
believes that the differences in policy
goals—i.e.. preventing further pollution
under the PSD program and t-educing
serious area source categories. Even if contribute significantly to a violation of
the statute on its face were interpreted the 24-hour NAAQS if its PM—b impact
to require States to impose BACM on all at the location of the expected violation
existing pollution under the PM—il)
nonattain nent program—counsel
against adopting the interpretation and
implementation of PSD BACT in its
entirety for PM—b nonattainment
purposes. Rathir, EPA considers it
reasonable to use the approach adopted
in the PSD BACF program as defined in
section l69( ) of the Act as an analogue
for determining appropriate PM—b
nonattainment control measures in
serious areas, while at the sanie time
retaining the disaetion to depart from
that approach on a case-by-case basis as
particular circumstances warrant.
source categories in serious PM—1O would exceed 5 pgfm 3 . Likewise, a-
areas, the Agency believes, based on the - source category will be presumed to -
decision in Alabama Power Co. v. contribute significantly to a violation of
Cosde, that it has the authority to the annual NAAQS if its PM—Il ) impact
exempt from regulation those source at the time and location of the expected
categories in the area which contribute violation would exceed I g(m 3 .
only negligibly to ambient Procedures for identifying source
concentrations which exceed the - - categories that continue to significantly
NAAQS. The EPA believes the court’s a t the air quality of a serious area
test for invoking the de nIinimiic (even after RACM (including RACT) are
exemption authority would be satisfied - implemented) and procedures for
in circumstances where a State identifying the appropriate mix of -
demonstrates condusively that, beciuse control measures applicable to those
of the small contribution of the source source categories are disci issed below in
category’s emissions to the - subsection E.
2. Preventive Measures . -
.
fbnat mmt problem, the imposition
of additional controls, such as BACM,
4. BACM Analy is Independent of --
The EPA considere measures that on a particular source category in the . Atthinment Mialysis
prevent PM-tO emissions over the long area would not contribute cignificanfly The overall structure and nurnn 1 of
term (e.g., req ring gas logs in new . ‘t the Act’s purpose of achieving -.. title I of the amended Act, tl s ndard
flreplacds) to 7 eferab1e to those atthinmm’t of the N4AQS “as.. . suggested by the.word “beât/’ and the-
measures that only temporaruy expeditiously icablo ” The EPA. , differences In the statute between :.
___ of . will have to detnrmine i the recoul requirements for BAC ,f as a)mnaredio
wood stove use uunng air pouutlon .. with respect to particular serious. those for RACM, lead EPA to b feve. --
epU flL I?i ! . M . area PM—tO source caegcries.which - - that, nnlflr . ØAQVI B Q.f am
SourceS Waw i. &w . - contribute to mt. dons In j S of the established generally Independent of an;
r nIve , an iys1softhe ’n’ needs of the ; -
fewer f* eluan ‘ — - lngnl çant .. 1 . - .
enfo ment, and a’tmn stratlon, ’’ - ) . , / 5 noted earlier In this aectlou.Ihe. - -
) .imnA. , .. lna e4 ’ . ’ n,1 t?’Y on overall stmuctu al 4u!ne throughout -‘
O r new soiu . .
preventfoio ermitigatfonismdre- btleLoftheAeq th yiu t - ’
likely 10 bèbothómicaUyei d ‘ iiiiplamenta1ion
environmentally benefidal over the stringent control measures In areas with .
. .- .- - -- - -Un.4 proble ,whil :: -. ’
.. - ,. .. , . .. -. ateasadd1U.onaIthneto.A .
3.1rni c t ‘ ____
The BACM are reqüJrod for all Lv -. toughes measures arerdessued ne’ ’y
categories of lourves In serious aie1S ., WO S 5 W 7 Ufl V! OU5CO in.eases where It ppeaI that leea .
unless the State adequately ‘ • - pe mI r!ms.. - ill be b fOalimi to - ..
demonstrates that a partlcular ’source. ; . , WPJV I WU? I! reduce nIcn onain an area to the level
categorydoes not contribute:. ..- : _____ - of the NAAQS.-As described aboW, the.:::
significantly to nonas* inmarrt of the - - ! . ‘ ! ! °‘ -°c ’ ot that the-Ad requires the applicaIloui -
NAAQS. While EPA i gards the BACM of control measures that are ”-f J
standard appiloablO InPM -1O serious pra . iM uIJr UAULW1 1 17 “ af le ” m tePM.-iO ames
areas as more stringent control : UdW C iQ iOO and control measures that re best” - . -
standard which calls-for a greater:de ree mat It usa anmu tO attain uy WsI ustO whenever It Is det rminnd that a
of emissions control for the ource’ . The evidence whether modeled ° moderate area cannot praèticably’ - .. -
categories to which Itipplies. EPAali m 1c?ie u? t attain or actually failito attain the-- .
believes that it has the authority to limit. - ° “ / ,“7 “ Y! - - ..-. NAAQS and is therefore reclassified as
theapplicabilityófBACMtothose. - Miuwelo On? e .p nw wiOr rserious;sronglysuggeststhatBAQ t1s-
source categories’whlch ‘contributO ‘ °‘ mofore, u1 intendediobe a more stringent standard -
significantly” to violations of the . P ! c3 caiesorvjs ‘ ‘than RACM. ThUS, it is reasonable tO- -
NAAQS.TheAct leavesu nreso lvedthe - ooioe3 ,wmunpreSUflR u 0. - interpretthestatuteasrequlrlnga
question of whether BACM is Intended ... - . . - . . - . -.-. different analysis for detiwmlning.
to bean all-inclusive requirement - .. ___ : - BACM from the practice of analyzing
applicable to every P14-10 serious area .tatuta -. . .-. . .d u h.ldI : - RAQvI according to what is ieasnn hle
source category. It should be noted that whersaoncyia .in,ok1ng.do ’;nIm . - - - . in light of the overaWattah nw’nt needs
In section 189(b)(b)(B), which contains -:- of the area.Moreover . wl en comparing: -
the requirement that-serious area PM—i c ) bug yIeld. of .T .. e... the terms “reasonable’ and “best” as --. -
SIPs provide fox- the implementation of - v Jue” (Alabama PbwerCo. v. Caetle, 636 F.2d 323. applied to control measures, the word
BACM, Congress has not used the word 360-61 IDC. Or. 1979D. -, - -. - - . - . - ‘ best ’ strongly implies that there - .. -. -.
- “all” in conjunction with BACM. - . - tlouolsnaficant - - should be a greater émpha Is on the J
Congress has also not stated anywhere ___ . - merits of the measure or technology . - .
- in the relevant law or legislative history-- o I miCulèncs NoabooLPN i&s - :alone amid less flexibility In considering
that BACM must be applied to all - eO-12-1€ oo7. - . . . other factors.
-------
42012 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 157 / Tuesday. August 16, 1994 / Proposed Rules
Additionally, for PM—la areas conditions of sections 108(e) and a. Major point sources (i.e., sources
reclassified as serious before the 189(bXIIIA)(ii) have been mel with the potential to emit at least 70
moderate area attsiinmánt date, States I,. du for Determining Best tons per year of PM—lu (or PM—ID
have up to 4 years. under SectiOn Available Control Measures as required in sections
189(b)(2J, in which to ubmit their 189(b)(3) and .189(e) of the Act).
serious area attainment demonstration. 1. Inventory Sources of PM-Ia and PM- b. Minor point source categories.
However, under section 189(b)(2), States 10 Precursors c. Area source categories such as
fugitive dust from anthropogenic
have only 18 months after The flAQ 4 (including BACF) - sources (e.g.. construction activities.
reclassification from moderate to senous applicable in a nonattainment area must paved and unpaved roads, agricultural
to submit their plans requiring the use be determined on a case-bY-case basis activities, etc.), residential wood
of BACM for those same areas. Thus, for since the nature and extent of a combustion, prescribed burning, and
such areas, Congress provided a nonattainment problem may vary within commercialllnstitutjonaj fuel -
difference of as much as 2½ y s the area and from one area to another. combustion.
between the required date for Nonattainment problems range from d. Nonanthropogenic sources.
submitting BACM plans and the date by reasonably well-defined areas of
which to submit a now attainment violation caused by a specific source or 2. Evaluate Source Category Impact
demonstration satisfying the group of sources to violations over The second step in determining
• requirements of section 189(b)(1)(A).. relatively broad geographical areas due BACM for an area is to identify those
This pronounced difference in timing - predoimnandyto large numbers of source categories having a greater than
for the serious area submittals described small sources widely-distributed over de Ininimt impact on PM-1O
aboveis to be contrasted with the timing the area. The SAGA are required for all concentrations. The potential maximum
for submittal of niInr provisions for source categories for whI b the State impact of various source categories may
moderate areas. Under section 189(aX2). - cannot conclusively demonstrate that have been d prninnd with .receptcror
both the RAQ4I plans and the •. -. their impact lads TflinhnI M d • dispersion modeling performed for the
Rttninmant demonstration for moderete ab ve, the EPA will generally presume attainment demonstration submitted
PM-.lo areas must as a general matter be the contribution to nonattainment with thein.oderate area SIP. In addition..
••j at the same time.The -.-. any uce iybb.de mfnbnic if the Impact of some source categories.
that the Act requires BAQ4I to be .. - the source catago y causes a PM-lu n y be avi t1 11t from ax alyals of
Imp 1 sne by an -. unpact In the area of less than 5 pg/rn 3 ambient sampling filters from’days
• appreciable tlme),efore the idtainmm t - fore 24-hour uvma and less than lpgl when the standards are exceeded. If
demoi stratIon Is required, for areas thai - m 3 annual moan concentration. The modeling was not performed durlng
are rei fled before th. moderate area - starting point for making a Ma v• development of the moderate area SIP,
- ansInin Int date, suggests that Congress- deteTrelnaffim would bets reevaluate-- receptor modeling saeening modeling
Intended th t BAQVI determinations be 1. the emission Inventory submitted wlth- or. nreferably refined j _•
based more on the feasibility of . - - -. the moderate era SIP. Section 172(cX3) moäeling will generafly be ne e eryat-
• . ce l ia for all - . . this tune to Ideal fy key source
_____ & -. r ”categor les. -...:- -. ‘- .... -. :
- of the azea. ’ Therefore, the steps .-: LaCairate end minent 1 ° - Y’ - ‘- 3. Evaluate AlteinaUve Control -
.dthedbeluwforningaBAGA inventorfáa dprovldesforeuth -‘“ : -
dte atlifli are Intinwind tobe carried peslodlêrevfsf one as mai be ne’ . - In developing a folly adequate SAGA
- out Independently from the analysts to :‘ to assure thatth. nonathilnenent
deten- 1 ns - planning requlrenrá’nts we met If there- SIP, the Slate Is expected to evaluate the
wduld be nâi, eeary to#tain tho - have been any ilgulficaitchangas hi technological and economic feasibility - . -
_____ of the control measuies discussed In the
-• NAAQS by the sI tnt . y ia i if the ?PM-IO soui In the area since - . BACM WgiLiTlnO documenters and olher
- aftá4nnient demonstrathm inventory i áfirdw ,lled(lA, ’ relevant materials for all source.
- subsequezitljshows that -: sources p...rnrn ntly ’shut down çr new
•bring the wee Into attainment before the or modified sources óonstrrü ted) or if categories impacting the nonattainment
area except those with a domfrrimie
_____th the plan •: .the Invàtcry íó not adequate to suppoit unpact miciering amianion rermnratons -
provldes for expediliousattainmentof . the more r1 uwus analysis required for -: achieved riIh RACM.
•the NAAQS. However; If the BAGA are --serious area S W demonstrations, it - and ávironrnental iirpactspf.
not adequate to provide for attainment - should be revised. All anthropogenic the control measures and the cost of.
of the standards, then’ the State must sources of PM- i D amfe cions and PM-IG control should be cm c ,1aved in
submit additlonalmeasuzes with the . ‘pmoUTSOIS(ffappliCabIe) and. - determining BACM. Iii genexul, for the -
attainment demonstration that vill - - nonanthropogenic sources in a reasons stated above, the test of
result in alt*,.ment of the standard by nonattainment area must be Included in economic and technologiial feasibility
the statutory deadline or appiy for an the ennianion inventory. “- be highsv for source categories in -
extension of the attainment date by -. - • Because of its importance in - - - serious areas than for source categories
dexiionstrating that the specific . - idea Y 6 anthropogenic in moderate areas because of the greater
- - .‘- -, . - - . - nonanthropogenic sources and the -- - — - - - , . -
applicabilityof BACM requirements, the
raThe EPA beftereath nierpratadon of the breakdown of sources to consider when - WcoáC mtireaflon Brat Available
ii asea I L as toar which am -
- classified Is the future as earmorm FM-lU ‘-- -. • compiling an emisslon% inventory ire as Control Meaamea.’ -45WZ-92-OO2 Ssptonber
areaeb.cauie ibs.r,as have -. follows - - . - - - - l9 Preonlbed Bunung Bacigmend raI -
- to attain, the data BAQd must be eubmitred. - - -. - - . - T , ’1n I lafunnailon Document flrrBeM Available
-and the data the .erfous area attainment - - ________ . . - -- - Control Men A—45OI292-eO3 September
- demonstration Is du. shoud ,eurtoonindde. - - filter analysis and inventory ‘ . .1992; and. “Fugitive DrrstBeckgro ,md Document
There is no rational brat, IcrlaterpretiegBAQ.4 - - informatfoa nay have been presented in certain and Technical inf ation Document he Bed - -
d1ffez n2Iyr dapendiug merely on when an extra - - moderate area SIP to indicate the Insignificance of Available Control Measuies. ” EPA—45012-92-OO4.
happens to be reclassified. - - - — - serendary particles (see 57 FR U541-42J. - ‘September1992.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59.. No. 157 I Tuesday,.August 16.. 1994 / Proposed Rules
42013
need for emission reductions to attain The technological feasibility of funding aniLinciease the priority for use
the NAAQS. As noted earlier, this applying an emission reduction method of existing funds.
interpretation is consistent with the to a particular point source should The capital costs. annn I(’ d costs,
- overall statutory scheme- which requires consider the source’s process and. . and cost effectiveness of an. em oa
that as an area’s air çiality worsens, operating procedures, raw materials.. reduction. technology hontd
iu siny)y stringent control measures physical plant layout, energy considered indeterniining its economic
aie to be adopted in con junction with requirements, and any collateral - feasibility. The “OAQPS Control Cost
the area receiving more time to attain environmental impacts (e.g., water Manual, Fourth Edition,” EPA—45013--
the NAAQS. Thus, measures.that were pollution and waste disposalJ The . 90-006..Lanuasy 1990., describes
not considered reasonable to implement process. operating procedures, and raw procedures for determining these costs.
by the moderate area attainment date materials used by a source can affect the The above costs should be detennined
maybe BACM for serious areas because feasibility of iniplwwuting process for all technologicaliy4easible emission
of the additional time available for changes that reduce u iu s and the. r ”stion option - .. -
inrplementingthean and because of selection of add-on emission u ttol E SeJ ’ecti ‘HACM”
the higher degree of stringency implied equipmentThe operation and longevity . Ofluj jOF wrk OUrC5S
by the statutory scheme and the term of control equipment can be . Once the srgniffcant PM-IG area
“best.” Therefore, BAQ f could include, significantly inihienced by the raw so ice c ories have been identified,
though it is net limited to,. expanded use materials used and th P1oC SSto the State should select area source
of some of the same types of control. . it is applied. The feasibility of control measures from the candidate.
measures as those incrucied.as RACM in modifying pr sses or applying control BACM listed in the technical.
the moderate area SIP. equipment is also influenced by thor. information documents for fugitive dust.,
physical layout of the particular plant. . residential wood combustion uwci...
LI flui uu uy appear LI . .
ob” distinct fin The space availablormo which to pi uucu uurnrng, or any
., i i mplin t thai y limit the’ t 9 n tfnfn1,n2tfofl dornnwmt issued
“ Z’ ° 7 . chseces and fl)’ the . by. A (See footnote 38) This gnid’ nrn
conwuuw yto wi r -1O air . - is based on EPA’S analysis f fT hta
q p a - . . . 1 z - control alternatives for the fdentlfied
of areas to warrant issuing national 4. EValuate Costa o Co ol - source categozi s. While the gufJanre
guitI. on best air .i i -. . Frnnninfr feasibility intend d to be arrnprehensfve,: It is by
ransportation . Ai 4meemreskr ‘ ‘- (Z of md ming enifedmis fl u a:.; no ana exhaustive. Conseuuiitly, tbe .
10 midas —‘ t’-. i I9Orcf the AcL -‘ partiml& .. . ceteg y aridooste State is mn ajed to f er dbea
Howeva ,. hi these erase where reobsie - hetJm u’ sources âf Information and Is not.
to implemented ..I .if ’uidiw’& as:. precluded fiemaeJectfn thea measures
PM-b v hcni , the State must, at a with RAC1 ‘ ls .— ’. .-. and BAC I and deuronsfiathig to-the pithlicüd-
.aild,ese t pozt a t lc La hioth .. ’e y . . .EA thatthey’óoiistftuto BAQ L- ’ .’
aiea was listed In. section 10 1U conteatA i Fwther nyamn ol measure thaf a5 ’ :
to A such rneonues are BAQA p u - . . ...sb4t1sI ... .-- lekr a.;: (düz1ngth oubffc ’
achievable in the area amsaderiiig, - cimltar séniem tobeer .1niih ,p ants of : fez & give&
eney.nivkoflreentaland eceuomrc ‘ - . -- . -
- Impacts end esbai’aists. -. - - :- - _________
Thi edthotcgica} fea Th t ’of . . eamew lity --
LI? ,m,.,glOflS fime area sources rishn th,gil sou i s
- depends on theebflityto altar the particular source to.’a r to reduaa. .. whetherthe a ia1lab!e inessurâ
charactesiatfer that —- .. lfçl a Ievab!e thø f’ -: -:.
fron i the su OtheswIse laai - . IT 5 iniglif.,. . .enèrgynvIimentalideconomla-
• have to d6 with the sizer or extent àf thi . be! zded fee the impacts and oco : j
___ hemp asesi in beer lower en .. - Asstated earlier,, EPA considers
and the op tLe 5 u . dtu & . Reducing-- reduction costs. lnstee&ocanw.u - t1mtpx i’ utPM-1O emissionS:
___ - . fe liyfeeP)4boBAC 1 p uhl4lecs . over the- long term fohe preferable to
-. construction activities, for example. ‘- shoulel feces upon evMit,w* that the- . : short-term qntathpont measures.
could reqsthethe ñost effective - ‘ - C0 3t O t”th oLcgyl1 q iiesdon has .: Thdefore,-when. se lecthg BACM for,
combination of reducing the sxmof the- previously been implin enh .dat other ‘area sounns..a State should first . -.
sources (Le, acres cleared at one rime or sources in a -. . consider pollutfoit preventive measures
vehicle miles traveled ounpaved without on e k4 •. and measures that provide for long.term
surfaces7, changing thorphysicat. • impacts. . - . - - - . - .:. ... -. .. tamed progr toward ut in
iadensfxon (i.e., Silt loadIng on travel Where the economiclaasibthl3rofa. -preference to quick, tempoimy controL:
surfaces or moisture content of materials measure (e.g... road paving) depends on •- For example, a Stats should t mii iiic .
handled). andlor changing the operating PU C funding. EPA wil klei past . requiring the replacement, over tim of.
practices (i a, luwe r vehicle i funding of dniil activities as well an old wood stoves witke’h .an r-burning
surface area èxposOd to the wind, - availability of funding sources to ‘ - wood stoves or alternatha fuels. &rcb...
treating or paving travel des in’ whether a good faith effort is . programs would complement apd.. -
- being made to expeditiously implement reduce dep nt1 re on woo burning
The sfatutory auai meat ate For the available control measures. mother -, curtailment programs adoptedas RACtI.
- msierate pt,c-io m Ilainment a grecla ,sified . - words, if 20 miles of unpaved roads are for the moderate area SIP. However,.
- 03 s ioui will be 0.’.’ ” ’ — 31, oL Foe oes typically paved each year. then the. .. EP? reccgeizes that wh
- de gnatednonattarnmentsubeequent to enacreent BACM fugitive dust program should • - measures may entail significant lead. -
nent data or 7 7 include paving more than 28 miles per . • time and that temporary measures like.
- Year bea nn [ ng afle, the e, ’ - year of existing roads and shrndd offer wood-burning curtailments may need to
- flOflaflajn nt (see sec ou 1881c)). evidence of ambitious efforts to increase be continued in serious aleas; at . -
-------
42014 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 / Proposed Rules
minimum, to provide interim health BACM examples to complement the representative range of available
protection. RACM prog ram: 4 ° - controls (including the most stringent.
Once the list of available measures for i. Pave 10 miles of the most heavily- those capable of meeting standards of
an area source has been identified, the traveled, unpaved county roads, performance under 40 CFR part 60 or
State must evaluate the technological 2. Treat 10 miles of unpaved county 61, and those identified by commenters
and economic feasibility of roads with chemical dust suppressants during the public comment period)..
implementing the controls. The State once per month. . Selection of a particular control system
may refer to the technical information 3. Pave 25 unpaved couniy roads as BACI’ must be justified by a
documents for procedures to determine within 500 feet of their intersections comparison of the candidate control
feasibility. ‘ with paved roads. systems considering energy, ‘ -
When evaluating economic feasibility. 4. Chemically treat or pave both environmental, and economic impacts,
States should not restrict their analysis shoulders of 30 miles of State highways and other costs, and be supported by the
to simple acceptance/rejection decisions within thó county. record. - -
based on whether full application of a, 5. Pave all parking lots within tile ‘ In addition, if the reviewing authority’
measure to all sources in a particular . - - ‘ .‘ determines that there is no -
category is feasible. Rather, a State 6: Revise the specifications for winter economically-reasonable or - - ‘ -
should consider implementing a control anti-skid materials to reqwre cleaner, technologically-feasible way to
measuie on a more limited basis, e.&, hem friaj,le materials, and reduce the accurately measure the emissions, and
for a percentage of the sources in a quanffly used per lane-mile.’ hence to impose an enforceable
category If It Is determined that 100, 7. Require aop rotations on highly emissions standard, it may require the
percent implementation of the measure erodible lands. source to use design, alternative
is infeasable..This would means fot ‘ . 8. 1rb highly erodible sedions of equipmeat work practice, or.’ ‘,
example, that an area should consider fer jand and n t indiapnous operational standards to reduce
the feasibility of paving 75 percent of: vegetation as cover ins ead of leaving emissions of the pollutant to the
the unpaved roadways even though, land fallow -‘ maximum extent feasible ( jiy :
paving all of the &eads may be- ‘9. Plant aops and windbteaks across °8Y ’ 4GCFR 2.21(b)(t h 40 R:’
infeasible, Alternatively, the State -‘ “ wind direcii ji n hi hi’ ‘ 51.166(b)(12fl - .‘ •
shouldcousjderwhethermeasures’ ep elande . -. 0 O• ,Altemativeappretháto educj g......
which cennot feasibly be’unplemanted - SIAIO’IIIUi d t one of partlcula a matter-.
.InTheIX enthety priorlo the atutoiy ‘ so BACM h. , ‘ ‘inchiding’PM—io are discussed In
4 adl fozBAG4 emUñ— j’ ‘ntr g mó t ” ä lihbfe : :‘.• - rQmrról.Technb ues for Pa ktd -. ’
se mrn1m dFheconfrol OlUin &-450F3 70O5al and
be defined to thanga DVOL time from a. ,’ mea ür se1acted sliouM pi efeiablj Volume I I 50I3- 1-005b) s - .
more hlqiite set,of measures at,the ‘ - ti t ,ai • .., September1982. The deeigncoperation ,:
initial Jtnplom ntaciou date.to a.. - L Th 4i amLmaintenance of general part1celate ’v ’
p o es&vely’$ghte*.orinori ambitious d floi
=to e 0f
er san pacts an The collectiol efficiency of ea em -
BAQ 1 after the area is rerI sjfled as, F. Selection of &4CT for Point Sources ,, size Information Is also p.nt d
ser4ou .Assumejhat the followiug, ... ‘- .The ‘viewl g authàrity determines regardingenergy and envirimmental
ontivl measures were adopted as , . . a ,. .. .- . - consldern’iqns and proceduru fo -....
.RACM ’..’ .- . . , ,‘• “desTIbedabow frAwould i’m” the - matingcostsofpar(iciilatamatt 4
1. Reduce thQ’sj aedlin lt n uiipaved reviewim, aiithoitv to’select control equipment The m t sion
countv’roads,,to 25 miles per hour..- ’ :.,. - ‘“° ‘that fl d the :. - characteristics and control echinolcgies.
- 2..freat all unpaved county roads, I WTIISOD re Iuction ’ applicable to specific source cat gorfes 1
monthly, withthemicai dust , f . h . aedisais ed’i Vo1umefl. .i. rj .
suppiessanis eitljIn 500 feé(of h!fr.’, Pl.l0pr ), enxironmental unpect are also
-intersections with paved roads.’ . . . ,: ..‘ • .-‘. - - .;.-•... ‘- discussed, - - , .,, -- - , . .,,.
3. Treat 1O’miles of the most heavily-. - taking into account energy. :‘.r.. •‘ -: : - The BACr/LAER Clearinghouse , the.
iraveled unpaved county roads - environmenias, and ea)flOIfllC impacts EPA Control Technology Center, and - -
chemical dust supprassant once. per and other costs, that it de rmij es -. past BAC analyses for new and’ — -
- - ‘ ‘- - . • . -- ashievabl 1br such facility. .
monw. - - - — - - - —-.. rn major sources Un , -
4. Pave 4 miles of a e I ity . program may be used to assI t In’
streets. ‘ - - BACI anu its statutory . it is , s - iden available control options
• 5. Tteat unpaved paiking lots in the policy that BACT be deiermine4 ‘-and maximum achievable rnimion
city with chemica’I dust suj jress nts he analytical methodology estabhshed reductions. The EPA wilfloutinuétâ”
once per month. - - ‘ - in the reviewing authonty scurrentPSD - evaluate the need for additional ‘ -.
- 6. Clean anti-skid materials from 50’ program to the extent that it .-- guidance and will produce additiona]
miles of city streets within 48 houis ‘consistent with guidance coi ! ned ‘n’ ‘mate as qipropriate.
after snow melt begins - - this notice. The analytical zneuiodology , - -
The same area, her being reclassified used should, at a minimum, consider a VIL Contingency Measured - -
as señous, may adopt the following ‘ ‘ . •. - . - . -: - - Section 172(c)(9) requires that SIP’s
-‘ ‘ °Adoptiin of these types of measures 101 )’ ‘ nmvide for the imnlementation of
equIecoodinst1onwithotherIo lgovsxnmt,juul r - . r L
entities cb the De ns of jku . - . speciuc measures tO tie Un
Transpoztation. endior the Interior, the Administrator finds that the -
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 15, 1994 I Proposed Rules 42015
nonatfaimnent area has failed to make about attainment. The EPA has. Section 171(1) of the Act defines RFP as
RFP toward attainment or to attain the recommended that contingency “such annual incremental reductions in
primary NAAQS by the applicable measures provide the emission emissions of the relevant air pollutant as
statutory deadline. Following the reductions equivalent to 1 year’s average, are required by this part (part D) or may
Administrator’s finding, the measures increment of RFP (see discussion reasonably be required by the
are to “take effect without further action below). Administrator for the purpose of
by the State. or the Administrator.” The Once moderate areas are subsequently ensuring attainment of the applicable
EPA interprets this requirement to be reclassified as serf o t is. the affected national ambient air quality standard by
that no further rulemaking actions by States must ensure that adequate the applicable date.” A discussion of
the State or EPA would be needed to contingency measures, as described these requirements follows.
impknuaf the contingency measures above, are in place.for such areas. This
(see generally 57 FR 13512 and 13543— is explicitly required under the statute. Reasonôble Furrnei Progress
544). The EPA recognizes that certain Section 189(b)(2J requires areas . -. Historically, for some pollutants, RFP
actions, such as the notification of reclassified as serious to submit “an has been met by showing annual’
sources, modification of permits. etc., implementation plan.” Under section incremental emission reductions
would probably be needed before a 172tc ). in turn, “plan provisions” sufficient generally to maintain at least
measure could be implemented required under part D must provide for linear progress toward attainment by the
effectively. However, SPates must show the implementation of contingency specified deadline. Requiring linear
that their contingency measures can be measures. Accordingly, for those - progI reductions in emissions to
implemented with minimal further moderate areas reclassiliett as serious, if RFP may be appropriate in
action on their part and with no all or part of the moderate area plan four situatiorue’
additional rulemaking actions such as contingency measures become part of 1. When pollutants are emitted by
public hearings or legislative review. the required serious area control - numerous and diverse sources. -
After ‘A determines that a moderate measures rio.. BAOM. then additional 2. Where the relationship between’
PM—b nenattainment ama has failed to contingency measures must be any individual semen and the overall
attain the PM-b NAAQS, EPA - submitted whether or not the previously air quality Is not explicitly qwtffi ’
generally expects al l actions needed to submitted contingency measures hail. - 3. Where a chemical trunsforrnatloa fa
effect full Implementaticoofthe : already beenfmplemented.Further.the Involved. ,. .
measures to ocous within 60 days after affected States must ensure that serious.. 4. Where the_m . ,.ion duction,
EPA notifies the State of the area’s ‘areas have adequate cnnthi mi ’y . n ’y to attain the standard
failure. The State should ensure that the measures l ring ilthnng other . inventory’Mda, -. .
measures am fully Implemented as things new laf .about.the •. . For example. In those areas where the
expedltfouslyras practicable after they potential nifainniant shortfall for the. nonattalnment problem is attributed to -
take effect. , .., . . newly rer ’lacsiffed seriou&area. The - . area type amones (e.g.. fugftlve dust,
purpose of am’ingency StatesthuStiubmitC qtbger y residential wood combustion, etc.). RFP
isto ensure that additfnn 1 meamma ,’• measures for serious areasé otherwise . , should bernet byShow -P:’ ; .
beyond er in. addition to the reçured da,nimatintn thatadequata meec’ms axe, incremental emission reductions -
,r”coI ? ’ controlifleasures Le. RAQ4 fox i pla itbma3 yeaxs of - . ,... ‘sufficient generally to maintain 1heer
modeiat,areas and BAQ4 for serious’ • , reclass catroni’, ?.j d” - ‘.- -‘ “ progress luw de Bftaanm I$ Total PM-,
.... . . . .j; - . , - — i_
areas) Immediate ly. take effect when th&. L 1 ew enseiwwu : -.
area’ fails to make RFP or to attain the . — FUTtherPVR - en or mqease note - yew me,
PM— IONAAQJinoxdertoprovide , ‘ ,- .: - - -‘. -., “ - . . ‘: neXtin5iiChai afee. . - .. ‘,
Interüñ public health . . .. A. GpnamED cussiost. .; . ‘ - . .,Requlrlng linear progress reductlons”
protecthm.leprotedfcalsconsidered ‘-ThePM 1On edia ’ nntssit area SIP ’s - in emissions to maintain RFP ! Tess
“Interim” because the statute often ‘ -‘. - - mueti Ud.y—f jW La 5h. . ..5 , , - appropnatem ‘
provides for amare formal SIP revision .. wbickaetGbsathissmd • . 1. Where these are a, limited number,
in order to comect , for example, the ‘ ‘ . . r’ unIlithe area Is re l ., . ,mLnll attaisnnn ’ of souzces — .
failure of an area to attain the PM-b ‘ - and which darn ustinte REPtewerrI.. . , 2: 1ui*0 Pa between.: ‘
‘NAAQ$ g,. section 189(b)—seifou, ’ . attainme’ii by the ap ththbM date (see ‘- idividual s’ iznes and air qualityaze-:
area plan required upon ln’ting ci ‘- sectIon 189(4 of the amended Act).. - - relatively well deflned. -
failure of moderate area to attain .. , - - . - . , - . - 3. Where the emission control systems
PM-It) NAAQS under 188(b)(2)—and - im , Act esno, prueni e utilired (e.g.. at major point sources).
189(d) (plan revisions required upon. States nontaini gsuiemPM-1O will result in swift and dramatic
failure of serious area to attain the PM- &eaS shall aubinit aedlon 172(cXelcoatingeacy emission reductions, , -
.10 NAAQSfl. Thus. EPA has noted measures (or othezwl3a demO I S I S thatatteq ale For example, n thoie ames where the
- wntsnget mc ’ e s ,ahe sdymp1aes) •
previously that contingency measures I ,sscttea i72 l ofthsA 5 &acts this - nou.uarfllflenapwuiem is
should ea ict of other available control Mminbiemtmz iiha athedele Sirm teat. - attributed toa few stationary sources,
• measures conlab i i - of the plan Items in semsion 1 72( c) at. the time the REP should be met by “adherence to an. -
- , Adminfamator designates ánarea as nonattainment. i.i P kA i ” .Q
applicable core control strategy (57 FR Such schedule is to h dea date-ordates - . . aini CflP w • .. -
13543). in designing its contingency - “eatnuli ooI rthet3 , which is hkely to periodically yield - -
measures, the State should also take into- ib,iimsPJlmnanIde.i.pSIte (y.e aectios Z72 significant emission reductions. ..- - -
consideratjon the potential nature and concludes lila icesonable to Adherence to “an ambitious complisuwm
extent of any attainn rnL shortfall for the c aijfm rma1.deadfine-forthea?b1nIuat schedule” does not necessarily mean
o 1 C ,contzngenclmeescres 1 ora I. • LI . . -
area. The magnitude of the effectiveness demonstration that adequatea thngency mneemuea ‘ is WOwu unreasolldrne iO.aasuOYO
tof the measures should be calculated p are to phee) byS ainingrenomas PM-b - .‘ . - . . -
i .chlevj the avmrnnrjate nercentaae of - nonefliamneamiageas is o IaI than 3yoaa from . “U.S EPA. OWns oIAiz Quality Plaoning and ‘.
Yr - r ,r • the det oFtheemo ci redasailimibim (see ‘-,. Standard, ,’Cuidaum Docun t incCoercctioao(”
. -we.actji l emission. reductions required che.ia . U.S.A.. Stmc v. SteOC 467 U.S. 837.842- - ‘-l ’art 0 SF5 for Nonatza inanent Areas.” Rescamth - -
y the SIP control strategy to bring - - 45 fl9sI - ... . ‘.. . . : . ‘.. ‘‘ . ‘Triangle Park. NC. anuary 27,1984. pap 25.
-------
42016 Federal Register / Vol. 59; No. 157 I Tuesday, August 16, 1994 / Proposed Rules
annual incremental emission eductions b. Percent coçiplia icq with for the moderatearea SIP.’ 3 ’rherefore, -
or generally linear progress, however. impIenient d coitrol measures. the second REP/milestone for the initial’
The SIP’s for PM—IC) nonattanment c. Adherence to a compliance nonattainment areas that are reclassified
areas must include detailed schedules schedple.. •. . -. . - as senàus must be achieved by.
for compliance with emission 2 REPfl ileston DU November 15, 1997. The third RFP/
regulations in the area&and accurately milestone achievement date will be
indicate the corresponding annual I • s mentioned above, PM—iC) Nmrember 15, 2000. etc. These REP!
emission reductions to be realized from flonat :SIP’s are to, contain . milestones should be addressed by
each milestone in the sch dule. quantitative n i1estones which are to be quantifying and comparing the annual
reviewing the SIP. EPA will determine, achieved everY 3 years until the area is inc menmi emission reductions which-
whether the annual incremental -. redesignated attaitiment. rhere is a gap ‘result from implementation of HACM!
emission reductions to be achieved - in the law iztth % thetext pf section - BACT (req i ed within 4yeara after the
reasonable in light of the statutory .. . -189(c) doe not.ai iculate the starting area isi eclassifiid as serious) and from
obj ctive to ensure timely attainment of point for count ng the 3-year penod. .. additional, measures included in the
the PM—10.NAAQS. Additionally. EPA The EPA believes it is i asonable ° • final erious area SIP to those:
believes that it. is appropriate to rquire beguicounti igThe 3-year milestone reductions which wore identified in the
early implementation o(the most cost- deadline from the due date (and not the SIP’as quantitative milestones necessary
effective control measures (e.g.. submittal date) for the applicable to achieve the NAAQS by the applicable
controlling fugitive dust emissions at morale area implementation plan attainment date. The annual
the stationary source) while phasing in 9 IOn (see section ul.C.I.(f) of the incremental emission reductions must
the more expensive control measures,. , General Preamble (57 FR ,1 3539) for an be sufficient to assure attaininent.as
such as those involving th inllatiou explanation of why EPA ‘beheves itis expeditiously as practicable but not
of new hardware. - appropriate to begin counting the 3 ’year later than Dece ber 31, 2001: In some
• Section 189(c) ro des that the . milestone deadline from the SIP due .‘ cases it may also be approprtate to
qiiantitativemilestànes ubmittedbya.. da . • , , . • 7 requuethattheannuallncrementai 1 .
State for an area alio must be consistent’ w t RFP,mi estone emission reductions maintain at least
with REP for the area ,Thus, EPA w’nll achievement date for those areas -,- ‘t am enl. a...
determine an area:s compliance with. - . u7ueSigflatu . as onattaninent iOT . dis us ad earlier., •
. . irwi.—lu u OperauOfl OL aw WuCfl .e - -
REP In.conjwiction tvd determining !b . Mt was amended will be ihe moderate 3. RFP/Milestt e-Reportr. ’ ‘ ‘
‘: áreaatta4nmentdateofDecembei31, ‘ The SfatimusideniOnsttatetà PA,
uuw iOflO . iu.i .men USO & ‘ 1994 as’stated in section IILC.1.L of the’ tliffl 9t day&aft r the mj lestone ’, . ,.
,5fl flfluw UU &Ofl u uUi.uOfl ‘ :‘ - - Ceneral Preimble (57 FR 13539). The àchiev ineñt da(e, thaE tho’SIP measures’
j u ument afluwe quai t1tauv - RFP!milestone achievement date would are befng.tmplemeilted and th RFP/’
u4Ita oneS ao ue acjLuevuu ayery :normilly be Novenil r 15.1994.3 years qua tnatfvd milestones have jf
years, wuena te uernoflstratos an - ‘ after the SIR due’date of Noveiñber 15, isee sèétiou”t89(c)(2)) The RPI-
,.ras c oz a uanCp.wIuL usO quanutauve -‘1991. The i hinvement dale was ; - ‘ milestone’re iort must be ub in1tt&I
.nulestonerequuëinent. tt,suuuiu ‘ ‘- delayèd46 days, however, because’ the ‘froin’thb Co verirnr Oave ’fliofe ’
emonstrate ‘? de’miaimic HmIng differential between des nee’tô tha Adm1nst ifóf ’
.Unngeacu -O weiwevant 3 ,.Yeary. “f’the attainment date andihO literal first “ of theles il EPA Reglätial Offi ’& “
uUS, u e ui u ioao quantitative-; milestone date madeft administretivoly’ whid servãth State w eréthe ” ”-
.iuiiu tonesuwowreiers to we- - Impracticable and of trivialvalue to ‘ affectedireaislocmte& ‘- ‘, ‘ ‘ ‘
•mllestOne submittai milestones and’ ‘ The REP/milestone repdit in ’uM ‘: - -
acq 5 rvemeflt tastes ants uemoflstIab9Ji .. attainment dwnonsiratlons for these ‘- - contain t chnlcal support.sufflcfent to’--
(orxeporting) -raqulrements. ‘—‘ “- .‘ areas. Thus, for theseinitial areas th t documeut’completion stattstk fW
C ’QtfanÜtaIveMil&ones— 4euioi strateJlively attaioment ’EPA’s “.‘ appropriate milestones. For emmple :’
‘ ‘ .‘\ pohtodemntheemission • -thedemonstrntionshoukIguiphTcally!”’
,1.Nature of Quantitative ° ° roductions piogress made between the - displa RFP over the course of the ” -’
‘As-mentioned above, PM .40’ “ SIP’submittal due date and’the’’’ relevant 3-years and indicate how the ”
: attalnment SIP’ihreto’cbntaih- t ..attainniOnt date as sufficient to satisfy emission reductions achieved to date ‘-
- quantitative mil ton es (see section-- -z the flrst ,mihestone iequiroment (57 FR ‘-- compare to those required or scheduled -‘
189(c)). These q aintltativ iiiilestones . - 1 -3539) ‘ - - - - -‘ - -: - ‘ , - tt meet REP and the-required,’.: ‘-.- - -‘ -‘
sliouldconsis of elements which allow A; Thusthe initial RFP/milestone will be ‘ -‘- - -. ., ‘ •• , ‘.
progress tobe quantifled or measured.-- - met by showin that emission “- ‘ The plain I ms of section 189(c) roqulre that -
Specifically States should identify and reductions scheduled tc be made
submit quantitative mile tones - 7 i-- - .-between-the SIP due date and the ‘. contomplath any break, in the milestones due to an’
providing forlhé amounted emission “ -attainment date for these moderate areas arnas reclasslllcaLion, Fwther, toc1aasUy’th an eiea
.reductioni adequate to achi’evO.the ‘ ‘ ‘ were actually achieved. Most of the to serious does not cbvlats the State fromcontrols
• NAAQS by !he appli ab )e’attainment . emission’ reductions will result from ,
,date. The lollowing are examples of - ‘. implementation of RM M (Lncluding continuous series of control measures mu4be
measures which support and -‘ . ‘ ‘. RACT) adopted. as part of the moderate implemented iS PM-tO nonatteimnent areas -
- demonstrate how the oveiahl ‘.“ area SIP. The Act requires that RACM be be 5 iu ing with RAO.4 (‘includihg ’RACfl and
quantitative mile tones identified for an implemented by December 10.1993 in. -
az a may be n-iet:’ - the initial PM—IC) nonattainment areas Npxt, BACM (including BACfl muM be
- -a. Percent implementation of various (see section 189(a)). - ‘. ‘; . . implemented within 4 years after the area is -
‘control strategies (e.g.. pave 50 percent - Subsequent RFP/milestones for these reclassified as serious. Subsequently, ftmay be - - -
-ofcufpable-streets. replace 75 percent of : initial PM—la nonattainment areas that
-. residential wood heatcrs.wlth natural ‘ are reclassified as serious will be due T. em!Ore. the slnicturç of the Act requires a sorjes
gas belting .inits). ‘ ‘ .. - every 3 years after the original due date .r mPaS,Irw wbich ran pmvida for R”PImllosiones .
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 157 / Tuesday, August 16, 1994 / Proposed. Rules
42017
... ...“ .
milestones. The calculations (and an r .economy,’a sectorof the ecquomy, - EFFECTIVE DATE: August 1&, 1994.
assumptions made) necessary to,; productivity; competition., jobs, the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
determine the emission reductions o.. - environment, public health or safety, or Sharon P. McDoiiald Mass M&Iia
date should also be submitted. The state, local, or tribal government or Bweau, (202) 634 .6530.
demonstration should also contain an, communties’ . -. ! . :: SUPPLEMENTARY II IFORMATIOW Needf
evaluation of whether the PM—b - 2. create a serious inconsistency or - ,. .. . ,. . ‘.:
NAAQS will be attained by the - otherwise interfere witlian action taken W & fl hed th ‘1’! . 1 -
__ or p13 anothera eflcy, wron iiemhi nee d
emission reductions to date sufficient t impact of enti&lements. grant , user fees. ? .‘ -.• . .
• ensure tiii eljatthinmex t? : . :orloan programs or the rights.and .- ; . UIT CtiOfl o i cation. .,.. . .. - .
f it r ceipPA obhgations:ipnsthreoLor.
State’s demonstration is a4ecpiate. ñd arising out of legaLmandites, the u . -.(W! Docke 1 4- 4J which, were the:
meets all tl*e requirements thscussed - ‘4 Presidents pndrltles. or the prmciples subject of uuc. i4—l 7992, is
• above The EPA will no’ ” thö State of set forth in the Executive Order. - .... corrected as iouows- . .
itsdetennination” endin alette to ‘ ttothet o k 12866, . npage377 7,inthethdcohimn.
th - . JOMB has notified EPA that this action under 47 CFR Part 73. the rulempking -
d e appropnae vernor or emor S • a “significant regulatory action” . - number is coliected to read “RM—8503”
esignee.. - . .., - thinthemeanIngoftheExecuti e -. inlieu ”RM-8476.” - •
4. Failure to Submit RFP/Milestone - Order. For this reason this action was . Federal ComTnunications Commission. 7 .
• Report or Meet RFP/Milestones submitted to 0MB for review. Changes. wwiam F. ‘!. -.
If a Sta e fails toTsubmit the iwpi ., . • ) de in response to 0MB suggestions or ACti SeCIetaP). -. .:. - J
milestone report within the required fecommendations will be documented IFR Doe. 94-1é989 Filed & i5 94, 8:45 amj ‘
tlzneframes ccii U’A defirmines that 1ff the public record. . •.. __ . .. .
theStatehasn ti et .any..appbcabIo - B RdatorjFIexibthty Act, .
RFP/milestone, EPA shall require the ..- . - .. . ... -: . .. .. - .. . . -I. -
WhenevertheAgencyasrequiredby ,
revision that assureitbat the State will Pr0 uir Act (A A) or any 9thc law
achieve the next milestone (or attaip the toPth ji g ” notice of proposed - :- .
PM- IONAAQS ,iftherelsnonexf’. iu1 nffforanyproposedrule.tha -- SOCFRPM2Q .
milestone) by the app) jcable date (see -! - ee and make . . . .
s e189(cX3)).Forøxifliple .With .- mmentaninifial - R 1N1018)
respectt6 ’B P,1fth&reqilredinin aP Mir
m1 i n redu’ itlons are not - - — - ienbuo .. I
the relevant years acoo dIfig I c tain
schedule and and Ceded Landifo
milestone r equi rementEPAwilhi Season
the State to submit a SIP rOvislon soi ry -
th idevonicanbecordedead- . - ‘ AGENCY:
kttninTn nt assured by the applicable - - . - , Interiçr
date.Thls wouldalso necessitate r.q CarolM.., I AcnoN:
mpIementa ion oiepproprlate:l r. .
cx cy esures pursuànftó imi
section 172(c)(9). %:1)Ø .t . . -.... . •
- -NoteeJsothatfai1ure -tomeetRFP,if . . -. - - - certainfribes..
‘ziôteq iedltlouslycorrèced.could:ah ,.; . ;,., .: ,: ,. :; ° . . :-
re uf inthe application of s netions lICATlONS- - - .. rRTvat ion I - ds -
described In sections 110(m) and 179(b -cOMMISSlON -“. , . — - - for the 1994 untIng..
oftheamendedAct(pursüanttoa -‘ , - ., - . - • - : -- — - ,• season ‘• ‘•‘ ‘ 4-
finding under section 179(a)(411 : , 47 CFR Part 73
ix. Other Requirements.. e- . M Docket Ne c 041.74, RM ’-8476)
A Executive Order 12866 ‘: I Radio Broadcasting Ser ice, Elma, WA
- Under ExecutiveOrder 12866 (E.0. . , AGENCY• Federal Co i - , US: ishand
12866) (58 FR 51735 (October 4-1993)). “ ‘ - . •., ‘ - - Wildlife Sejvice, 634 ARLSOJ 49 C r
the Agency must determine whether the -, . : -- SL!&. Washington ..I 20240.
regu]atoryaction is “significant” and. j. ,: - i ” - - ,• on . Cothments re éived ifany, ,.on-these
therefore subject to the Office of., - - . - ( SUMMARY: ‘fliiadocument contaln&a proposed sjie iefliuntingiegulatIôns
Management and Budget (0MB) review. correction to the Notice of Proposed .. - and tribal proposals will.be available for
-and the requirements of E.O. 12866. The u1eManZMPockU G94-14s.. , public inspection during iiounAl . t ‘
• E.O. 12866 defines “significant.: i. business hours in Room 634-Arlington
-regulatory action” aspne that is II 1y.-nday,July. 5 99j 09 Fl 37. 37):: ;, Square Building. 4401 N. Feirfa c.Drive.
—toresultinarujathatmay:
1. Have an annual effect on th , . ;C -h nnel271A.at Ehna.-Washington.as. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr
. economy of $100 million or more or - • the community’s first local lural - Keith A. Morelloüse. Office of Migratory
.adversely affect in a mateijal way the - transmission service. - - — . . Bird Management, U.S. Fish and —. - - -
-------
47088 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 177 / Wednesday , September14. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
3.6 Use of Eqwpment . -
Caitons, packages of flats, and sacks
of items may be palletized under the
applicable standards; cartons of DALs
must be palletized with the
corresponding items under the same
standards. The USPS plant manager at
whose facility a DAL mailing is
deposited may authorize other types of
equipment for the portion of the mailing
to be delivered in that plant’s service
area. -
3,7 Bound Printed Matter -
Bound printed matter distributed with
DALs must be deposited at the
acoeptance point specified by the
postmaster. Local zone rates are
available, subject to G030.
3.8 MaiIin 8 Statement
The mailer must complete and
provide the appropriate mailing -
statement with each mailing. .
4.0 DISPOSiTION OF EXCESS OR -‘
IVERABLE MATEXIAL
U#J W mca&4 ( #. —- £fl
pickup is not made within 15 calendar
days of the notice to the mailer, the
material is returned to the mailer
postage due. -. •- .
d. Hold the excess material while
additional DALs or items are supplied
(as applicable); if additional material is
not supplied within 15 days of the -.
notice to the mailer, the excess material
is returned to the mailer postage due.
Additional material must be sent’
prepaid to the delivery poIt office as
First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, or
Express Mail. . - -
4.2 Uudeliverable-as-Addret
DALà with incorrect, nonexistent, or
otherwise undeliverable addresses are
handled under Fob. The accompanying
item is treated as specified by the mailer
under 4.1.
5.0 POSTAGE
5.1 Available Rates
DAL mailings are not eligible for any
automation rate, but they may qualify
for carrier route or walk-sequence rates
subject to the applicable standards.
5.2 Initial Distribution
Postage is computed based on the
weight of the entire mailpiece (i.e.,
combined weight of the item and the
accompanying DAL). If the number of
DALs and items mailed Is not identical,
the “number of pieces” used to
determine postage is the greater of the
two; no postage refund is allowed in
these situations. The total weight of the
mailing excludes the weight of the
iartons used to carry the DALe or items,
dunnage, and carton labels. In addition.
these methods of postage payment
apply:
a. Second-class flats must be p epaid.
A notice of entry must appear in the
upper right corner of the DAL
b. Third-class flats and samples and
fourth-class bound printed matter must
be paid by permit Imprint, which must
appear on each DAL. Third-class
postage Is computed at the applicable
nonletter rates.
Additional material (DALs or items)
being supplied under 4.ld must be
mailed with postage prepaid as First-
Class Mail, Priority Mail, or Express
Mail, subject to the eligibility standards
- applicable to the rate claimed and the
- conditions in 5.2.
A transmittal letter making these.
changes in the pages of the Domestic
• Mail Manual will be published and will
be transmitted to subscribers
automatically. Notice of issuance will be
I DALs jmblished in the Federal Register as
-: provided by 39 CFR 111.3.
- - Stanley V. Mires, - - -
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
(FR Dcc. 94—22735 Filed 9—13—94; 8:45 ami
eIWNG COOS 7710-12-P - -
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
( O11—1-6532a, cO3O—1—6533a, and c036—
2-6303a; FRL-5067--7J.
Clean Air Act Approval and
Promulgation of PM-b
implementation Plan for Colorado;
Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection. -
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: In this document, the EPA is
approving the State implementation
plan (SW) and SIP revisions submitted
by the State of Colorado for the purpose
of bringing about the attainment of the
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or çqual
to a nomInal 10 mIcrometers (PM—iC)) in
Aspen, Colqrado. The SIP was Initially
submitted by the State .on.January 15.
1992, with revisions submitted on
March 17, 1993 and December 9, 1993. -
EPA proposed to grant limited approval
of the January 1992 and March 1993
submittals in a December 23, 1993
Federal Register notice. The State’s - -.
December 9. 1993 SIP revision•
adequately addressed the deficiencies
whichhadbeenthebas i sfor A’a
decision to propose limited approval of
the previous submittals. Therefore. EPA
Is withdrawing the limited approval and
now approving the Aspen submittals as
meeting the PM-IC) SIP requirements
due November 15,1991. EPA is also
approving the PM—IC) contingency
measures for Aspen whlchwere
included in the December 1993 -
submittal, and EPA is amending the
Aspen PM—b nonattainment area
boundary. ... - -
DATES This final rule will become.
effective on November14, 1994 unless
adverse or critical comments are
received by October 14,1994. If the
- effective date is delayed, timely notice
will be published in the Federal
Register. -
ADDRESSES: Co unents should be -
addressed to Vicki Stamper, 8ART-AP,
at the EPA Region VU] Office listed.
Copies of the State’s submittal and other
information are available for Inspection
during normal business hours at the
following locations: Air Programs
Branch, Environmental ProtectionS
Agency, Region VU], 999 18th Street,
suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202—
2405; and Air Pollution Control
Division, Colorado Department of
4.1 Ence Material . . -
The letter required under 3.1 müM ..
either request that the delivery office
contact the mailer (or representative)
about exems DALs or items, or provide
Instructions for their treatment (If the . . - -
mailer does not provide Information- . - . .- - . . . . -,
about excess DALs or items, such Postage for excess or undeliverable.
material is disposed of as waste by the DALs or items being returned Is
USPS.) The rnail.er must choose one of - computed at the single-piece third- or
the following options for each DAL , fourth-class rate applicable to the
mailing nd-the itenm... ‘— - ; combined weight of the DAL and the
a. Dispose of any excess material 8S. . - accompanying item, regardless of
Waste.. - . whether both are being returned. The
b. Return the excess material to the-S - ; total amount due for returned material,
mailer, postage due at the applicable which includes the return postage and
single-piece rate under 5.0.’ the applicable address-correction fee for
c. Hold the excess material for pickup - each DAL or Item returned, Is collected
Is.. +h renmmntalivai-’ upon the material’s return to the mailer.
5.4 AdditIonal Items
-------
Federal Register F Vol. 59, No. 177 I-Wednesday, September 14. 1994 / Rules and Regulations47O89
Health. 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South,
Denver, Colorado 80222—1530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMAT iON CONTACT:
Vicki Stamper, 8ART-AP,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VI I I. 999 lath Street. suite 500, -
Denver. Colorado 80202—2466, (303)-
293—1765.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L Background -
Aspen, Colorado was designated
- nónattainznent for PM—b and dassffied
as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B)
and 188(a) of the Act upon enactment of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.1 (See 56 FR 56694, November 6,
1991; 40 R 81.306 (specifying
nonaftsinment designation for Aspen.))
The air quality pI nniiag requirements
for moderate PM-la nonattainment
areas are eel out In Subparts 1 and 4 of
part D of title I of the Act. The EPA has
Issued a ‘General Preamble” describing
EPA ’. preBminesy views on how EPA
intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions
submitted under title I of the Act,
Including those State etibmittels : -
conteining moderate PM—b -
nonattainment area SIP requirements
(see generally 51 FR 13498 (AprIl 16,
1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April28.
1992)). Because EPA Is describing Its
interpretations here only In broad terms,
the reader should refer to the General
Preamble for a spore detailed discussion
of the Interpretations of title I advanced -
In this iulmnnHiig and the supporting. -
rationale. In this document on the ’
Colorado moderate PM-la SIP for the
Aspen nonattainment area, EPA has
• applied Its interpretations taking Into
consideration the specific factual Issues
presented.- . ‘ - ‘ -
Those states coninining Initial -
moderate PM-la nonattainment areei
were required to submit, among other
things, the following provisions by • -
November15, 1991
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably
available control measures (RACM)
(including such reductions in PmL s one
from existing sources in the area as may
be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available
control technology (RACF)) shall be
implemented no later than December
10, 1993;
2. Either a demonstration (including
air quality modeling) that the plan will
provide for attmnment as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than
‘The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Ad
made significant changes to the Ad. See Pub. L. No.
101—549. 104 SLaL 2399. Refmences heesin are to
the Clean Air Ad.., amended ( ‘the Aa ”). The -
Clean AirAd Iacodilied.asamendod. in the U.S.
Code at 42 U.S.C. 7401 nt. eaq. -.
December 31,1994 or a demonstration submittals Federally enforceable. In that
thit attainment by that date is document, EPA also proposed to y
impracticable; - approve those few elements of the SIP
3. QuantItative milestones which are submittals which were separable and
to be achieved every 3 years and which independent of the inadequate
demonstrate reasonable further progress demonstration of attainment EPA’s
(RFP) toward attainment by December proposed approval did not include the
31,1994; and • - State’s voluntar no-drive day control
4. Pro visfoñs to assure that the contsol - measure, on which EPA did not propose
requirements applicable to major . - to take action.
stationary sources of PM—b also apply The State subsequently adopted
to majorstationazy sources of PM—Ia . additional PM—b oontrol measures for
precursors except where the . Aspenin November of 1993 and . -
Administrator determines that such submitted the revised control measuros.
sources do not contribute significantly —for approval in the SIP on December 9.
to PM—1O levels which exceed the 1993, along with a revised
NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), des onstralion showing that the control
188. and 189 of the Act. . measures adopted and submitted for the
Some provisions were due at a later Aspen moderate PM—la nonattainment
date. States with initial moderate PM- area would result in timely attnh ment
.10 nonattainnient areas were required to and maintenance of the PM—ia NAAQS.
submit a permit program for the SectIon 110(k) of the Act sets cut
ounstuzetion and operation of new and - provisions governlng EPA’s review of
modified major stationary sources of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565—13566).
PM—b by June 30. 1992. See section In this action. EPA Is withdrawing its
189(a) of the Act. Revisions to satisfy proposal to grant limited approval
these requirements were submitted by published in the 1 )ecember 23,1993
the State onJ.niu .ry 14,1993, and EPA Federal RegIster (58 FR 08094) and Is,
will be Raking action on these - - Instead, fully approving the Aspen PM—
requirements in a separate Federal 10 plan which was due to EPA on.
Register document. Such Slates were - November15, 1991 and submitted by
also required to submit contingency . the State on January 15,, 1992. March 17,
m rres by November 15, 1993 whIch 1993, and December 9,1993. Note that
become effective witlkout further action EPAs approval does not Include the -
by the Stateor EPA. upon a . . voluntary no-drive day provision
determination by EPA that Ike area has submitted by the State; EPA Is not
feihed to achieve RFP or to attain the - taking action on that provision at this
PM-b NAAQS by the applicable • - time- Mad, EPA Is approving the PM-
statutory deadlin, See section 172(cX9) 10 contIngency measures for Aspen.
of the Act and 57 FR 13543-13544. The - which ware due to EPA miNovember
State adopted PM-la contingency - - 15, 1993 and which were submitted
- measures for Aspen In November of. - - with the addltinnel control measures In
1993, and those measures were included the State’s December 9, 1993 SIP . -
in the State’s December 9,1993 SIP. - -revision. - -- - • .. —:. - - -
• - subiniuaLA longwithtakh sgactlonon - Ala amnntHng the . . -
- the ulodesate PM—b nonattainment area nonattainment area boundary for the
- SIP requirements which were due to Aspen nonattalnment area to Include -
EPA qn November 15,1991, EPA Is also some of the area surrounding Aspthi. - - -
- taking action on these contingency - The revised boundary Is based on
measures in this document. - - - information submitted with the January
- - 1992 SIP submittal which provided a
IL This Action - SIP equivalent demonstration - - -
On December 23.1993. EPA proposed - persuasively showing that the revised
to grant limited approval of the Aspen boundary more accurately represents
PM—b SIP submitted on January 15, the Aspen akshed. (See section .
1992 and revised on March 17,1993 - 110(k)(6) of the Act) -
(see 58 FR 68094-68101). Because the Since the Aspen PM—b SIP was not
State could not demonstrate that the submitted by November 15,1991 as
control measures Included In the required. EPA made a finding, pursuant
January 1992 and March 1993 SIP to sectionl79 of the Act, that the State
subinittals were adequate to - failed to submit the SIP and notified the
demonstrate timely attainment and Governor In a letter dated December16,,
maintenance of the PM-la NAAQS in 1991. See 57 FR 19906 (Maya, 1992).
Aspen, EPA was unable to propose full After the Aspen PM-Ia SIP was
approval at that time. EPA thus submitted on January 15. 1992, EPA -
proposed to grant limited approval of. found the submittal to be complete
-the submittals for the purpose of - . pursuant to section 1b0(kXb) of the Act
strengthening the SIP and to make the and notified the Governor acco dingly
control measures included in those in a letter dated March 16,1992. This
-------
47090 Federal Register 1 Vol. 59, No. . 177 / Wednesday. September 14, 1994 1 Rules and Regulations
completeness determination corrected
the State’s deficiency and. therefore.
terminatedthe. 18-month sanctions
clock under section 179 of the Act.
A. Analysis of State Submittals
1. Procedural Background
The Act requires States to observe
certain procedural requirements in
developing implementation plans and
plan revisions for submission to EPA.
Section 11O(a)(2) of the Act provides
that each implementation plan
submitted by a State must be adopted
alter reasonable notice and public
heanng. 2 Section 110(1) of the Act
imilar1y provides that each revision to
an implementation plan submitted by a
State under the Act must be adopted by
such State after reasonable notice and
public hearing The EPA also must
determine whether a submittal is
complete and therefore warrants further
EPA review and action (see section
iio(k)(i) of the Act and 57 FR 13565).
The EPA’S completeness criteria for SIP
subnrittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V (1992). The EPAauempts to
make completeness determinations
wIthin 60 days of receiving a
submission. However, a submittal is
deemed complete by bperatlon of law if
a completeness determination is not
- made by EPA 6 months after receipt of
the submission.
As discussed in the December 23,
1993 Federal Register document, the
State met the procedural requirements
of the Act for the adoption of the -
January 15, 1992 and March 17. 1993
SIP submittals, and EPA found theseS
• submittals to be complete in letters I
dated March 16, 1992 and May 18. 1993,
respectively. . - -.
After providing more than 30 days of’
prior public noticeior the December
1993 SIP revision. üie State of Colorado
held a public hearing on November12,
1993 to entertain public comment on
the revision to the implementation plan
for Aspen. Theplan for Aspen was
subsequently adopted by the State and
submitted by the Governor to EPA on -
December 9, 1993 as a revision to the
SIP. Along with the additional PM—b
controls and contingency measures for
Aspen. the SIP submittal also contained.
the PM—b contingency measures for the
State’s other PM—b nonattainment
areas and additional PM—lu control
measures for Pagosa Springs. EPA will
act on those portions of the submittal in
separate Federal Register documents.
The SIP revision was reviewed by
- EPA to determine completeness shortly
2 ?Iso section 172(c17) oF the Act requbes that
plan provisions for nooattainment areas meet the
applicable provisions of section i1O(a (2).
after its submittal, in accordance with
the completeness criteria set out at 40
CFR part 51, appendix V (1992). The
submittal was found to be complete, and
a letter dated February 15, 1994 was
forwarded to the Governor indicating
the completeness of the submittal and
the next steps to be taken in the review
process. In this action, EPA approves
these PM—b SIP submittals for Aspen -
as meeting those moderate PM—la
nonattainment area SIP requirements
due November 15, 1991 and as meeting
the PM—jo contingency measure
requirement due November 15. 1993.
EPA s approval does not include the
voluntary no-drive day provision which
the State submitted as a PM—b control
measure; EPA is not taking action on
this control measureat this time. Since
this measure is not needed for the
Aspen area to demonstrate timely ..
attainment or maintenance of the PM—
10 NAAQS. EPA’s decision not to take
action at this time on this measure does
not.impact the overall approvability of
the Aspen SIP submittals as meeting
those moderate PM—jo nonattainnient
area SIP requirements due November
15. 1991.
2. Accurate Fmiezions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires
that nonattainmeht plan provisions
Include a comprehensive, accurate, and
current inventory of actual emissions.
from all sources of relevant pollutants in
the nonattainrnent area. Because the
submission of this Inventory is &
necessary adjunct to an area’s
attainment demonstration (or -.
demonstration that the area cannot
-practicably attain), the emissions
inventory must be recei ed prior to or
with the submission (see 57 FR 13539):
An initial emienlons inventory was’
submitted with the January 15.1992 SIP
submittal,and technical revisions to the
emissions inventory were submitted on
September 20,1993 in response to EPA
comments on the initial emissions
inventory. The resulting emissions
inventory identified area sources as the
primary cause of high PM—b
concentrations, with re-entrained road
dust contributing 97.6 percent, - -
residential wood combustion
contributing 2 percent. restaurant
chaxbroiler grills contributing 0.2
percent. and tailpipe emissions
contributing 0.2 percent. No stationary
sources were identified in the Aspen
area. - - -. -
In the December 23, 1993 Federal
Register document, EPA proposed to
approve the emissions inventory for the
Aspen, as revised on September 20, -.
1993 (see 58 FR 68096). This component
of the State’s PM—la nonattainnient area
plan was considered to be separable and
independent of the deficiencies which
prohibited EPA from granting full
approval of the January 1992 and March
1993 PM—b SIP subinittals. The
emissions inventory represents an
assessment of PM—b emissions in an
area prior to the adoption of control
measures, and EPA did not expect the
Aspen PM—lu emissions inventory to
change as a result of any atiditional
control measures adopted. No
comments were received on EPA’s
December 23,1993 proposed approval
of the emissions inventory, and the
emissions inventory was not changed in
the State’s December 9, 1993 submittal.
Therefore, EPA is finalizing its approval
of the emissions inventory. EPA
believes the ATnieeions inventory is
accurate and comprehensive and
provides a sufficient basis for
determining the adequacy of the
attsainrnent demonstration for this area
consistent with the requirements of
section 172(c)(3) of the Act. For further
information, please refer to the
December 23,1993 Federal Register
document (58 FR 68096—68097) and the
Technical Support Document (TSD)
associated with this action, which is.
available at the EPA office Identified at
the beginning of this document. - -
Under EPA’s transportation
conformity regulations promulgated on
November 24. 1993(58 FR 62188— --
62253), a State’s nonattainment area
plan should define the motor vehicle••
emissions budget for which Federal
transportation plans must demonstrate
conformity. However, Ioz the Aspen .
PM—b nonattainment area, the motor.
vehicle emissions budget was not
explicitly stated in.the SIP, as the SIP
was developed and submitted prior to
the promulgation of the transportation
conformity rules. To reduce fu
misinterpretation on this issue, EPA.
with concurrence from the State. has
calculated the motor vehicle emissions -
budget based on the motor vehicle
emissions inventory and the attainment
demonstration presented in the SIP.
Using the SIP’s estimate of motor
vehicle related emissions (including
tailpipe and re-entrained road dust
emissions) in the attainment year of.
1994, accounting fo,r the effect of the
motor vehicle related control measures
that will be implemented in 1994, the
motor vehicle emissions budget was
calculated to be 14,312 pounds per day.
3 The EPA Issued guidance on PM—tO emissions
Inventories prior to the enactment of the Clean Air
Act Amendments in the form of the 1987 PM-tO
SIP Development Ghideline. The guidance provided
in this document appears to be consistent with the
revised Act. See ection 193 of the I
-------
Federal Register I. Vol. 59, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47091
States also have the option of
developing motor vehicle emissions
budgets for other years. In an August 26,
1994 letter of concurrence on the
attainment year motor vehicle emissions
budget. the State acknowledged its
intent to establish an emissions budget
for 1997 pursuant to its 1997
maintenance demonstration for the
Aspen PM—ID nonattainment area. The
1997 motor vehicle emissions budget
was thus calculated by the State (based
on the 1997 information from the SIP as
discussed above) to be 13.974 pounds
per day (excluding the emissions
reductions from the voluntary no-drive
day, on which EPA is not taking action
at this time). For further details, please
refer to the State’s submittals and the
TSD. - -
3. RAQ’.4 (Including RACF) -
As noted, the initial moderate PM—to
nonattalnment areas must submit
provisions to assure that RACM
(including RACF) are implemented no
later than December 10,1993 (see
sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) of the
Act). The General Preamble contains a
detailed discussion of EPA’s
interpretation of the RACM (including
RACT) requirement (see 57 FR 13539—
13545 and 13560—13561).
In broad terms, the State should
identify available control measures,
evaluating them far their reasonableness
in light of the feasibility of the controls
and the attsirnment needs of the area. A
State may reject an available control
measure if the measure is -
technologically Infeasible or the cost of
the control is unreasonable. In addition.
RACM does not require controls on
emissions from sources that
insignificant (I.e., de mininhi ) and does
not require the implementation of all
available control measures where an
area demonstrates timely attainment
and the implementation of additional
controls would not expedite attainment.
Colorado’s moderate PM—to SIP
revision for Aspen targeted three source
categories for emissions reductions: re-
entrained road dust, residential wood
combustion, and charbroiler grill
emissions. Spedlically. the State
adopted transportation control
measures, street sweeping and sanding
provisions, a voluntary wood burning
curtailment program, limits on
installation of new wood stoves and
fireplaces, and requirements for new
restaurant charbroiler grills to control
PM—tO emissions. The following table
represents the benefits that these control
measures are projected to resulting
towards attAining the PM—la NAAQS in
Aspen:
• -- Source
Control -
- Benefit tewards re&cing PM-b emissions
Re-entrained road des
Transit e a ,don, 400 patt i-n-dde
No creolt taken for these stmtegles. .•.. -.
--
.•..
.
•
‘
.
- - • -ri -
Residential wood contustion ........
- . - ..c ,.
‘
I
Cha ttrol lergri l ls ‘1
Crosstown shuttle set*e____
Paid paddng
- .
250 space lnterc pt lot a1 dshutfle
.- : • -
Peak hrs bus pdodty lane
Event strategies ..... —
Specs for sandag mtedals.,.i.......
‘ ‘: t ”-
Street sweeping -. -
‘ - •.i-. . .. ... -
Voluntary , wood, bu’i*ag ‘curtail-
mast -. - • . - —.
Limitations on new wood st es
arsi Ike j$ao
Requires PM-locontiolsongrilhs
Redaction of 400 veticle miles of travel (VMfllday.’ -,
No crodt teken b 1994 aflalnmet* demo; reóJc lon ot 13.070 vPrri
day expected slng mainteratnce years (1994-1997) , ,’
No crodt taken le 1994 attakenent demo redactlon c i 2,640 VMT/
day expected dsfng nwlntenazice years (1 994—1 997 ’ . • . —
Redactianol 1,020 VMTIday’ . . . • .. -
No crecSt taken for these povisions.—
58 percent redaction Ii re-entrained road dast from minor atterial
•madways.-: -. .- . ..— . . •. .: -: . •• • •—•— . .
19 percent redaction In re-ar*alned road dust eflulasiens from Hwy
• .. ‘: ‘•:‘ . .
10 percent redaction Ii resider iàl wood conibustloii emissions. -
. ..•.- .-. - I 1 . . -.l ? .
Eflectiveness kicasporated Into tidure year emissions Inventories. -
— — .. —
Effectiveness Incorporated Into futae,year emlssloniirwentodes.
.
‘The edactlons in velicle-miles-ravéled (La., VMT) ultimately result In an emisoloesdecrease from re-entrained road dust orriss -:.\ -
- . & ., . - ,. —- .. ‘- -. - •. - t: . ;c.
i. ._ . .1 .• —‘.• : ‘ •‘
Note that the credit listed iii this table because these measures are needed to •. State’s regulation does not require these
for the 250 space interceptlo has been ‘meet the increased demand in ridership measures to be Implemented until June
changed from the original credit - -. .. expected due to the other transportation 1,1994. Thus, the State only took the. - -
requestedbytheStateforthiscontrol .. controlmeasüresinAspen.Mso,the. :
measure in its December 1993 SIP. - . .: State did not request any credit for the, its 1997 mainteiiiinre demonstration..
submittal because the original credit . event strategies, which consist of - ii State also requested credit for a
was calculated incorrectly by the State - additional strategies to be implemented voluntary no-drive day in its
(the State based the credit on 300 - during the 10-day period prior to and maintenance demonstration (1994- • -
parking spaces. rather than ,250). The including President’s Day in February of 1997), but not hi the attainment -
pounds per day emission reduction - - each year. The State adopted these event demonstration, for the Aspen
expected from the specifications for . - strategies because the majority of PM 10 nonattainment area. EPA is not taking
sanding materials was also calculated exceedances In Aspen have occurred action on this control measure at this
Incorrectly by the State in its December during this timeframe due to an time. Declining to take action at this
1993 SIP submittaL The State corrected of visitors to the Aspen area, and the time on this measure does not Impact
these Falculations and adjusted the State wanted to provide extra assurance the approvability of the SIP subrnittals
attainment and maintenance. - that there would be no future PM-b •- - meeting RACM. since the
demonstrations accordingly in a June 1, exceedances during this tirneframe. . - combination of the other cohtrol
1994 submittal. See the TSD for further m State did not take credit for the measüzesadopted and submitted is -
information. - - -‘; - • - - paid parking requirements or for the • adequate to demonstrate timely
-The State did not take credit for the provision of the 250 space intercept lot attainmentand maintenance of the PM—..
masstrapsiteervicegxpansionand - ,- andshuttleintoAspeninthei9S4 ’.’ - ‘ 10NAAQSintheAspennouauainment:.
provisionof 4 00park-n .ride spaces attAininentdemonstrationbecausethe- ‘aá. . . -• 1• ’-
-------
47O9ZFederal Register I V 9 l. 59. No. 177 1 Wednesday. September 14. 19941 Rules and Regulations
The requirements described in the for the Aspen nonattainment area as 1994 of 136 pg/rn’. The demonstration
table will be implemented through meeting the RACM including RACr qiso predicted a 24-how design
Section I II of the Colorado regulation requiieznenl However, as dismissed concentration of 133 pg/rn3 in 1997
entitled “Nonattainment Areas” above, EPA is not taking any action on (excluding the aedit requested for the
(effective 312/93, with revisions’ the voluntary no-drive day provision at voluntary no-drive day on which EPA is
effective 12/30/93). Except for the paid this time. not taking action at this time). Thus, the
parking and 250 space intercept lot and A - State’s atthinment and maintenance
shuttle measures desa ibed above. hi . mons on demonstrations showed that the control
State regulation requires -As noted, the initial moderate PM-b measures adopted for the Aspen area
implementation of these control . flonattMnm ’t areas must submit a would adequately result in attainment
measures by December10, 1993 These - demonstration (including air quality and maintenance of the 24-hour PM—b
control measures are expected to result modeling) showing that the plan will NAAQS. Since the demonstration
in an estimated overall reduction of provide for attainment as expeditiously provided by the State for Aspen dearly
3987 lb/day of PM -10 emissions in the as practicable but no later than - - shows atbihiment and ’maintenanae of
Asoen area by the end of 199& December 31.1994 (see section the 24-hour PM—b NAAQS, It is
lii order to comply with the State’s - 189(alil)(B) of the Act). Alternatively. - reasonable and adequate to assume that
Administrative Procedures Act, the - the State must show that attainment by the pmtecti in of the 24-hour standard
revisions to this regulation adopted on December 31, 1994 is impracticable, will be sufficient to protect the annual
November12. 1993 did nOt become EPA regulations provide th p standard as welL The control strategies
effedive until December 30. - attainment be demonstrated by means of u to ichieve these desigir
• ‘ Iluwvvvr the State adopted . ‘ - - a proportional model or dispersion - concentrations are summarized ln ’ —
emergency rule on No’veniber 12.1993 - modal or other procedure shown to be . Section ILA.C. of this document entitled
to mike the new provisions In the - • adequate and appropriate for ‘RAQ{ (Inclnding RACT).” For a more.
• State’s nQnaft ment area reguiatlon - - purposes. (See 40 CFR 51.112(a).) - - - - detailed desaiplion of the nttidnmant -.
effective December , 1993. UntIl the - general. EPA policy recommends that. •d tibnazid the control strategy -
State’s regulation becatho effective 1 the : the preferred approach for “ “B - used, see the TSD. - .
emergencyrule(whichisldenticalto theairqualityunpactsoE .n onsof. ••. - -. • - - ,-
the State nonatt inineñt area regulath n) i..YM40 Is to use receptor modeling In - - S PM-b Precursors,, •. •. .
apolied beginning D oiwber 1,1993. - “ “ tloa with lispersion modeling: - -- The control requirements which are
Per en area that demonstrates On July 5, 1990. EPA Issued ice -’. applicable to major staflonaiy sources of
- attalnnentby the appllàbk attainmént ‘piov1dIng that, In certain situations, It . PM-b also’ apply to major stationary
date, the lmplnmnntatknn of otherwise, ‘ ,may be more appropriate to rely on a sourceS of PM- .10 precursors, unless -
available control measures Is nat ‘ , receptol’ modeling demonstration alone EPA detirthlnes suthsouiues do not
•“rea nably” required by.RAChI if such as t!id basis for thoattaininent . - - - contribute significantly to PM-b levels -
control measures would not.eipedite : .1%t . TatIon (see July 5, 1990 memo In ui,ssbf the NAAQS (see section.’
• attainment. (Seö57 FR 13543.) Controt ::.to Regional Air rench Chiefs from 189(b) of the Aci).-’ ‘ -
- of other PM lOnnthalons in theares,’ Róbeit D. Bann an , Chief of SOIL. . ‘ .‘: .-An nalys1s of the Stàte’siubñilttal of’
such as tailpipi ernfssioni and,co l ‘‘ ‘Pazticulate Matter Programs Branch and’ air quality and missions data, as
‘-burning stoves, was n red .k;L u Joseph likvart, Chief of Source Receptor. revised on September 20 1993, for the -
because the Implementation ‘of su h -. ‘ -AnalysisBranch) .Aspen meets the -.. ‘ Aspen nonattainmont area 1ndlca es that-
• controls would not.havo flnther ” •( tedud1S tmiOd In the July 5, 1990 - of the NAAQS are
advanced the atuiinment date In the ? memo to justify using receptor modeling %-atlributable chleflyiqparticulatamatter
aree ;‘ , ‘alaueand,therefere, the State ’uh1i Att . nnici nnnifromaxeasouroes,minn lyre-
SledIs rly. RAQ.1 ( ncJ idlii RAC’fl- receptörthodaiing in the attainment and- .eàtrained rua L dust from pavedand-
‘did not ‘equlre the adOptionot’ ‘: ;malntenance demonstrations provided--’ unpaved roads and residential wood .- -
otherwise availible-cóntrol’méaiures foe— for the Aspeti ’inoderate PM—b -: - combustIon. In addition; theami iona -
statfridary sour in the Aspen , ,‘ nonattainmeilt area. inventory for this area did notreveal
- nonaitnininent area because point- ‘ ‘ ‘Theattalnmentand ma1nt ’ e :- any major stationary sources of PM-b -•
source nmltclonain th o Aspen area ire demonstrations presented In the ‘-‘ - precursors. In Its ,Decembe 23,1993
demiiumis (see 51 FR 13540) ant:-’. s — ’- December 9, 1993 submittal (as. ‘.- - notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA :- -
-control of siTrék sources wbuld not amended by the StatVs June 1,1994 “ proposed to find thaf major stationary.
- expedite attaininentof the PM-b ‘. -letter correcting errors in the original - -:souxcas of PM-tO-precursors do tiot
NAAQS.’ • -/-‘ -• - •-. - = control measure aedits) indicated that - contribute signifläanlly to PM-b levels -
.. • ,• -i..• . . -
A more detailed discussion of the the NAAQS for PM-b in the Aspen - in excess of the NAAQS in Aspen (see
individual soifrce conthbutitmc their area would be attained in 1994 and’ -“ 58 FR 68098). EPA received no- - - --
assôciated control measüresr. and an’ - maintained through December 31,1997. comments on that finding. Rod the
• explanation as to. vhjcertain The 24-hour PM-b NAAQS is 150 pgl - . State’s December9 1 1993 SIP revision
• control measures were not implemchted, m’, and the standard Is attained when’.- did not Include any information that -
can be found ln’Lhe ,TSD. The EPA has,... the expected number of days per : -. - would Impact EPA’s proposed finding: -
ieviewed the State’s e*plnnatioñ aiid - - calendar year with a 24-hour averego - - Therefore, EPA is finnli,ing Its finding
• associated docwnentation and has • • concentration above 150 pg/m’ Is equal - - that major stationary sour of -, •‘ -
- concludedthatltidequately justifies ,‘ 7 toorlessthanone(soe4OCFR5O.6). - - precursorsofPM- b odonotcontribute -
the control measures to be - - ‘. - - The annual PM.40 NAAQS Is 50 pg/rn’, - , significantly to PM-b levels in excess
implemented. The Implementallozi of and the standard is attained when the - - of the NAAQS iii AspelL .On,August 18;
,Aspen’s PM-b control strateej is “. expected annual arithmetic mean - — 1994, EPA partially approved the State’s
projected to ràult In the altainmpnt of , concemitration is less than or equal to 50 - nonattainnient new source review (NSR)
the PM-b NMQ byDecember 31, - pg/rn 3 (id.) The demonstration provided - permitting regulationslcr the Aspen - -
1994; Therefore; by this document, EPA , by the State predicted a 24-hour design- moderate PM-i l) nonattainmeot area -
ls a iprovingCoIored ’s SIP submnittals : .. concentrationT 1n the attainment year of (among others) because the State did not -
-------
Feder d Register I Vol. 59, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47093
submit NSR permitting regulations for revisions due on November 15. 1991 for satisfying the initial quantitative
sources of PM—b precursors in.Aspen the initial moderate PM—lu milestones and RFP requirements.
and because EPA had not yet found that nonattainment areas must demonstrate
such sources did not contribute that two milestones will be achieved 7. Enforceability Issues
significantly in Aspen (see 59 FR (first milestone: November 15. 1991 All measures and other elements in
42500). The consequence of this finding through November 15. 1994; second - the SEP must be enforceable by the State
is to exclude major stationary sources of milestone: November 15, 1994 through and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6).
PM—b precursors in Aspen from the November 15, 1997). For areas that 11O(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 57 FR
applicability of PM—la nonattainment demonstrate timely attainment of the 13556). The EPA criteria addressing the
area control requirements, including . PM—b NAAQS. the second milestone enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions
nonattainment NSR permitting should, at a minimum, provide for were stated in a September 23. 1987
requirements. Thus, the State’s continued maintenance of the meiflOranduni (with attachments) from J.
nonattainment NSR regulations for standards. 4 Craig Potter. Assistant Administrator for
Asnen are considered fully approved. ‘ In implementing the quantitative Air and Radiation, et aL (see 57-FR
further discussion of the analyses and milestone and RFP provisions for this 13541). Nonattainment area plan
supporting rationale for EPA’s finding initial moderate area, EPA has reviewed proVisiOns must also contain a program
are contained in the TSD accompanying the attainment demonstration and that provides for enforcement of the
this document. Note that while EPA control strategy for the area to assess control measures and other elements in
making a general finding for this area, whether the initial milestones have been the SIP (see section 11O(a)(2)(C) of the
this finding is based on the cuivent satisfied and to determine whether Act). - - --
character of the area including, for annual incremental reductions different The control measures contained in the
example. the e,dstlng mix of sources in from those provided in the SIP SIP are addressed above under Section
ILA.3. entitled. ’RACM (Including,
the area. It is possible. therefore, that submittals should be required in order RACfl.” These control measures, which
future growth could change the . to ensure attainment of the PM.-i0 are included in Section III . of the State
significance of precursors in the area.
The EPA intends to : : NAAQS by December 31, 1994 Regulation entitled “Nonatisinment
section 171(1) of the Act). The State of
guidance addressing such potential-’ Colorado’s PM—b SIP submittals for Areas” (effective 3/2/93, with revisions
effective 12130/93). apply to the f
changes In the significance of precursor Aspen indicate that the control ‘ activities identified in that discussion,
emissionsinanareai. - - measuresadoptedwiliresultina includingemiss lonsfromre-entrained
6. Quantitative Milestones and . -• reduction of 3987 lb/day of PM—b. and road dust ad residential
ReasonabLe Further Prdgress - : the State demonstrated that this annual combustion. The State regulation
The PM—la nonattainment area plan incremental reduction will result in .. provides that these control measures
revisions demonstrating attainment. . attainment of the PM—lu NAAQS by apply throughout the Aspen PM—b-
mustlontain quantitative milestones .; December 31. 1994. This satisfies the nonatininment area. The only’ •
whichare to be achieved every 3 years t quantitative milestone. 5 The State
until the area is redesignated attainment has also demonstrated that the exemptions provided in the r4ilation
are from the wood burning curtailment
and which demonstrate RFP, as defined provide for thaintethnth of the PM-to program: EPA Phase II wood burning
in section 171(1). toward atsainment by - NAAQS through the end of 1997. ‘- devices are exempt from the-wood
December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of satisfies the second milestone due for burning curtailment program in order to
the Act). RFP is defined In section ‘ : the area. Therefore, EPA approves the - : encourage conversions to c]eaner wood
171(1) of the Act as such annual. .. AS )Ofl PM-b SIP subutittals as’ . . burning devices. This is consistent with
incremental reductions in emissions of - - - -. -., : ‘- the recommendations for voluntary.
the relevant air póllutantas are required.. ‘ SectIon 189 (c) provides that quantitative - ‘i .i. wood burning curtailment programs
by part Dor may reasànably,be required tobeachieved “until the INS as provided in-EPA’s Guidance Document
redesignated - However, this endpoint
by the Administrator for the purpose of is specolative because .. for Residentioi Wood Combustion
ensuring attainment of the applicable - re ieaignatIon clan ares as attainment Is contingent. Emission Control Measures.:.
NAAQS by the applicable date. - . upon several factor, and future events. . . Consistent with the attainment
While section 189(c) of the EPA believes it Is unreasonable to require -: demonstration previously described, the’
plainly provides that quantitative - - “ “s for each nonattainment area to cover . SIP submittaliand State regulation -
milestones are to be achieved until an ultat ,ve milestones years Into the fu -
because of the possibility that such time may elapse . require that ill affected ;ctivities for
area is redesignated to attainment, it is-- beio an area a In fact redesignated attainment. On- - which the State is taking credit towards
silent in Indicating the starting point for the other band. EPA believes It is reasonable for - - demonstrating attainment must be In
counting the first 3-year period or how States initially to submit a sufficient number of full compliance with the applicable SIP
milestones to ensure that there is on-going air
many milestones must be initially - quality protection beyond the attainment deadiles. provisions by December 10, 1993. In
addressed. in the General Preamble, - Addressing two milestones will ensure tint th. - addition to the applicable control -
EPA addressed the statutory gap in the - State continues to nialntainthe NAAQS beyond the - measures, this includes the applicable
starting point for counting the 3-year attainment date heat least some period during - recordkeeping requirements which are
which an area could be redesignated attainment. addressed in the supporting
milestones, indicating that it would - However, In all lnstannsa. additional milestones -
begin from the due date for the - must be addre,sed If an area is not redesignated . Information. (As discussed in Section
applicable implementation plan attainment within the time period covered by the ll.A.3.. two of the control measures
revision containing the control - initial ,nilestome aulanittad. . - which pertain to parking fees and
measures for the area (i.e.. November 15 ‘For areas that demonstrate timely attainmentof implementation of an Intercept lot and
the PM-to NAAQS. the emissions reduction
1991 for initial moderate PM—lu - “ made pnorto the attainment date of -.‘ shuttle service are not required to be
nonattainment areas). (See 57 FR - .- - ‘December 31.1994 (only 46 day, beyond the - implemented until June 1, 1994. -
13539.) As to the number of mulestones,: November 15, 1994 milestone achievement date) - ‘Accordingly. the State did not take -
- EPA believes that at least two - - . - - will satisfy the Ei ,t milestone requirement (57 — credit for these measures in the 1994
13539). -The de minimla timing differential makes . -
- milestones must be init iaIly addressed. - it administratively impracticable to require say, attainment demonstration for Aspen.)
Thus, submittais to address the SIP - - milestone and attainment demonstrations. - Compliance with certain measures, such-
-------
47094 Federal Register I VoL 59; No. 177 I Wednesday, September 14, 1994/ Rules and Regulations ’
• as the I percent fines limit with regard- - adequate enforcement capabilities to Aspën PM—i0 ñonattàininentarea. For.
to street sanding material used, must be-- -ensure compliance with the Aspen PM- further-information, see the TSD -
determined in accordance with 10 regulations. The TSD contains accompanying this document --
appropriate test methods. The - further information on the State-wide 9. Revisions to the Nonattainrnent Area
regulation provides that compliance regulations, enforceability requirements. Boundary -
wtththe lpercentflneslimitwillbe -- andadiscussionofthepersonneland
determined in accordance with the funding intended to support effective The Aspen nonattainment area
American Society for Testing Materials implementation of the control measures. boundary as announced on November 6,
(AS M) “Standard Method for Sieve 1991 (see 56 FR 56736) is currently
Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate ” 8. Contingency Measures - - defined as the city limits of Aspen in 40
EPA belIeves this method is appropnate As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the CFR 81.306. However, on June 20. 1991.
let deterni ning compliance with this Act, all moderate nonaUainment arel the State adopted a more inclusive - -
provision. - SIPs that demonstrate attainment must boundary for the Aspen PM—la
The TSD associated with this action - include contingency measures. See nonattainment area, which included
contains further information on - generally 57 FR 13510—13512 and some of the area surrounding the City of
enforceability requirements including: a 13543-13544. These measures were Aspen. This revised boundary was
desaiptioo of the rules contained in the required to be submitted by November submitted with the Aspen PM-la SIP in
SIP and the source types subject to - 15, 1993 for the initial moderate PM—b January of 1992. As discussed in the
them, test methods; and reporting and - nonattaininent areas. Contingency December 23. 1993 Federal Register
recordkeeping requirements. EPA has measures should consist of other document, the SIP provided a
reviewed the State’s nonattainment area available measures that are not part of demonstration showing that the revised
-regulation. as revised in the State’s the area’s core atthinment control boundary represented the reasonable
December 9, 1993 SIP submittal, for strategy. These measures mu t take - Aspen airs)ied by considering the local
enforceability and has determined that effect without furthir action by the State topography, meteorology, and land use
it meets alLof the criteria included Lu- or EPA. upon a determination by EPA- practices (see 58 FR 68100). EPA
the September 23,1967 Potter -. ; that the area has failed to make RFP or . proposed to amend the Aspen PM—b
Memorandum. . . - - .. attain the-PM-b NAAQS by the - nonattninment area boundary in its -
The State of Colorado has a program - applicable statutory deadline. The December 23. 1993 Federal Register
that will ensure that the measures State’s December 9, 1993 revIsion to the documet. and no con ’ mn its were- - -
contained in the SiP submittals for - Aspen PM-b SIP Included the-j received on that proposed action.
Aspen are adequately enforced. The -. following contingency measures: Therefore. EPA is finalizing the.
ColoradoAirPoilutionControl Division Section lU.D. of the State regulation amendments to the Aspen PM—b
(APO)) has the authority to implement entitled “Nonattnlniiient Areas” - nonattainment area boundary in this
and enforce all emission limitations and’ requires that (1) each user of street - document. Pursuant to section 110(kj(6)
control measures adopted by the - -. - sanding material In the Aspen PM-la of the Act, EPA Is correcting the Aspen -
Colorado Air Quality Control - - . . nonattainmentarea reduce the amount M—l0 nonattainment area boundary In -
Commission (A C). In addition, ;-. -, of street sanding materials applied by 20 40 CFR 81.306 to include some of the
Colorado statute rovides that the APCD- percent from the base sanding amount - ‘additional area surrounding the city of
shall enforce sgsin t any ‘person” who and (2) Pitkiti County pave 3 bus - . - Aspen. The legal definition of the - ‘ -;
yiolates the emission control regulations - pullouts on Highway 82 (which Is the ‘ revised Aspen nonattainrnent area.
of the AQCC. the requirements of the - - main highway through the City) and -- - . submitted by the State is as follows:
SIP, or the requirements of any permit -- pave the Highway 62 road shoulder at - - The area encompassed by the -
• The deflnition.of.”person” includes, -:- the Owl Creek turnoff establishing a — following Parcel ID numbers, as defined
among other things. any. ”munlcipal - new paved lane at this intersection. The - by the Pitkin County Planning
corporation. county.city and county or - - State’s regulation rovldes thatupon a Department: 2737—29,2737—28. 2737— -
other political subdivision of the State.” ‘determination by EPA that the area - 21, 2737—20.2737—19.2137—18.2737— - -. -
such as the City of Aspen. Many of the - ., failed tomake RFP or attain the NAAQS ‘17, 2737—08. 2737—07,2737—06,2735—
control measurei adopted by the AQ( by the Decéniber 31, 1994 statutory 22. 2735—l5 2735—14.2735—13.2735— -
in the State nonatt..h mont regulation deadline, the reduction in sanding - 12,2735—11,2735—10,2735-03,2735--
require the City of Aspen and Pitkin - materials applied must be implemented - 02. 2735-01,2641—31,2643—36,2643-- - -
County to implement the measures. This within 60 days of EPA’s determination 35,2643—34.2643-27,2643—26. - - -
is allowed under section l10(a)(2)(E) of - and that the paving is to be completed A map displaying these Parcel ID
the Act, as long as the State provides the as soon as possible, but no later than the numbers can be obtained by calling or
necessary assurances that the State has - — end of the first complete paving season,, - writing the Pitkin County Planning
- the responsibility for ensuring adequate . after EPA’s determination. These - Department at 130 South Calena Road.
implementation of the-plan provisions.-- — provisions will become legally effective. Aspen, Colorado 81611; (303) 920-5090.
- Since State statute allows for the - - - -- immediately upon EPA’s determination
FinalAction ‘ -- .- - -
- enforcementagainstanycountyorcity - that theAspen area failedtomakeRFP - -
and since the State regulation — - - — ---. or attain the NAAQS by the December EPA is approving the State of - -
cont’ ining the control measures was - - 31.1994 statutory deadline. EPA- “: - Colorado’s PM—b SIP for the Aspen
adopted by the AQCC. the APCD has- - believes the regulation provides --: PM-IC nonattainznent area, which was
adequate authority to ensure - - - — —- -i--: adequate timeframes for - ‘- - - submitted by the State on January 15.
implementation of the control measures —implementation.- - -- -. - 1992, March 17 T 1993, and December 9,
at the local leveL State statute provides • . - Afterreview of the contingency - - - 1993. as meeting those moderate PM—b
- for civil penalties of up to’SlS,OOO per’ - measures described above, EPA believes SIP requirements which were due tobe
day per-violation for any person in - - -‘ they are adequate to meet the - --. - — - - submitted November 15, 1991: Among
.violation of these requirements.ancl .---‘---requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the-..: other things. the State of Colorado has -
cz mini.I penalties are also provided for ’ . Act. Therefoie, EPA Is approvingthe -. -- adequately demonstrated that the Aspen -.
.-in-the State statute, Thus., the APCL! has- PM i0 contingency.measures for the - --- - r moderate-PM—b nonattainment area
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No: 177 / Wednesday. S ptemb’rl4 . 1994 1 Rules and Regulations 47095
will attain the PM-ID NAAQS by and Radiation. The Office of’ - . Date± August3I I994. :
December-31. 1994. As discussed above, Management and Budget (0MB) has jer.i w.i crsw. ‘ - ‘
EPA’s approval does not include the exempted this regulatory action from
State’s voluntary no-drive day Executive Order 12866 review. . - Acting Regional Adzzirnstratcc. -
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
provision. on which EPA is not taking Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, - Federal Regulations is amended as
action at this time. EPA’s approval also u.s c 800 at seq., EPA must prepare follows:
includes the PM—b contingency
measures for Aspen. a regulatory fle,dbilit r analysis .. . - . *
included with the State’s December 9; assessing the impact of any proposed or PART 52—(AMENDED]
final rule on small entities. 5 U.S_c. 603 -
1993 SIP revision.
As noted, on January 14. 1993. the and 604. Alternatively. EPA may certify - 1. The authority citation for part 52
State submitted revisions to its permit that the rule will not have a significant cornice to read as follows
program for the construction and economic impact on a substantial Authority 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
operation of new and modified major number of small entities. Small entities
stationary sources of PM-ID to comply include small businesses, small nottor- Subpart 0—COlOrado
with the amended Act. EPA willbe profitenter rise ndgovenim.nt - z.Se52.3zoisemende iby
taking action on these requirements . entities with j sdiction over,. . - - - adding paragraph (c)(65) to read as
a separate Federal Register document populations of less than 50,000; follows: - -
Lastly, EPA is amending the SIP approvals undez-section 110 and ___ _____
nonattainment area boundary for the subchapter I. part D of the Act do not lden1ruc dMnof jllai.
Aspen nonattainment area to include create any new requirements, but * * - *
some of the area surrounding the City of simply approve requirements that (c)* * *
Asoen - state a (65) On January 15,1992. March 17.
‘the EPA is publi ’ hing this action - because the Federal SIP-approval does 1993, and December 9, 1993, the
without prior proposal because the not impose any new requirements. i, Governor of Colorado submitted
Agency views this as a noncontroversial certify that It does not have a significant revisions to the Colorado State-.
action and anticipates no adverse impact on small enUtie ed. - - mplementatum plan (SIP) to satisfy
comments. However, in a separate Moreover. due to the nature of the - - those moderate PM—b Twialfaininent
document In this Federal Register FOderal-state relationship wider the , area SIP requirements for Aspen. -
publication, the EPA is proposing’to preparation of a regulatory flexibility -- Colorado due to be submitted by -
approve the SIP revision should adverse analysis would constitute Federal November15, 199L Included In the
or critical comments be filed. Under the inquiry into the economic - 1)ecember 9.1993 submittal were PM-
procedures established in the May 10. reasonableness of state sctlon..The Act contingency measures for Aspen to
1994 Federal Register, thiS action will fothida EPA u . - . satisfy the requirements of section
be effective on November14, 1994 concerning SiPs on such grounds • 172(C)(9) of the Act due to be submitted
iinh , by October14. 1994. adverse ° ‘ Union Electhc Co. v u.s. gp ,A , • by November 15. 1993. - - - ‘
critical Comments are received, - - U , 256 (S0 1976) (i) Incorpomlioiby reference.
If the EPA receives such comments. - 7410(ali2). -: - -; . . (A) Colorado Air Quality Control-..
this action will be withdrawn before the Comm ic ion NosraHniIim niAieas
effective date by publishing a . - - - ‘Under iectibii 307tb)(1) fthe Clean regulation, all of S*thon ilL “Asp&.. i
subsequent notice that will withdraw Air Act, petitions for Judicial review Of ‘ Pitkin County PM-b Nonattainment’ -
the final action.- All public comments - - ; hi - action must be filed In the United - Area except Section ULCO., adopted -.
received will then be addressed in a - States Court of Appeals for the - -. j U 21.1993 effective on Mardi -,
subsequent final rule based on this . apProPuate clitnit by NOVember14. . --2.1993, with revisions adopted on-: -
action serving as a proposed rule. The— 1994. Filing. petition for - H - NoVember 12, 1993, eff*klive on’ -.
EPA will not institute a second - reconsideration by the Admiâistrator of December30. 1993: -.
comment period on this action. Any - this final rule does rIot affect the finality - 3. Section 52.332 is amended by -
parties interested in commenting on this of this rule for the purposes âf judicial adding paragraph (e) towed as foUows:
action should do so at this time. u no review nor does itextend the time- “ ; -- - -: - - . ‘-- -_ — - --
such comments are received, the public vith n which a petition for Judicial ... , § ‘ 23” MOdSIatB PM40 Ne*htahhIpIeiit
is advised that this action will be review may be filed. and shall not . . - - A a Ptens . - i. -: . . - : -
effective on November 14. i . - - - postpcnetbeeffectivexiessof srk.h rule. a • - -. - -
Nothing in this action should be - - or action. This action may not be -;- -. - - (e) On January 15,1992. March17,
construed as permitting or allowing or challenged later In proceedings to - - 1993. and December 9, 1993. the - - --
establishing a precedent for any future - enforce its requirements. (See section. . ., Governor of Colorado submitted the
request for a revision to any SIP. Each 307(b)(2).) - - . - - moderate PM—b nonatt2inment area - -
plan for the Aspen area. The submittals
request fbr a revision to the SIP shall be list of Subjects - - - . - were made to satisfy those moderate
considered separately in light of specific - -
technical, economic, and environmental 40 CFR Part 52 - - - - -. . . PM—b nonattninvnent area SIP -
factors, and in relation to relevant . - - - - . , requirements which were due for Aspen
statutory and regulatory requirements. - pollution control Hydrocarbons, on November 15.1991. The December 9.
This action has been classified as a Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen - 1993 submittal was also made to satisfy
-- Table 2 action by the Regional- - dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting - the PM—b contingency measure ‘- . -.
Administrator under the procedures and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur requirements which were due for Aspen
-- published in the Federal Register on dioxide. Volatile organic compounds. . on November-15. 1993.. . - -- -_
- January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214—2225). - ‘40 CFR Port 81 - - - . - ‘ PART 81—fAMENDED) :- -: -
revisedbyanOctober4,1993 - - - - - - -- - - .:‘ ‘— -
-- memorandum from Michael H; Shapiro:’ - - -‘Air-pollutfoircontrol. National parks,’ “- 4. In 8i.308 . the ColOrado PM—b . -
-‘t - -Acting Assistant -AdministratoE for Air - - -Wildeniess areas. - - -- - - — -- - NonaLtAinvnênt Areas table is amen
-------
47O96Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 177 / Wednesday, September 14. 1994 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Public Land Order 7082
(WY - 3O -421 WW-8335
Partial Revoiiat lon of Secretarial
Orders Dated October14, 1918, and
April 8, 1919; WyomIng : - .
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,-
Interior. -- . , -. .
ACTIotl: Public Lan4 Order. 1. . -
SUMMARY: This oider parti ally revokes ‘
two Secretarial Orders insofar as they
affect 863.98 acres of public lands.
withdrawn br stock driv 1 eway purposes.
The lands are no longer needed for this
purpose and the revocation is needed to
‘permit disposal of the lands through
exchange under Section 206 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976.43 U.S.C. 1716. This action
will open the lands to surface entry
unless closed by overlapping -
withdrawals or temporary segregations
of record. The lands have been and will
remain open to mineral leasing..
EFFECTIVE DATE October 14, 1994.
FR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT’.
Duane Feick, ELM Wyoming State
Office, P.O. Box 1828, cheyenne,
Wyoming 82003,307—775—6127.
By virtue of the authority vested In
the Secretary of4he Interior by Section
2O4oftheFederalLandPolicyand
Management Act of 1976,43 U.S.C.
1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:
1. SecretarIal Orders dated October
14,1918, and April 8, 1919. which
withdrew public lands for Stock.
Driveway No44, are hereby revoked.
insofar as they affect the following ?
desaibedlands: . ,--
Sixth Prladpal Meridian -.
T.SON.,R. IO 1W., . -
Sec. 1. SW%NW% and W½SW%; -
Sec. 2, lots I to 3, Inclusive, S½NE¾, and
E½SE’/4
Sec 12. . -
,T.51N..R.1O IW., .
Sec. 22. lots2 to6,Lndus lve,and
SW%4SE¼ : .
Sec. p. N½NEV4. SE¼NE¾, and -
NE’/4SE’A;
• Sec. 35, SE¾SWV - .
The are desonbed eggregate 863.98 acres
in Park County. .... -.
- 2. At 9.1)0 a.m. on October 14,1994, .‘
the lands described In paragraph I will
be opened to operation of the public . -
land laws generally, subject to valid
existing rights, the provisions of existing
withdrawals, other segregatlons of
record, and the requirements of
applicable law. All valid applications
received at or prior to 9:00 am. on -
Octobei 14,1994, shall be considered as
simultaneously filed at that time. Those
received thereafter shall be considered
inthe rderofflling.- . I .’
• Dated: August 9,1994. -
BobArmstrong,
Ass i nant Secretciyof the Interi or. -
- IFR Doc. 94—22658. FIled 9—13—94:8:45 am)
mu .mo coca 43IO- -P -. .
under Pitkin County by revising the
-
entry for “Aspen” to read as follows: . -
§81.306 Colorado.
-
* * * * I .
.
COLORADO—PM-i 0 NONATrAINMENT AREAS
.
Designation
Designated area
- Date Type
.
C lassification
—
Date Type
.. .. . .
S
.
PItIdn County .
.
AspenlPitldn County Area ..... 1 1l15 O Nonatlainment
The area encompassed by the following Parcel ID nusEers. as defined,
11115190 Moderate.
.
by the Pdkin County Planning Depailment 2737—29, 2737—28,
2737—21. 2737—20, 2737—19, 2737—18, 2737—17, 2737-08, 2737—
07, 2737-06, 2735-22. 2735-15, 2735—14, 2735—13. 2735-12,
2735—11, 2735—10, 2735-03, 2735-a, 2735-01, 2641—31. 2643— -
36.2643-35.2643—34. 2643—21.2643—26. -
,
-
• S • — . •. • .
-.. .
.
•. * *. .
• (FR Doc. 94-22525 Filed 9-13-94; &45 eta)
coos i eo .eo .p-
-------
IO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
October 20, 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Considering PM-1O Air Quality Data and the Approaching
Attainment Deadline While Reviewing Attainment
Demonstrations for the Initial Moderate PM-10
Nonattainment Areas
FROM: Joseph W. Paisie,
S0 2 /Particulate Matter Pr gr ms Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch
Regions I-X
As you know, the December 31, 1994 attainment deadline for
the initial moderate PM-b nonattainment areas is rapidly
approaching. The EPA has not completed rulemaking action on the
attainment demonstrations and other related State implementation
plan (SIP) requirements for some of these areas. This memorandum
is to alert you of some immediate concerns associated with such
rulemaking actions.
In particular, EPA should examine the actual air quality
data of the affected area in conjunction with its review of the
SIP requirements to determine what the air quality data reveals
about the area’s potential attainment status. The EPA should
avoid taking an action on an attainment demonstration (and
associated control strat gy) that would be inconsistent with the
actual air quality data.
If EPA concludes that a full approval is not appropriate,
EPA should nevertheless assess whether the submittal contains
requirements that would at least advance the protection of PM-10
air quality. The EPA may approve a submittal for the limited
purpose of improving or strengthening the SIP. Any such
“limited” approval should be accompanied with or followed by a
corresponding disapproval as specified in the July 9, 1992
memorandum, “Processing of State Implementation (SIP)
Submitta].s.”
Finally, EPA’s use of its conditional approval authority was
r cent1y challenged. The reviewing court concluded that EPA may
grant conditional approval of substantive, but not entirely
-------
2
satisfactory, submittals containing at least some specific
enforceable measures [ NRDC v. EPA , 22 F.3d 1125, 1134-1135 (D.C.
Cir. 1994)].
The EPA must exercise its conditional approval authority
responsibly and give appropriate consideration to the approaching
attainment deadline. Generally, EPA should no grant conditional
approvals that are based on a commitment to adopt- -after the
attainment deadline- -measures that are necessary for timely
attainment. Please consult with us if you are considering
granting a conditional approval.
If there are any questions concerning the above issues,
please contact Larry Wallace at (919) 541-0906.
CC: Rich Ossias, OGC
Vickie Patton, OGC
Ken Woodard, AQMD
/ ‘4.C’ 1
pe : I . ‘ P ’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘,
a Z1 b. C ... £UC”M ‘ ? - .- pi 2
/ - / *àI d . 4 tL ‘ -
;, j.’ .it- ( , 3 f /’9d
— i ( cc LC j / (DO4c
j4 lL f’
$%J
V *p..øvL a4
.- 2lJ t -.i J
I A. 7 Q 1 J ‘- a
Al s 2( 5/I ’
— fLP44 ( 4 A. (e- 6 icE . ..
0 ,
-------
#s (o sr 4 r,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
_____ Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
‘1,,
1 QØ1t
NOV14 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Attainment Determination and the Processing of Ini tial
PM- 0 Nonattainment Area SIP’S
FROM: Ct or
Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The EPA has the responsibility, pursuant to the Clean Air
Act, for making determinations as to whether PM-1O nonattainment
areas have attained or failed to attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date. These determinations must be made no
later than 6 months after the attainment date for the areas.
The attached policy and guidance memorandum contains the
criteria for making these determinations and provides for
granting a 1-year extension of the attainment date. The policy
also provides information on the reporting requirements for
quantitative emission reduction milestones. Each Region should
make sure that this information is made available to States
containing PM-b nonattainment areas.
The attainment date for the 70 initial moderate
nonattainment areas is December 31, 1994. The SIP’s for these
areas were to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1991. It has
come to my attention that, in many cases, EPA may not have taken
action on the State’s plan by the attainment date. In such
cases, EPA will find itself in tne awkward position of having to
iVi
-------
2
make attainment determinations for areas which may not have
approved plans. I urge you to give a higher priority to
reviewing and taking action on these SIP’s in order to avoid this
type of situation.
If there are any questions concerning the attached policy,
please contact Larry Wallace at (919) 541-0906.
Attachment
cc: Joe Paisie, AQSSD
Rich Ossias, OGC
-------
S’,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4( PqO ’
NO V 14 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Criteria for Granting 1-Year Extensions of Moderate
PM-1O Nonattainment Area Attainment Dates, Making
Attainment Determinations, and Reporting on
Qua t it at ej t 7 ee
FROM: Sa l ’ Shaver, Director
Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Purpose
Pursuant to sections 179(c) and 188(b) (2) of the Clean Air
Act,’ the Administrator is to determine whether a nonattainment
area has attained the PM-1O NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the EPA
Regional Offices and the State air pollution control agencies
with the relevant criteria for making attainment determinations,
to provide information on the criteria for granting attainment
date extensions for moderate PM-b nonattainment areas, and to
implement quantitative milestone requirements. 2
‘The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C.
7401, et seq.
The policies set out i this memorandum are intended solely
as idance, do not represen final action, and are not ..pe for
judicial review. They are not intended to bind the States and
(continued...)
-------
2
Backaround
The EPA has general authority to designate areas which
violate the PM-b NAAQS as nonattainment pursuant to section
107(d) of the Act. Upon designation as nonattainment, these
areas are classified, by operation of law, as “moderate”
nonattainment areas (see section 188 (a) of the Act].
On the date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments, PM-l0 areas meeting the qualifications of section
107(d) (4) (B) of the Act were designated nonattainment by
operation of law. These areas included all former group I areas
identified in 52 FR 29383 (August 7, 1987) and further clarified
in 55 FR 45799 (October 31, 1990) any other areas violating the
PM-10 NAAQS prior to January 1, 1989. All other areas were
designated unclassifiable (see section 107(d) (4) (B) (iii) of the
Act]. The EPA may redesignate any of these unclassifiable areas
as nonattainment in accordance with section 107(d) (3) of the Act.
States with areas which have been redesignated as
nonattainment for PM-10 have the responsibility of developing and
submitting to EPA a SIP which addresses the nonattainment air
quality problem in the area. The EPA issued a “General Preamble”
describing EPA’S preliminary views on the interpretation of
various SIP requirements, including those requirements applicable
to moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. 3 Sections 172(c) and
189(a) of the Act outline some of the most important elements
which must be contained in the SIP. Among these elements is the
requirement to submit a SIP revision that provides for the
implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM)
(including reasonably available control technology (RACT)] .
States containing initial moderate PM-b nonattainment areas
were required to submit SIP’s containing RACM by
November 15, 1991, and these SIP’s were required to provide for
.continued)
public as a matter of law. This guidance contains EPA’s
preliminary views, and EPA may modify this guidance at any time
or act at variance with the guidance based upon analysis of
specific circumstances.
3 See generally, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992)
4 All references to RACM in this document include RACT, which
is a subset of the RACM requirement.
-------
3
the implementation of RACM no later than December 10, l993.
Affected States are required to demonstrate attainment of the
PM-l0 NAAQS in these areas as expeditiously as practicable, and
no later than December 31, 1994, or demonstrate that timely
attainment is impracticable [ see sections 188(c) (1) and
189(a) (1) (B) of the Act).
States containing areas redesignated as moderate PM-b
nonattainment areas subsequent to the 1990 Amendments are
required to submit SIP’s for these areas containing RAcM no later
than 18 months after redesignation (see section 189(a) (2) (B) of
the Act) - The SIP revisions are required to provide for the
implementation of RACM no later than 4 years after redesignation
as nonattairiment (see section 189(a) (1) (C) of the Act] . These
SIP’S were required to demonstrate attainment of the PM-la NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the end of the
sixth calendar year after redesignation as nonattainment or to
demonstrate that timely attainment is impracticable [ see sections
188(c) (1) and 189(a) (1) (3) of the Act]
Overview of the Policy
I. Background
The Administrator must determine whether PM-l0 nonattainment
areas have attained the NAAQS within 6 months of the applicable
attainment date, and the State must report on the quantitative
milestones for the area within 90 days of the milestone date for
the area. The attainment date for the initial PM-10
nonattainment areas is December 31, 1994.
II. Attainment determination
A. Attainment determination will be based upon whether
an area has 3 consecutive years of clean air quality data. This
determination will be made in accordance with EPA as prescribed
under 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
B. Any discrepancies with the data will be resolved in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, during the process of
reviewing the data.
Initial nonattainment areas were those areas designated
n.’- ttaii-.r:.ant ur. r saction 107(d) (4) (B) of the Act. These areas
wce required to implement RACM no later than December 10, 1993,
pursuant to section 189(a) (1) (C) of the Act.
-------
4
III. Criteria for obtaining an extension of the attainment date
for moderate areas
A. The area must have no more than one measured exceedance
at any monitoring site in the nonattainment area in the year
preceding the extension year.
B. The State must demonstrate that it is complying with all
requirements that pertain to the area in the a licable SIP . The
applicable SIP is the latest federally-approved particulate
matter SIP for the nonattainment area (see section 302(q) of the
Act]
C. The EPA will request additional information from States
- to make its decision on whether to grant an attainment date
extension. The EPA will be disinclined to grant an attainment
date extension unless the State can substantially demonstrate
that certain information concerning the Act planning requirements
have been completed. The EPA will expect the State to
demonstrate that:
1. Control measures have been submitted in the form of a
SIP revision and substantially implemented to satisfy the
RACM/RACT requirement for the area.
2. The area has made emission reduction progress that
represents reasonable further progress toward timely attainment
of the PM-jO NAAQS.
IV. Conseauences of failure to attain or aualifv for an
extension
A. The consequence of an area failing to attain the
standard or qualify for an extension of the attainment date is
that the area will be reclassified to serious by operation of law
(see section 188 (b) (2) of the Act]. In addition, contingency
measures must be implemented in any area which fails to attain
the standard by the applicable attainment date.
B. Upon reclassification, the State must. meet the planning
requirements for serious PM-1O nonattainment areas. These
requirements include, among other things, provisions for the
implementation of best available control measures (BACM) no later
than 18 months from the date of reclassification.
C. The Regional Offices will prepare the Federal Register
notices that identify the areas which will be reclassified’to
serious or will be granted an extension of the attainment date.
These determinations will be announced in the Federal Register
following notice and comment rulemaking procedures.
-------
5
1. The EPA Headquarters will draft the Federal Register
notice identifying the areas which have attained the standard.
V. quantitative emission reduction milestones and reasonable
further progress
A. The PM-b nonattainment plan revisions demonstrating
attainment must provide for quantitative emission reduction
milestones which must be achieved every 3 years until the area is
redesignated attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further
progress for the area.
1. The State should address at least the first two
milestones along with the moderate area SIP.
a. The first milestone is the emission reduction progress
made between the SIP submittal and the attainment date for the area.
b. The second milestone should provide for maintenance to
ensure that the area remains in attainment after the attainment
date.
2. The PM-b nonattainment areas must provide for
quantitative emission reduction milestones which must be achieved
every 3 years an which demonstrate reasonable further progress
until the area is r esignated to attainment.
B. Within 90 days of the date on which the milestone for a
nonattainment area occurs, each State in which all or part of
such nonattainment area is located must submit a milestone report
to EPA. This report must demonstrate that all of the measures in
the SIP approved under section 189 of the Act have been
implemented, that the milestone for the area has been met, and
that reasonable further progress has been achieved. Thus, EPA
has broad discretion in determining the manner of the submittal
and the information contained in the submittal (see the detailed
discussion concerning milestone reporting).
VI. Reauests for redesignation to attainment
A. If an area is determined to have attained the PM-b
NAAQS by the attainment date, the area will remain nonattainment
until all five of the requirements under section 107(d) (3) (E) of
the Act have been met. Among the requirements of section
107(d) (3) CE) is that the State submit, and EPA approve, a SIP
revision which satisfies the requirements of the 1990 Amendments.
The rationale for the abc e policy statements are discussed in
tail in the following actions.
-------
6
Determination of Attainment
The EPA has the responsibility for determining whether a
nonattainment area has attained the PM-b NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. 6 The EPA must make an attainment determination
for the initial moderate nonattainment areas by June 30, 1995, no
later than 6 months after the attainment date for the area. 7
The Act also requires EPA to publish a notice in the
Register identifying those areas which failed to attain and
reclassifying those areas as “serious” nonattainment areas.
The EPA will be making attainment determinations for
nonattainment areas based solely upon an area’s air quality data,
and no special or additional SIP submittal will be required from
the State for this determination. Section 179(c) (1) of the Act
provides that the attainment determination is to be based upon an
area’s “air quality as of the attainment date.” The EPA will
make the determination of whether an area’s air quality is
meeting the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date based
upon data gathered from air quality monitoring sites which have
been entered into the Aerornetric Information Retrieval System
(AIRS) data base.
A PM-l0 nonattainment area’s air quality status is
determined in accordance with appendix K of 40 CFR part 50.
Attainment of the annual PM-10 standard is achieved when the
annual arithmetic mean PM-10 concentration is equal to or less
than 50 g/m3. Attainment of the 24-hour PM-b standard is
determined by calculating the expected number of exceedances of
the 150 g/m3 limit per year. The 24-hour standard is attained
when the expected number of exceedances is 1.0 or less. A total
of 3 consecutive years of clean air quality data is generally
necessary to show attainment of the 24-hour and annual standard
for PM-b. A complete year of air quality data, as referred to
‘See sections 179(c) and ].88(b)(2) of the.Act.
7 1n some cases, States may choose to submit moderate area
SIP’s which include requests for redesignation to attainment
before the applicable attainment date. In these cases, if EPA
finds the SIP’s to be approvable, the SIP’s will be promulgated
in the Federal Register . The EPA will make a determination of
attainment for the area no later than 6 months after promulgation
of the SIP approval in the Federal Register . This determination
will be made in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. The
EPA will grant those requests for redesignation to attainment
which satisfy all of the requirements of section 107(d) (3) (E) of
the Act.
-------
7
in part 50, appendix K, is comprised of all 4 calendar quarters
with each quarter containing data from at least 75 percent of the
scheduled sampling days.°
The EPA will begin processing and analyzing data related to
the attainment of PM-l0 areas immediately after the applicable
attainment date for the affected areas. Current EPA policy,
pursuant to 40 CFR part 58, sets the deadline for submittal of
air quality data into the AIRS data base for no later than 90
days after the end of the calendar year. In order for EPA t o
determine the attainment status of PM-lO areas, EPA must review
the data for the 3 years prior to the attainment date for the
areas. Due to the schedule for making attainment determinations,
pursuant to sections 179(c) (2) and 188(b) (2), States should
- submit the required air quality data for the year preceding the
attainment date into the AIRS data base as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 90 days after the attainment date
for the area. States should identify any issues concerning the
validity of the data or discrepancies related to the data during
this time period. The EPA will address issues related to the
adequacy of data on a case-by-case basis in accordance with 40
CFR part 50, appendix K.
Section 179(c) (2) of the Act also states that EPA may revise
or supplement the attainment determination at any time based upon
more complete information or analysis concerning the area’s air
quality as of the attainment date. The EPA interprets this to
mean that in cases where there are discrepancies concerning the
data or the validity of the data revealed subsequent to an
attainment determination, EPA may later address these issues in
accordance with EPA guidance as stated in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix K.
eunder 40 CFR 50.6(a), the 24-hour primary and secondary
standards are attained when the expected number of exceedances
per year at each monitoring site is less than or equal to one.
In the simplest case, the number of exceedances at a site is
determined by recording the number of exceedances in each
calendar year and then averaging them over the past 3 calendar
years. Under 40 CFR part 58.13, the minimum percentage of
monitoring data which can be considered as sufficient to
determine attainment for PM-1O at any given monitoring site is 75
percent. The amount of data required varies with the sampling
frequency, data capture rate, and the number of years recorded at
a monitoring site. More than 3 years of data may be considered
if all additional representative years of data meeting the 75
percent criterion are utilized. Data not meeting this criteria
may also suffice to show attainment; however, such exceptions
mast approvcd by the app priate ‘ egional A ninistrator in
accordance with EPA guidance (see part 50, appendix K, sections
2.0-2.3)
-------
B
While EPA may determine that an area’s air quality data
indicate that the area may be meeting the PM-b NAAQS for a
specified period of time, this does not eliminate the State’s
responsibility under the Act to adopt and implement an approvable
SIP. If EPA determines that an area has attained the standard,
the area will remain classified as nonattainrnent until the State
has requested, and EPA has approved, redesignation to attainment
for the area.
In order for an area to be redesignated as attainment, .the
State must comply with the five requirements listed under section
107(d) (3) (E) of the Act. Among other things, section
107(d) (3) CE) requires that EPA determine that an area has met the
PM-iD NAAQS and that the State has submitted a SIP which has been
approved by EPA. 9
Attainment Date Extension Criteria for Moderate Areas
If a State containing a moderate PM-iD nonattainment area
does not have 3 consecutive years of clean air quality data to
demonstrate that the area has attained the PM-iD NAAQS, the State
may apply for a 1-year extension of the attainment date. The EPA
may extend the attainment date for 1 year only if the State
submits an application for the affected nonattainment area
satisfying all of he...fo1lowing requirements:
.1. - The rea1nust have no more than one exceedance of the
24-hour PM-b NAAQS in the year preceding the extension year and
the annual mean concentration of PM-10 in the year preceding the
extension year must be less than or equal to the PM-iD NAAQS.’°
Data requirements for purposes of making comparisons with the
24-hour and annual PM-b NAAQS must be consistent with section
2.3 of 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
9 See “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment” memorandum to Regional Air Directors from
John Calcagni, Director of the Air Quality Management Division,
September 4, 1992.
‘°The Act states that no more t.han one exceedance may have
occurred in the area (see section 189(d) (2)] . The EPA interprets
this to prohibit extensions if there is more than one measured
exceedance of the 24-hour standard at any monitoring site in the
nonattainment area. The number of exceedances will not be
adjusted to expected exceedances as long as the minimum required
sampling frequencies have been met.
-------
9
2. The State must demonstrate that it has complied with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to the affected
nonattainment area in the applicable implementation plan.”
Requirements and commitments in the “applicable implementation
plan” include SIP revisions approved by EPA under section 110(k)
of the Act and FIP’s promulgated by EPA under section 110(c) (1)
of the Act [ see section 302(q) of the Act’ 2 [ see generally
section 188 Cd) of the Act].
The authority delegated to the Administrator to extend
attainment dates for moderate areas is discretionary. Section
188(d) of the Act provides that the Administrator “may” extend
the attainment date for areas that meet the minimum requirements
specified above. The provision does not dictate or compel that
EPA grant extensions to such areas.
In exercising this discretionary authority for PM-1O
nonattainment areas, EPA will examine the air quality planning
progress made in the moderate area. In addition to the two
criteria specified in section 188 Cd), EPA will be disinclined to
grant an attainment date extension unless a State has, in
substantial part, addressed its moderate PM-b planning
obligations for the area. While States are encouraged to take
expeditious steps toward completing SIP revisions which satisfy
the requirements of the Act, Federal approval of PM-b SIP
requirements is not required in order to be granted an attainment
date extension. The EPA, however, will expect the State to have
adopted and substantially implemented control measures submitted
to address the requirement for implementing RACM/RACT in the
moderate nonattainment area, the central control requirement that
applies to such areas. 13
The EPA believes that requesting the State to demonstrate
that control measures have been adopted and are being implemented
for areas seeking an extension is a reasonable expectation
because the implementation of the control measures is an
“The PM-10 SIP revisions required under the 1990 Amendments
are not included in the definition of “applicable implementation
plan” if EPA has not taken final rulemaking action to approve the
revisions.
‘ 2 States were required to submit PM-b SIP revisions for
initial moderate nonattainment areas on November 15, 1991. In
the instances where EPA will not have taken final rulemaking
action on the State’s moderate area SIP revision prior to
granting the attainment date extension for the area, the
applicable SIP for the area would be the most recent federally-
approved particulate matter SIP for the area.
‘ 3 See sections 172(c) (1) and 189(a) (1) (C) of the Act.
-------
10
appropriate indication that the improvement in air quality,
evidenced by the low number of exceedances, reflects the
application of permanent steps to improve the air quality, rather
than temporary economic or meteorological changes. As a part of
this showing, EPA will expect the State to demonstrate that the
PM-10-nonattainment area has made emission reductions amounting
to reasonable further progress toward attainment of the PM-b
NAAQS as defined in section 171(1) of the Act.
In order to demonstrate that the control measures have been
adopted and are being implemented, and that reasonable further
progress is being met, the State must submit an application for
an attainment date extension in the form of a report similar to
the quantitative emission reduction milestone report discussed
- below. (See section below on the criteria for the quantitative
emission reduction milestone report.) This report may be
submitted to EPA by the governor or his/her designee no later
than 90 days after the attainment date for the area. The EPA
Regional Offices will address a State’s request for a 1-year
extension of the attainment date through the comment and
rulemaking process no later than 6 months after the applicable
attainment date. If the State cannot make a sufficient
demonstration that the area has complied with the extension
criteria stated above, and EPA determines that the area has Tiot
timely demonstrated attainment of the PM-b NAAQS, the area will
be reclassified as serious by operation of law pursuant to
section 188(b) of the Act.
If an extension is granted at the end of the extension year,
EPA will again determine whether the area has attained the PM-10
NAAQS. If the requisite 3 consecutive years of clean air quality
data needed to demonstrate attainment are not met, the State may
apply for a second 1-year extension of the attainment date. In
order to qualify for the second 1-year extension of the
attainment date, the State must satisfy the same requirements
listed above for the first extension. In addition, EPA will
consider the State’s PM-10 planning progress for the area similar
to its evaluation of the first extension request. However, EPA
may grant no more than two 1-year extensions of the attainment
date to a single nonattainment area (see section 188(d) of the
Act]
Conseauences for Moderate Areas that Fail to Timely Attain the
PM-lU NAAOS
The discussion which follows addresses the consequences of
EPA’s determination that a moderate area has failed to timely
attain the PM-b NAAQS. The consequences described below apply
with equal force to moderate areas that fail to attain the PM-b
NAAQS by the initial attainment date, that are not granted
extended attainment dates, or that fail to meet an extended
attainment date.
-------
1].
If EPA finds that a moderate area is not in attainment after
the applicable attainment date, the area will be reclassified by
operation of law as a serious PM-lO nonattainment area.’ 4 The
EPA Regional Offices will identify the areas that have failed to
attain the PM-lO NAAQS and reclassify them as serious, through
the notice and comment rulemaking process in the Federal
Register , no later than 6 months following the attainment date.
For efficiency, the Regional Offices may also choose to identify
those areas which have been granted a 1-year extension of the
attainment date in the same Federal Register notices.
Within 18 months after reclassification of an area as
serious nonattainment, the affected States must submit, among
other requirements, SIP’s containing provisions to assure that
best available control measures (including best available control
technology) are implemented no later than 4 years after
reclassification.’ 5 In addition, contingency measures must take
effect upon a determination by EPA that an area has failed to
timely attain the PM-b NAAQS. ’ 6 Moderate area plans are
required to provide for the implementation of specific measures
to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further
progress, or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date. Such measures are to be included in the plan as
contingency measures to take effect without further action by the
State or EPA, upon a ‘determination by EPA that the area has
failed to achieve reasonable further progress, or to timely
attain the NAAQS.
For the initial moderate nonattainment areas, EPA
established November 15, 1993 as the due date for submission of
contingency measures (see General Preamble (57 FR 13543),
April 16, 1992)]. The General Preamble contains significant
guidance about the implementation of the contingency measure
requirement.’ 7 The EPA is currently developing further guidance
on contingency measures which will be forwarded to the States and
Regional Offices at a later date.
The,EPA interprets the requirement that contingency measures
“take •effect . . . without further action by the State, or (EPA]”
to mean that no further rulemaking activities by the State or EPA
‘ 4 See section 188(b) (2) of the Act.
‘ 5 See section 189(b) of the Act and 59 FR 41998 (August 16,
1994 (guidance on serious P: i-bO nonattainment area SIP
requirements including BACM)].
16 See section 172(c) (9) of the Act.
“See 57 FR 13510 and 13543-44.
-------
12
would be needed to implement the contingency measures. 18 In
general, EPA will expect all actions needed to affect full
implementation of the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA
notifies the State of its failure to attain the, standard.
Contingency measures have not been submitted for several of
the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas. The EPA made
findings of failure to submit for these areas in January of 1994.
States which failed to submit contingency measures have 18 months
to correct this deficiency before sanctions must be imposed . (see
section 179 of the Act and 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994)]
Ouantitative Emission Reduction Milestones and Reasonable Further
Pro res s
VII. Milestone subniittals
The PM-10 nonattainment area SIP’S demonstrating attainment
must include quantitative emission reduction milestones which are
to be achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated
attainment and which demonstrate reasonable further progress, as
defined in section 171(1) of the Act, toward timely
attainment. 19 The EPA has issued general guidance on the
implementation of this requirement for moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas as well as for serious PM-b nonattainment
areas 20
The Act does not clearly indicate the starting point for
counting the first 3-year period or how many milestones must be
initially addressed. In the General Preamble, EPA addressed the
statutory gap in the starting point for counting the 3-year
milestones, indicating that it would begin from the due date for
the SIP revision containing the control measures for the area,
i.e., November 15, 1992. for initial moderate PM-b nonattainment
areas (see 57 FR 13539).
Section 189(c) plainly provides that quantitative milestones
are to be achieved “until the area is redesignated attainment.”
However, this endpoint for quantitative milestones is speculative
because redesignation of an area as attainment, is contingent upon
several factors and future events. The EPA believes that it is
unreasonable to require planning for each nonattainment area to
cover quantitative milestones several years into the future based
‘ 8 See section 172(c) (9) of the Act and 57 FR 13512.
‘ 9 See section 189(c) of the Act.
20 See 57 FR 13539 for the PM-1O moderate area guidance on
milestones and 59 FR 41998 for guidance on milestones for serious
nonattainment areas.
-------
13
on the possibility that such time may elapse before an area is in
fact redesignated to attainment. On the other hand, EPA believes
that it is reasonable for States initially to submit a number of
milestones sufficient to ensure that there is ongoing air quality
protection beyond the attainment deadline. This will help to
ensure that areas timely attaining the PM-b NAAQS do not fall
out of attainment before qualifying for redesignation.
The EPA believes that at least two milestones should
initially be addressed. Thus, submittals to address the SIP
revisions due on November 15, 1991 for the initial moderate PM-1O
nonattainment areas should have demonstrated that, at a minimum,
the following two milestones will be achieved: Cl) First
milestone--November 15, 1991 through November 15, 1994; and
- (2) second milestone--November 15, 1994 through November 15,
1997. In all instances, additional milestones must be addressed
and submitted at 3-year intervals if an area is not redesignated
attainment.
The EPA has previously indicated that for the initial PM-iC
moderate nonattainment areas that demonstrate timely attainment
of the PM-b NAAQS, the emission reduction progress made between
the SIP submittal (i.e., due date of November 15, 1991) and the
attainment date (i.e., no later than December 31, 1994) will
satisfy the first quantitative milestone. 21 For areas that
demonstrate timely attainment of the PM-bC NAAQS, the milestones
beyond the attainment date should, at a minimum, provide for
continued maintenance of the standards. The EPA intends to
provide further guidance at a later date concerning the
application of quantitative milestones and reasonable further
progress for moderate nonattainment areas which demonstrate that
attainment by the applicable attainment date is not practicable.
Those moderate nonattainment areas designated subsequent to
enactment of the 1990 Amendments will similarly be expected to
initially submit two milestones. States are required to submit
SIP’S for these areas 18 months after their redesignation as
nonattainment. 22 The attainment date for new PM-iD
nonattainment areas is “as expeditiously as practicable” but no
later than the end of the sixth calendar year after an area’s
designation as nonattainment. 23
:gee 57 FR 13539.
22 See section 189(a) of the Clean Air ct.
See section 188(c) (1) of the Act.
-------
14
Because the SIP revision, including the quantitative
milestone submittal, for a new nonattainment area is due 18
months after the area is designated as nonattainment, the first
3-year milestone is to be achieved 4 1/2 years after the
nonattainment redesignation. The second quantitative milestone
must be achieved 3 years after the first milestone or 7 1/2 years
after the nonattainment redesignation. Therefore, the second
milestone will fall at least a year and a half after the
attainment deadline if a maximum of 6 years is needed to attain
the PM-b standard. The second quantitative milestone shou],d
provide for continued emission reduction progress toward
attainment and should provide for continued maintenance of the
standard after the attainment date for the area.
Subsequent milestones must be submitted at 3-year intervals
if an area is not redesignated to attainment. Thus, if an area
is not redesignated to attainment by the due date for when the
second milestone must actually be achieved, a third milestone
must be submitted. The third milestone should be submitted at
the same time that the State is required to submit a
demonstration that the second milestone has been met, which is 90
days after the milestone is due, as explained in section IX
below. This pattern of submitting subsequent milestones along
with the demonstration for the previous milestone should be
continued even if the moderate nonattainmnent area is reclassified
as serious. Submittal of milestones must continue until the area
is redesignated to attainment.
VIII. Reasonable further progress
In addition to addressing quantitative emission reduction
milestones, PM-10 nonattainment plans are also required to
demonstrate reasonable further progress. 24 Reasonable further
progress is defined as “such annual incremental reductions in
emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by [ part
D, title I of the Act] or may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
[ NAAQS] by the applicable date.” 25
The SIP’s for PM-b nonattainment areas should include
detailed schedules for compliance with applicable control
requirements in the areas and accurately indicate the corres-
ponding annual emission reductions to be realized. In reviewing
SIP revisions, EPA will determine whether the annual incremental
emission reductions to be achieved are reasonable in light of the
statutory objective to ensure timely attainment of the PM-b
NAAQS. Additionally, EPA believes that it may be appropriate f or
24 See sections 172(a) (2) and 189(c) (1) of the Act.
25 See section 171(1) of the Act.
-------
15
States to require early implementation of control measures that
are not capital intensive (e.g., controlling fugitive dust
emissions at a stationary source) while phasing in contxol
measures that require significant investment, such as the
installation of new hardware.
The EPA will generally as ess whether an area has achieved
reasonable further progress in conjunction with determining its
compliance with the quantitative emission reduction milestone
requirement. Thus, as indicated below, when a State demonstrates
an area’s compliance with a quantitative milestone, it should
also address whether reasonable further progress has been
achieved during each of the relevant 3 years. The EPA is
currently developing further guidance on reasonable further
progress which will be forwarded to the States and Regional
Offices at a later date.
IX. Milestone and reasonable further proaress re ortin
Within 90 days of the date on which a milestone applicable
to an area occurs, each State in which all or part of such area
is located must demonstrate the following to EPA: (1) All
measures in the plan approved under section 189 of the Act have
been implemented, and (2) the milestone has been met. The
demonstration must be submitted in such form and manner and must
contain such information and analyses as EPA requires (see
section 189(c) (2) of the Act]. Thus, EPA is granted broad
discretion in determining the manner of the submittal and the
information contained therein.
In order to demonstrate that an area has met a quantitative
milestone, the State must generally submit a report which
demonstrates that the area has implemented R.ACM/RACT and has
achieved the emission reductions predicted in the quantitative
milestone for the area. 26 More specifically, the State should
provide the information outlined below.
A. RACM implementation
The report should identify the PM-b sources that are
located in the area. The RACM requirements adopted by the State
to control sources of PM-b should be identified, and the report
should specify the steps that have been taken to implement each
control measure, the percent of implementation that has been
achieved, and an estimate of the reductions achieved. The State
should describe how the estimate of the emission reductions was
made.
26 See sections 172(c) (1) and 189(a) (1) (C) of the Act.
-------
16
A table may be used to summarize the source(s)/source
category(ies) and associated control measures. This table should
include an estimate of PM-b emissions before and after controls.
The report should provide an explanation of why 100 percent
implementation was not achieved and why the projected emission
reductions were not achieved. The State should also identify the
steps that will be taken to achieve the emission reductions which
were not met. The emission reductions should also be analyzed by
year, and the report should assess whether reasonable further
progress was achieved in each of the 3 years during the
applicable milestone period.
The EPA is not requiring the State to provide an updated
emissions inventory to address the previous information. The EPA
- is requesting that the State provide siqnificant and reliable
estimates of the percentage of the control strategy that has been
implemented in the nonattainment area and resulting emission
reduction progress.
Example: The two significant PM-10 sources in a
nonattainment area consist of reentrained road dust from 10 miles
of unpaved roads and the change out of 50 uncertified wood
stoves. The RACM for the area is the paving of all 10 miles of
road and the change out of all 50 wood stoves. The State
estimates that a total of 1000 tons per year of emission
reductions would be achieved from the paving of all 10 miles of
unpaved roadways and 1000 tons per year from the change out of
the wood stoves. The State also projects that 100 tons per year
of emission reductions would be achieved from the paving of each
mile of roadway and 20 tons per year from the change out of each
wood stove. In the quantitative milestone report, the State
indicates that, due to unforeseeable economic difficulties, it
was only able to pave a total of 5 miles of roadway and change
out of only 25 wood stoves. The State should report the
estimated emission reductions achieved as a result of paving 5
miles of roadway and the change out of the 25 wood stoves. The
State should project when it expects to complete the paving of
the remaining 5 miles of roadway and the change out of the
remaining 25 wood stoves. The State should also address the
annual emission reductions that were expected and in fact
achieved.
-------
17
ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTIONS TABLE
Source Category
Projected Emission
Reductions Needed to
Show Attainment After
Implementation of RACN/RACT
Percent
Implementation
Achieved
Estimated
Emission
Reductions
Achieved
Point sources
900
66
600
Reentrained road
dust from paved and
unpaved roadways
1000
50
500.
Residential wood
combustion
1000
50
500
Mobile sources
500
100
500
Total
3400
66.5
2100
The State should explain why the projected emission
reductions from point sources, reentrained road dust, and
residential wood combustion were not achieved. The State should
also indicate its plans to achieve 100 percent implementation of
the control measures and the associated emission reductions. If
additional control measures are needed to obtain the reductions,
these measures should be identified and a schedule for
implementation provided.
B. Enforcement and compliance measures
The quantitative emission reduction milestone report should
identify when the affected sources in the nonattainment area were
expected to come into compliance with RACM and which sources are
not in compliance. The report should also indicate the percent
of compliance being achieved for appropriate source categories
(e.g., 50 percent compliance with the voluntary wood stove
curtailment program). The report should state whether the
applicable recordkeeping requirements are being met, and by what
governmental entity(ies). An indication of whether any
compliance tests have been conducted and the results of those
tests should also be given. Compliance information is necessary
to adequately assess the effectiveness of the control measures
and the associated emission reductions likely achieved.
C. Failure to submit a report or to meet a milestone
If State fails to submit a required quantitative milestone
report f.: an affected i?M-10 nonattainment area, or if EPA
determines that such area has not met an applicable milestone,
the State must submit a plan revision within 9 months after such
failure or determination. The plan revision must assure that th.
-------
18
State will achieve the next milestone for the area by the
applicable date, or attain the PM-b NAAQS, if there is no next
milestone. 27
Therefore, if the projected quantitative milestone for an
area was not achieved (i.e., the control measures were not
implemented to the extent expected by the milestone due date),
the report should indicate how the State plans to meet the next
milestone or attainment date. The report should address the
expected contents of the required plan revision, including the
control measures that will likely be included and the emission
reductions projected from the implementation of these additional
measures. This plan revision must be submitted by the governor
or his designee and must be adopted in accordance with the
procedures required for all SIP revisions.
If the State fails to submit the plan revision within 9
months after EPA’S determination that the milestone was not met
or that the State failed to submit the milestone report, EPA will
issue a finding of failure to submit and initiate the sanctions
process for the area. 29
Reauests for Redesianation to Attainment
A State that has a PM-b nonattainment area that has been
determined by EPA to have attained the PM-iD NAAQS, may request
redesignation to attainment. The Administrator may grant a
request to redesignate an area to attainment if the following
conditions are satisfied:
1. The EPA determines that the area has attained the NAAQS.
2. The applicable implementation plan for the area has been
fully approved by EPA under section 110 (k).
3. The EPA determines that the improvement in air quality
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.
4. The State has met all requirements applicable to the
area under section 110 and part D, title I, of.the Act.
5. The EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including
a contingency plan, for the area as meeting the requirements of
section l75A of the Act [ see generally section 107(d) (3) (E) of
the Act]
“See section 189(c) (3) of the Act.
28 5ee sections 110(m) and 179(a) of the Act and 59 FR 39832,
August 4, 1994.
-------
19
Each of these criteria is discussed in more detail in a
memorandum from John Calcagni to the Regional Air Directors,
dated September 4, 1992, addressing the guidelines for qualifying
for redesignation to attainment. [ See “Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment” memorandum to
Regional Air Directors from John Calcagni, Director of the Air
Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992.] The second half
of the memorandum gives particular attention to the maintenance
plan requirement under section 175A since this constitutes a new
requirement under the 1990 Amendments. The memorandum provides
that special concerns for areas seeking redesignation will e
addressed on a case-by-case basis.
If there are any questions concerning this policy, please
- contact Larry Wallace of the Integrated Policy and Strategies
• Group at (919) 541-0906.
cc: Tom Helms, AQSSD
Joe Paisie, AQSSD
Rich Osias, OGC
-------
0. Reasonable Further
Progress
-------
0. Reasonable Further Progress
0.1. Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
- - Oct. 15, 1992 memo from John Calcagni
0.2. Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and
the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans - -
Oct. 1992
0.3. Credit Toward the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Reductions
from Federal Measures -- May 6, 1993 memo from G.T. Helms
0.4. Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
-- May 13, 1993 memo from D. Kent Berry and accompanying guidance
0.5. Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
- - Enforceable Regulations and Compliance Programs - - June 14,
1993 memo from D. Kent Berry and accompanying guidance document
0.6. Correction Errata to the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan
Guidance Series - - July 28, 1993 memo from G.T. Helms
0.7. Guidance on Issues Related to 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress
Plans - - Aug. 23, 1993 memo from Michael H. Shapiro
0.8. Credit Toward the 15 Percent Requirements from Architectural
and Industrial Maintenance Coatings - - Sept. 10, 1993 memo from
John S. Seitz
0.9. Clarification of “Guidance for.Growth Factors, Projections
and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans”
-- Oct. 6, 1993 memo from G.T. Helms
0.10. Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance on the 15 Percent
Calculations - - Oct. 29, 1993 memo from D. Kent Berry
0.11. Credit for 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
(AIM) Coating Rule - - Dec. 9, 1993 memo from John S. Seitz
). , v / 2,1 8 /q 3
0.12. Clarification of Policy for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Substitution -- Aug. 5, 1994 memo from John S. Seitz
0.13. Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
(AIM) Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing Rule - - Nov. 29,
1994 memo from John S. Seitz
0.14. Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance
(AIM) Coating Rule -- Mar. 22, 1995 memo from John S. Seitz
0.15. Fifteen Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans- -Additional
Guidance -- May 5, 1995 memo from John S. Seitz
-------
** Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and
Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard - - May 10, 1995 memo
from John S. Seitz [ See Redesignations section]
O11L.. &4 + 4 ’c-tn 1 • g
4..it’( Ot4
—- /791/ P1
6 ‘i 7- IV.41 ?‘ J EM A J
‘ t r%’ ?c / A 1 ro ’/ %/ j p
4 ’
-------
fO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
t PqQlt.
15 CC I 1992
OFFICE OF
AIR ANO RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas -—
J
FROM. John Calcagni., Director ..
Air Quality Management Division.( th-’i5)
Office of Air Quality Planning an& andards
Will jam Laxton, Director 21 . %t?
Technical Support Division (MD—14)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
L,. Phil Lorang, Director
‘ Emission Planning and Strategies Division,
Office of Mobile Sources
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Attached is a document entitled Guidance on the Adjusted
Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Taraet for the 15
Percent Mte of Progress Plans , which was developed to guide
States as they begin to develop the State implementation plans
(SIP’S) t9 eet the new rate-of-progress requirements of section
l82(b)(1&J. The document specifically focuses on how a State
determines the required 15 percent emissions reductions.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) now require a
specified rate of emissions reductions for all ozone areas
classified moderate and above. Moderate and above areas must
submit a SIP revision detailing how the area will achieve a
reduction in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions of at
least 15 percent between November 15, 1990 and November 15, 1996
(hereafter called the rate-of-progress plan). The rate-of—
progress requirement is calculated from the 1990 base year
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
2
emissionS inventory. The rate-of-progress plan revision is part
of the full SIP (including an attainment demonstration based on
modeling) for most moderate areas, and a separate submittal for
serious and above areas (due November 15, 1993).
The attached document provides an example of how a State
determines the required 15 percent rate of progress. This
document provides technical guidance to support the policy
interpretations presented in the “General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The example explains how to
determine the 1990 rate-of-progress base year inventory for the
rionattaininent area, how to adjust the 1990 base year emissions
inventory to account for noncreditable reductions between 1990
and 1996 per section 182(b) (1) (B) of the CAAA, how to calculate
the required 15 percent, and how to establish the 1996 target
level of emissions. These steps represent the initial process in
the development of an adequate control strategy to meet the rate
of progress requirements.
We suggest that you forward this document to your State and
local agencies (an unbound original is enclosed). This document
will also be placed on the Technology Transfer Network, the
Management and Accountability Process System, and the State and
Local Air Directors under the filename PROGRESS.WFP.
We trust that this information will be of help to you as you
guide your State through the SIP development process. If you
have questions or comments, please contact Sheila Holman (919—
541-0861), Kimber Scavo (919-541-3354), or Mary Ann Warner—Seiph
(919—541—1192)
Attachment
cc: John Seitz
Lydia Wegman
Dick Wilson
Jane Armstrong
Rich Ossias
David Mobley
Tom
John 1vasi
Marty- Martinez
John Bosch
Joe Tikvart
Ned Meyer
Howard Wright
Ogden Gerald
Sheila Holman
Kimber Scavo
Mary Ann Warner-Selph
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
-------
riJIDi CE O .
‘ E’ ” BASE ii
::PNVENTO
19?6 TARGET’
— _jL
RATE WPROGkI
--
U .L r
.. . -
,
-4
-------
Guidance on the Adjusted Base
Year Emissions Inventory and the
1996 Target for the 15 Percent
Rate-of-Progress Plans
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air’ Quality Planning and
Standards
Re$arch Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
ACKNOWLEDG NTS • • • • • • • • • • • • •
LIST OF TABLES • . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES • • . . . • • • • . . . . . . . . vii
AcRONYMSANDABBREVIATIONS ...... viii
E XECLT1’IVE ST.Th0IARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.0 IN’ R0DUCTION 5 S S S • S • S S S S S S • • • . . . . 5
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Organizationof Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.0 CALCULATIONOFTHE1996TARGET. .......• .••• 9
2.1 Calculation of the 1990 Adjusted Base Year
Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Mobile Source Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
RACTRuleCorrections. . . . . . . . . •..... 14
I/MProgramCorrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 1996 Target Level of Emissions . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3 Requirements of Section 182(b)(1)(A)(ii) . . . . . 17
2.4 Emissions Factor Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.0 RATE-OF-PROGRESS PLAN ELE €NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1 BaseYear lnventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Guidance Documents for Preparing Base Year
Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Documentation Requirements of Base Year Inventory 22
3.2 Additional Rate-of-Progress Plan Elements . . . . . 22
1990 Rate-of-Progress Base Year Inventory . . . . . 23
1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory . . . . . . . . . 23
Required 15 Percent Reductions . . . . . . . . . . 24
TotalExpectedReductions. . . . . s...... 24
TargetLevelfor 1996....... . . . . .... 25
Economic Activity and Growth: Determinants and
Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
ControlMeasures/Factors ............. 26
3.3 taininent Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.0 CREDI LITY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS . . . . . . . . . 29
4. 1 IU ’ Progranis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
RA Fix—Ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
R.ACT Catch—Ups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2 Inspection and Maintenance Programs . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Preenactment Banked Emissions Reduction Credits . . 32
4.4 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (M CT)
Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
GeneralRequirernents ............... 34
EarlyReductionsProgram . . ........... 34
4.5 Rule Effectiveness Improvements . . . . . . . 5 . 5 35
iii
-------
5.0 PREVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS,
CONTROL TRA, AND 1996 MILESTONE COMPLIANCE
DEMONSTR.ATION • • • • • • 37
REFERENCES S S • S • S • • • • • • 39
APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . A-i
APPENDIX B: CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RACT
RTJLE CORRECTIONS • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . B—i
APPENDIX C: CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM I/M
PROGRAMCORRECTIONS .. c-i
iv
-------
A NOWLEDGE!4EW S
This report was prepared by Andrew D Boliman and Randy
Strait of E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc. of Durham, North
Carolina. The work was conducted under EPA Contract No. 68-DO-
0120, Work Assignment No. 2-43; with contributions from the
following EPA Offices: Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch and
Emission Inventory Branch of the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, and the Emission Planning and Strategies Division
of the Office of Mobile Sources.
V
-------
LIST OP TABLES
Number Page
1. PROJECTION AND CONTROL FACTOR FORMATS . • • , • • , • • 27
A-i. MAJOR SOURCE THRESHOLDS AND MINIMUM EMISSIONS OFFSET
RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR OZONE NONA AINMENT AREA
CLASSIFICATIONS • • • • • • • • • A—3
C-i. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE (I/N) PROGRAM INPUTS . . . . C -i
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
Figure 1. Flow chart for rate-of-progress calculations. . . 10
Figure 2. Flow chart for exam 1e rate-of-progress
calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 3. Example of use of preenactment banked emissions
credits . . . . . 33
vii
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
‘I
Act Clean Air Act
AIRS Facility Subsystem
AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System
AMS AIRS Area and Mobile Source Subsystem
BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
Co Carbon Monoxide
CTG Control Technique Guideline
E1 MA Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards
FMVCP Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
FR Federal Register
gal gallon(s)
I/M Inspection and Maintenance
lb pound(s)
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard(s)
NO Nitrogen Oxides
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
psi pounds per square inch
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RIP Reasonable Further Progress
ROM Regional Oxidant Modeling
RVP Reid Vapor Pressure
SIP State Implementation Plan
SSCD Stationary Source Compliance Division
tpy tons per year
UAM Urban Airshed Model
•VMT vehicle miles traveled
voc volatile Organic Compound(s)
viii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 782(b) (1) of the Clean Air A t (Act) Amendments of
1990 (CAAA) requires all ozone nonattainment areas classified as
moderate and above to submit a State implementation plan (SIP)
revision by November 15, 1993, which describes, in part, how the
areas will achieve an actual emissions reduction of at least
15 percent during the first 6 years after enactment of the CAAA
(November 15, 1996). The portion of the SIP reyision that
illustrates the plan for the achievement of this emissions
reduction is subsequently defined in this document as the “rate-
of-progress plan.”
The focus of this guidance document is on the requirements
due November 1992 relative to the rate-of-progress plan,
including adjustments that must be made to the base year (1990)
emissions inventories. This document clarifies guidance provided
in an August 7, 1992 memorandum from Mr. J. David Mobley, Chief,
Emissions Inventory Branch, to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Regional Chiefs, regarding “November 15, 1992,
Deliverables for RFP and Modeling Emission Inventories.”
Section 182(a) (1) of the CAAA requires all nonattainment
•areas to submit within 2 years of enactment (November 15, 1992),
a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of ozone season
typical weekday emissions from all sources. State agencies are
responsible for the development of this “base year inventory.”
Draft base year inventories were scheduled to be submitted to EPA
during the period of January 1 to May 1, 1992. Final base year
inventories, which incorporate comments from EPA’S review of the
draft inventory, and draft adjusted base year inventories,
described in this guidance document, are due no later than
November 15, 1992.
This document assists States in determining the 1996 target
•level of emissions under the rate-of-progress plan requirement
for moderate and above ozone nonattairunent areas. States will
tise this target emissions level in determining what strategies
will be necessary to control emissions so that the nonattaininent
area will comply with the 15 percent volatile organic compounds
(VOC) emissions reduction requirement. This document uses an
example 1996 target emissions calculation to. describe the
procedures that States should follow to calculate the 1996 target
level. It so describes EPA’S documentation requirements for
the Novembi t992 submittals relative to the rate-of-progress
plan. The ichedule for rate-of-progress plan deliverables is
listed below:
1
-------
November 1992:
• Final 1990 base year inventory.’
• 1990 rate-of-progress base year inventory (limited
to nonattainntent area and excluding biogenic
emissions) 2
• Initial 1990 adjusted base year inventory. 3
• Required 15 percent reductions. 3
• Total expected reductions by 1996.
• Target level for 1996.
• Growth factors for developing projected rate—of-
progress and attainment modeling inventories. 3
• CAAA mandated control measures and their
associated control efficiencies. 3
‘States must allow for public review of the base year inventories
if they are to be used in a regulatory exercise such as rate-of-
progress plans, attainment demonstrations, or maintenance plans.
While 1990 base year inventories must be submitted to EPA by
November 15, 1992, EPA will allow the public review process to
occur after this date (because of the length of time generally
required for scheduling and completing the public review
process). If public review is held after the November 15
submittal, then prior to November 15, 1993, and prior to
application in any regulatory activities, the inventory must be
revised to reflect responses to public review comments.
2 The rate-of-progress inventory is a subset of the final 1990
base year inventory and should be identified within the base year
inventory documentation. This means that within the base year
inventory submittal, emissions from anthropogenic sources (i.e.,
excluding biogenics) within the nonattainment area (excluding
sources within the 25-mile buffer zone and sources in a model
domain but outside of the nonattainment area) should be
identified. This can be accomplished by summarizing emissions in
the inventory for nonattaininent area anthropogenic sources and
then summarizing emissions for all, other sources. Thus, the
rate-of-progress inventory should be submitted as part of the
1990 base year inventory package due by November 15, 1992.
3 The EPA stated in an August 7, 1992 memorandum from Mr. J’. David
Mobley, Ch i, Emission Inventory Branch, to EPA Regional Office
Chiefs, ragaxding “November 15, 1992, Deliverables for RFP and
Modeling iion Inventories,” that these items (initial 1990
adjusted b e year inventory through remaining items under
November 1992) are required by November 15, 1992. If, however, a
State will be submitting a full draft 15 percent rate-of-progress
plan for public review in early 1993 (i.e., no later than March
1993), they may wait and submit the draft plan to EPA at the
beg’nn4ng of the public review period rather than submitting
these items in November 1992. Please note, however, that for
arems involved in regional oxidant modeling (ROM) exercises,
growth and control factors need to be submitted to EPA by
November 15, 1992.
2
-------
May 1993:
• Draft 1996 projected emissions inventory with
Controls.
November 1993:
• Fully adopted rate-of-progress plan, including
attainment demonstration for moderate areas not
using the urban airshed model (UAN).
Various reductions will result from implementation of the
1990 CAAA. Some of these reductions are creditable toward the
15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements while others are
not creditable. This, document incorporates a review of the
creditability of emissions control programs mentioned in the
CAAA. This discussion assists States in planning a control
‘strategy to meet the 1996 target emissions level. All real,
permanent, and enforceable post-1990 VOC emissions reductions are
creditable toward the 15 percent requirement except for
reductions resulting from the following:
1. The Federal motor vehicle control program (FMVCP)
tailpipe or evaporative standards promulgated prior to
1990.
2. Federal regulations specifying Reid’ vapor pressure
(RVP) limits for nonattainxnent areas (55 FR 23666, June
11, 1990).
3. State regulations required under section 182(a) (2) (A)
to correct deficiencies in existing reasonably
available control technology (RACT) rules.
4. State regulations required under section 182(a) (2 (B)
to establish an inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program or correct deficiencies in existing 1/14
programs.
Finally, this document provides a brief preview of the
development of emissions projections and control strategies,
along with a discussion of the 1996 milestone compliance
demonstration. The EPA is not requiring that a complete draft
control strategy be included in the rate-of-progress plan until
May 1993. .b wever, CAAA mandated control measures and their
associated Cntro1 efficiencies are required in November 1992;
additiona1 ñtrol measures to meet the 15 percent emissions
reduction irement are encouraged, but not required for the
November 1992 submittal. Guidance for the May and November 1993
submittals will be released in the fall of 1992.
The EPA may require States to make corrections to the final
1990 base year, 1990 rate-of-progress base year, initial 1990
adj usted base year ,nventories, as well as the 1996 target level
of emissions. These corrections will only be required if
emissions factors or methodologies change significantly, and
these changes occur before such time that it is impossible for
3
-------
States to make adjustments to their 15 percent emissions
reduction calculations and associated control strategies. For
example, a revised MOBILE model (MOBILE5. ) is due for release
this fall. Its use will not be required in the November 1992
submittal, but will be required in the November 1993 submittal.
4
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 182(b) (1) of the CAAA requir’ s all ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to submit a
SIP revision by November 15, 1993, which describes, in part, how
the areas will achieve an actual emissions reduction of at least
15 percent during the first 6 years after enactment of the CAAA
(November 15, 1996). Emissions and emissions reductions shall be
calculated on a typical weekday basis for the “peak” 3-month
ozone period (generally June through August). The 15 percent voc
emissions reduction required by November 15 1996 is defined
within this document as “rate of progress.” 4 Furthermore, the
portion of the SIP revision that illustrates the plan for the
achievement of the emissions reduction is subsequently defined in
this document as the “rate-of-progress plan.”
Additionally, States with intrastate moderate ozone
nonattainment areas will generally be required to submit
attainment demonstrations with their SIP revisions due by
November 15, 1993 (such areas choosing to use the UAM to prepare
their attainment demonstrations will be allowed to submit
attainment demonstrations by November 15, 1994). States choosing
to run UMI for their intrastate moderate areas must submit their
15 percent rate-of-progress plan and a committal SIP addressing
the attainment demonstration. The committal SIP subject to a
section 110(k) (4) approval would include, at a minimum, evidence
that grid modeling is well under way and a commitment, with
schedule, to complete the modeling and submit it as a SIP
revision by November 1994. The completed attainment
demonstration would include any additional controls needed for
attainment.
It is important to note that section 182(b) (1) also requires
the SIP for moderate areas to provide for reductions in VOC and
nitrogen oxide (N0 ) emissions “as necessary to attain the
national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone” by
4 The EPA recognizes that the CAAA term, both the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirement of section 182(b) (1) and the
section 182(c) (2) (B) requirement for 3 percent per year VOC
emissions reductions averaged over each consecutive 3-year period
from Nove . 15, 1996 until the attainment date, as reasonable
further p 1 ess requirements. However, because the CAAA require
SIP revi for the 15 percent reduction to be submitted in
1993 and S Prrevisions for the 3 percent per year reductions to
be submitted in 1994, EPA believes that it would be clearer,
within the context of both the 15 percent rate-of-progress plan
and. the post-1996 rate-of-progress plan guidance documents that
EPA is producing, to create distinct labels for these two
se mingiy similar reductions. The 1994 SIP revisions describing
the requirement for 3 percent VOC emissions reductions averaged
over each consecutive 3-year period from November 15, 1996 until
the attainment date, constitute the post-1996 rate-of-progress
plan.
5
-------
November 15, 1996. This requirement can be met through the use
of EPA-approved modeling techniques and the adoption of any
additional control measures beyond those ‘heeded to meet the
15 percent emissions reduction requirements.
Section 182(c) (2) requires all ozone nonattainment areas
classified as serious and above to submit a SIP revision by
November 15, 1994 which describes, in part, how each area will
achieve additional VOC emissions reductions of 3 percent per year
averaged over each consecutive 3-year period from November 15,
1996 until the area’s attainment date. It is important to note
that section 182(c) (2) (C) allows for actual NO emissions
reductions (exceeding growth) that occur after the base year of
1990 to be used to meet post-1996 emissions reduction
requirements for ozone nonattaininent areas classified as serious
and above, provided that such N0 reductions meet the criteria
outlined in forthcoming substitution guidance. The portion of
the SIP revision (due •in 1994) that illustrates the plan for the
achievement of these post-1996 reductions in VOC or NO is
subsequently defined in this document as the “post-1996 rate-of-
progress plan.” This plan must also contain an attainment
demonstration based on photochemical grid modeling. The EPA will
distribute a separate guidance document on the development of the
post-1996 rate-of-progress plan in early 1993.
Demonstrating achievement of the 15 percent VOC emissions
reductions by November 15, 1996, and then subsequently
demonstrating achievement of the 3 percent per year VOC emissions
reductions averaged over each consecutive 3-year period from
November 15, 1996 until the attainment date, are termed milestone
demonstrations. Achievement of the milestones must be
demonstrated within 90 days of the milestone date (i.e., the
15 percent VOC emissions reductions must be demonstrated by
February 13, 1997). Rules regarding the development of the
milestone demonstrations will be promulgated i.n the summer of
1993 and will address the timing problem of developing a full
emissions inventory to meet the milestone demonstration
requirement.
1 .1 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the
calculation and presentation of the adjusted base year inventory
and the 1996 target level of emissions. The 1996 target
emissions ]?ével facilitates planning for the 15 percent vOC
emissions reduction requirement. This guidance document alerts
the reader to special circumstances regarding emissions
inventories and emissions estimates that should be considered
during the development of the rate-of-progress plan, including
the procedures to follow in adjusting the 1990 base year
inventory to calculate the 1996 target level of emissions. It
•also provides information on the creditability of emissions
reductions for various control programs. This document assists
States in preparing the required information in the proper
6
-------
States in preparing the required information in the proper
format. Finally, this guidance presents an example 1996 target
emissions calculation.
It is important to note that the scope of this document
comprises the preparation of the November 1992 rate—of—progress
plan deliverables. Therefore, it does not discuss the May and
November 1993 submittals that involve the calculation of the
projected 1996 inventory and development of the control strategy.
A separate guidance document entitled, “Growth’ Factors,
Projections, and Control Strategies,” will discuss these topics
as they relate to the 1993 submittals. The EPA will publish the
requirements for the 1996 milestone demonstration in a rulemaking
expected in the summer of 1993.
This document addresses many programs and procedures that
are more fully addressed in other guidance documents. This
guidance does not supersede these other guidance documents;
rather, it intends to pull together the relative material
pertaining to the development of the rate-of-progress plan.
1.2 Background
Facilities, States, and the EPA currently estimate emissions
for various purposes. Under the CAAA, facilities have new
requirements in terms of permits, annual emissions statements,
and compliance certifications. State agencies are currently
responsible for the production of a base year emissions
inventory, periodic inventories, and annual aerometric
information retrieval system (AIRS) facility subsystem (APS)
inventories. The EPA develops and utilizes emissions estimates
and emissions inventories in virtually all of their air programs.
The focal point for this guidance document is adjusting the 1990
base year inventory for the rate-of-progress SIP revision.
The 1990 base year inventory emissions are reported on an
annual and seasonal basis. For determination of the 15 percent
-VOC emissions reduction, emissions are based on typical ozone
season weekday emissions. For the base year inventory, these
emissions are measured for a typical weekday during the 1990 peak
ozone season. The peak ozone season is the contiguous 3-month
period fpr which the highest ozone exceedance days have occurred
in the pr.Yioua 3 to 4 years. The EPA’s focus on typical ozone
season wU dIiy VOC emissions (an interpretation of the definition
in sectior wjØ2(b) (1) (8) of baseline actual emissions during the
“calendar 9Ur” of enactment) is consistent with prior EPA
guidance. This stems from the fact that the ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) is an hourly standard that
is generally violated during ozone season weekdays when
conditions are conducive for ozone formation. These ozone
seasons are typically the summer months.
Wfth the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction, moderate
nonattainment areas are generally expected to be able to attain
the ozone NAAQS within the applicable timeframe. Therefore, the
7
-------
base program that all areas classified as moderate and above
nonattainment must meet is the 15 percent rate—of—progress
reduction. In cases where modeling shows VOC emissions
reductions greater than 15 percent and/or NO reductions are
necessary to attain the standard, additional emissions reductions
will be required on a schedule that is sufficient to meet the
attainment deadline. Section 182(c) (2) (C) allows for actual NO
emissions reductions (exceeding growth) that occur after the base
year of 1990 to be used to meet post-1996 emissions reduction
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious
and above. Therefore, it is recommended that State agencies
track the actual NO emissions reductions occurring between 1990
and 1996. More specific guidance regarding NO substitutions is
currently under development within the EPA.
1.3 Organization of Report
The organization of this report is as follows. Section 2 of
this document provides a sample calculation of the 1996 target
level of emissions. SeCtion. 3 of this document presents the
rate-of-progress plan elements- This section highlights
information on documenting the adjustments to the 1990 base year
inventory for calculation of the 1996 target level of emissions.
Section 4 of this document discusses the creditability of
emissions reductions from various programs to the 15 percent
requirement. The final section of this document provides a
preview of the development of emissions projections, the control
strategy, and the milestone demonstration that is due in 1997.
Appendix A of this document provides a list of definitions for
EPA terms used throughout this document. Appendix B describes
the calculation of emissions reductions from RACT rule
corrections, and Appendix C outlines this procedure for t/M
program corrections.
8
-------
2.0 CALCULATION OF THE 1996 TARGET
To determine their control strategies for achieving the
required VOC emissions reductions, States will need to calculate
the 1996 target level of emissions--the maximum amount of
emissions allowed in 1996 given the rate-of-progress requirement.
Figure 1 provides an overview of how this target level is
derived. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this document detail the
calculation of this target using a hypothetical example.
2.1 Calculation of the 1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory
The CAAA specify the emissions “baseline” from which the
15 percent reduction is calculated. This baseline value is
termed the 1990 adjusted base year inventory.
Section 182(b) (1) (B) defines baseline emissions (for purposes of
calculating the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction) as “the total
amount of actual VOC or NO emissions from all anthropogenic
sources in the area during the calendar year of enactment.”
Section 182(b)(1)(D) excludes from the baseline the emissions
that would be eliminated by FMVCP regulations promulgated by
January 1, 1990, and RVP regulations (55 FR 23666, June 11,
1990), which require maximum RVP limits in nonattainment areas
during the peak ozone season.
The 1990 base year inventory is first adjusted by removing
all biogenic emissions as well as emissions from sources located
outside of the designated nonattainment boundary (e.g., within
the modeling domain). This inventory, which contains only actual
anthropogenic emissions occurring within the designated
nonattainxnent boundaries during the base year, is termed the
rate-of-progress base year inventory. The adjusted base year
inventory is derived from the rate-of-progress base year
inventory by removing the expected FMVCP and RVP reductions from
the rate-of-progress base year inventory. Preenactment banked
emissions credits should not be included in any of these
inventories because they do not represent actual emissions in
1990. The following illustrates the general procedure for
determining the 1990 adjusted base year inventory.
Step 1: Develop the 1990 Base Year Inventory
(includes all emissions within the UAM modeling domain)
t al 1990 Base Year VOC Emissions Inventory
(pobulds/day (lb/day)],
Point Sources 1 ,000
Area Sources 2,500
Mobile Sources 3,500
Biogen.tc Sources + 5,000
Total 12,000
9
-------
A
SUBTRACT
BIOGENICS.
- 4ISSIONS OUTSIDE
NONATTAINI4ENT AREA
ADp
GROWTH
1990
RATE-OF-
PROGRESS
BASE YEAR
INVENTORY
SUBTRACT
• FMVCP
RVP REDUCTIONS.
REDUCTION NEEDS BY
1996 TO ACHIEVE 15
PERCENT NET OF
GROWTH
1 990
ADJUSTED
BASE YEAR
INVENTORY
L
IDultiply
by 0.15 ,
B
ADD
REDUCTIONS FRON:
- FMVCP/RVP
RACT RULE CORRECTIONS
1/14 CORRECTIONS
DO&5 lJO’P INCLUDE PRE W C! ??P MJKED YISSIOAWS CREDITS
FINAL BASE
YEAR (1?90)
EMI SS IONS
REDUCTION
REQUIRED BY
1996 -
I
•C 1996 ESTIMATED
EMISSIONS.
A -B,
I . —
“V
TOTAL
EXPECTED
REDUCTIONS
BY 1996
FOR 1996
I .
Figure 1
Flow chart for rate-of prog e88 ca1culation
-------
As shown, the first step records the total 1990 base year
inventory emissions from the four emissions source types: point,
area, mobile, and biogenic. The EPA requhed that the 1990 base
year inventory be submitted by the States in draft form by May
.1992, and in final form by November 15, 1992. However, EPA is
allowing additional time for States to complete the public
hearing process. In the example presented above, the modeling
domain is larger than the nonattainment area boundaries so the
emissions for the modeling domain are presented. Here, the total
point-source inventory is 1,000 lb/day. Area sources account for
2,500 lb/day. The 1990 base year mobile source inventory is
3,500 lb/day. In documenting the base year inventory, States
must also specify which sources and emissions are located within
the nonattaininent area and which are not. This is an important
requirement for documenting the inventory, as ozone inventories
will include either point sources outside of the nonattainment
area (in the 25-mile buffer zone) or all sources in the. UAM
modeling domain (if UAM modeling is to be performed).
Step 2: Develop 1990 Rate-of-Progress Base Year Inventory for
Nonat tainment Area
1990 Rate-of-Progress Base Year Inventory (lb/day)
Point Sources (-200 from outside nonattaininent area) 800
Area Sources (-500 from outside nonattaininent area) 2,000
Mobile Sources (-500 from outside nonattainment area) + 3,000
Total 5,800
The second step develops the 1990 rate-of-progress base year
inventory for the nonattainment area. This inventory comprises
the anthropogenic stationary (point and area) and mobile sources
in the nonattainment area; all biogenic emissions are removed
from the base year inventory. In the example presented above,
200 lb/day, 500 lb/day, and 500 lb/day were contributed from VOC
point, area, and mobile sources, respectively, that are located
in the modeling domain but outside of the nonattainment area
boundary. In this example, there were no outer continental shelf
(OCS) sources (any OCS sources that were not located within the
designated nonattainment area would also be removed from the base
year inventory).
Step 3: slop Adjusted Base Year Inventory
199O Adjusted Base Year Inventory (lb/day)
Point Sources 800
Area Sources 2,000
Mobile Sources (-FMVCP and RVP -- 500) + 2,500
Total 5,300
The third step consists of developing the 1990 adjusted base
year inventory from which the 15 percent reduction is calculated.
11
-------
First, the mobile source portion of the 1990 rate-of-progress
base year inventory calculated in Step 2 must be adjusted as
required by section 182(b) (1) (B) and (D) of the CAAA. This
adjustment excludes emissions reductions that would occur by 1996
as a result of the FMVCP promulgated prior to the CAAA. In other
words, the adjusted base year inventory excludes the emissions
reductions that would occur as a result of fleet turnover between
1990 and 1996 even without the CAAA.
The 1990 adjusted base year inventory must also exclude
emissions reductions that would result in 1996 from RVP
regulations promulgated by November 15, 1990, or required under
section 211(h) of the Act. The pertinent regulations (55 FR
23666, June 11, 1990) specify maximum RVP’ s of 9.0 or 7.8 pounds
per square inch (psi) for each State during the sunuuer months,
beginning in 1992. In other words, the 1990 adjusted base year
inventory must also exclude the emissions reductions that would
occur as a result of the difference between the actual RVP in
place in 1990 and the required 9.0 or 7.8 psi RVP in 1996.
Deleting these mobile source emissions reductions from the
adjusted inventory decreases the adjusted inventory and thus,
also the 15 percent emissions reductions required. However,
these mobile source emissions reductions are fully included in
the total emissions reductions and thus, serve to reduce the
.tota]. emissions allowed (as determined by calculating the target
level of emissions).
The net effect of these adjustments is that States are not
able to take credit for emissions reductions that would result
from fleet turnover of current standard cars and trucks, or from
already existing Federal fuel regulations. However, the SIP can
take full credit for the benefits of any new vehicle emissions
standards, as well as any other new Federal or State motor
vehicle or fuel program that will be implemented in the
nonattaininent area, including Tier 1 exhaust standards, new
evaporative emissions standards, reformulated gasoline, enhanced
I/M, California low emissions vehicle program, transportation
control measures, etc.
Mobile Source Adiustments
The mobile source portion of the adjusted base year
inventory ia calculated using the MOBILE emissions factor model.
States maijjIe MOBILE4.1 to come up with initial estimates of the
adj usted i : year inventory. However, as soon as MOBILE5
becomes a àffab1e, States should switch to MOBILE5. MOBILE4.1 or
MOBILE5 must be run in calendar year 1990, and again for calendar
year 1996 (the 1996 run must not include any new CAAA measures).
Since MOBILE4.1 does not include new CAAA measures, no change in
modeling assuinpt..ons other than RVP is needed for the 1996 run.
W RTT.RS will have a flag that will run the model using the FMVCP
that was in place in 1990 for any calendar year. This flag will
be dociented in the MOBILES User’s Guide.
12
-------
The following description uses MOBILE4.1 for reference. The
method for calculating the expected reductions front the FMVCP arid
RVP is the sazne using MOBILE5 except that”the flag described
above must be set to achieve the projected emissions in 1996 in
the absence of any new CAAA measures. Users must still set the
appropriate RVP as described below.
Actual 1990 emissions =
(1990 vehicle miles traveled (VI4T)](MOBILE4.1 emissions factors
from A); and
Adjusted 1990 emissions =
(1990 VMT) (MOBILE4.1 emissions factors from B).
(A) MOBILE4.1 run from the 1990 base year inventory. Emissions
factors from this run will be used with actual 1990 VMT to
calculate actual 1990 emissions; and
(B) MOBILE4.1 run as in the 1990 base year inventory run except
that: 1) 1996 will be used as the evaluation year (this
will change the vehicle mix to account for fleet turnover);
and 2) the RVP is set to 9.0 or 7.8 as appropriate for the
area. Emissions factors from this run and 1990 VMT will be
used to calculate the adjusted 1990 emissions.
Expected Reductions from FMVCP and RVP (1990-1996) =
Actual 1990 emissions - Adjusted 1990 emissions
This is the amount that is subtracted from the mobile source
portion in the “rate-of-progress base year inventory” to get the
mobile source portion of the adjusted base year inventory
(step 3). For Step 5, this amount will be added to the required
15 percent reductions and other required reductions to calculate
the total reductions from the 1990 baseline that must occur to
comply with CAAA requirements.
In the hypothetical example presented in step 3, the FMVCP
and RVP regulations represent a decrease in emissions of
500 lb/day. This reduction reflects what the 1990 emissions
would be if the same fleet that is projected to be operating in
1996 were operating in 1990. In addition, the effects of RVP
regulations, which will result in lower evaporative losses, are
factored o t even though the regulations were not necessarily in
force in 149O .
The T Oiotor vehicle baseline emissions, after factoring
out the reductions from the effects of the FMVCP and RVP program,
are then added to the 1990 inventory of nonmotor vehicle
anthropogenic voc emissions to calculate the 1990 adjusted base
year inventory. This composite emissions inventory, an
aggregated total, is the inventory used to calculate the required
15 percent emissions reductions. In the example presented above,
emissions for the 1990 adjusted base year inventory total
5,300 lb/day.
13
-------
Step 4: Calculate required (15 percent) creditable reductions
15 percent =5,300 x 0.15 l 95 lb/day
For step 4, the adjusted base year inventory is multiplied
by 0.15 to calculate the amount of the required 15 percent
emissions reduction.
Step 5: Calculate total expected reductions by 1996
Total Expected Reductions by 1996 (lb/day)
Required 15 percent 795
Expected Reductions from 500
FMVCP and RVP (1990-1996)
Corrections to RACT Rules 305
Corrections to I/M Programs + 200
Total 1,800
In the fifth step, the total required reductions from the
1990 rate-of-progress base year inventory are calculated. The
total reductions comprise the reductions necessary to meet the
15 percent requirement and the expected reductions from the
noncreditable programs (RVP, pre-CAAA FMVCP, RACE rule
corrections, and I/M program corrections). Corrections to RACI’
rules and I/M programs are discussed below. In the above
example, the emissions reductions expected to result from the
corrections to RACT rules are 305 lb/day, and the emissions
reductions expected to result from corrections to the I/M program
are 200 lb/day. The total expected reductions by 1996 from the
nonattairunent area (i.e., prior to growth) are 1,800 lb/day
(step 5).
RACT Rule Corrections
Section 4.1 of this document discusses cases ihere RACT rule
corrections do not directly result in quantifiable emissions
reductions. Any incidental reductions that occur in these
instances may be handled as part of a rule effectiveness
improvement. Corrections to RACT rules that may result in
additional, enforceable, and quantifiable emissions reductions
include situations where either:
• rule was missing (i.e., a State committed to
elop a rule as part of its 1977 SIP, or post—
1982 SIP, but never carried through on the
commitment prior to the CAAA).
• The limit was wrong.
• A capture system is now required.
Pednrtions from these types of RACT rule corrections are not
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
14
-------
requirement. However, the amount of emissions reductions from
these corrections should be calculated, as they are part of the
total reductions from the 1990 rate-of-pr gress base year
inventory that are required by the CAAA. Appendix B describes
the methods for estimating the amount of these noncreditable
emissions reductions.
I/M Proaram Corrections
Corrections to I/M programs are necessary when either:
• (1) the area’s I/M program does not meet the reductions achieved
by EPA’s minimum requirements, or (2) an area’s program does not
meet the standards o its current SIP. The calculation of the
emissions reductions associated with I/M program corrections
requires two MOBILE4.1 runs (or MOBILE5 when it becomes
available). Appendix C presents the methods for calculating the
emissions reductions from I/M program corrections.
2.2 1996 Target Level of Emissions
The final step is to calculate the 1996 target level of
emissions for planning purposes.
Step 6: Set target level for 1996
To calculate the 1996 target emissions level, the total
reductions from Step 5 are subtracted from the 1990 rate-of-
progress base year inventory for the nonattalnment area. The
1996 target level of emissions is 4,000 lb/day as shown below.
Target Level = Step 2 - Step 5
= 1990 Rate-of-Progress Base Year
Inventory For Nonattainment Area - Total
Reductions
= 5,800 lb/day — 1,800 lb/day
= 4,000 lb/day
Figure 2 provides an overview of the steps followed in
calculating the example 1996 target level of emissions.
It is important to note that although moderate and higher
nonattainment area classifications are required to provide a
rate-of-pr g ess plan describing how a 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction - be achieved between 1990 and 1996 moderate areas
are i ot r ed to show that they have net the 15 percent
emissions- tion requirement. Instead, they are required to
show that t’h y have attained the NAAQS as of November 15, 1996.
Moderate areas must, therefore, plan for and implement a
control. strategy that will result in attainment. If, for
ezample. modeling for the attainment demonstration shows that an
18 perc t VOC emissions reduction will be necessary for a
particnl r moderate area to attain by 1996, then the State should
plan for and inckude control measures in their SIP submittal to
15
-------
FINAL BASE
YEAR (1990)
INVENPORY*
12,
LB/
SUBTRACT
ADD
GROWTH
FMVCP
RVP REDUCTIONS
- 1
multiply
by O.1S
EMISSIONS
REDUCT ION
REQUIRED BY
1996
0.1 5(5, 3O0)
795 LB/DAY
TOTAL
EXPECTED
REDUCTIONS
BY 1996
1,800 LB/DAY
1 990
ADJUSTED
BASE YEAR
INVENTORY
5,300 LB/DAY
TARGET LEVEL
FOR 1996
5,800—1 ,800=
4.000 LB/DAY ADD
A-B
1 Jr
C 1996 ESTIMATED _______ D
I EMISSIONS ___
I (ANTHROPOGENIC ) C - D
IREDUCTION NEEDS BY
11996 TO ACHIEVE 15
I PERCENT NET OF
GROWTH
L
r
REDUCTIONS FROM:
FMVCP/RVP (500 LB/DAY)
RACT RULE CORRECTIONS (305 LB/DAY)
I/H CORRECTIONS (200 LB/DAY)
* DOES Z’ T IN UD PREXMW1WEMT 3M ED 4ISSIOlJS Ci1EDITS
A
1990
RATE-OF-
PROGRESS
BASE YEAR
INVENTORY
V
BIOGENICS.
EMISSIONS OUTSIDE
NONA?I AINMENT AREA
SUBTRACT
Figure 2. Flow- chart for example rate—of—progress calculations.
-------
reach this 18 percent reduction. These States need to track the
post-implementation emissions using the modeled attainment
percentage rather than the 15 percent rats-of-progress
requirement.
2.3 Requirements of Section 182(b) (1)(A) (ii)
Nonattainmeflt areas can achieve less than the 15 percent
required reductions under the following restrictive
circumstances. The State must demonstrate that the area has a
new source review program equivalent to the requirements in
extreme areas (section 182(e)), except that “major source” must
include any source that emits, or has the potential to emit,
5 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or NOR. Additionally, all major
sources of VOC and NO (down to 5 tpy) in the area must be
required to have RACT-level controls. In light of technological
achievability, the State’s plan must also include all mobile and
stationary source control measures that can be feasibly
implemented in the area. In addition, the State must demonstrate
that the area’s plan includes the measures that are achieved by
sources in the same source category in nonattainnient areas of the
next higher classification. More detailed guidance on this
showing will be provided in forthcoming EPA guidance expected in
the fall of 1992 regarding the development of control strategies
for the rate-of-progress demonstration plan.
2.4 Emissions Factor Adjustments
Emissions factors, as well as inventory calculation
methodologies, are continually being improved. If emissions
factors or methodologies change significantly, the EPA may advise
the States to correct the base year emissions inventory to
reflect such changes. The release of a revised MOBILE model
(MOBILE5.O) is pending. The use of MOBILE5.O is not required for
the SIP submittal due in November 1992. Any emissions values
calculated using MOBILE4.1 will have to be recalculated before
submittal of the final rate-of-progress plan in November 1993.
If other significant changes occur in emissions factors or
methodologies before which time it is impossible for States to
make adjustments to their 15 percent calculations and associated
control strategies, then EPA may require States to make
corrections to the base year emissions inventory, as well as to
the adjust base year inventory and the 1996 target level of
emissions, Si ch corrections would be made prior to the submittal
of any sub nt rate-of-progress demonstration.
17
-------
3.0 RATE-OF-PROGRESS PLAN ELEMENTS
Required submittals for the rate-of-progress plan will be
staggered to allow additional time for the control strategy
development process. The dates and specific elements that are
required for these submittals are listed below:
November 1992:
• Final 1990 base year inventory. 5
• 1990 rate-of-progress base year inventory (limited
to nonattairunent area and excluding biogenic
emissions) 6
• Initial 1990 adjusted base year inventory. 7
• Required 15 percent reductions. 7
5 States must allow for public review of the base year inventories
if they are to be used in a regulatory exercise such as rate-of-
progress plans, attainment demonstrations, or maintenance plans.
While 1990 base year inventories must be submitted to EPA by
November 15, 1992, EPA will allow the public review process to
occur after this date (because of the length of time generally
required for scheduling and completing the public review
process). If public review is held after the November 15
submittal, then prior to November 15, 1993, and prior to
application in any regulatory activities, the inventory must be
revised to reflect responses to public review comments.
6 The rate-of-progress inventory is a subset of the final 1990
base year inventory and should be identified within the base year
inventory documentation. This means that within the base year
inventory submittal, emissions from anthropogenic sources (i.e.,
excluding biogenics) within the nonattaininent area (excluding
sources within the 25-mile buffer zone and sources in a model
domain but outside of the nonattainment area) should be
i.dentified. This can be accomplished by summarizing emissions in
the inventory for nonattainntent area anthropogenic sources and
.then summarizing emissions for all other sources. Thus, the
rate-of-progress inventory should be submitted as part of the
1990 base year inventory package due by November 15, 1992.
‘The EPA stated in an August 7, 1992 memorandum from Mr. J. David
Mobley, ci è f, Emission Inventory Branch, to EPA Regional Office
Chiefs, re rding “November 15, 1992, Deliverables for NJ? and
Modeling Emission Inventories,” that these items (initial 1990
adjusted base year inventory through remaining items under
November 1992) are required by November 15, 1992. If, however, a
State will be submitting a full draft 15 percent rate-of-progress
plan for public review in early 1993 (i.e., no later than March
1993). they may wait and submit the draft plan to EPA at the
b inning of the public review period rather than submitting
these items in November 1992. Please note, however, that for
areas involved in ROM exercises, growth and control factors need
to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992.
19
-------
• Total expected reductions by 1996.’
• Target level for i996. ‘
• Growth factors for developing projected rate-of-
progress and attainment modeling inventories.’
• CAM mandated control measures and their
associated control efficiencies.’
May 1993:
• Draft 1996 projected emissions inventory with
controls.
November 1993:
• Fully adopted rate-of-progress plan, including
attainment demonstration for moderate areas not
using the UAM.
Each of the items required for the November 1992 submittal are
described in this section. Subsequent rate-of-progress plan
submittals are discussed briefly in section 5.0 of this document.
Further details on these elements will be provided in the
document entitled, “Growth Factors, Projections, and Control
Strategies,” to be issued in the fall of 1992.
3.1 Base Year Inventory
Section 182(a) (1) requires all nonattainment areas to submit
a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources by November 15, 1992. This inventory
is for calendar year 1990 and is identified as the base year
inventory. It includes anthropogenic sources of N0 and carbon
monoxide (CO) emissions, as well as anthropogenic and biogenic
sources of VOC. The base year inventory includes actual VOC,
NOR, and CO emissions for the area on both an annual basis
(except for on-road mobile sources and biogenics) and a typical
weekday basis during the peak ozone season, which is generally
the summer months. All stationary and mobile sources within the
nonattainment area, and stationary sources with emissions of
100 tpy or greater of VOC, N0 , and Co emissions within a 25-mile
wide buffer of the designated nonattainment area, must be
included inthe compilation. Including sources within a 25-mile
buffer is- eesary to ensure that all sources capable of
affecting j quality within the nonattainment area are
adequatel ted for in modeling demonstrations and strategy
developmeitt ‘For nonattairiment areas that will perform
photochemical grid modeling (e.g., serious and above areas and
multi-State moderate areas), emissions for the entire modeling
domain are required in the base year inventory.
Guiñ ni e Documents for Pre arina Base Year Inventory
Guidance documents are available from EPA that specifically
pertain to the calculation and presentation of the 1990 base year
inventory for the purpose of ozone nonattairunent area SIP
20
-------
development. Guidance related to the requirements for the 1990
base year inventory is available in the f llowing document:
• Emission Inventory Reauirements for Ozone State
Implementation Plans . (See reference 1.)
Guidance specific to inventorying stationary sources is available
in:
• Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories
for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone. Volume I:
General Guidance for Stationary Sources . (See reference
2.)
For mobile sources the primary guidance documents include:
• Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation. Volume
IV: Mobile Sources . (See reference 3.)
• User’s Guide to MOBILE4.1 . (See reference 4.)
• VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance . (See reference
5.)
Guidance specific to inventorying biogenic sources is available
in:
• Personal Computer Version of the Biogenic Emissions
Inventory System (PC-BEIS) And User’s Guide . (See
reference 6.)
Other guidance documents related to the 1990 inventory are:
• Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories
for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone. Volume
II: Emission Inventory Reguirements for Photochemical
Air Quality Simulation Models . (See reference 7.)
• Guidance for the Preparation of Oualitv Assurance Plans
for O 3 /CO SIP Emission Inventories . (See reference 8.)
• ialitv Review Guidelines for 1990 Base Year Emission
ventories . (See reference 9.)
• xam le Documentation Reoort for 1990 Base Year Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Emission
Inventorries. (See reference 10.)
• Guidelines for Estimatina and Ao lvina Rule
Effectiveness for Ozone/CO State Implementation Plans .
(See reference 11.)
21
-------
Documentation Requirements of Base Year Inventory
States must provide their base year inventory information in
both written and computerized formats. Adequate documentation on
the source Of the emissions estimates is required in the
submission of the final base year inventory. This documentation
will facilitate the milestone compliance determination and any
necessary emissions estimate recalculations during the
implementation of the SIP. Requirements and guidance for
documentation of the base year inventory are presented in
nission Inventory Reauirements for Ozone State Implementation
Plans (EPA-450/4-91-01O) and Example Documentation Report for
1990 Base Year Ozone and Carbon Monoxide State Implementation
Plan Emission Inventories (EPA 450/4—92-007).
The written presentation of emissions inventory information
has to be extensive enough for EPA to reproduce the emissions
inventory elements that are submitted. The EPA’S primary concern
is that all inventory elements address the crucial elements
inherent in a good inventory and provide sununary data and
documentation that allow the quality of the inventory effort to
be effectively judged. Therefore, the emphasis is on the types
of data that need to be reported and not the specific format in
which they are reported. Inventories not meeting the minimum
data reporting and documentation standards established in these
documents will be deemed unacceptable and returned to the States
for modification before any further technical quality review will
be performed.
Adequate documentation includes all of the information that
is necessary to understand how an emissions estimate was made.
This level of documentation will allow EPA and the States to
determine what the effects would be if some of the data w—-
revised. For example, to understand the effect of changes n
emissions factors, the State needs to document where the : tors
were employed and the supporting data (such as activity data)
that were used in the emissions estimation process.
Some activity data may be revised during the period between
submission of the rate-of-progress plan and the milestone
demonstration (this could include preliminary population data
obtained bqfore the 1990 census data were finalized or VMT
estimates t were later revised using a more sophisticated
model). efore, States must document the source of the data
as well at’th. date or version of the data (and whether the data
are draft or final estimates).
3.2 Additional Rate-of—Progress Plan Elements
Rate-of-progress plan requirements under the CAAA rei-.lt in
the need to develop two inventories in addition to the bas- year
inventory: the rate-of-progress base year inventory and t:le
adjusted base year inventory. The rate-of-progress base year
inventory is an inventory of actual anthropogenic 1990 emissions
for the nonattainment area that is used to track the progress of
22
-------
the 15 percent reduction plan. The 1990 adjusted base year
inventory which is also developed for th? rate-of-progress plan,
does not contain the expected emissions reductions from the vc
and RVP program from the 1990 rate-of-progress base year
inventory. The required 15 percent reductions are calculated
from this adjusted base year inventory and not the rate-of-
progress base year inventory, thus lowering the States’ emissions
reduction burden.
1990 Rate-of-Progress Base Year Inventory
The 1990 rate-of-progress base year inventory accounts for
the total anthropogenic VOC, CO, and NO emissions in the
nonattainnient area. The rate-of-progress base year inventory
differs from the 1990 base year inventory in that the rate-of-
progress base year inventory does not include biogenic source
emissions nor emissions from sources located outside of the
nonattainnient area, while the base year inventory includes these
emissions (e.g., for point, area, and mobile sources outside of
the nonattainnient area but within the UAM domain). States should
document which sources and emissions are located within the
nonattainnient area as well as which are located outside of the
nonattainment area. Also, the total biogenic emissions, which
are also removed from the base year inventory, should be listed.
Emissions for anthropogenic sources within the nonattainment area
can be distinguished in the AIRS data set by using the
appropriate retrieval criteria. The rate-of-progress base year
inventory facilitates the calculation of the adjusted base year
inventory.
1990 A&lusted Base Year Inventory
• The 1990 adjusted base year inventory is the starting point
for calculating the required 15 percent reductions, and also the
first step in calculating the total expected reductions by 1996
and the 1996 target level of emissions. The 1990 adjusted base
year. inventory does not contain the expected FMV P (in effectas
of November 15, 1990) and RVP program emissions reductions from
the 1990 rate-of-progress base year inventory. This adjustment
lessens the States’ emissions reduction burden, because the
baseline emissions total from which the required 1 5 percent
reduction s calculated has been lowered.
Doc” $tation of the adjusted base year inventory will take
two disti t. forms. The written documentation must include the
expected emissions reductions from the PMVCP and RVP program, as
well as both the actual 1990 motor vehicle emissions using 1990
VMT and MOBILE emissions factors, and the adjusted emissions
using 1990 VMT and the MOBILE emissions factors in calendar year
1996 with the appropriate RVP for the nonattaininent area as
mandated by EPA. (See reference 12.) States must provide EPA
with information on how the MOBILE model was run in calculating
the expected emissions reductions from the FMVCP and RVP program.
Section 2.1 of this document provides a description of how the
reductions from these programs are calculated. -
23
-------
For purposes of the AIRS Area and Mobile Source Subsystem
CAMS) adjusted base year submittal, State s must provide the RVP
inputs as required under the CAAA for the nonattainznent area, and
run the MOBILE model with a 1996 vehicle mix (the 1990 base year
inventory submittal will contain the actual 1990 motor vehicle
•emissions). Because the calculation of the FMVCP and RVP program
emissions reductions requires two separate runs of the MOBILE
model (see- section 2.1 of this document for details), States, will
not submit the emissions reductions from these programs directly
into AIRS.
Other requirements for documentation and submittal of the
adjusted base year inventory to AIRS are the same as those for
the 1990 base year inventory. States should realize that there
will be no submittal of an “adjusted” point-source inventory for
APS because the point-source emissions are not altered in the
calculation of the adjusted inventory from the rate-of-progress
base year inventory. •The point-source emissions for both the
rate-of-progress and adjusted base year inventories can,
therefore, be directly retrieved from the 1990 base year
inventory. Stationary area-source emissions are not altered
either. All adjustments apply to mobile source emissions. Base
year and adjusted base year point and stationary emissions are
different because of the different geographic coverage. The AIRS
has a flag to indicate that the emissions are within the
designated nonattainment area boundaries and, therefore, can
separate the point and stationary area-source portions to develop
portions of these two different inventories.
Reauired 15 Percent Reductions
The required 15 percent reductions represent the amount of
creditable emissions reductions that must be demonstrated in the
rate-of-progress plan. The amount of these required emissions
reductions is calculated by multiplying the adjusted base year
inventory by 0.15. The results of the 15 percent emissions
reduction calculation can be documented on a single sheet of
paper as the “required 15 percent reductions.”
Total Expected Reductions
In addition to the creditable 15 percent reductions, there
are other.öiseions reductions that are required under the CAM.
The “totai xpected reductions” are the sum of the following:
• tS percent reductions.
• Expected reductions from the FMVCP (in effect as of
November 15, 1990) and RVP program (1990—1996).
• Reductions from corrections to RACT rules.
• Reductions from corrections to 1/14 programs.
The expected reductions from the FMVCP and RVP program and any
required corrections to RACT rules and 1/14 programs, which are
calculated based on the methods described in section 2.1 of this
document, should be documented on paper showing each step,
24
-------
discussing any assumptions made, and stating the origin of the
numbers used in- the calculations.
Target Level for 1996
The target level of emissions for 1996 is the maximum amount
of 1996 anthropogenic emissions within the nonattajnnterit area
that are permitted to occur while complying with the rate-of-
progress requirements. The emissions level is determined by
subtracting the total expected reductions from the 1990 rate-of-
progress base year inventory. The EPA expects the States to
document the target emissions level for 1996 as well as the
calculations made in determining the target. In order to develop
control measures in time to meet the required reductions by 1996,
•States should submit their 1996 target level of emissions to EPA
by November 1992.
The following section provides background on growth factors
and discusses how the growth factors that are required with the
November 1992 SIP submittal should be determined and documented.
Economic Activity and Growth: Determinants and Indicators
Economic activity is a factor influencing the level and form
of anthropogenic pollution. Economic activity levels are
determined by the forces of supply and demand. But emissions are
determined by specific production processes (e.g., xx printing or
yy printing), inputs to those processes (e.g., low solvent versus
...), and the levels of output. With no change in the
utilization of those processes, no additional processes, and no
change in quality or quantity of inputs to those processes, the
relationship of output to emissions seen in the past should be
projected to occur in the future. However, if utilization rates
change, new processes are adopted, or there are input changes,
the relationship between output level and emissions seen in the
past may not be an appropriate assumption for projecting future
emissions.
Note that growth factors are not included in the
calculations of the 1990 adjusted base year inventory or the 1996
target. Growth factors are needed, however, for the 15 percent
demonstratj ’fl as part of the rate-of-progress plan that is due on
November i993 for all moderate and above nonattainment areas.
Growth fa : are also needed for the attainment demonstration
that is d 1 O November 15, 1993 for moderate ozone nonattainment
areas using empirical kinetic modeling approach (EXMA)S and on
November 15, 1994 for moderate ozone nonattainment areas using
UAM and all serious and above ozone nonattainnient areas. States
should include the draft rate-of-progress growth factors in both
,uter and written formats to EPA by November 15, 1992. Two
sets of growth factors should be provided. One set is used to
project the growth between 1990 and 1996 for rate-of-progress
plan purposes, and the other set is used to project growth up
through the year of attainment for the attainment demonstration
for modeling purposes. These sets are basically the same for
25
-------
moderate areas, which must demonstrate attainment by 1996. The
computer format for the growth factor subçd.ttal is presented in
Table 1. Other information that should be included with the list
of growth factors includes: State ID, County ID, zone code (if
the growth factor is to be used for a specific zone within a
county), source category code (either SIC, ps source
classification code, or AMS source category code), growth factor
reference (e.g., Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), plant-
supplied. etc.), and control information discussed below. Any
information not contained in the spreadsheet file (e.g., which
agency submitted the growth information and assumptions made in
preparing the information) should be submitted on paper
accompanying the PC disk).
• Well known sources of information and guidance on economic
activity projections include the BEA’s Realonal Prplections to
2040 (see references 13, 14, and 15) and Procedures for Preparing
Emissions Prolections (EPA-450/4-91-019). (See reference 16.)
There will be more information forthcoming regarding economic
activity and growth in a separate volume of the rate-of-progress
plan guidance, entitled “Growth Factors, Projections, and Control
Strategies,” to be issued in the fall of 1992.
Control Measures/Factors
The CAAA mandated controls and their associated control
efficiencies and rule effectiveness factors for both the rate-of-
progress plan and the attainment demonstration are required in
written and computer diskette (see Table 1) formats by
November 15, 1992. The additional controls required to meet the
15 percent and/or attainment demonstration requirements are
encouraged, but not required for this submittal.
The control measure information consists primarily of a list
of control measures and associated control efficiencies on a
computer diskette file formatted as depicted in Table 1. For
•control measures that will be applied during modeling of
attainment, control information must be reported for the entire
modeling domain, unless measures are specifically limited to the
nonattainment area. Supplied control information for attainment
year strategies will be used as input to the upcoming ROM
exercises to improve consistency between ROM and urban area
modeling results.
Also ià luded should be the rule penetration (percentage of
rule coverage) associated with new area-source control measures
and any expected changes in rule effectiveness for point or area
sources. In addition to the data on spreadsheet, paper
documentation should be provided describing the control measures.
assumptions made, and any further explanation needed for the
information listed on the spreadsheet.
26
-------
TABLE 1. PROJECTION AND CONTROL FACTOR FORMATS
puaJi V16$ .$3U
4
fl?9 oomu 7 PUI’ osnu COINROL V1C!DICY
flP8’ 99$ 9CS ID 1 ICC • ?*CT0S p flRg sC VOC 501 CO
ILI
UVeT V U
NOLI P IIIRA?ICN
TII&’
VOC NO. CO
VOC
UO - CO
Growth new controli (existina RACT categoriesetc.)
51 087 x x 0017 01 49 10100701 1.30 0.00 68.10 0.00
xx.xx
80.00 xx.xx
mu 100.00 xxx.xx
90
si 087 0017 02 49 10100701 1.30 85* 0.00 68.10 0.00
xx.xx
80.00 xx.xx
xu.xx 100.00 xxx.xx
90
51 087 aux 0132 01 49 20100202 1.45 SEA 0.00 88.00 0.00
xx.u
80.00 xx.xx
xxx.xx 100.00 xu.xx
90
CAAA mandated controls
51 031 0005 27 •2 5 40201901 1.32 SEA 72.00 0.00 0.00
80.00
xx.xx xx.xx
100.00 xu.xx xxx.xx
95
SI 059 xxxx 0024 21 25 40201901 1.32 SEA 72.00 0.00 0.00
80.00
xx.xx xx.xx
100.00 xxx.xx mu
95
SI 710 xxxx 0009 34 37 40301699 1.38 SEA 88.00 0.00 0.00
80.00
xx.xx xx.xx
100.00 xxx.xx xxx.xz
95
SI 087 xxxx xxxx xx xx 2501060050 2.01 SEA 95.00 0.00 0.00
80.00
xx.xx xx.xx
91.00 xxx.xx xxx.xx
95
Additional controls to meet 15 percent rate-of-proaress reduction
51 087 xxxx 0012 02 28 30120680 1.12 SEA 88.00 0.00 0.00
90.00
xx.xx xx.xx
100.00 xu.xx xxx.xx
94
51 087 xxxx 0137 01 25 40202001 1.67 SEA 95.00 0.00 0.00
80.00
xx.xx xi.xx
100.00 zxz.xx xxx.xx
95
95
51 087 XXXX xxxx xx xx 2401030000 1.19 SEA 94.00 0.00 0.00
80.00
xx.zx xx.xx
100.00 xxx.xx xu.xx
,-
8 FIPS Federal information processing standards.
SIC — Standard industrial classification.
10 — Source classification code for AIRS facility subsystem (AFS) reporting.
11 scc — Source category code for AIRS area and mobile subsystem CAMS) reporting.
12 Year that new control takes effect (e.g.. regulation is enacted in 1994. but takes effect in 1995) .
‘ Bureau of Economic Analysis.
-------
3.3 Attaifl eflt Demonstration
States that do not intend to use UM4 must submit their
attainment demonstrations as part of the rate-of-progress sip
revision that is due in November 1993. Moderate areas are
expected to attain the NAAQS for ozone by November 15, 1996.
These moderate areas may either use tJAM or EKMA in their modeling
demonstrations. Serious and above areas are required to use UA14
in their modeling demonstrations. Moderate interstate
nonattainment areas are required to use UAM; moderate intrastate
areas have the option of using UAM. Those moderate areas
electing to use E 4A must submit a SIP revision by November 1993
incorporating a modeling demonstration which shows that the
identified control measures will be sufficient to attain the
NAAQS by November 15, 1996. If an area elects to use the UAM for
its modeling demonstration, it may apply for a 1-year extension
(to November 1994) for submitting a SIP revision reflecting an
attainment demonstration. Both UAM and E require emissions
inventories for VOC, NOR, and Co.
28
-------
4.0 CREDITABILITY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
This section discusses the creditability of emissions
reductions from selected control programs to the 15 percent voc
emissions reduction requirement. This presentation is not
intended to be Comprehensive in scope; instead, it is included to
•provide preliminary guidance while States begin developing their
control strategies. A future document in this guidance series,
“Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies,” will
describe details on emissions reductions creditability for
additional control measures.
States can credit emissions reductions toward the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirement only if the CAAA do not
specify that such emissions reductions are not creditable, and
the reductions meet the following requirements. All emissions
reductions must be real, permanent, and enforceable. States must
keep careful records of all emissions reductions to ensure that
the same reductions are not “double-counted” or, more simply,
used more than one time. In all circumstances, any real
emissions reductions that contribute to attainment of the
standard are creditable in the attainment demonstration.
Section 182(b)(1)(C) and section 182(b)(1)(D) explicitly
disallow certain reductions from counting toward the fulfillment
of the 15 percent reduction in emissions requirement. ALt1 real,
permanent, and enforceable post-1990 VOC emissions reductions are
creditable toward the 15 percent requirement except for
reductions resulting from the following:
1. The FMVCP tailpipe or evaporative standards promulgated
prior to 1990.
2. Federal regulations on RVP (55 FR 23666, June 11,
1990).
3. State regulations required under section 182(a) (2) (A)
submitted to correct deficiencies in existing RAC’l ’
rules.
4. State regulations required under section 182(a) (2) (B)
tp establish an I/M program or correct deficiencies in
sting I/M programs.
Remember tI t’. the noncreditables identified in numbers 1 and 2
above are not contained in the 1990 adjusted base year inventory
that is used to calculate the 15 percent emissions reduction.
The 1990 adjusted base year inventory, in effect, decreases the
target level of emissions (i.e., the total level of emissions
allowed to be produced). Also, these programs cannot be used to
.achieve the 15 percent VOC emissions reductions.
The following paragraphs provide a brief discussion of
programs that are creditable toward the 15 percent emissions
reduction requirement. Also briefly discussed are examples where
29
-------
reductions are not creditable to the 15 percent reduction
(i.e., RA T rule and I/M fix-ups). Not d .scussed in this section
are the noncreditable emissions reductions from the FMVCP and RVP
program; section 2.1 of this document discusses these programs
and how the emissions reductions from these programs are
calculated and treated for rate-of-progress purposes.
The programs described here do not constitute an exhaustive
list of all potential creditable programs. Any other new
requirements which generate reductions within a nonattairunent
area, such as the marine vessel loading regulations, are
creditable toward the 15 percent.
4 • 1 RACT Programs
Emissions reductions resulting from required corrections to
VOC RACT rules (“RACT fix-ups”) are not creditable toward the
required 15 percent VOC emissions reduction; any future
reductions resulting from measures not associated with the
-required corrections would be creditable. For example, RACT rule
corrections involving revision to applicability thresholds and
emissions limits, or additions of missing regulations that were
required preenactment are not creditable toward the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements (or offsets). If the State
revises the emissions limit or changes the applicability
threshold beyond the level required in EPA guidance (see
reference 17), and these modifications result in further
emissions reductions, these additional reductions are creditable.
In this case, the State would need to differentiate, through
documentation submitted in the rate-of-progress plan, between
emissions reductions that occurred through a correction to the
RACT rule and the additional reductions that resulted from
extension of the rule to sources of a lower threshold than
recommended in EPA’S model RACT rule guidance.
RACT Fix-tT s
Section 182(b) (1) (D) (iii) specifies that emissions
reductions generated from corrections to RACT rules (RACT f ix-
ups) required under section 182(a) (2) (A) are not creditable
toward meeting the rate-of-progress requirements. These
-correctio kçan be-described in two ways: (1) where the emissions
reduction$jf Cin the corrections are difficult to attribute
directly t he. fix-up Ca iy emissions reductions associated with
these typà ãf corrections may generally be considered rule
effectiveness improvements), and (2) where the resultant decrease
in emissions is more clearly attributable to RACT fix-ups.
In the first case, emissions reductions associated, with such
fix-ups are difficult to sort-out from those achieved from rule
effectivei ess and, therefore, EPA believes that it is appropriate
to allow such corrections, in combination with improved
cciiipiiance programs that result in additional, quantifiable, and
enforceable emissions reductions, to count towards meeting the
rate-of-progress requirements as part of a rule effectiveness
30
-------
improvement effort. For example, RACT rule corrections that add
the appropriate recordkeeping requirementi or test methods do not
directly result in additional emissions reductions. However, the
resulting RACT rules are more enforceable, and the corrections
make determining compliance an easier task. The EPA believes
that in such situations, credit is given to the States for
improving the compliance programs, not for correcting the RACT
rules, although the RACT fix-up program was essential to creating
more enforceable rules.
In the second case, however, corrections do result in
additional, enforceable, and quantifiable emissions reductions.
These corrections, which are not creditable toward the 15 percent
requirement, include situations where:
• A rule was missing (i.e., a State committed to
develop a rule as part of its 1977 SIP, or post-
1982 SIP, but never carried through on the
commitment prior to the CAAA).
• The limit was wrong.
• A capture system is now required to ensure meeting
the RACT limit.
Appendix B provides example emissions reduction calculations
for each of these three examples. These examples are not
intended to be fully inclusive. States should evaluate all RACT
rule corrections to determine if such corrections result in real,
enforceable, and permanent emissions reductions. If so, such
reductions must be quantified and cox sidered noncreditable in the
SIP development process.
RACT Catch-Ups
Emissions reductions resulting from RACT catch-ups are
creditable. One example of a RACT catch-up occurs when applying
the RACT rules to the newly designated portions of a preenactment
nonattainment area not previously subject to the rules. For
example, if an area is extended to include three counties that
were not previously part of the nonattainment area, application
of RACT ru] to sources in those counties will result in
creditable Lssions reductions.’ 4 However, States that employed
statewide MC I ’ rule implementation to avoid the new source
preconstruction monitoring requirements will not necessarily
receive credit. Such States will only receive credit for the
emissions reductions resulting from the enhancement of RAC1’ rule
requirements brought about by the CAAA, extending beyond RACT
rule requirements already on the books, and implemented after the
1990 base year.
‘ 4 1n addition, if the counties were not part of an existing I/H
program, extension of the I/M program to the counties will result
in creditable reductions.
31
-------
Reductions achieved through rules adopted Pursuant to any
new control technique guideline (CTG) are.. creditable only to the
extent that the reductions were not required by a SIP or Federal
implementation plan developed under the pre-antended Act. For
example, if a flon-CTG rule in a SIP prior to enactment (or
required to be included in such a SIP) required an
81 percent reduction in VOC emissions and a new CTG for the same
source category recommends a 90 percent reduction, to the extent
that a specific source achieves the 90 percent reduction, only up
to 9 percent would be creditable. In addition, if a State was
required to adopt a RACT rule for a particular source under the
pre-amended Act but failed to do so, adoption of a rule for that
source would be considered part of the RACT fix-ups. Therefore,
any reductions achieved by such a rule would not be creditable.
4.2 Inspection and Maintenance Programs
The I/M Section of the Emission Planning and Strategies
Division of the EPA’S Office of Mobile Sources has published a
draft technical support document that discusses I/M program
performance standards for VOC emissions. (See reference 18.)
Emissions reductions that result from corrections to I/M programs
that failed to meet this performance standard, or from
corrections to programs that failed to meet a more stringent
standard previously included in the SIP, are not creditable
toward the 15 percent emissions reduction requirement. Any other
improvements in 1/14 programs required by the CAM (such as
enhanced 1/14) or any improvements that a State chooses to make in
a new SIP are creditable. In the case where a State has both
made corrections to its SIP according to the EPA’s minimum
performance standard, and included additional provisions that go
beyond that standard, the State will model two r/M programs in
the MOBILE model to calculate the creditable reductions; one
representing the program up to the EPA’s minimum standard, and
the other with the State’s full I/M program. The difference
between the two programs’ emissions reductions represents the
portion of the total emissions reduction that is creditable -
toward the 15 percent emissions reduction requirement. Appendix
C provides details on calculating the emissions reductions from
I/M program corrections.
4.3 Preen tment Banked Emissions Reduction Credits
If t j tate has an emissions credit bank that meets the
EPA’S requi eiñents under an earlier policy statement (see
reference 19), the State is allowed to use its preenactment
banked emissions reduction credits to facilitate the location of
new sources in nonattainment areas during the 1990-1996 period.
However, because these reduction credits represent emissions that
are not included in the 1990 base year inventory, any additional
emissions that result from the use of banked credits must be
treated as growth in order to ensure that the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirement is achieved. Also, it is
important to note that the use of preenactment banked emissions
32
-------
“V
credits must be in accordance with the offset ratios prescribed
in the CAM (e.g., 1.3 to 1 in severe are s.)
Figure 3 presents an example of the use of preenactment
banked emissions credits during the 1990-1996 period. In this
example, a new 30 tpy source of VOC emissions wishes to locate in
a severe nonattainment area, and the State allows the source to
use available preenactment banked emissions credits. Because the
source wants to locate in a severe nonattainment area, 39 tpy of
voc emissions must be removed from the bank (i.e., 30 tpy x 1.3 —
39 tpy). Although the bank has been reduced by 39 tpy, there has
been a 30 tpy increase in emissions in the nonattaininent area due
to the new source. ‘P0 assure that new source growth will not
interfere with the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirement
‘ihen preenactment banked credits are used, existing sources must
eventually, by time of reconciliation, reduce their emissions at
least as much as the emissions growth.
C )
,Bsrk
39 tpyinb.nk
*
+ 9tpyfrosnome
ratloof 1.3 to 1
M w.d
+ 30 spy
.15 spy .15 spy
Figure 3. Ixiaple of ussof
pnactaent banked uiss ions
credits.
33
-------
4.4 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards
General Reauirements
Many of the 189 hazardous air pollutants listed under
section 112(b) (1) of the Act are VOC’s. Any emissions reductions
of a hazardous VOC resulting from the application of a MACT
standard is creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirement for ozone nonattainment areas. Any
incidental emissions reduction of a non-hazardous VOC resulting
from the application of a MACT standard is also creditable toward
the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirement. It is
important to note that some sources will be subject to both MACT
standards and RACT rules. Because only the more stringent of the
two standards will apply in these cases, States should be aware
that double counting of the VOC emissions reductions from these
two programs is not permitted.
States should recognize that reductions resulting from MACT
standards must occur prior to November 15, 1996, to be creditable
toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements. Most
MACT standards will not be promulgated until after the post-1996
emissions reduction requirements take effect. Guidance regarding
the creditability of MACT reductions toward the post-1996
reduction requirements is presently under development within EPA.
Section 112(d) (1) of the CAAA requires the promulgation of
regulations establishing emissions standards for categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of the 189
hazardous air pollutants. The emissions standard for a
particular hazardous air pollutant emitted from a new or existing
source must be based on the maximum degree of reduction that the
Administrator determines is achievable through the application of
emissions control technologies. The determination of MACT
considers the cost of achieving such emissions reductions and any
non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy
.reguirements.
Early Reductions Proaram
As a temporary alternative to complying with an applicable
MACT standaj 4 , an existing source may elect to comply with the
early red pn requirements of section 112(i)(5). By electing
to achievq ii*-ly reductions, an existing source may, under
certain conditions, meet an alternative emissions limit in lieu
of meeting an otherwise applicable MACT standard. The
alternative emissions limit expires 6 years after the otherwise
applicable MACT standard compliance date, at which time the
source muSt comply with the MACT requirement. Except as follows,
to a n the MACT compliance extension the reduction must be
achiewed before the otherwise applicable MACT standard is first
p o L A source may also obtain an extension if it commits to
make the 90 percent reduction prior to proposal of the MACT
standard and actually achieves the 90 percent reduction prior to
January 1, 1994.
34
-------
The early reduction program requires a source to achieve
hazardous air pollutant emissions reductiQfls of at least 90
percent (at least 95 percent in the case of particulates). The
emissions reduction must be determined from a comparison of the
actual post-control emissions with the actual and verifiable
•emissions in a base year not earlier than 1987. A base year of
1985 or 1986 can be used by a source if its emissions data are
based .on information received by the Administrator prior to
November 15, 1990, pursuant to an information request issued
under section 114 of the Act.
• Hazardous VOC emissions reductions under the early reduction
program are creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements to the extent that reductions were taken
after the 1990 base year inventory applicable to the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements. Because a source can
credit reductions that took place prior to 1990 toward the early
reduction program, the entire 90 percent early reduction may not
be creditable toward the rate-of-progress requirement.
States should be aware that EPA is developing a policy
regarding potential conflicts between the early reduction program
and the RACT requirements. (See reference 20.) The interaction
between the early reduction program and RACT requirements causes
concern because the prospect of applying RACT requirements to
sources that already made early reductions would effectively
limit the attractiveness of, and therefore participation in, the
early reductions program. Additionally, States should also be
aware that early reductions must be taken prior to November 15,
1996, to be credited toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements. Guidance regarding the creditability of
section 112(i) (5) early reductions toward the post-1996 reduction
requirements is presently under development within EPA. Readers
interested in further details regarding the section 112(i) (5)
early reductions program are referred to the proposed regulations
published in the Federal Register . (See reference 21.) Final
rules are anticipated by early 1993.
4.5 Rule Effectiveness Improvements
Many States with preexisting nonattainment areas have
already adopt?d rules defining RA T for most of the larger
sources, i ding non-CTG categories. In such cases, there is
considera concern about what additional measures are needed to
meet the t rcent VOC emissions reduction requirement. One
method of aäh.teving creditable reductions from stationary sources
in such areas is to improve the implementatibn of existing
regulations. This is referred to as rule effectiveness
improvement. These improvements are subject to the same
creditability constraints as are the other emissions
35
-------
reductions.’ 5 Rule effectiveness improvements must reflect real
emissions reductions resulting from speci$ic implementation
program improvements. Actual emissions reductions must result
from improving rule effectiveness; simply calculating a higher
rule effectiveness using a different methodology is not
creditable.
Rule effectiveness improvements must be documented at a
minimum by conducting a post-implementation (after the
implementation of rule effectiveness improvement programs)
source-specific emissions study. Two methods are available for
calculating creditable rule effectiveness improvements; both
require that a post-implementation Stationary Source Compliance
Division (SSCD) protocol study be conducted. The first method
involves pre- and post-rule effectiveness improvement
implementation studies as delineated by SSCD. For example, if
the rule effectiveness increases from 50 to 75 percent, the
emissions reductions associated with this improvement would be
creditable. The second approvable method uses the EPA default
value of 80 percent for the pre-rule effectiveness improvement
rule effectiveness value. Thus, if the results of a SSCD
protocol study show 85 percent rule effectiveness after
implementation, the increase in emissions reductions associated
with the improvement from 80 to 85 percent would be creditable
toward the 15 percent rate-of-progress requirement. Additional
discussion of rule effectiveness, including provisions for the
calculation and use of category-specific rule effectiveness
factors, is available in Guidelines for Estimating and A vlyinp-
Rule Effectiveness for Ozone/CO State Implementation Plans . (See
reference 22.) The document “Growth Factors, Projections, and
Control Strategies,” to be released in the fall of 1992, will
provide a list of control measures that involve rule
effectiveness improvements. Future guidance is under development
for the quantification of rule effectiveness improvements. The
•EPA plans to issue the quantification guidance by late fall of
1992.
‘ 5 For ample, some RACT rule corrections that result in improved
rule effectiveness may be creditable; a disctssion of this
appears in section 4.1 of this document.
36
-------
5.0 PREVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS, CONTROL
STRATEGY. AND 1996 MILESTONE COMPLIAqCE DEMONSTRATION
This document focuses on the development and submittal of
the elements of the rate-of-progress plan due by November 15,
1992. While EPA review of this submittal is underway, States
should undertake the calculation of emissions projections for the
year 1996 and the development of full, control strategies. These
elements of the rate-of-progress plan will be due in draft form
to EPA by May 15, 1993. The fully adopted rate-of-progress plan
i then due by November 15, 1993. A separate guidance document
is being developed by EPA on these other elements of the rate-of-
progress plan, which will include hypothetical nonattainment area
examples in describing the development of the required elements
for these submittals. This guidance is expected to be available
in the fall of 1992.
The first milestone demonstration must illustrate that the
area has reached the 1996 target level of emissions as defined in
the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction demonstration plan.
Actual annual and typical ozone season weekday emissions for
point sources should be listed by facility. Area and off-highway
source emissions for each county by source category should also
be listed. Finally, the highway vehicle emissions should be
listed. Once the emissions from all of the known anthropogenic
sources are listed, the total emissions for the nonattainment
area should be computed and compared to the 1996 target.
Section 182(a) (3) (A) requires the States to submit periodic
inventories starting the third year after submission of the base
year inventory required by section 182(a) (1) and every 3 years
thereafter until the area is redesignated to attainment. The EPA
recommends that States synchronize their schedules for developing
the periodic inventories so that the second periodic inventory
(which would be due no later than November 15, 1998) is submitted
by February 13, 1997 and addresses emissions in 1996. By
accelerating preparation and submittal of the 1996 periodic
inventory, the milestone demonstration that is due for serious
and above areas by February 13, 1997 can be based on this
periodic inventory. If similarly accelerated, future periodic
inventories jould then also coincide with subsequent milestone
demonstrat . The periodic inventory is to be based on actual
emissions ,rn will cover VOC, NO and CO emissions sources.
Like the 3 year inventory, the periodic inventory is to be
determine&. ig typical peak ozone season weekday emissions.
The specific reporting requirements for the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction milestone demonstration will be addressed in
an EPA regulation to be promulgated in the summer of 1993. This
regulation will address summary data needs as well as detailed
reporting requirements. The rule will also address consequences
of snfr ittinq an inadequate demonstration (in terms of
documentation) as well as consequences of failure to demonstrate
the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction.
37
-------
1. Emission Inventory Reauirements for Ozone State
Implementation Plans , EPA-450/4-91 -010, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. March 1991.
2. procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for
Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone. Volume I: Genera].
Guidance for Stationary Sources , EPA-450/4-91-016, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. May
1991.
3. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation. Volume IV:
Mobile Sources , EPA -450/4-81-026d (Revised), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July
1992.
4. User’s Guide to MOBILE4.1 (Mobile Source Emission Factor
Model) , EPA-AA-TEB-91 -01, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI. July 1991.
5. Vehicle Miles Traveled Forecasting and Tracking Guidance ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile
Sources, Ann Arbor, MI. March 1992.
6. Personal Computer Version of the Biogenic Emissions
Inventory System (PC-BEIS) And User’s Guide , EPA-450/4-91-
017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. July 1991.
.7. Procedures for the Preparation of Emissions Inventories for
Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone. Volume II:
Emission Inventory Reguirements for Photochemical Air
Quality Simulation Models . EPA-450/4-91-014, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. May
1991.
8. Gu44 for the Preparation of Quality Assurance Plans for
Emission Inventories , EPA-450/4-88-023, U.S.
EnviI% tal Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Plani iii -änd Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
December 1988.
9. Quality Review Guidelines for 1990 Base Year Emission
Inventories , EPA-450/4-91-022, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1992.
10. Rxamvle Documentation Report for 1990 Base Year Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plan Emission
Inventories , EPA-450/4-92-007, U.S. Environmental Protection
39
-------
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC. March 1q92.
11. Guidelines for Estimating and Applying Rule Effectiveness
i r Ozone/CO State Implementation Plans , Draft Report,
prepared by Alliance Technologies Corporation, Prepared for
U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
planning and Standards, Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Branch,
Research Triangle Park, NC. April 1992 (final report
forthcoming).
12. 55 FR 23666, “Volatility Regulations for Gasoline and
Alcohol Blends Sold in Calendar Years 1992 and Beyond,” June
11, 1990.
13. BEA Regional Prolections to 2040, Volume I: States , U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. October
• 1990.
14. BEA Regional Prolections to 2040, Volume II: Metrooolitan
Statistical Areas , U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
Printing Office. October 1990.
15. BEA Regional Prolections to 2040, Volume III: BEA Economic
Areas , U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.
October 1990.
16. Procedures for Preparing Emissions Prolections , EPA—450/4—
91-019, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
July 1991.
17. Model Volatile Oraanic Compound Rules for Reasonable
- Available Control Technoloav: Plannina for Ozone
Nonattainment Pursuant to Title I of the Clean Air Act
(Staff Working Document), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards,
• Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1992.
18. I/M Benefits, and Impacts Analysis , U.S.
Envi$ ntal Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources,
Ann A bC r, MI. February 1992.
19. 51 FR 233 “Emissions Trading Policy Statement; General
Principles for Creation, Banking and Use of Emission
Reduction Credits; Final Policy Statement and Technical
Issues Document.” December 4, 1986.
20.. “Early Reductions Program/Title I Interface,” Memorandum
from John S. Seitz, U.S. Erivironntenta .]. Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. December 20, 1991.
40
-------
21. 56 FR 27338. “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
pollutants for Source Categories; Proposed Regulations
Governing Compliance Extensions for Early Reductions of
Hazardous Air Pollutants.” June 13, 1991.
22. Reference 11.
41
-------
APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OP TERMS
This appendix provides the specific definitions of EPA terms
as they are used in this guidance. Different EPA programs
sometimes use different definitions of the same term (e.g., major
source). This appendix notes where conflicts occur in the
definition of a term used in this guidance. These definitions
are presented for the purposes of this guidance document only;
the reader is advised to refer to specific regulations, policies,
and sections of the Act to obtain complete definitions for the
program or title of interest.
Area Source Any stationary or non-road source that is too small
and/or too numerous to be included in the stationary point-source
emissions inventories.
Attainment Demonstration Moderate and above ozone nonattainment
areas must demonstrate that the reductions specified in the
revised SIP will result in modeled air quality for the
nonattairunent area that achieves attainment by the applicable
attainment date. This requirement can be met through the
application of an EPA-approved model and EPA-approved modeling
techniques described in the current version of the Guidance on
Air Quality Models’ 6 (EPA-450/2-78-027R), which is currently
under revision. Two models are suggested: the UAZ4 or ERMA. The
EPA requires the submittal of attainment demonstrations employing
UAM for serious and above areas and multi-State moderate areas as
part of the SIP revision due by November 15, 1994. Attainment
demonstrations based on EIQ4A for moderate nonattairunent areas
within a single state (intrastate moderate areas) must be
submitted as part of the SIP revision due by November 15, 1993,
unless the State chooses to use UAM, in which case the
demonstration must be submitted as part of the SIP revision due
by November 15, 1994. The use of EI (A is described in Guideline
for Use of City-Specific EIQ4A in Preparing Ozone SIP’S (EPA-
4 50/4-80-027) as well as the aforementioned guideline that is
under revision. This document, and the appropriate Regional
Office, should be consulted before an analysis is conducted with
this modeling approach. The use of UAM is described in Guideline
•for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model (EPA-450/4-
91—013)
‘ 6 Guidance on Air Quality Models (Revised) , EPA-450/2-78-027R,
July 1986 (currently under revision).
17 j jj for Reaulatorv Application of the Urban Airshed
1 del , EPA-450f4-91-013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
A-i
-------
Attainment Determination The EPA must determine within 6 months
after the applicable attainment date whether an area has attained
•the NAAQS for ozone. The attainment dates are as follows:
• Marginal areas November 15, 1993.
• Moderate areas November 15, 1996.
• Serious areas November 15, 1999.
• Severe areas November 15, 2005 (severe areas
with a 1986-1988 ozone design value
of 0.190 up to, but not including
0.280 parts per million have until
November 15, 2007).
• Extreme areas -- November 15, 2010.
In making the attainment determination, EPA will use the most
recently available, quality-assured air quality data covering the
3-year period preceding the attainment date. For ozone, the
average numcer of exceedances per year after adjustment for
missing data are used to determine whether the area has attained.
Basic Inspection and Maintenance (I/M ) Programs requiring the
inspection of vehicles including, but not limited to, measurement
of tailpipe emissions, and mandating that vehicles with tailpipe
emissions higher than the program cutpoints be repaired to pass a
tailpipe emissions retest. Basic I/M programs must be at least
as stringent as the requirements set out in section 182(a) (2) (B).
Malor Stationary Source The CAM have multiple definitions for
major stationary sources depending upon the nonattainment
classification and the pollutant. Section 302 of the CAM
defines a major stationary source as one that directly emits, or
has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant.
As exceptions to this rule, major stationary source emissions
thresholds, as defined in Part D of Title I of the CAM, are
listed in Table A-i for both VOC and NO sources.
Milestone Compliance Demonstration For serious and above -
classified nonattainment areas, demonstrating achievement of the
15 percent VOC emissions reduction over the 1990-1996 period, or
demonstrating subsequent 3 percent VOC emissions reductions per
year averaged over each consecutive 3-year period from November
15, 1996 v* il the attainment date. Section 182(g) (2) requires
that with 90. days of the date on which an applicable milestone
occurs (né ncluding an attainment date on which a milestone
occurs in esses where the standard has been attained), States
with nonattainment areas must submit a demonstration that the
milestone has been met (e.g., the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction is demonstrated by February 13, 1997). The EPA expects
to release regulations pertaining to the requirements of the
milest ii meinstration in the Summer of 1993.
1990 tusted Base Year Inventory Section 182(b) (1) (B) and CD)
describes the inventory (hereafter referred to as the adjusted
base year inventory) from which moderate and above ozone
nonattaininent areas must achieve a 15 percent reduction in VOC
A-2
-------
TABLE A-i. MAJOR SOURCE THRESHOLDS AND !UNIMUM EMISSIONS OFFSET
RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA CLASSIFICATIONS
Ozone Nonattairunent Area
VOC
(tpy)
NO
(tpy)
Mini uia
Emi8sion e
Offset Ratio
Required
Extreme
10
10
1.5 to 118
Severe
25
25
1.3 to 118
Serious
50
50
1.2 to 1
Moderate
100
100
1.15 to 1
Moderate, in an ozone
transport region
50
100
1 .15 to 1
Marginal
100
100
1.1 to 1
Marginal, in an ozone
transport region
50
100
1.15 to 1
All other nonattainment
areas,
outside of an ozone
transport region’ 9
100
100
>1.0 to 1
All other nonattainment
in an ozone transport
areas,
region’ 9
100
100
1.15 to 1
Attainment, in an ozone
transport region
50
100
1.15 to 1
‘ 8 The minimum ratio is reduced to 1.2 to 1 if the applicable
State implementation plan requires all major sources of VOC and
NO emissions to use best available control technology.
‘ 9 me other nonattairunent areas are submarginal, transitional,
and incomplete/no data.
A-3
-------
emissions by 1996. This inventory is equal to “the total amount
of actual VOC or NO emissions from all ax thropogenjc (man-made)
sources in the area during the calendar y ar of enactment,”
excluding the emissions that would be eliminated by FMVCP
regulations promulgated by January 1, 1990, and RVP regulations
(55 FR 23666, June 11, 1990), which require specific maximum RVP
levels for gasoline in particular nonattaininent areas during the
peak ozone season. The 1990 rate-of-progress base year inventory
(defined below) removes biogenic emissions andemissions from
sources listed in the base year inventory that are located
outside of the nonattairunent area. The adjusted base year
inventory removes the emissions reductions from the FMVCP and RVP
program from the 1990 rate-of-progress base year inventory. The
adjusted base year inventory, which is due by-November 15, 1992,
is used to calculate the required 15 percent reductions.
Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory — Base Year Emissions
Inventory, minus the following:
• Biogenic source emissions. -
• Emissions from sources outside of the nonattainment
area boundary.
• Emissions reductions from the PMV P.
• Emissions reductions from the RVP rules. 2 o
1990 Base Year Inventory The 1990 base year inventory is an
inventory of actual annual and typical weekday peak ozone season
emissions that States use in calculating their adjusted and
projected inventories, and in developing their control strategy.
The base year inventory comprises emissions for the area during
the peak ozone season, which is generally the sununer months. It
includes anthropogenic sources of NO and Co emissions, and both
anthropogenic and biogenic sources of VOC emissions. Also
included in the inventory are emissions from all stationary point
sources and area sources as well as highway and nonhighway mobile
sources located within the nonattainment area, and stationary
..sources with emissions of 100 tpy or greater of VOC, NOR, and CO
emissions within a 25-mile wide buffer zone of the designated
nonattaininent area. The base year inventory contains off-shore
sources located within the nonattainnient area boundaries and of f-
shore stationary sources with emissions of 100 tpy or greater of
VOC, N0 , or CO emissions within the 25-mile wide buffer area.
For nonatt inn ent areas that will perform photochem.tcal grid
modeling ( .q., serious and above areas and multi-State moderate
areas), eini4 ions for the entire modeling domain, which is
usually larger than the nonattainment area because ozone is an
area-wide problem, are required in the modeling inventory. This
modeling inventory could be submitted with the base year
inventory, or the modeling inventory submittal could be in a
separate package. It is important to note that the 1990 base
°See figures 1 and 2 in section 2.0 of this document for a
further description of the relationship of the adjusted base year
inventory to the 1990 rate-of-progress base year inventory.
A-4
-------
year inventory serves as the starting point for all other
inventories.
1990 Rate-of-Progress Base Year Inventory An accounting of all
anthropogenic VOC, CC, and NO emissions in the nonattaininent
area. This emissions inventory is calculated by removing
biogenic emissions and the emissions from sources that are
located outside of the nonattainnient area from the base year
inventory. This inventory is used in developing the adjusted
base year inventory. It is also used as the basis from which to
calculate the 1996 target level of emissions.
1996 Taraet Level of Emissions The 1996 target level of
emissions is the maximum amount of ozone season VOC emissions
that can been emitted by an ozone nonattaininent area in 1996 for
that nonattainiuent area to be in compliance with the 15 percent
rate-of-progress requirements. It is calculated by first taking
15 percent of the adjusted base year inventory emissions. This
emissions value is then added to the expected emissions
reductions due to the FMVCP and RVP program, and from corrections
to any deficient RACT rules and I/M programs. The summation of
the 15 percent, the expected reductions from deficient I/M and
RACT programs, and reductions from the FMVCP and RVP program are
then subtracted from the 1990 rate-of-progress base year
inventory to arrive at the 1996 target level of emissions. This
target is used by States to design their 15 percent.VOC emissions
reduction control strategies. The projected control strategy
inventory used in the rate-of-progress plan must be at or below
the 1996 target level of emissions to demonstrate that the 15
percent VOC emissions reduction will be accomplished.
1996 Target Level of Emissions — Rate-of-Progress Base Year
Inventory, minus the following:
• 15 percent of the adjusted base year inventory
emissions.
• Emissions reductions from corrections to any deficient
RACT rules.
• Emissions reductions from corrections to deficient I/K
programs.
• Emissions reductions from the pre-1990 FMVCP.
• Emissions reductions from RVP rules.
Peak Ozone Season The contiguous 3-month period of the year
during which the highest ozone exceedance days have occurred over
the 3 to 4 years prior to the 1990 base year. Most ozone
nonattainment areas have a peak ozone season lasting from June
through August.
Offset Ratios For the purpose of satisfying the emissions offset
reduction requirements of section 173 (a) (1) (A), the emissions
offset ratio is defined as the ratio of total actual emissions
reductions of VOC (and NO unless exempted under section 182(f])
obtained as offsets from existing sources to total allowable
emissions increases of such pollutant from the new source. (See
A-5
-------
Table A-i for a list of offset ratios by nonattaininent area.)
Additional information on offsets will be% provided in forthcoming
guidance regarding the interaction of the 15 percent voc
emissions reduction requirements of Title I with the emissions
reduction requirements of other Titles (i.e., New Source Review,
Title II reductions, etc.).
Point Source Any stationary source that has the potential to
emit more than some specified threshold level of a pollutant or
is identified as an individual source in a State’s emissions
inventory. For base year SIP inventory purposes, point sources
are defined as sources emitting 10 tpy or more of VOC emissions
or 100 tpy or more of N0 or Co emissions.
Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan The portion of the SIP revision
due by November 15, 1994, which describes how serious and above
areas plan to achieve the post-1996, 3 percent per year voc
emissions reductions averaged over each consecutive 3-year period
from November 15, 1996 until the attainment date. This SIP
revision also includes the attainment demonstration for moderate
interstate nonattainment areas and serious and above
nonattainment areas.
RACT “Catch-ups ” The application of RACT for all applicable
sources as listed in section 182(b) (2), regardless of what was
previously required. Each moderate and above ozone nonattainment
area (as well as attainment areas within the ozone transport
region) are subject to the RACT “catch-up” requirement of section
182(b) (2). The new law requires any of the above areas that had
not previously adopted RACT consistent with all of the CTG’s to
“catch-up” and apply RACT to all sources covered by a
preenactment or post-enactment CTG document. Many of these areas
were not previously required to apply RACT to sources covered by
Group III CTG’s (CTG’s published after September 1982). In
addition, areas previously considered rural nonattaininent, which
had to apply RACT only to certain major sources in certain CTG
categories under prior policy, will have to revise their SIP’S to
apply RACT to all sources, including norunajor sources, that are
covered by any CTG.. The RACT “catch-up” provision also requires
these nonattainment areas to adopt RACT rules for all major
sources not covered by a CTG. Additional information on the RAC1’
“catch-up” program will be provided in forthcoming guidance
regarding- t interaction of RACT rules with emissions
inventori 1.ç
RACT “Fix-ups ” Corrections States are required to make under
section 182(a) (2) (1) to their current RACT rules to make up for
deficiencies (e.g., improper exemptions) in pre-amendment plans.
Under RACT “fix-ups”, States are required to have RACT rules that
cc ply with section 172(b) of the pre-1990 Act, as interpreted by
EPA’s pre-axnendment guidance. Since the RACT “fix-up” provisions
refer to RACT as required by pre-amended section 172(b), only
areas subject to pre-amended section 172(b) need to meet the PACT
“fix-up” requirement. Therefore, for nonattainment areas that
will be expanded to contain regions that were designated
A-6
-------
attainment prior to enactment, the RACT corrections are only for
the original rionattainment area. The RAC “fix-up” provision
essentially codifies EPA’s SIP calls, issued in May 1988 and
November 1989 (as announced in the Federal Register on September
7, 1988 (53 FR 34500] and July 30, 1990 (55 FR 30973]). The RAC’r
fix-ups were due on May 15, 1991. Between May 24 and Tune 24,
1991, EPA’s Regional offices mailed letters to several Governors
and air agency officials concerning the progress of the States in
meeting RACT “fix-up” requirements and listing the outstanding
deficiencies that still had not been corrected. Additional
information on the RACT “fix-up” program will be provided in
forthcoming guidance regarding the interaction of RACT rules with
emissions inventories.
Rate-of-Progress Plan The portion of the SIP revision due by
November 15, 1993, that describes how moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas plan to achieve the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction. All moderate intrastate areas that choose to utilize
the EKMA in their attainment demonstration, are also required to
include their attainment demonstration in this SIP revision.
Rule Effectiveness (RE ) For stationary sources, a measure of the
•extent to which a regulatory program achieves emissions
reductions. An RE of 100 percent reflects a regulatory program
achieving all the emissions reductions that could be achieved by
full compliance with the applicable regulations at all sources at
all times. However, regulations typically are not 100 percent
effective due to limitations of control techniques or
shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement process. The
EPA allows the use of three different methods for determining RE:
an 80 percent default value; results from EPA Questionnaires; or
results from a Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD)
study.
Volatile Organic Comoound Any compound of carbon, excluding CO,
carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates,
and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions. This includes any organic compound
other than those EPA has determined to have negligible
photochemical reactivity. 21
2157 Federal Register 3945, February 3, 1992.
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B:
CALCULATION OP EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS PRO RACT RULE CORRECTIONS
Section 4.1 of this document discusses cases where RACT rule
corrections do not directly result in quantifiable emissions
reductions. Any incidental reductions that occur in these cases
may be handled as part of a rule effectiveness improvement.
Corrections to RA T rules that may result in additional,
enforceable, and quantifiable emissions reductions include
situations where:
• A rule was missing (i.e., a State committed to
develop a rule as part of its 1977 SIP, or post-
1982 SIP, but never carried through on the
commitment prior to the CAAA).
• The limit was wrong.
• A capture system is now required to ensure meeting
a RACT limit.
For the case where a rule was missing, the State should first
calculate the uncontrolled emissions in 1990 and multiply the
1990 uncontrolled emissions by the appropriate growth factor.
Next, the State must evaluate the expected emissions reduction in
1996 by calculating 1996 emissions (including growth and
controls) and subtracting this number from 1990 emissions. This
total expected emissions reduction should be added to the total
reductions in step 5 in the example in section 2.1 of this
document. These reductions are not creditable toward the 15
•percent VOC emissions reduction requirement.
For the second case, the State should first evaluate the
pound (lb) VOC/gallon (gal) solids for each limit.
1990 limit = 3.5 lb VOC/gal coating
1) 1990 lb VOC/gal solids =
3.5 lb VOC x 1 gal coating = 0.476 aal VOC
gal coating 7.36 lb VOC gal coating
2) Calculate solids in 1 gal coating:
1 - 0.476 = 0.524 gal solids
3) Calculate gallons of coating needed to get gallon of solids:
1 aal coating = 1.908 aal coating
0.524 gal solids gal solids
4) Convert 3.5 lb/gal coating to lb VOC/gal solids:
3.5 lb VOC x 1.908 gal coating = 6.678 lb VOC
gal coating gal solids gal solids
The 19% limit will be 2.9 lb/gal.
Similarly, convert 2.9 lb VOC/gal coating to lb VOC/gal
solids.
B-i
-------
5) 2.9 lb VOC x 1 gal VOC = 0.394 ia]. voc
gal coating 7.36 lb VOC gal coating
6) Volume of solids in 1 gal coating:
1 — 0.394 0.606 gal. solids
7) Calculate gallons of coating needed to get 1 gallon of solids:
1 aal coating = 1.650 aal coating
0.606 gal solids gal solids
8) Convert 2.9 lb VOC gal coating to lb VOC/ga]. solids:
2.9 lb VOC x 1.650 gal coating = 4.785 lb VOC
gal coating gal solids gal solids
The facility uses 100 gal solids in 1990
day
9) Compare 1990 and 1996 Emissions:
1990 = 6.678 lbs VOC x 100 gal solids = 667.8 lbs VOC
gal solids day day
1996 = 4.785 lb VOC x 100 gal solids x growth factor(1.2)
gal solids day
574.2 lb VOC
day
1990 Emissions — 1996 Emissions = 667.8 — 574.2 93.6 lb VOC
day
Therefore, 93.6 lb VOC/day are noncreditab ].e.
For the third case where a capture system is required,
expected emissions reductions should be calculated in the
following way. First, uncontrolled emissions should be
determined.
1990 Paper Coaters:
• 80 percent of emissions coming out of the oven and
vented to an incinerator of 98 percent demonstrated
destruction efficiency.
JO percent of emissions are fugitive from
•:* mcontrolled flash-off area.
Total . jiñ controfled emissions in 1990 =
1,000 lb/day if total is uncontrolled, however,
when system is controlled, 80 percent of this
is captured, arid 98 percent of captured
issions are destroyed.
B-2
-------
So, emissions from the incinerator after control are
1,000 lb/day x (1—(0.80)) x (1—(0.981) =
(1,000 lb/day) x (0.20) x (0.02) = 4 lb/day
controlled. Total Emissions from incinerator +
fugitives = 4 lb/day + (1,000 lb/day x (0.20))
= 204 lb/day
1996 Emissions:
New State rule now requires permanent total enclosure,
so the controlled emissions are:
1,000 lb day (1.0) (0.02) 20 lb/day
Noncreditable Emissions Reductions
1990 Emissions - 1996 Emissions = 204 lb/day - 20 lb/day
184 lb/day
The preceding examples are not intended to be fully
inclusive. States should evaluate all RACT rule corrections to
determine if such measures result in real, enforceable, and
permanent emissions reductions. If so, such reductions must be
quantified and considered in the SIP development process when
preparing the 1996 target level of emissions. If a State is
unclear on how to calculate such reductions, then the State
should consult with the Regional Office and Headquarters for
guidance.
B- 3
-------
APPENDIX C:
CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS PROW l/N PROGRAM CORRECTIONS
Corrections to I/M programs occur when either (1) the area’s
I/N program does not meet the reductions achieved by EPA’s
minimum requirements, or (2) an area’s program does not meet the
standards of their current SIP. I/fl program corrections are
calculated by modeling two separate I/fl programs in MOBILE4.1:
the area’s current I/M program, and the stricter of: the I/fl
program described in the area’s SIP, or the minimum I/fl program
as specified by EPA. MOBILE4.l (or MOBILE5 with the flag set to
turn off new CAAA measures) should be run for calendar year 1996
using I/N input that describes the program before and after
corrections are made. The difference between the resulting
emissions factors is then multiplied by 1990 VMT to get the
emissions reduction associated with the I/M program correction.
In case 1, the motor vehicle emissions factor is calculated
for 1996 with the area’s current program and with EPA’s model
program. In each case, the MOBILE model is run with the pre-CAAA
FMVCP and phase II RVP. No additional CAAA requirements are
modeled. Sample MOBILE4.1 inputs for EPA’s model program are
shown in Table C-i.
TABLE C-i. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE (I/M) PROGRAM INPUTS
I/N Program Characteristics Input
Start year (January 1) 1983
Pre-1981 model stringency rate 20%
First model year covered 1968
Last model year covered 2020
Waiver rate (pre-1981) 0%
Waiver rate (1981 and newer) 0%
Compliance rate 100%
Inspection type Centralized
Inspection frequency Annual
Vehicle types covered LDGV
The difference in motor vehicle emissions with the current
program and the model program is the I/fl program correction.
This correction should only be calculated for areas within the
nonattainment area which were required to have an I/K program
under the Act.
C-i
-------
The following describes an example I/M program correction
calculation. It is important for States o realize that these
reductions are not creditable toward the 15 percent vOC emissions
reduction requirement.
SAMPLE I /M CORRECTION CALCULA 22
1990 VMT: 101.6 million miles per day
1996 MOBILE4.1 emissions factor with area’s current program:
1.291 grams/mile
1996 MOBILE4.1 emissions factor with
1.248 grams/mile
Calculate motor vehicle emissions :
curreii t program:
101.6 x 106 miles x 1.291 arams = 288,911 lbs/day
day mile
model program:
101.6 x 106 miles x 1.248 arams = 279,288 lbs/day
day mile
Calculate I/M correction :
I/N correction = Emisêions with current I/N -
Emissions with model I/N
= 288,911 — 279,288
— 9,623 lb/day of noncreditable emissions.
In case 2, motor vehicle emissions are calculated with the
area’s current program as implemented and with the program
required u 4er the area’s SIP. Again, MOBILE4.1 input files
should model the FMVCP and phase II RVP but no additional CAAA
controls .: Th6 difference between these two estimates is the I/N
correction,
This calculation uses total VI’fr and a total speed/vehicle type
weighted emissions factor. Alternatively, VMT and emissions
factors by vehicle type/roadway class could be used to calculate
total emissions under the current program and EPA’S model
program.
EPA’s minimum model program:
C-2
-------
O5’{793 [ O•44 919 5 i 0824 AQ’ID RIP OGC I j0O2.’Oo3
, iO 5’.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
S
c
t 6MAY 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Credit Toward the 15 Percent Rate-of—Progress
Reductions from Federal Me sures
FROM: G . T. Helms, Chief
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-15)
Susan Wyatt, Chief -
Chemicals and Petroleum Branch (MD- 3)
TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
As you know, mahy States have been asking whether they will
be able to take credit in their 15 percent rate-of-progress plans
for reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from federal
measures and imminent control techniques guidelines. We have
identified several categories for which we believe reductions
will be achieved by 1996. The attached table lists these
categories along with the amount of reductions for which States
can take credit in the plans. Please share this information with
the appropriate State and local agencies in your Region. If you
have any questions, please contact Laurel Schultz at (919) 541-
5511
Attachment
cc: Kent Berry
Bruce Jordan
John Silvasi
David Cole
Laurel Schultz
Kia er Scavo
SIP ‘control strategies sub-work group
-------
05’17’93. 10:45
New VOC Related Requirements
Cate9ory
Percent Reduction’
CT s
SOCMI Distillation
98% from each controlled vent
SOCMI Reactor Vents
98% from each controlled vent
National Rules
TSDF Phase I I
93% from 1990 baseline
NESHAPS
Hazardous Organic NESHAP for SOCMI
5% from 1990 baseline
Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilizers
97% from each major source .
The number in this column represents the percent
reduction that EPA will allow States to assume for the purposes
of the 15% plans only.
2 The term “major source” is defined for hazardous air
pollutants in section 112(a) (1) of the Clean Air Act.
-------
OIQ Q,95 ‘ °
Sr 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
_____ Research Triangle Parke North Carolina 27711
p o1( C
MAY 131993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Rate-of—Progress Plan Guidance for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas
FROM: D. Kent Berry, Acting Director
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Attached is a document entitled Guidance on the Relationship
Between the 15 Percent Rate—of—Progress Plans and Other
Provisions of the Clean Air Act , which was developed to guide
States as they develop the State implementation plans (SIP’s) to
meet the new rate—of-progress requirements of section 182(b) (1).
The document specifically focuses on determining the
creditability of emissions reduction requirements of section
182(b) of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 Amendments) now
require a specified rate of emissions reductions for all ozone
areas classified moderate and above. Moderate and above areas
must submit a SIP revision detailing how the area will achieve a
reduction in volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions of at
least 15 percent between November 15, 1990 and November 15, 1996
(hereafter called the rate-of-progress plan). The rate—of-
progress requirement is calculated from the 1990 base—year
emissions inventory. The rate-of—progress plan revision is part
of the full SIP (including an attainment demonstration based on
modeling) for most moderate areas, and a separate submittal for
serious and above areas (due November 15, 1993).
The attached document provides technical guidance to support
the policy presented in the t General Preamble: Implementation of
-------
2
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992). The technical guidance provides information on
the creditability of emissions reductions associated with
programs implemented both prior to enactment of the 1990
Amendments and programs that will be implemented to comply with
the requirements of the 1990 Amendments. The programs addressed
in this document include the following: new source review,
hazardous air pollutant standards, new source performance
standards, controls required f or mobile sources, controls
required for stationary sources of oxides of nitrogen, economic
incentive programs, and operating permits programs.
We suggest that you forward this document to your State and
local agencies (an unbound original is attached). This document
will also be placed on the Technology Transfer Network, the
Management and Accountability Process System, and the State and
Local Air Directors Bulletin Board under the filename
RELATION. RPP.
We trust that this information will be of help to you as you
guide your States through the SIP development process. If you
have questions or comments, please contact David Sanders (919—
541—3356) or Kimber Scavo (919—541—3354).
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Jane Armstrong
Bill Beal
William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
John Bosch
Ogden Gerald
Tom Helms
Ned Meyer
David Nisenheimer
David Mobley
Rich Ossias
Kimber Scavo
Laurel Schultz
John Seitz
John Silvasi
Joe Tikvart
Ray Vogel
Mary Ann Warner-Seiph
Lydia Wegman
Dick Wilson
Howard Wright
-------
-
1 / 7 _______________________________
: - \
C ____ _____ ________
fl t f l — - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
: fl IT T J 5
.s::. ; : . : . * & -. A ..
-------
Guidance on the Relationship Between the
15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans and
Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs. Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
11
-------
Page
LISTOFTABLES .. v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . vi
EXECUTIVE SUM 1ARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .
1 • 0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Purpose • . . . . . • . . .
1.2 Creditability of Emissions Reductions Associated
With RACT Rules and Rule Effectiveness
Improvements Toward the 15 Percent Requirements
2.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS
REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAMS
2.1 Core Requirements of the Part D New Source Review
Program
2.2 Emissions Offsets. . . . . . . . . . . .
Emissions Offset Requirements • . • . . .
Creditability of Emissions Reductions
Creditability of Banked Emissions Reduction
Credits . . . . . . . • . . . .
Minor Source Growth . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geographic Location of Offsets . . . .
Timing of Offsets . . . • . . . . . . .
Offset and Rate-of—Progress Baselines . . .
Creditable Emissions Reductions for Netting
Growth Allowances . . . . . . • ... . •
Construction Bans . . . . . . . . . . •
Tribal Lands . • • . . . . • • • . • •
NO 1 Requirements . . . . . . . . . • .
3.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS
REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS FOR CONTROLLING
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS . . . . • . . . . • • . .
3.1 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , • • . •
3.2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards
3.3 Early Reduction Program
3.4 Construction, Reconstruction, and Modifications of
Major Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Additional Emissions Standards Available under
Sectionll2oftheAct . . • . •
Standard to Protect Public Health and the
Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Work Practice Standards and Other Requirements
Equivalent Emissions Limitation by Permit . .
State and Local Standards . . . . . . . . . .
CONTENTS
S
S
S
.
1
7
9
10
11
11
14
15
15
• S S S
• S S S
• S S S
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
• . • • 17
. . : 17
• • • 18
• • • 19
• • . 19
• • • 21
. . • 22
• • . 22
• . . 23
. • • 24
25
25
26
28
29
30
30
30
31
31
i i i
-------
3.6 Other EPA Programs . 31
4.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS
REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS
REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND MOBILE SOURCE PROVISIONS . . 35
5.1 Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) . . . 35
5.2 Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.3 Reformulated Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4 Stage II Vapor Recovery Control . . . . .. . . . . 36
5.5 Clean Fuel Vehicle Program for Fleets . . . . . . . 37
5.6 Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program . . . . . 38
5.7 On—Board Diagnostic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.8 Transportation Control Measures (TCM’s) . . . . . . 39
6.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 1993 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
PLAN AND NO REQUIREMENTS . . . . . 41
7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS
REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS . 43
7. 1 Background . . . . . 43
7.2 CreditabilityinSiP’s . . . . . . . . . 45
7.3 Baseline Emissions in EIP’s . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.4 Quantification of Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
8.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS
REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND TITLE V (OPERATING PERMITS)
51
8.1 satisfying si Principles with Operating Permits . 52
8.2 Areas Requiring Emissions Reductions Less Than 15
Percent . . . . . . . . 53
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
APPENDIX A . . . . . A—i
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
1. MAJOR SOURCE THRESHOLDS AND MINIMUM EMISSIONS OFFSET
RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
CLASSIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. MAJOR MODIFICATION THRESHOLDS FOR OZONE NONATTAINNENT
AREACLASSIFICATIONS.................. 13
V
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Act Clean Air Act
BACT Best Available Control Technology
CAAA 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon Monoxide
CTG Control Techniques Document
El? Economic Incentive Program
EKMA Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETPS Emissions Trading Policy Statement
FMVCP Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
FR Federal Register
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
I/M Inspection and Maintenance
MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MMBtu Million British Thermal Units
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NESHAP National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
NO Nitrogen Oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standard
NSR New Source Review
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
psi pounds per square inch
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RVP Reid Vapor Pressure
SOCMI Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry
SIP State Implementation Plan
$02 Sulfur Dioxide
TCM Transportation Control Measures
tpy tons per year
UAN Urban Airshed Model
WIT Vehicle Miles Travelled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
vi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 182(b) (1) of the Clean Air Act. (Act) requires all
ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to
submit a State implementation plan (SIP) revision by November 15,
1993, which describes, in part, how the areas will achieve an
actual volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions reduction of at
least 15 percent during the first 6 years after enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) (i.e., up to November 15,
1996). In addition, the SIP revision must describe how any
growth in emissions from 1990 through 1996 will be fully offset.
The portion of the SIP revision that illustrates the plan for the
achievement of these emissions reductions is subsequently defined
in this document as the “rate-of—progress plan.”
It is important to note that section 182(b) (1) also requires
the SIP for moderate areas to provide for reductions in VOC and
nitrogen oxides (NO 1 ) emissions “as necessary to attain the
national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone” by
November 15, 1996. This requirement can be met through the use
of EPA-approved modeling techniques and the adoption of any
additional control measures beyond those needed to meet the
15 percent emissions reduction requirements. States with
intrastate moderate ozone nonattairiment areas will generally be
required to submit attainment demonstrations with their SIP
revisions due by November 15, 1993 (such areas choosing to use
the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) to.prepare their attainment
demonstrations will be allowed to submit attainment
demonstrations by November 15, 1994). States choosing to run UAN
for their intrastate moderate areas must submit by November 15,
1993, their rate—of-progress plan and a committal SIP addressing
the attainment demonstration. The committal SIP subject to a
section 110(k) (4) approval would include, at a minimum, evidence
that grid modeling is well under-way and a commitment, with
schedule, to complete the modeling and submit it as a SIP
revision by November 1994. The completed attainment
demonstration would include any additional controls needed for
attainment.
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for
determining the creditability of emissions reductions toward
meeting the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements of
Section 182(b) of the Act. This document provides technical
guidance to support the policy presented in the “General
Preamble: Implementation of Title I of the CAAA of 1990” (57 FR
13498). The document discusses the creditability of emissions
reductions associated with programs implemented both prior to
enactment of the CAAA, and programs that will be implemented to
comply with the requirements of the CAAA. The programs addressed
in. this document include the following:
1
-------
• New source review (NSR).
• Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) standards.
• New source performance standards (NSPS).
• Controls required for mobile sources.
• Controls required for stationary sources of oxides of
nitrogen (NOr).
• Economic incentive programs (EIP’s).
• Operating permit programs.
Sections 182(b) (1) (C) and 182(b) (1) (D) of the Act specify in
general terms which emissions reductions are creditable toward
the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements and which
reductions are not. Section 182(b) (1) (D) does not specifically
limit the creditability of emissions reductions associated with
- the programs discussed in this guidance document toward the
15 percent requirements; therefore, emissions reductions
associated with the programs outlined above are generally
creditable. However, some additional limitations do exist, to
the extent that emissions reductions associated with the programs
outlined above are not quantifiable, real, enforceable,
replicable, accountable, and occur by November 15, 1996.
There is uncertainty inherent in projecting new source
growth, and in determining the amount of the emissions reductions
from offsets that will be needed to offset minor source grow€h..
Therefore, only additional, actual, permanent, and enforceable
emissions reductions resulting after 1990 from an offset that are
not used to offset minor source growth will be creditable in the
milestone compliance demonstration due in February 1997 for
serious and above areas. States must use caution to avoid the
double-counting of emissions reductions and must be cárefulto
distinguish between credits toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements, NSR offset credits and netting credits,
and credits used for emissions trading in an EIP. Banked
emissions reduction credits can be used to offset new source
growth, but preenactment banked emissions reductions are not
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. Other reductions that are not creditable toward
the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements include those
used to create growth allowances in U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) zones.
Reductions in VOC emissions associated with requirements for
the control of HAP’s under section 112 of the Act are generally
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. (Note that not all HAP’s are VOC’s. See p. A-9
for the definition of VOC.) Most section 112 VOC reductions
credited toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements will occur through the promulgation of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards, national emission
2
-------
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), and the use of
the early reductions program. Volatile organic compound
reductions from section 112(g) modifications are creditable
toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements if a
source demonstrates that an increase in emissions of one
pollutant has been offset by a greater decrease in the same or an
equivalent pollutant. However, a State must adequately account
for the simultaneous growth associated with modified sources that
net out of the section 112(g) requirements because their net
emissions do not exceed de minimis emissions levels. The section
112(f) standards (residual risk standards to protect public
health) are not likely to be promulgated in time for credit
toward the 15 percent requirements.
Reductions in VOC emissions achieved by stationa y sources
that become subject to a section 111 NSPS after 1990 are
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. States must use caution to avoid the double-
counting of emissions reductions associated with an NSPS and
those achieved through the emissions offset or netting provisions
of the NSR rules. Additionally, existing sources that are
modified to become subject to an NSPS may already besubject to
reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules. --Only the
incremental emissions reduction between the allowable emissions
specified by the two requirements is creditable toward the 15
percent VOC emissions reduction requirements.
States may credit most emissions reductions gained through
mobile source programs toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements. Exceptions include those reductions
achieved under Federal motor vehicle control program- (FMVCP)
tailpipe or evaporative regulations promulgated before 1990 and
specified Federal Reid vapor-pressure (RVP) limits for gasoline
(55 FR 23666, June 11, 1990). Additionally, improvements -
resulting from corrections to deficient inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs are not creditable. Reductions
obtained through implementation of other mobile source programs
are generally creditable, as long as the reductions are
quantifiable, real, enforceable, replicable, accountable, and
occur by November 15, 1996 • States may also secure- credit f or
RVP limits that are more stringent than the minimum Federal
requirements. States will be able to quantify the future
emissions reductions resulting from the implementation of most
mobile source control measures through the use of the !4OBILE5a
model.
Nitrogen oxide emissions reductions occurring in the 1990—
1996 period may not be substituted for VOC emissions reductions
for the 15 percent rate-of-progress requirements. However,
s tion 182(b) (1) (A) states that NO emissions reductions can be
.sed in combination with VOC emissions reductions to achieve
3
-------
attainment of the ozone national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). Additionally, NO 1 emissions reductions occurring in the
1990-1996 period, in excess of growth, may be considered as
substitutes for VOC emissions reductions for the post—1996 rate—
of-progress requirements. Consequently, States should present
their NO inventories in their rate-of—progress plan in addition
to their VOC inventories. The EPA expects to issue guidance in
the fall of 1993 covering substitution of NO for VOC emissions
reductions for the post-1996 period.
On February 23, 1993, EPA published a proposed rulemaking
discussing requirements for EIP’s (58 FR 11110). This proposal
also represents EPA’S interim policy on EIP’s. The proposed
rulemaking anticipates that certain EIP strategies will be based
on a quantifiable emissions limit while others will depend
strictly on marketplace forces to reduce emissions. Thus, the
amount of emissions reductions associated with an EIP program
that will, be creditable toward the 15 percent rate—of—progress
plan requirements will vary depending on the nonattainment area
and the form of the EIP proposed. The EPA is presently proposing
the introduction of two factors, rule compliance and program
uncertainty, to address the uncertainty of quantifying creditable
emissions reductions from EIP’s. The rule compliance factor is
intended to address the issue of less-than-complete compliance
and the program uncertainty factor is intended to address the -
inherent uncertainty in future market response. Additionally,
EPA is considering the requirement of program audit provisions to
track actual emissions reductions from an EIP; if a State employs
a market-response EIP, the program audit provisions would include
reconciliation procedures to compare the projected emissions
reductions credited in the SIP .with the actual emissions
reductions. Furthermore, the proposed EIP regulation would
require contingency measures to make up for any shortfall-
identified between the actual and the projected emissions
reductions for any market-response EIP. States must take care to
distinguish between the rate-of-progress base year inventory and
the EIP baseline inventory, and must carefully consider the
consistency in emissions quantification procedures used in the
rate-of-progress plan and the EIP. States should consult with
the appropriate EPA Regional Office in determining the amount of
credit from an EIP. The resulting emissions reductions must
occur by November 15, 1996.
A large portion of the rate-of—progress plans——and the
attainment plan--will be implemented through the Title V
operating permit program. A State may rely on its regulatory
programs alone in its rate-of—progress plan to demonstrate that
sufficient emissions reductions will occur to meet the 15 percent
emissions reductions requirement.
4
-------
The EPA recognizes that some of the new Control Techniques
Documents(CTG) documents and Federal regulations f or other
programs (e.g., NSPS, NESHAP’s, and MACT) may not be promulgated
in time to be used by States to develop and adopt control
measures for their 15 percent rate-of-progress plans. The EPA is
currently investigating whether and under what circumstances a
State may be able to take credit for unadopted control measures
in their 15 percent rate-of—progress plans. Further guidance
from EPA may be forthcoming.
5
-------
6
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 182(b) (1) of the Act requires all ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to submit a
SIP revision by November 15, 1993, which describes, in part, how
the areas will achieve an actual VOC emissions reduction of at
least 15 percent during the first 6 years after enactment of the
CAAA (i.e., up to November 15, 1996). In addition, the SIP must
describe how any growth in emissions from 1990 through 1996 will
be fully offset. Emissions and emissions reductions shall be
calculated on a typical weekday basis for the “peak” 3-month
ozone period (generally June through August). The 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction, net of growth, required by November 15, 1996
is defined within this document as “rate of progress.”
Furthermore, the portion of the SIP revision that illustrates the
plan for the achievement of the emissions reductions is
subsequently defined in this document as the “rate—of—progress
plan.” -
It is important to note that section 182(b) (1) also requires
the SIP for moderate areas to provide for reductions in VOC and
NO emissions “as necessary to attain the national primary
ambient air quality standard for ozone” by November 15, 1996.
This requirement can be met through the use of EPA-approved
modeling techniques. and the adoption of any additional control
measures beyond those needed to meet the 15 percent emissions
reduction requirements. States with intrastate moderate ozone
nonattaininent areas will generally be required to submit
attainment demonstrations with their SIP revisions due by
November 15, 1993 (such -areas choosing to use UAI4.to prepare
their attainment demonstrations will be allowed to submit
‘The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes that
the Act terms, for both the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirement of section 182(b) (1) and the section 182(c) 2) (B)
requirement for 3 percent per year VOC emissions reductions
averaged over each consecutive 3—year period from November 15,
1996 until the attainment date, as reasonable further progress
(RFP) requirements. However, because-the Act requires SIP
revisions for the 15 percent reduction to be submitted in 1993
and SIP revisions for the 3 percent per year reductions to be
subinitted in 1994, EPA believes that it would be clearer, within
the context of both the 15 percent rate-of-progress plan and
post-1996 rate-of-progress plan guidance documents that EPA -is
producing, to create distinct labels for these two seemingly
similar re uctions. The 1994 SIP revisions describing the
requiremen- . for 3 percent VOC emissions reductions averaged over
each consecutive 3-year period from November 15, 1996 until the
attainment date, constitute the “post-1996 rate-of-progress
plan.”
7
-------
attainment demonstrations by November 15, 1994). States choosing
to run UAN for their intrastate moderate areas must submit by
November 15, 1993, their rate-of—progress plan and a committal
SIP addressing the attainment demonstration. The committal SIP
subject to a section 110(k) (4) approval would include, at a
minimum, evidence that grid modeling is well under way and a
commitment, with schedule, to complete the modeling and submit it
as a SIP revision by November 1994. The completed attainment
demonstration would include any additional controls needed for
attainment.
Section 182 (C) (2) requires all ozone nonattainment areas
classified as serious and above to submit a SIP revision by
November 15, 1994 which describes, in part, how each area will
achieve additional VOC emissions reductions of 3 percent per year
averaged over each consecutive 3—year period from November 15,
1996 until the area’s attainment date. It is important to note
that section 182(c) (2) (C) allows for actual NO 1 emissions
reductions (exceeding growth) that occur after the base year of
1990 to be used to meet post-1996 emissions reduction
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious
and above, provided that such NO 1 reductions meet the criteria
outlined in forthcoming substitution guidance. The portion of
the SIP revision (due in 1994) that illustrates the plan for the
achievement of these post-1996 reductions in VOC or NO 1 is
subsequently defined in.this document as the “post—1996 rate—of—
progress plan.” This plan must also-contain an attainment
demonstration based on photochemical grid modeling. The EPA
plans to distribute a separate guidance document on the
development of the post-1996 rate—of—progress plan in 1993.
Demonstrating achievement of the 15 percent VOC emissions
reductions by November 15, 1996, and then subsequently
demonstrating achievement of the 3 percent per year VOC emissions
reductions averaged over each consecutive 3—year period from
November 15, 1996 until the attainment date, are termed milestone
demonstrations. Achievement of the milestones must be
demonstrated within 90 days of the milestone date (e.g., the
15 percent VOC emissions reductions must be demonstrated by
February 13, 1997). The EPA is currently developing a rule which
will describe the information and .analysis required for the
milestone compliance demonstrations. The rule is scheduled for
promulgation in the summer of 1994. The rule will also address
summary data needs, detailed reporting requirements, and
consequences of submitting an inadequate demonstration (in terms
of documentation) as well as consequences of failure to
demonstrate the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements,
net of growth. -
Section, 182(a) (3) (A) requires the States to submit periodic
inventories starting 3 years after submission of the base year
8
-------
inventory required by section 182(a) (1), and every 3 years
thereafter until the area is redesignated to attainment. The EPA
recommends that States synchronize their schedules for developing
the periodic inventories so that the second periodic inventory
(which would be due no later than November 15, 1998) is submitted
by February 13, 1997 and addresses emissions in 1996. By
accelerating preparation and submittal of the 1996 periodic
inventory, the milestone demonstration that is due for serious
and above areas by February 13, 1997 can be based on this
periodic inventory. If similarly accelerated, future periodic
inventories would then also coincide with subsequent milestone
demonstrations. The periodic inventory is to be based on actual
emissions and will cover VOC, NOR, and carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions sources. Like the base year inventory, the periodic
inventory is to be determined using typical peak ozone season
weekday emissions.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for
determining the creditability of emissions reductions toward
meeting the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements of
Section 182(b) of the Act. This document provides technical
guidance to support the policy presented in the “General
Preamble: Implementation of Title I of the CAAA of 1990” (57 FR
13498). The document discusses the creditability of emissiofls
reductions associated with programs implemented both prior to
enactment of the CAAA, and programs that will be implemented to
comply with the requirements of the CAAA. The programs addressed
in this document include the following: -
• New source review (NSR).
• Hazardous air pollutant (HAP)standards.
• New source performance standards (NSPS).
• Controls required for mobile sources.
• Controls required for stationary sources of oxides of
nitrogen (NO).
• Economic incentive programs (EIP’s).
• Operating permit program.
This document is intended to assist the States in preparing
the rate-of-progress plans that will demonstrate how the area
will achieve the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements
from November 1990 to November 1996. In order for a State to
comply with the 15 percent requirements, it will need to
demonstrate that it will achieve the necessary emissions
reductions needed to meet its 1996 target level of emissions.
There are three components that comprise the emissions reductions
to meet the 1996 target level:
9
-------
• The 15 percent VOC emissions reduction calculated from
the adjusted base year inventory.
• The noncreditable emissions reductions (i.e., RVP
limits specified in 55 FR 23666, pre—1990 FMVCP, and
corrections to RACT rule and I/M programs).
• The offset of 1990—1996 emissions growth.
This document is not intended to directly address either
rate—of-progress tracking or the final milestone compliance
demonstration. Additional guidance to address tracking and the
milestone compliance demonstration will be developed in the
future. Furthermore, this guidance addresses many programs and
procedures that are addressed more fully in other guidance
documents. This guidance is not intended to supersede those
guidance documents; rather, it is intended to pull together the
relative material as it pertains to the development of the rate-
of-progress plan. In addition, this document is not intended to
be a policy statement; rather, it is intended to reiterate the
regulations and policies set forth specifically for those
programs described herein. Readers are referred to rulemakings
and policy statements for details concerning the development of
regulations and policies.
1.2 Creditability of Emissions Reductions Associated With RACT
Rules and Rule Effectiveness Improvements Toward the
15 Percent Requirements
The creditability of emissions reductions associated with
RACT rules and rule effectiveness improvements are not discussed
in this document because they have been previously discussed in
two other documents concerning the 15 percent rate-of—progress
plan requirements. The creditability of emissions reductions
associated with RACT rule fix-ups and catch-ups and rule
effectiveness improvements are discussed in the document entitled
Guidance on the Ad-justed Base Year Emissions Inventory and the
1996 Taraet for the 15 Percent Rate-of—Progress Plans , EPA—452/R—
92-005, October 1992. The creditability of rule effectiveness
improvements associated with non—CTG RACT rules, rule
effectiveness improvements, and the quantification of emissions
reductions from rule effectiveness improvements are discussed in
the document entitled Guidance on Growth Factors. Prolections.
and Control Strategies f or the 15 Percent Rate—of—Progress Plans ,
EPA-452/R-93-002, March 1993. This document also discusses the
development status of new CTG documents. The EPA recognizes that
some of the new CTG documents may not be promulgated in time to
be used by States to develop new RACT rules for their rate—of—
progress plans. The EPA is currently investigating whether and
under what circumstances a State may be able to take credit for
unadapted RACT rules in its 15 percent rate—of—progress plans.
Further guidance may be forthcoming.
10
-------
2.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION -
REQUIREMENTS AND NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAMS
This section of the document describes the new or revised
NSR nonattainment permit program requirements under Part D of the
Act, and the creditability of emissions reductions associated
with NSR permitting toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. States should be aware that EPA intends to issue
revisions to the existing Part D regulations setting forth in
more detail the new or revised requirements for an approvable NSR
program.
2.1 Core Requirements of the Part D New Source Review Program
The Act requires new major stationary sources and major
modifications to stationary sources to obtain an air pollution
permit before initiating construction. Permits for sources
located in nonattainment areas are known as nonattainment area or
Part D permits, while permits for sources located in attainment
areas are known as prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
or Part C permits. The NSR program is the program under which
these permit reviews are implemented.
The CAAA contain several provisions that changed the Part D
requirements of Title I of the Act. These provisions mandate
lower emissions thresholds for the definition of a major source
and establish more stringent offset ratios for new major sources
located in ozone nonattainment areas (Table 1). Prior to the
enactment of the CAAA, a new source was considered major if it
emitted, or had the potential to emit, 100 tons per year (tpy) or
more of VOC or NO However, the CAAA lowered the emissions
thresholds for serious, severe, and extreme nonattainment areas
to the potential to emit 50, 25, or 10 tpy or more of VOC or NOR,
respectively. The amendments also lowered the emissions
threshold for defining major new VOC sources in ozone transport
regions. The emissions thresholds and minimum emissions offset
requirements for major new sources in nonattainment areas and
ozone transport regions are presented in Table 1. The CAAA also
establish special and complex requirements for major
modifications including new thresholds in serious, severe, and
extreme ozone nonattainment areas and ozone transport regions.
The requirements for major modifications in nonattaininent areas
and ozone transport regions are presented in Table 2. The CAAA
also establish new sanctions and provisions that retain existing
construction bans in some cases.
11
-------
TABLE 1. MAJOR SOURCE THRESHOLDS AND MINIMUM EMISSIONS OFFSET
RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR OZONE NONATTAINNENT AREA CLASSIFICATIONS
Nonattaininent Area
VOC
(tpy) 2
NO 1
(tpy) 2
Minimum
Emissions
Offset Ratio
Required
Extreme
10
10
1.5 to i
Severe
25
25
1.3 to i
Serious
50
50
1.2 to 1
Moderate
100
100
1.15 to 1
Moderate, in an ozone
transport region
50
100
1.15 to 1
Marginal
100
100
1.1 to 1
Marginal, in an ozone
transport region
50
100
1.15 to 1
All other nonattainment
outside of an ozone
transport region 4
areas,
100
100
- >1.0 to 1
All other nonattainment
in an ozone transport
areas,
region 4
100
100
1.15 to 1
Attainment, in an ozone
transport region
50
100
1.15 to 1
2 tpy = tons per year
The minimum ratio is reduced to 1.2 if the applicable State
implementation plan requires all major sources of VOC and NO 1
emissions to use best available control technology (BAçT).
The other nonattainment areas are submarginal, transitional,
and incomplete/no data.
12
-------
TABLE 2. MAJOR MODIFICATION THRESHOLDS FOR OZONE
NONATTAINMENT AREA CLASSIFICATIONS
Ozone Nonattainment Area
VOC
(tpy) 5
NO
(tpy) 5
Extreme
0
0
Severe
256
256
Serious
256
256
Moderate
40
40
Moderate, in an ozone transport region
40
40
Marginal
40
40
Marginal, in an ozone transport region
40
40
All other nonattainment areas, outside
of an ozone transport region 7
40
40
All other nonattainment areas, in an
ozone transport region 7
40
40
Attainment, in an ozone transport region
40
40
‘ tpy = tons per year
6 Net increase of 25 tons when aggregated with all other net
increases in emissions from the source over any period of
5 consecutive calendar years, which includes the calendar year
in which such increase occurred.
The other nonattainment areas are submarginal, transitional,
and incomplete/no data.
13
-------
The core requirements of the revised Part D NSR program are
as follows:
• Emissions offsets — ensures more than equivalent
offsetting emissions reductions for proposed emissions
- increases.
• Lowest achievable emissions rate - ensures emissions
are controlled to the greatest extent possible.
• Statewide source compliance — ensures that an applicant
is in compliance, or on a schedule toward compliance,
with the Part D requirements at all of its sources
owned or operated in the State.
• Assurance of adequate plan implementation — ensures the
applicable implementation plan is being adequately
implemented before a permit is issued.
• Analysis of alternatives — the evaluation of
alternative locations, sizes, production processes, and
environmental control techniques before a permit is
issued.
Of these core requirements, the emissions offsets requirement is
the most relevant to the discussion in this guidance because it
mandates emissions reductions that are greater in quantity than
the proposed emissions increases. The creditability of these
offsets toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements is discussed along with the creditability of
reductions mandated under other titles of the Act toward the NSR
offsets.
2.2 Emissions Offsets
Emissions offsets are the principal regulatory mechanism for
accommodating major new source growth without jeopardizing the
Act’s mandate for progress toward attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
Many of the requirements for emissions offsets are already
included in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.165 and the
Emissions Trading Policy Statement (ETPS). (See reference 1.)
States should be aware that most of the offset requirements
existed before the CAAA and that 40 CFR 51.165 and ETPS
requirements must still be met. States should also be aware that
the NSR Update Rulemaking and any policy changes to the ETPS will
supersede guidance contained herein regarding NSR permitting.
Therefore, NSR permitting information contained in this guidance
is for background purposes only, and States should develop and
coi ict their NSR permitting programs in accordance with the
guidance and requirements contained in the forthcoming NSR
regulations and the Title I General Preamble. (See reference 2.)
14
-------
Emissions Offset Requirements
Major stationary sources seeking to satisfy the requirements of
section 173(a) (1) (A) of the Act must obtain “sufficient
offsetting emissions reductions...so as to represent reasonable
further progress” as part of the requirements to obtain a Part D
NSR permit. Section 182 of the Act prescribes specific minimum
of fset ratios for VOC and NOL emissions from sources in ozone
nonattainment areas. The minimum offset ratio requirements are
presented in Table 1. In the case of severe and extreme areas,
section 182 (C) (10) allows the minimum offset ratio to be reduced
to a ratio of 1.2 to 1 if the applicable SIP requires all
existing major sources in such nonattainment areas to use best
available control technology (BACT) for the control qf VOC and
N0 emissions. Certain criteria must be met for emissions
reductions to be creditable toward the emissions offsets. These
criteria are discussed in detail in the following sections of
this document.
Emissions reductions projected to occur from the offset
requirements are not creditable toward the 15 percent rate—of—
progress plan requirements due to the inherent uncertainty in
projecting new source growth, and in determining the amount of
the emissions reductions from offsets that will be needed to
offset minor source growth. However, any additional, actual,
permanent, and enforceable emissions reductions resulting after
1990 from an offset that is not used to offset minor source
growth will be creditable in the milestone compliance
demonstration due in February 1997 for serious and above areas.
The following example illustrates the -creditability of
emissions reductions in a milestone compliance demonstration. If
a new source locating in a serious area proposes an allowable VOC
emissions rate of 120 tpy, the source would be required to obtain
offsets amounting to 144 tpy of actual emissions reductions. The
entire 144 tpy actual emissions reduction will not be creditable
toward the milestone compliance demonstration for the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements because of the increase in
allowable emissions from the new source. The allowable new
source emissions increase is subtracted from the 144 tpy
reductions obtained through the offset requirement to determine
the amount of credit. Therefore, the State could credit only 24
tpy of reductions toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements in the milestone compliance demonstration.
Creditability of Emissions Reductions
New section 173(c) (2) of the Act prevents emissions
reductions otherwise required by the Act from being credited
toward satisfying the Part D emissions offset requirement. This
stipulation should not be confused with mandated emissions
15
-------
reductions that are creditable toward the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirements. For example, RACT “catch—up t ’
voc reductions under section 182(b) (2) (B) and (C) are not
creditable toward emissions offset requirements, but are
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. Likewise, VOC emissions reductions required under
section 112 of the Act, are not creditable toward emissions
offsets but may be creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements. For example, proposed new or modified
major sources seeking emissions offsets may not use emissions
reductions required by sections 112(d), 112(h), and 112(j) of the
Act. Similarly, an early reductions program that meets the
minimum specifications as described in section 112(i) (5) of the
Act are not creditable toward emissions offsets.
However, emissions reductions which are excess and
incidental to the emissions reductions associated with the
requirements of the Act are creditable toward emissions offsets
as long as the requirements of section 173(c) (1) are met. For
example, any emissions reductions in excess of those required by
section 112 regulations are creditable toward emissions offsets.
In the case of early reductions, any emissions reductions in
excess of 90 percent (for VOC) may be considered surplus and,
therefore, creditable if all other applicable requirements are
met. Additionally, incidental emissions reductions are also
creditable toward emissions offsets. For example, any reductions
in nonhazardous VOC emissions that result from the !4ACT standards
under section 112(d) (1) are creditable (i.e., if not otherwise
required by the SIP). Incidental emissions reductions also
include any reductions pursuant to a State requirement that is
more stringent than the requirements of the Act. Creditability
of section 112 reductions toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements is discussed in the next section of this
document.
States must use caution to avoid double-counting of
reductions toward the offset requirements (i.e., granting credit
for the same emissions reduction twice). For example, an
emissions reduction already credited toward the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirements in the State’s SIP, regardless
of how the reduction was -actually obtained, cannot be used for
offsetting purposes. States must keep careful records to avoid
double-counting of reductions toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements. P or example, excess emissions reductions
resulting from the section 112(i) (5) early reductions program are
potentially creditable toward the NSR emissions offsets. A
source that reduces the emissions of a hazardous VOC from 10 tpy
to 0.5 tpy would qualify for a section 112 early reduction
exemption because emissions would be reduced by 95 percent.
Because the total reduction exceeds the 90 percent reduction
required by section 112(i) (5), 5 percent of the total reduction
(0.5 tpy) would be available for emissions offset credit. The
16
-------
State in this case must be careful not to credit the entire
9.5 tpy early reduction toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements and then credit the 0.5 tpy emissions
offset toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. This would, in effect, produce a 10 tpy reduction
on paper when only a 9.5 tpy reduction actually occurred. Only
the actual reduction of 9.5 tpy could be credited toward the
15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements (or
alternatively, 9.0 tpy could be credited toward the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction, with 0.5 tpy credited toward the
emissions offset requirements).
Creditability of Banked Emissions Reduction Credits
The use of preenactment banked emissions for-offsetting must
be treated as growth in the 15 percent rate-of-progress plan.
States may use the preenactinent banked emissions reduction
credits for offsetting purposes as long as the credits meet all
other offset creditability criteria. For VOC and NO offsets,
such reductions must be used in accordance with the offset
requirements established for the different ozone nonattaininent
area classifications. Existing EPA policy (40 CFR
51. 165(a) (3) (ii) (C) (1)] prohibits the use of certain preenactment
banked emissions credits in the absence of’an EPA—approved
attainment plan. - The prohibitions apply to reductions achieved
by shutting down existing sources or permanently curtailing
production or.operating hours.
Preenactment banked emissions reductions may be used to
offset new source- growth, but these banked emissions are not
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. For example, if aState chooses to use banked VOC
emissions reductions to offset new source growth -of -200 tpy in a
serious nonattainment area, it must obtain offsetting emissions
of 240 tpy from its bank to meet the offset requirement of
1.2 to 1. Although the bank has been reduced by 240 tpy, the
additional emissions resulting from the new source are 200 tpy.
To ensure that the nonattainment area will meet the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements, this 200 tpy emissions
increase must be compensated for by reductions from existing
sources.
Minor Source Growth
A State must demonstrate in its 15 percent rate-of—progress
plan that it has achieved the emissions reductions needed to meet
its target level of emissions for each milestone date.
Therefore, a State will need to implement control measures that
will offset new source growth. New source growth not only
results from new or modified major stationary sources, but also
from minor sources. This minor source growth must also be taken
17
-------
into account to ensure that the 15 percent rate—of—progress
requirements are achieved. Emissions increases from minor
sources must be offset by emissions reductions at existing
sources. However, EPA has not yet resolved whether the State or
the source should accept the burden of compensating for minor
source growth. Readers are encouraged to review the final NSR
regulations, when published, for guidance regarding minor source
growth.
GeopraDhic Location of Offsets
Section 173(c) (1) of the Act specifies that a proposed major
new or modified source must generally obtain emissions offsets
from the source itself or from other existing sources in the same
nonattainment area. However, sources are allowed to obtain
offsets from other nonattainment areas if two criteria are
satisfied. First, the other nonattainment area must have an
equal or higher nonattainment classification than the
nonattainment area in which a proposed source is to be
constructed or modified. This criterion is only met in cases
where the other nonattainment area has an equal or higher
nonattainment classification for the same pollutant. For
example, a major new source of VOC or NO proposing to locate in
a serious ozone nonattainment area could obtain offsets in
another ozone nonattainment area ‘classified as serious, severe,
or extreme. Second, emissions from the other nonattainment area
must contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in the nonattainment
area in which a proposed source would construct or be modified.
The permitting authority should acknowledge and verify any
demonstration made to meet the second criteria.
In cases where offsets are .obtained in a -nonattainment area
other than the area where ar proposed major source would be
constructed or, modified, a State may credit the offset emissions
reductions toward the 15 percent. VOC emissions reduction
requirements for the nonattainment area in which the reductions
occurred. However, the emissions increase associated with the
proposed major source must be treated as growth in the
nonattainment .area in which the increase occurred, and must be
controlled to meet the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. For example, if a new source proposes allowable
emissions of 120 tpy in serious nonattaimunent area A and proposes
actual emissions offsets of 144 tpy in serious nonattainment area
B, the State can credit a reduction of 144 tpy toward the 15
percent VOC emissions reduction requirements for area B. The
State must then debit the actual emissions increase of 120 tpy
from the proposed new source against the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements for area A..
18
-------
Timing of Offsets
New section 173(c) (1) of the Act also specifies that any
offsets obtained by a proposed major new or modified source in
conjunction with the issuance of a permit must be in effect and
enforceable by the time the proposed source commences operation.
This new condition clarifies an existing requirement under
section 173(a) that simply stipulates offsets must be “legally
binding” before a permit may be issued. The new condition
emphasizes that the obtained offsets must be federally
enforceable before the permit can be issued to the proposed
source. The offsets are generally made federally enforceable
through a permit condition made by the permitting authority to
the permit for the source(s) where the offsets are to be
obtained. States should be aware that problems may exist in
making off-site offsets federally enforceable. Additionally,
States must also ensure that the required emissions reductions
actually occur no later than the date on which the proposed
source would commence operation. These conditions must be met
before States can claim offset credits. These conditions must
also be met if emissions reductions associated with an offset are
to be creditable toward the 15 percent emissions reduction
requirements in a milestone compliance demonstration.
Offset and Rate-of-Progress Baselines
Changes in section 173(a) (1) support current EPA
requirements that the calculation of the emissions baseline for
offset credits be consistent with the calculation of the
emissions baseline for the rate-of-progress plan. The EPA’S
current policy concerning the baseline for emissions offsets
provides that the offset baseline is the allowable emissions
limit under the applicable SIP in effect at the time the proposed
source files its permit application. However, the offset
baseline is based on actual emissions if the State’s rate-of—
progress plan and attainment demonstration are based on actual
emissions,, or if the SIP does not contain an allowable eii issions
limitation for the proposed source or source category.
States that based their previous rate-of-progress plan and
attainment demonstration on actual emissions should comply with
the new offset provisions with little difficulty. Most States
historically used yearly assessments of net actual emissions
reductions to track rate—of-progress emissions reductions because
actual emissions reductions correlate better with improvements in
ambient air quality than allowable emissions reductions. States
that based their plans on allowable emissions can still obtain
o f set credits f or reductions in allowable emissions as necessary
to conform with the requirements of section 173(a) (1). However,
such offset credits will be deemed inadequate if, by definition,
a. real reduction. in actual emissions does not occur at the
offsetti!ng source that equals or exceeds the amount of offset
- 19
-------
provided to the proposed source. Furthermore, States should
realize that if these offsets do not correspond to real emissions
reductions, then States will not be likely to achieve the
necessary emissions reductions for milestone compliance.
20
-------
2.3 Creditable Emissions Reductions for Netting
Except for the additions of the provisions of sections
182(c) (6)-(8) to Title I of the Act, the CAAA generally do not
affect EPA’S current procedures for netting emissions decreases
and increases. Netting should still be determined in a manner
consistent with EPA’S current NSR rules (40 CFR 51.165) and the
ETPS for the purpose of determining whether a proposed source or
modification is subject to the NSR requirements. Netting
preenactment reductions with post-enactment emissions increases
can still be conducted to the extent allowed under State rules.
However, because preenacthent emissions reductions represent
emissions that are not included in the 1990 base year inventory,
States must consider such post—enactment increases as growth even
though, for NSR applicability purposes, the source’s net
emissions change is de minimis (note, if netting includes post—
enactment decreases, then growth equals post—enactment increases
minus post-enactment decreases). States should be aware that
post-enactment net growth from minor modifications to major
sources could significantly affect the rate-of—progress plan and
attainment demonstration. As discussed previously with regard to
minor source growth, EPA has yet to resolve who should accept the
burden of compensating for such growth.
States must use caution to avoid double-counting of
reductions toward the netting requirements. Mi emissions
reduction -is creditable for netting purposes only if the relevant
reviewing authority has not relied on the reduction in issuing a
NSR permit for the source, and the permit is still in effect when
the increase in actual emissions from the proposed major
modification occurs. (See reference 3.) For example, an
emissions reduction obtained through an offset at a modified
source cannot also be used for netting purposes. :Additionally,
States must keep careful records to- avoid double—counting of
reductions toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. For example, all reductions resulting from the
section 112 early reductions program are also potentially
creditable toward the NSR netting requirements. A source that
reduces the actual emissions of a hazardous VOC from 10 tpy to
0.5 tpy would qualify for a section 112 early reduction exemption
because emissions would be reduced by 95 percent. Because the
early reduction is creditable for nett’ing purposes, the 9.5 tpy
reduction would be available for either netting credit or as a
credit against the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. However, the State in this case must be careful
not to credit the 9.5 tpy section 112 early reduction toward the
15 percent Voc emissions reduction requirements and also allow a
9.5 tpy netting credit. This would, in effect, produce a 19 tpy
reduction on paper when only a 9.5 tpy reduction actually
occurred.
21
-------
Emissions reductions creditable to the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirements are not necessarily creditable
for netting purposes, or vice-versa. For example, an of fset
previously obtained by a modifying source may be creditable
toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements, but
would not be creditable for netting purposes. However, the
restrictions regarding the creditability of reductions for
netting purposes are somewhat more lenient than those for
offsets. For example, early reductions under section 112 (i) (5)
may be creditable for netting purposes, whereas such reductions
could not be used for offsetting purposes.
2.4 Growth Allowances
The CAAA sharply limit the opportunities for States to set
up new growth allowances in nonattainment areas and voids certain
existing growth allowances. Sections 172(c) (4) and 173(a) (1) (B)
of the Act limit new growth allowances to only those portions of
a nonattaininent area that have been formally targeted for
economic growth by the Administrator, in consultation with the
Secretary of HUD. Emissions reductions used to create growth
allowances in a HUD zone -are not creditable toward the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements because the reductions must
be surplus, enforceable, permanent, and quantifiable to be
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. Emissions reductions obtained to create growth
allowances are not surplus or permanent, since the reductions may
be used to offset future-growth. In situations where the
emissions reductions exceed the enforceable growth allowances in
absolute quantity, the surplus -reductions can be credited toward
the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction -requirements.
New section 173 (b) of the Act invalidates, by Loperation of
law, any existing growth--allowances in• any z onattairnnent area
that either (1) received -a notice thatthe SIP was substantially
inadequate under section 110(a) (2) (H) (ii) of the Act, or (2)
receives a notice of inadequacy under new section 110(k) (1) of
the Act. Where growth allowances are no longer valid or
established, a proposed major-new or modified source in a
nonattainment area is required to obtain emissions offsets on a
case-by-case basis in order to obtain construction approval.
(This was discussed previously in the emissions offsets section
of this document.)
2.5 Construction Bans
The CAAA repeal most of the federally imposed construction
bans established in nonattainment areas prior to November 15,
1990, wider section 110(a) (2) (I) of the Act. However, new
section 110(n) (3) of the Act also preserves certain preenactment
construction bans imposed by virtue of a finding that the SIP for
the area did not contain an adequate NSR permitting program as
22
-------
required by section 172(b) (6) of the Act. The retained
construction bans remain in effect until the EPA determines that
the SIP meets the new Part D permit requirements.
Construction bans can, in effect, be imposed under section
173(a) (4) of the Act if the Administrator determines that the SIP
for the Part D requirements is not being adequately implemented
for the nonattainment area where new or modified sources are
proposed. Section 173 (a) (4) stipulates that a permit cannot be
issued to a new or modified major source in a nonattainment area
if the SIP is not adequately implemented.
Section 113(a) (5) of the Act provides that EPA may prohibit.
the construction or modification of any specific major stationary
source in any area, including an attainment area, and may take
other enforcement actions against States as allowed by the Act.
The EPA may apply section 113 (a) (5) whenever the Administrator
finds, on the basis of available information, that a State is not
acting in compliance with any requirement or prohibition of the
Act (or approved SIP meeting the requirements of the Act)
relating to construction of new sources or the modification of
existing sources. Upon such a finding, the Administrator has the
option of issuing an order that prohibits the construction or
modification of any major stationary source in any area to which
such requirement applies.
Construction bans do not necessarily prevent minor source
growth and de minimis increases at major sources. Therefore,
States with nonattaininent areas.subject to construction bans must
still track emissions increases and decreases for the milestone
compliance demonstration. .,
2.6 Tribal Lands - .
Section 301(d) of the Act grantsEPA the authority to treat
Indian tribes in certain respects as States and specifically to
allow Tribes to develop tribal implementation plans for achieving
the NAAQS on tribal lands. Like SIP’s, these plans must include
all implementation requirements. specified in the Act including
complete NSR programs for constructing or modifying existing
sources located on tribal lands. Further guidance on the
provisions of the Act, including the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements, for which Indian tribes are to be treated
as States will be provided as part of a separate rulemaking
required by section 301(d) (2) of the Act.
23
-------
2.7 NO Requirements
Section 182(f) of the Act specifies requirements for NO,
that apply to major new and modified sources in ozone
nonattainment areas and ozone transport regions. This section
reflects a new directive that NO, reductions are required in
ozone nonattainment areas, with certain exceptions. As a result,
States are generally required to apply the same’ requirements to
major stationary sources of NO, as are applied tà major
stationary sources of VOC. However, the emissions threshold at
which a stationary source becomes major does differ for NO, and
VOC sources in marginal and moderate ozone transport regions
(100 tpy NO, rather than 50 tpy VOC). Section 182(f) also
specifies that the new NO, requirements shall not apply where any
of the following tests is met:
• In any area where the net air quality benefits are
greater without NO, reductions from the applicable
sources.
• In an ozone transport region where additional NO,
reductions would not produce net ozone benefits in the
transport region.
• In nonattainment areas not located within an ozone
transport region where additional NO, reductions would
not contribute to ozone attainment.
If a State wishes to be exempt from some or all of the NO,
requirements of the Act, the State must demonstrate to the
satisfaction of EPA that at least one of the three exemptions
apply. This demonstration must be based on photochemical
modeling and must consider various control strategies with and
without NO reductions. Further details on the NO, exemption are
provided in a supplement to the General Preamble for
implementation of the Title I NO, requirements. (See reference
4.) The EPA anticipates releasing guidance on the substitution
of NO, for VOC emissions reductions in the fall of 1993 for the
post—1996 rate-of—progress requirements.
24
-------
3.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION -
REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS FOR CONTROLLING HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS
This section of the document describes the creditability of
emissions reductions associated with the new or revised HAP
requirements of section 112 of the Act. The creditability of
emissions reductions associated with Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) air emissions standards and EPA’S 33/50
program are also discussed. The purpose of this section is to
provide States with guidance on how emissions reductions that
occur under programs to control HAP’s can be used to achieve a
portion of the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements.
3.1 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Prior to enactment of the CAAA, EPA either promulgated or
initiated development of NESHAP’s to control HAP’s under section
112 of the Act. The NESHAP’s apply to both new and existing
sources that exceed the exemption criteria specified in an NESHAP
regulation. Some of the HAP emissions for which EPA has
promulgated NESHAP’s are also classified as VOC’s. (See p. A—9
for the definition of VOC.) The NESHAP’s which also control VOC
emissions are as follows:
• Vinyl chloride production plants.
• Benzene emissions from equipment leaks.
• Benzene emissions from benzene storage vessels.
• Benzene emissions from coke by-product recovery plants.
• Benzene emissions from benzene transfer operations.
• Benzene waste operations. - -
The EPA proposed a NESHAP for coke oven batteries in 1987.
However, on December 4, 1992, EPA withdrew the proposal (57 FR
57403) and proposed a new NESHAP for coke oven batteries (57 FR
57534). The NESHAP is expected to be promulgated in the spring
of 1993. In addition, EPA proposed an hazardous organic NESHAP
(HON) on December 31, 1992 (57 FR 62608). The final rule is
expected to be promulgated in late 1993 or early 1994. The
proposed rule would regulate the emissions of organic HAP’s, all
of which are classified as VOC’s, from synthetic organic
chemicals manufacturing industry (SOCMI) processes and from
equipment leaks in non-SOCMI processes. The EPA is also
preparing an NESHAP to control HAP’s from ship building and ship
repair operations. The NESHAP is planned for promulgation in
1994.
Reductions in VOC emissions associated with sources that
were in compliance with an NESHAP prior to enactment of the CAAA
are not creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. Reductions in VOC emissions associated with
existing sources which have complied with an NESHAP promulgated
25
-------
after November 15, 1990 and before the deadline for submittal of
the rate-of-progress plans (i.e., November 15, 1993), are
creditable. However, care must be taken to ensure that emissions
reductions associated with an NESHAP are not double counted. For
example, sources located in ozone nonattainment areas that become
subject to an NES}IAP after November 15, 1990 may also be subject
to a RACT rule in existence prior to November 15, 1990. For
these cases, only the incremental emissions reduction between the
allowable emissions required by the NESHAP and RACT rule is the
emissions reduction creditable toward the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirements.
The EPA recognizes that some of the new NESHAP’s may not be:
promulgated in time to be used by States for their 15 percent
rate-of—progress plans. The EPA is currently investigating
- whether and under what circumstances a State may be able to take
credit for unadopted NESHAP’s in its 15 percent rate—of-progress
plans. Further guidance may be forthcoming.
The CAAA revised section 112 of the Act which changed
procedures for developing standards for controlling HAP’S. The
new programs for controlling HAP’s under section 112 are
discussed in sections 3.2 through 3.5 of this document.
3.2 Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards
Section 112 (d) (1) of the amended Act requires the
promulgation of regulations establishing emissions standards for
categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of
189 HAP’s. The emissions standard for a new or existing source
in a particular category or subcategory must be based on the
maximum degree of reduction that the Administrator determines is
achievable through the application of MACP. Maximum achievable -
control technologies include, but are not limited to: -
• Process changes, materials substitution, or other
modifications.
• Enclosed systems or processes.
• Collection, capture, or treatment systems.
• Design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards.
• Combinations of the above.
The determination of MACT considers the cost of achieving such
emissions reductions arid any non-air quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements. Section 112 (d) (3)
states that MACP standards for new sources must not be less
stringent than the control achieved by the best controlled
26
-------
similar source. The MACT standards for an existing source cannot -
be less stringent than the achievable emissions limitation of the
top 12 percent of existing sources, except in cases where the
source achieves the lowest achievable emissions rate (as defined
under section 171 of the Act) applicable to the source category
for those source categories with more than 30 sources. For
source categories containing less than 30 sources, MACT standards
must be no less stringent than the emissions limitation achieved
by the best performing 5 sources. Where achievable, MACT may
include the prohibition on the emissions of a HAP..
The emissions standards, or MACT standards, must be
promulgated no later than the dates outlined in sections 112(c)
and 112(e) of the Act. The schedule mandated in section
112(e) (1) is as follows:
• November 15, 1992: emissions standards..for not less
than 40 categories and subcategories (not counting coke
oven batteries) shall be promulgated.
• December 31, 1992: emissions standards for coke oven
batteries shall be promulgated.
• November 15, 1994: emissions standards for 25 per
centum of the listed source categories and
subcategories shall be promulgated.
• November 15, 1997: emissions standards for an
additional 25 per centum of the listed source
categories and subcategories shall be promulgated.
• November 15, 2000: emissions standards for all source
categories and subcategories shall be promulgated.
As required under section 112(c), additional schedules are
provided for area sources, previously regulated source
categories, additional source categories not listed under
sections 112(c) (1) or 112(c) (3), and specific HAP’s. By November
15, 2000, emissions standards must be promulgated for sufficient
categories and . subcategories - of ‘area sources to ensure that area
sources representing 90 percent of the area source emissions of
the 30 HAP’s that present the greatest threat to public health in
the largest number of urban -areas are subject to regulation.
Emissions standards for additional source categories identified
on or before November 15, 1998, must be promulgated by November
15, 2000. Emissions standards for additional source categories
identified after November 15, 1998, must be promulgated within
2 years of identification of the additional source category. By
November 15, 2000, emissions standards must be promulgated for
categories and subcategories of sources that emit alkylated lead
compounds, polycyclic organic matter, hexachlorobenzene, mercury,
polychiorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzofurans, and
27
-------
2,3,7, 8—tetrachlorodibenzo—p-dioxin, assuring that sources
accounting for not less than 90 per centum of the aggregate
emissions of each such pollutant are subject to such standards.
Many of the 189 HAP’s listed under section 112(b) (1) are
VOC’s. Any emissions reduction of a hazardous VOC resulting from
the application of a MACP standard is creditable toward the
15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. Any incidental emissions reduction of a
nonhazardous VOC resulting from the application of a MACP
standard is also creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements. Crediting of MACT emissions reductions
toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements should
not be confused with crediting such reductions toward NSR
emissions offsets. Discussion regarding the creditability of
MACP reductions toward NSR emissions offsets is discussed earlier
in this document. It, is important to note that some sources will
be subject to both MACT and RACT rules. Because only the more
stringent of the two standards will apply in these cases, States
should be aware that double-counting of the VOC reductions from
these two programs must not occur.
The EPA recognizes that some of the new MACP standards may
not be promulgated in time to be used by States for their
15 percent rate-of-progress plans. The EPA is currently
investigating whether and under what circumstances a State may be
able to take credit for unadopted MACT standards in its
15 percent rate—of-progress plans. Further guidance may be
forthcoming.
3.3 Early Reduction Program
As a temporary alternative to complying with an applicable
MACP standard, an existing source may elect to comply with the
early reduction requirements of section 112(i)(5). By electing
to achieve early reductions, an existing source may, under
certain conditions, meet an alternative emissions limit in lieu
of meeting an otherwise applicable MACT standard. The
alternative emissions limit expires 6 years after the otherwise
applicable MACT standard compliance date, at which time the
source must comply with the ?4ACT requirement. Except as follows,
to obtain the MACP compliance extension the reduction must be
achieved before the othexwise applicable MACP standard is first
proposed. A source may also obtain an extension if it makes an
enforceable commitment to achieve such reduction before the
proposal of the MACT standard, and it achieves the early
reduction after the proposal of the applicable MACP standard, but
before January 1, 1994.
The early reduction program requires a source to achieve HAP
emissions reductions of at least 90 percent for VOC. The
emissions reduction must be determined from a comparison of the
28
-------
actual post-control emissions with the actual and verifiable
emissions in a base year not earlier than 1987. A base year of
1985 or 1986 can be used by a source if its emissions data are
based on information received by the Administrator prior to
November 15, 1990, pursuant to an information request issued
under section 114 of the Act.
Hazardous VOC emissions reductions under the early reduction
program are creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements if the reductions occur after the 1990
base year. Because a source can credit reductions prior to 1990
under the early reduction program, the entire 90 percent early
reduction may not be creditable toward the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirements.
States should be aware that EPA is developing a policy
regarding potential conflicts between the early reduction program
and the RACT requirements. (See reference 5.) The interaction
between the early reduction program and RACT requirements causes
concern because the prospect of applying RACT requirements to
sources that already made early reductions would effectively
limit the attractiveness of, and therefore participation in, the
early reduction program. Additionally, States should also be
aware that early reductions must be taken prior to November 15,
1996, to be credited toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements. Guidance regarding the creditability of•
section 112 early reductions toward the post-1996 reduction
requirements is presently under development within EPA. Readers
interested in further details regarding the section 112 early
reduction program are referred to the final regulations published
in the Federal Register . (See reference 6.)
3.4 Construction, Reconstruction, and Modifications of Major
Sources
Section 112(g) (2) of the Act stipulates that (after the
effective date of a permit program under Title V in’ any State)
the construction, reconstruction, or modification of a major
source cannot commence unless the permitting authority under the
established permit program determines that MACT will be achieved.
Volatile organic compound emissions reductions achieved under
section 112(g) (2) can be credited toward the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirements.
Major sources proposing physical or operational changes
resulting in HAP emissions increases that exceed a de minimis
amount may be exempted under section 112 (g) (1) from being
regarded as a modification if the emissions increase will be
offset by an equal or greater emissions reduction of a more
hazard’us pollutant. The offset must be an internal offset and
should not be confused with NSR emissions offsets. It should be
noted that the HAP’S that account for the increase and offset do
29
-------
not have to be VOC’s. For example, under Section 112(g) (1) (B),
EPA may determine that mercury compound emissions are relatively
more hazardous than styrene emissions. A hypothetical source
proposing to increase emissions of styrene, which is both a HAP
and a VOC, may propose to offset such an emissions increase with
a reduction in the emissions of mercury compounds, which are
HAP’s, but not VOC’S. A source proposing such an offset, while
reducing HAP emissions, would actually produce an increase in
total VOC emissions. Thus, States should be aware that offsets
claimed under section 112(g) (1) will not necessarily result in a
reduction in voc emissions. In contrast, a hypothetical source
proposing to increase emissions of methyl chloroform, which is
not a VOC, could propose to offset with a reduction in vinyl
chloride emissions, a VOC. Another source may propose to offset
an emissions increase in styrene with a reduction of vinyl
chloride that exceeds the increase in styrene. Net VOC emissions
reductions that are obtained through section 112(g) (1) offsets
can be credited toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements as long as such reductions are real, permanent, and
enforceable. States should be aware that guidance regarding
these offsets is presently being prepared by EPA.
3.5 Additional Emissions Standards Available under Section 112
of the Act
Standard to Protect Public Health and the Environment
Section 112(f) of the Act allows the Administrator to
promulgate more stringent standards than established under
section 112(d) for a source category or subcategory if such
standard is required to provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health or to prevent an adverse environmental
effect, Sections 112(f) (1) (A)—(D) of the Act describe the
elements that EPA must include in investigating the need for more
stringent standards. The Administrator is required to promulgate
such standards within 8 years of the promulgation of the original
MACP standard. However, no standards are anticipated under
section 1.12(f) before November 15, 2000.
Work Practice Standards and Other Reauirements
Section 112(h) of the Act allows the Administrator to
promulgate design, equipment, work practice, •or operational
standards if the prescription or enforcement of an emissions
standard is not feasible. To the extent that such standards are
adopted and emissions reductions in VOC are required and
quantifiable before November 15, 1996, such reductions are
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements.
30
-------
Equivalent Emissions Limitation by Permit
In the event the Administrator fails to promulgate MACT
standards by the dates specified in sections 112(e) (1) and (3),
section 112(j) of the Act requires the permitting authority to
issue source operating permits that contain emissions limitations
deemed equivalent to the limitation that would have applied to
the source had the MACT standard been issued. To the extent that
such emissions limitations are adopted in an approved permit and
emissions reductions in VOC are required before November 15,
1996, such reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirements.
State and Local Standards
Section 112(1) allows State and local agencies to request
delegation of section 112 implementation and enforcement
authority from EPA. To the extent that such programs are
approved and emissions reductions in VOC are required before
November 15, 1996, such reductions are creditable toward the
15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements.
3.6 Other EPA Programs
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal facilities
(TSDF’s) regulated under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act may be required to meet Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) air emissions standards. Section 112(n) (7) mandates
that requirements promulgated under section 112 be consistent
with the applicable RCRA rules. Volatile organic compound
emissions reductions achieved under the RCRA rules may be
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. Because-the VOC emissions reduction may qualify as
a RCRA reduction and a MACT reduction, States should take care to
avoid crediting such an emissions reduction twice. Similarly,
the 33/50 Project (Industrial Toxics Project) is designed to
redu e the emissions of air toxics. Under this program, sources
are encouraged to voluntarily reduce toxics releases. Again,
States should avoid crediting VOC emissions reductions claimed
under this program twice, because such reductions may qualify
under the early reduction requirements of section 112 (i) (5).
States should be aware that reductions under voluntary programs
such as the 33/50 Project must be made enforceable and permanent
to be creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements.
31
-------
32
-------
4.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION
REQUIREMENTS AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Under the authority of Section 111 of the Act, the EPA
Administrator was required to publish a list of categories of
stationary sources that cause or contribute significantly to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare, and to promulgate standards of performance for
new stationary sources in the listed categories. The standards
are typically called NSPS. The EPA has promulgated NSPS
regulations for several VOC source categories. The purpose of
the NSPS is to require the application of uniform performance
standards for new, modified, or reconstructed sources within a
source category, which commence construction or modification
after the publication of the regulations (or, if applicable,
proposed regulations). The NSPS are based on performance
standards which reflect the best technological system of
continuous emissions reduction which (taking into consideration
the cost of achieving such emissions reduction, and any non—air
quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. A
performance standard is based on an emissions limit or control
efficiency that can be achieved by demonstrated control
technology. An NSPS can be based on a design, -equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or a combination thereof, if
it is impractical to enforce a performance standard.
For the categories of major stationary sources that EPA
listed before the date of enactment of the CAAA, EPA is required
to propose NSPS regulations for at least 25 percent of the source
categories by November 15, 1992; 50 percent of the source
categories by November 15, 1994; and for the remaining source
categories by November 15, 1996. The EPA has the authority to
add source categories to the list of categories for which NSPS
may be warranted.
Reductions in VOC emissions associated with stationary
sources that become subject to an NSPS after November 15, 1990
and before November 15, 1996 are creditable toward the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements. However, care must be
taken to ensure that emissions reductions associated with an NSPS
are not double-counted under the emissions offset or netting
provisions of the NSR rules. In addition, existing sources that
become subject to an NSPS as a result of modification or
reconstruction may already be subject to RACT rules. The
incremental emissions reduction between the allowable emissions
required by the NSPS and RACT rules is the emissions reduction
creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
‘equirements. The EPA is currently developinq guidance on how
ach credit States may take in their 15 percent rate-of—progress
Ians for usps promulgated between the date of their plan
submittals and November 15, 1996.
33
-------
The EPA has promulgated NSPS to control VOC emissions from
sources in the following source categories:
• Bulk gasoline terminals.
• Municipal waste combustors.
• On-shore natural gas processing plants: VOC equipment
leaks.
• Petroleum dry cleaners.
• Petroleum refineries: equipment leaks.
• Petroleum refinery wastewater systems.
• Polymer manufacturing.
• Publication rotogravure printing.
• Rubber tire manufacturing.
• Storage vessels for petroleum liquids.
• Storage vessels for volatile organic liquids.
• Synthetic fiber production.
• Surface coating operations:
• Automobiles and light-duty trucks.
• Beverage cans.
• Flexible vinyl and urethane coating ahd printing.
• Large appliances.
• Magnet tape.
• Metal coil.
• Metal furniture.
• Plastic parts for business machines.
• Polymeric coating of supporting substrates.
• Pressure sensitive tapes and labels.
• SOCMI air oxidation unit processes.
• SOCMI distillation unit operations.
• SOCMI equipment leaks.
34
-------
5.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION
REQUIREMENTS AND MOBILE SOURCE PROVISIONS
The CAAA require a combination of national and area-specific
emissions control measures to reduce motor vehicle emissions.
The following sections present the various mobile source programs
and indicate which mobile source reductions qualify as creditable
emissions reductions toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements. In addition, the reader is referred to
the appropriate program development rules and/or guidance.
The majority of the mobile source measures mentioned below
are included in the MOBILE5a emissions factor model. By using
MOBILE5a, States will be able to model the future emissions
reductions from specific mobile source programs that they-plan to
implement. A MOBILE5a user’s guide will provide instructions on
how to model the effects of these programs. Where a measure is
not included in the MOBILE5a model, it is indicated below.
5.1. Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)
Tailpipe/extended useful life standards have been
established for certification of light—duty vehicles.and light—
duty trucks, which revise previously established standards under
the pre-1990 FMVCP. These standards, known as Tier1;standards,
are to be implemented in phases,- beginning with model ryear 1994.
The final rules, published in the Federal Register , (see
reference 7), describe new measurement. techniques on .which to
base the standards. A new Federal evaporative test procedure
will be mandated for:hot-soak and diurnal emissions, running
losses, and resting losses. Emissions reductions -due-to
implementation of pre-1990 FMVCP regulations cannot be credited
toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements.
However, emissions reductions resulting from implementation of
post-1990 FMVCP regulations can be creditable toward the
15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements.
5.2 Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
The Act mandates that EPA promulgate regulations-pertaining-
to the handling of gasoline with an RVP in excess of 9.0 pounds
per square inch (psi) during the peak ozone season.- The Phase II
volatility rulemaking, published June 11,1990. in the Federal
Register (see reference 8), establishes State RVP standards for
1992 and subsequent years. This regulation specifies RVP limits
of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi for each State. However, a Federal RVP
limit below 9.0 psi cannot be required in the attainment areas
within each State, unless an area is a former nonattainment area,
as stipulated in a December 12, 1991 rulemaking. -(See reference
9.)
35
-------
Like the pre-1990 FMVCP emissions reductions, the reductions
in emissions that result from implementation of the required RVP -
limits cannot be credited toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements. However, if a nonattainment area
establishes an RVP limit below the Federal limit, reductions
resulting from the lowered RVP limit will be creditable. The EPA
guidance document entitled Enforcement of Volatility Regulations
- questions and Answers , (see reference 10), addresses questions
concerning how the Agency intends to implement and enforce the
gasoline volatility regulations. The EPA is currently developing
guidance on whether emissions reduction credit will be allowed
when a nonattainment area’s projected actual RVP in 1996 will be
below its 1996 RVP limit.
5.3 Reformulated Gasoline
Section 211(k) of the Act requires certain ozone
nonattainment areas to use reformulated gasoline beginning
January 1, 1995. This requirement applies to the nine ozone
nonattainment areas having a 1980 population in excess of
250,000, and having the highest ozone design value during the
period 1987 through 1989. This provision alsoaffects any area
that is reclassified .to a severe nonattainment ‘area 1 year after
reclassification. --States are permitted to opt—in to the
reformulated gasoline program upon formal notice to EPA.
Proposed regulations for the reformulated gasoline program were
published in the Federal Register on April 16, -1992. (See
reference 11.) - To the extent that this measure results in
quantifiable VOC emissions reductions before 1996, these
reductions will be creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirements.
5.4 Stage It Vapor Recovery Control 8
The CAAA require that owners or operators of gasoline
dispensing systems in particular nonattainment -areas install
gasoline dispensing pump vapor control devices, or Stage II
controls. These systems control voc vapor releases, as well as
benzene and other toxics, during motor vehicle refueling. The
CAAA mandate that all moderate and above ozone nonattaininent
areas and all areas in an ozone transport region must implement a
Stage II program. According to the CAAA, EPA was directed to
establish regulations mandating the installation of on—board
vapor recovery systems, after consultation with, the Department of
Transportation regarding the safety of the systems. In early
1992, EPA published its decision against promulgating on—board
8 Although Stage II vapor recovery control systems for gasoline
service stations are discussed under the heading of mobile source
provisions in this document, the emissions from gasoline service
stations are generally inventoried as an area source.
36
-------
vapor recovery standards (57 FR 13220, April 15, 1992). This
decision had the effect of removing the possibility of a Stage II
exemption for moderate areas as provided in the Act. However, on
January 22, 1993, the District of Columbia Circuit of the United
States Court of Appeals ruled that EPA’S decision not to require
on-board vapor recovery controls be set aside and on—board vapor
recovery standards be promulgated pursuant to section 202(a) (6)
of the Act. The EPA is currently studying a schedule for
complying with the court’s ruling.
When on-board rules are promulgated, a State may withdraw
its Stage II rules for moderate areas from the SIP consistent
with its obligation under sections 182(b) (3) and 202(a) (6), so
long as withdrawal does not interfere with any other applicable
requirement of the Act. A March 9, 1993 memorandum from John S.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Air Division
Directors, regarding “Impact of the Recent On—Board Decision on
Stage II Requirements in Moderate Nonattaininent Areas,” notes
that EPA has recently issued findings of failure to submit Stage
II rules covering about 20 moderate ozone nonattaininent areas.
This memorandum also discusses the implications if a State does
not submit complete Stage II rules within 18 months of the
findings letter. Furthermore, the memorandum briefly discusses
the consequences of moderate area failures to?submit approvable
15 percent rate-of-progress plans or to attain the ozone NAAQS by
1996. Given the significant contribution that Stage II can
provide to achievement of these requirements, and the
consequences of failure to meet these requirements, States have
compelling reasons to submit their Stage II rules and maintain
them even after an on-board rule has been promulgated. Further
guidance on Stage II requirements for moderate nonattainmnent
areas seeking redesignation will be forthcoming.
Emissions reductions resulting from the post—1990 -
implementation of a Stage II program will be creditable toward
the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements. TWO
documents are available to guide States in developing and
implementing acceptable Stage II programs. Technical information
on Stage II programs is available in a 1991 document entitled,
Technical Guidance - Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control
of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities .
(See reference 12.) A second report entitled, Enforcement
Guidance for Stage II Vehicle Refueling Control Programs (see
reference 13), establishes the minimum requirements for an
acceptable Stage II program.
5.5 Clean Fuel Vehicle Program for Fleets
The clean fuel fleet vehicle program requires a specified
percentage of fleet vehicles purchased in model year 1998 to be
clean—fueled vehicles. Thirty percent of new centrally—fueled
37
-------
fleet vehicles in serious and above nonattainment areas with a
1980 population of 250,000 or more must meet standards of
0.075 gram of VOC per mile and 0.2 gram of NO per mile. The
percentages increase to 50 percent in 1999, and 70 percent in
2000. Beginning in model year 1996, California will establish a
pilot test program requiring 150,000 clean fuel cars to be sold
which meet a standard o 0.125 gram of VOC per mile. Other
cities can opt-in to the clean fuel fleet program. In the event
that a nonattainment area implements a clean fuel fleet program
that achieves emissions reductions before 1996, such reductions
may be creditable toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. The effects of the clean fuel fleet program on
future emissions are presently not modeled in MOBILE5a.
The EPA promulgated a final rule entitled, “Clean Fuel Fleet
Credit Programs, Transportation Control Measure Exemptions and
Related Provisions,” (58 FR 11888, March 1, 1993). In addition,
a notice of proposed rulemaking on conversion standards is
expected to be released in early summer of 1993.
5.6 Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
Final regulations establishing minimum performance standards
for I/M programs were published on November 5, 1992 in the
Federal Register . (See reference 14.) Marginal ozone
nonattainment areas with current or previously required I/M
programs are required to submit SIP revisions necessary to meet
EPA’s basic I/M program standards. Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas must implement a basic I/M program regardless of whether an
I/M program was previously required. For areas classified as
serious and above with a 1980 population of 200,000 or more, an
enhanced I/M program must be implemented. The enhanced I/M
program must meet higher performance--standards than the basic I/M
program. Guidance on the costs and benefits of enhanced I/M
programs has been released by EPA in draft form. (See
reference 15.)
Corrections to existing I/M programs are necessary if the
area’s I/M program fails to meet the more stringent of: EPA’S
performance standard, or the standards of the nonattainment
area’s current SIP. Emissions reductions achieved as a result of
corrections to deficiencies in existing-I/N programs will not be
creditable -toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction
requirements. However, any emissions reductions resulting from
additional I/M program requirements of the Act (such as enhanced
I/M), or any improvements not mandated by the Act that a State
chooses to make in its SIP are creditable toward the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements.
38 -
-------
5.7 On—Board Diagnostic Systems
The EPA has promulgated regulations that will require on-
board diagnostic systems in all light—duty vehicles and light—
duty trucks beginning in model year 1994. These systems monitor
emission-related components for malfunctions or deterioration
before such events cause emissions increases. The final rule,
published February 19, 1993, (see reference 16), discusses EPA’s
regulatory approach. Because on-board diagnostic systems are
considered part of a State’s I/M program, emissions reductions
resulting from the use of these systems will be actounted for
when modeling the nonattainment area’s I/N program in MOBILE5a.
These reductions are therefore creditable toward the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements.
5.8 Transportation Control Measures (TCM’s)
Transportation control measures are strategies to both
reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT), and decrease the amount of
emissions per VMT. According to the Act, TCM’s have been
identified as an essential element of control strategies for many
nonattainment areas. A listing of some of the possible measures
to be implemented is found in section 108(f) of the Act. These
measures describe strategies to reduce vehicle trips, induce
changes in the type of vehicles used, shift travel time, and/or
improve traffic flow.
When a TCM results in a measurable decrease in VMT, the
emissions reductions that result from the reduced VMT can be
calculated by multiplying this lower VMT value by the MOBILE5a
emissions factor. The TCM’S may also affect other components
that are factored into the MOBILE5a model. Further guidance by
EPA is forthcoming describing the methods to quantify the
emissions reductions achieved as a result of TCM’s.
Emissions reductions resulting from TCM’s are creditable if
the TCM is not already federally mandated (e.g., the employee
trip reduction program required under section 182(d) (1) (B) for
severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas), or is not part of
an already existing SIP. As with all other emissions reductions,
emissions reductions associated with TCM’s are only creditable to
the 15 percent rate-of-progress plan if they are quantifiable,
real, enforceable, replicable, accountable, and occur by
November 15, 1996.
Two EPA documents provide guidance on identifying,
evaluating, implementing, monitoring and enforcing TCM’s:
Transportation Control Measures: State Implementation Plan
Guidance , (see reference 17), and Transportation Control Measure
Information Documents . (See reference 18.)
39
-------
40
-------
6.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 1993 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION PLAN -
AND N0 REQUIREMENTS
Nitrogen oxide emissions reductions occurring in the period
1990-1996 may not be substituted for VOC emissions reductions for
the rate-of-progress requirements. However, section 182 (b) (1) (A)
of the Act stipulates that the revised SIP sishall provide for
such specific annual reductions in emissions of volatile organic
compounds and oxides of nitrogen as necessary to attain the
national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone by the
attainment date applicable under this Act.” (Additionally, CO
emissions reductions can also be used to facilitate attainment of
the ozone NAAQS.) The purpose of this section is to address the.
use of NO emissions reduction requirements as an option
available to States for achieving attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
Section 407(b) of the Act (under the Acid Rain provisions)
includes NO emissions limits for coal-fired boilers. The
schedule for issuing regulations that establish the emissions
limitations are as follows:
• May 15, 1992: tangentially fired boilers and dry
bottom wall—fired boilers.
• January 1, 1997: wet bottom wall—fired boilers,
cyclones, units applying cell burner technology,
and all other types of utility boilers.
The maximum allowable emissions rates for tangentially fired
boilers and dry bottom wall-fired boilers were established by the
Act as 0.45 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/NMBtu)
and 0.50 lb/MNBtu, respectively. The maximum allowable emissions
rates for the remaining boilers will be based on the degree of
reduction achievable through the retrofit application of the best
system of continuous emissions reduction.
As indicated previously, section 182(b) (1) (A) allows NO
reductions to be used in conjunction with VOC emissions
reductions only for purposes of attaining the ozone NAAQS, not
for meeting the 15 percent rate-of-progress requirement. This is
particularly important for moderate areas, which must attain the
ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1996. Moderate areas proposing to
use NO reductions to achieve ozone attainment must establish in
their attainment demonstration-with the use of a model—that such
reductions will result in attainment. Intrastate moderate areas
will generally utilize the Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach
(EKMA) model for the modeling demonstrations; however, moderate
areas may choose to use the UAN. Attainment demonstrations for
moderate areas are due by November 15, 1993, unless a
photochemical grid model (such as UM4) is employed, in which case
the attainment demonstration is due by November 15, 1994.
41
-------
In accordance with section 182(c) (2) (C), substitution of NO
emissions reductions for VOC reductions is allowable in serious
and above areas for the post-1996 VOC emissions reduction
requirements. Further details regarding NO substitution will be
addressed in the forthcoming guidance for preparing the post—1996
rate-of—progress plan. States are required to present their NO
emissions inventories along with their VOC emissions inventories
in their rate-of-progress plan submittals (e.g., base year
inventory, periodic inventories, modeling inventories). Readers
interested in further details regarding the Title I NO
requirements are referred to the NO supplement to the General
Preamble. (See reference 19.) The EPA anticipates releasing
guidance on the substitution of NO 1 for VOC emissions reductions
in the fall of 1993.
42
-------
7.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION
REQUIREMENTS AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
7.1 Background
Section 182(g) (4) (B) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate
rules for EIP’s. A State with an extreme ozone nonattainment
area must submit an EIP if it fails to submit a milestone
compliance demonstration or fails to meet an applicable rate-of-
progress milestone. Such programs are also identified as an
explicit option upon such failures in serious and severe ozone
nonattainment areas. Additionally, the Act explicitly allows the
use of EIP’s in the general SIP requirements [ section 110(a) (2)],
the general provisions for nonattaininent area SIP’S (section
172(c) (6)], and in the system of regulations for controlling
emissions from consumer or commercial products [ section
183(e) (4)].
On February 23, 1993, EPA proposed a rule for implementing
EIP’s (58 FR 11110). The purpose of this section is to discuss
the proposed EIP rule, and to address the creditability of
emissions reductions under EIP’s toward the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirements,. net of growth,. and toward
attainment demonstrations. The proposed.-EIP rule serves as
interim guidance for both mandated (statutory). and discretionary’
EIP’s and addresses some of the generalissues associated with
the design and’ implementation ofEIP’s. The following discussion
of the proposed rule reflects EPA’s interim guidance: for EIP’s.
The final EIP rule, when promulgated, may differ from this
discussion. ‘ • - - -
Economic incentive programs are intended to result in the
timely reduction of emissions through cthe development and
implementation of methods ;less ‘costly than traditional command—
and—control methods for meeting air .pollutiontgoals. The’
following three broad types of programs were highlighted in the
Act and discussed in the proposed rule:
• Marketable permits or marketable emissions limits —
emissions sources may achieve their permitted emissions
limits either directly or bypurchasing emissions
credits from other sources.
• Emissions fees — emissions sources 1iave :a direct
economic incentive to reduce emissions to the point
where the cost of abating emissions equals the
emissions fees.
• Mobile source programs — programs to reduce vehicle
emissions or VMT, including TCM’s.
43
-------
The Act does not limit EIP’s to these three general
categories. Other programs could potentially include public
awareness campaigns, capital grants for technological innovation
or implementation, information programs that encourage consumers
to purchase less polluting products, credit for early reductions,
and adjustments in building codes or zoning ordinances. A
combination of EIP’s may enhance the ability of the general
program to reduce emissions on schedule, while reducing the costs
of emissions reductions on individual sources.
The EPA’s proposed rule is intended to ensure that EIP’s
will result in real and quantifiable emissions reductions, and
that such reductions will be surplus to reductions required by,
and credited to, other SIP provisions to avoid double—counting of
emissions reductions. Additionally, the rules are intended to
provide that such programs contain adequate and appropriate
compliance requirements to ensure that programs are enforceable
and that reductions are permanent. The rules are not intended to
limit the flexibility and innovation of such programs.
The EPA’S proposed rule classifies economic incentive
strategies into three broad regulatory categories: emissions
limiting, market response, and directionally sound. These-
categories, -which are discussed in more detail in the :foflowing.
paragraphs, are based on Lwhether a quantifiable emissions—related
requirement is directly specified as an :integral element of the ‘.
program, or whether the program depends upon marketplace
decisions, made in response to a programmatic -incentive, -to
produce the intended emissions-related objective of the program.
Further, the categorization is a function of whether or not the
results of the program are quantifiable.
I !
Emissions limiting strategies directly specify -the -total
amount of emissions ‘that may -be produced -by the affected sources,’
the limit on emissions-related parameters such as emissions per
unit of production, or a specified amount of emissions reduction
that must be achieved by affected sources. A marketable - - -
emissions allowance program with aggregate total emissions
limitations is an example of such a program. If every affected
source in such a program complies with -its emissions limit (net
of any traded emissions credits), the program will necessarily
achieve the specified emissions -requirement. - - Emissions limiting
strategies are generally creditable toward the 15 percent rate-
of-progress requirement provided other-conditions specified
elsewhere are met.
44
-------
Market response strategies create one or more economic
incentives for an affected source to reduce emissions, without
directly specifying a required emissions-related target for
individual sources or for all sources in the aggregate. An
emissions fee program is an example of a market response
strategy. In such a program, each source must pay a fee on each
unit of actual emissions. The response to the incentive, in
terms of actions which affect emissions levels, will be
determined by each source. Thus, each source has flexibility in
determining its level of emissions, but must not exceed any
limitation imposed by other regulatory requirements. In
developing such a program, a State must project the aggregate
response to the incentive, and subsequently compare the projected
emissions with the actual emissions from affected sources.
Inherent in programs based on market response strategies is
the consequence that actual emissions from affected sources may
differ from the projected level even if every affected source is
in full compliance with the EIP requirements. Thus, programs
using a market response strategy must contain reconciliation
procedures that compare projected emissions with actual
emissions. Any shortfall identified by the reconciliation
procedure must be made up through a revision of certain
parameters of the EIP (e.g., increase the fee or include more
sources), or by invoking part of the general SIP contingency plan
or a program-specific contingency. Market response strategies
may be used in some instances to provide credit toward the 15
percent rate-of-progress requirements. The next section contains
additional discussions on the creditability of market response
strategies.
Directionally sound strategies do not yield quantifiable
emissions reductions creditable toward the emissions reductions
required to meet rate-of-progress requirements or for attainment
demonstrations. A public awareness campaign is an example of a
directionally sound strategy. Such strategies may be included in
an area’s attainment plan, without credit, or in a maintenance
plan if the approach contributed to the area achieving
attainment. Emissions reductions from such programs are not
creditable because the program lacks one or more of the basic
program elements, such as an emissions baseline or adequate
quantification procedures. However, a State may want to pursue
such a strategy as a part of its overall program to attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
7.2 Creditability in SIP’S
The creditability of emissions reductions obtained under
EIP’s toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements,
net of growth, and attainment demonstrations is a critical issue
for States considering the implementation of such a program. The
SIP credit given for traditional source—specific technology or
45
-------
performance standards is based on detailed evaluations of the
emissions reductions that will be achieved by complying sources.
A factor is then used to account for the lower reductions that
will result from an anticipated level of less—than-complete
compliance, such as through the use of a rule effectiveness
factor for stationary sources. Creditability of rule
effectiveness improvements is discussed in sections 5.5 and 5.6
of the document entitled Guidance for Growth Factors.
Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate—of—
Progress Plans . (See reference 20.) However, for market
response strategies it is inherently not possible to specify,
prior to the implementation of such a strategy, the exact
emissions reductions that will be achieved even if all sources
comply with all relevant requirements of the program.
In its proposed rule for EIP’s, EPA addresses the components
that must be included.in an EIP .if the emissions reductions
projected by a State are to be given credit in a SIP. In order
for projected emissions reductions from EIP’s to be creditable in
a SIP, the emissions reductions must be quantifiable (i.e.,
credible, workable, and replicable); consistent with the SIP
rate-of-progress and attainment requirements; surplus to
reductions required by the current SIP requirements, the
attainment demonstration, or any milestone demonstration;
enforceable at the State and Federal levels; and permanent.
These requirements for creditability are the same as for any
emissions reduction for which a State seeks credit. In addition
to these requirements for creditability, there are also
requirements that are specific to emissions reductions from
EIP’s.
If a State is to receive credit for projected emissions
reductions from an EIP program,’the State must address the
uncertainties in the projected emissions reductions from its
EIP’s. In order to do’this, the State must specify, for each of
its EIP’s, the following elements: program uncertainty factor;
rule compliance factor; program audit provisions; and, for
market—response EIP’s, reconciliation procedures.
The rule compliance factor is intended to discount the
amount of emissions reductions credited in an implementation plan
demonstration to account for less—than—complete compliance by the
affected sources in an EIP. 9 The program uncertainty factor is
intended to discount the amount of emissions reductions credited
in an implementation plan demonstration to account for any
strategy-specific uncertainties in an EIP. The EPA intends, for
these factors to address the issues of less—than—complete
9 The rule compliance factor is analogous to the rule
effectiveness factor for stationary sources equipped with control
devices.
46
-------
compliance and the inherent uncertainties in future market
response, respectively. Credit would, in certain cases, be taken
at the beginning of an approved EIP, with the level of credit
based on emissions reduction projections which incorporate these
two discounting factors. In the proposed rule on EIP’s, States
would be required to develop and submit a justification for the
values of these two discounting factors.
Program audit provisions are used to track actual emissions
reductions from an EIP. If a State uses a market—response EIP,
the program audit provisions must be accompanied by
reconciliation procedures to compare the projected emissions
reductions (which are credited emissions reductions in the SIP)
with the actual emissions reductions. Additionally, market—
response EIP’s must have contingency measures developed to make
up for any shortfall between projected and actual emissions
reductions. These measures must be automatically executed if
there is an emissions shortfall; the State may choose a specific
measure(s) from the contingency measures in the EIP, but the
measure must be able to go into effect without further action
from the State. In the proposed rule on EIP’s, EPA suggests that
program audits and reconciliations be made at time intervals
consistent with the rate—of—progress milestones and emissions
inventory requirements, which are generally every 3 years.
States should consult with the appropriate EPA Regional
Office concerning the creditability of emissions reductions from
EIP’s toward the emissions reductions required for the rate—of—
progress requirements and the attainment demonstration.
Reductions from EIP’s must of course occur before the rate—of—
progress milestone date to be creditable toward the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements, net of growth.
7.3 Baseline Emissions -in EIP’s
Economic incentive programs incorporated in a SIP pursuant
to section 182(g)(4) are designed to produce emissions
reductions. In most cases, a State will want to credit that part
of the emissions reductions not consumed by minor source growth
(including minor:sources increasing to major source size) toward
the rate—of-progress plan requirements, or attainment
demonstration, or both. Emissions reductions from EIP’s
creditable for either-the rate-of—progress plan requirements and
attainment demonstration must be fully consistent with the
requirements specified by the Act and the EIP rule.
Many types of EIP’s require an emissions level as a starting
point for the program. The total emissions level used as a
starting point in an EIP is referred to as the EIP baseline. For
instance, a marketable allowance program with an emissions cap
must initially allocate some level of allowable emissions to
affected sources. After the program begins, affected sources may
47
-------
adjust their emissions cap by buying or selling emissions
allowances from other sources. All affected sources must
periodically demonstrate that they are in compliance with their
emissions cap, as adjusted by trading.
The proposed rule on EIP’s would allow States flexibility in
determining baseline emissions. The baseline, however, must be
specified within the EIP as it is used as the basis for
initializing the EIP incentive mechanism and projecting program
results. Under certain circumstances, a State may choose to
establish an EIP baseline different than actual 1990 emissions.
In such cases, an ElF baseline may be established as a function
of actual emissions, allowable emissions, a combination of actual
and allowable emissions, or some other basis. A State may want
to establish the ElF baseline based on a consideration of equity,
economic conditions, or political viability. However, it should
be noted that the State must use the 1990 actual base year
inventory as the baseline for the State’s rate-of—progress plan.
This issue is discussed in the guidance document entitled
Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the
1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate—of—Proqress Plans . (See
reference 21.)
The only emissions reductions that will be creditable toward
the 15 percent rate—of-progress requirements or attainment
demonstration are those fully consistent with the applicable EPA
policy on the demonstrations. If a State uses an EIP baseline -
different than the baseline used in its 15 percent rate—of—
progress plan, the State-must establish the relationship between
emissions reductions from the ElF and emissions reductions
creditable in its plan. For example, a State may decide to
require a 15 percent reduction, net of growth, in actual
emissions (measured against a 1990 actual emissions baseline)
from a group of sources over the next five years. Alternatively,
the State could choose to implement a marketable allowance
program using an allowable emissions baseline. After
initializing each source’s emissions limit at 1990 allowable
emissions, the State could require a 40 percent reduction, for
example, in the emissions cap between 1990 and 1996. In order
for the State to receive-a 15 percent reduction creditable toward
the rate—of-progress plan, theState would need to demonstrate
that a 40 percent reduction in allowable emissions for a group of
sources would result in a 15 percent reduction in actual
emissions for those sources.
7.4 Quantification of Emissions
Economic incentive programs require the development and use
of accurate, reliable, and replicable methods to quantify
emissions, including baseline emissions. Such methods should
include:
48
-------
• Specification of quantification methods.
• Specification of averaging times.
• Accounting for shutdowns and production curtailments.
• Accounting for batch, seasonal, and cyclical
operations.
• Determining emissions contribution for periods for
which monitoring data were not gathered, or data are
otherwise missing or have been demonstrated to be
inaccurate.
• Accounting for travel mode choice options for TCM’s.
The selected approach to emissions quantification should be
the most effective for a particular source type. Potential
approaches include direct measurement of emissions, either
continuously or periodically; equations which are a function of
process or control system parameters, ambient conditions,
activity levels, and throughput or production rates; mass balance
calculations which are a function of inventory, usage, or
disposal records; EPA-approved emissions factors; or any
combination of such approaches. The proposed EIP rule does not
require the use of any particular quantification approach, but
cautions that if emissions reduction credits are to be taken, the
method for quantifying emissions must yield results which can be
shown to have a level of certainty comparable to that for source-
specific standards and traditional methods of control strategy
development.
49
-------
50
-------
8.0 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 15 PERCENT VOC EMISSIONS REDUCTION -
REQUIREMENTS AND TITLE V (OPERATING PERMITS)
Title V of the Act requires States to develop and submit
operating permit programs by November 15, 1993, to EPA for
approval. Sources subject to the program must submit permit
applications within 1 year of EPA’s approval of the State program
or, where the State program is not approved, within 1 year of
EPA’s promulgation of a permit program. The operating permit
program should more efficiently implement the Act, providing
improved enforcement and enhanced State air program resources.
The operating permit program is designed to streamline
regulation of permitted sources by incorporating the various Act
requirements (including preconstruction permit requirements) to
which a source is subject into a single document. The program
will eventually apply to the following sources, however,
initially only major sources are covered:
• Major stationary sources, as defined in Table 1 of this
document.
• Any other source, including an area source, subject to
a HAP standard or regulation under section 112.- -
• Any source subject to an NSPS under section 111.
• Affected sources under the acid rain provisions of
Title IV.
• Any source required to have a preconstruction- review’
permit pursuant to the requirements of the PSD-prograiu
under Title I, Part C, or the NSR program under
Title I, Part D.
• Any other stationary source in a category EPA
designates in whole or in part by regulation, after
notice and comment.
Additionally, the operating permit program may be used to
facilitate the use of market-based incentives for emissions
reductions, consequently, the operating permit program may be
the primary implementing mechanism of EIP’s, discussed in Section
7.0 of this document.
Key concepts of the operating permit program should be
understood for States to effectively integrate permit programs
into emissions reduction requirements such as the 15 percent
rate-of-progress requirement. These concepts include:
• Operating permits must contain SIP requirements and
reflect terms of preconstruction permits.
51
-------
• Operating permits must ensure continued compliance by
the source with all applicable requirements of the Act,
which include all SIP requirements and permit limits
necessary to meet a rate-of—progress requirement;
however, meeting the NAAQS is not an applicable
requirement except for “temporary” sources.
• States may implement a more extensive operating permit
program than required to comply with the Act’s
requirements or schedules.
• The EPA must implement a Federal operating permit
program in the event a State fails to satisfactorily
develop or implement its program.
• The SIP will continue to be the mechanism for
demonstrating attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS,
and for demonstrating achievement of emissions
reductions.
Thus, States may rely on their regulatory program alone in
their rate-of—progress plan to demonstrate that sufficient
emissions reductions will occur to meet the 15 percent emissions
reduction requirement. That regulatory program will ultimately
be implemented through the permit program at least for sources
for which permits are required. Emissions controls that are not
in a regulatory program but contained in a permit alone will not
be creditable toward the 15 percent rate-of-progress requirement
unless the permit itself is submitted as part of the SIP. Of
course, the emissions reduction must occur prior to November 15,
1996 to be creditable toward the 15 percent emissions reduction
requirements.
Readers interested in further details of the operating
permit program are advised to refer to the final Title V
regulations, published July 21, 1992 in the Federal Register .
(See reference 22.) -
8.1 satisfying si Principles with Operating Permits
As stated above, the SIP continues to be the mechanism for
demonstrating the attainment of the NAAQS, maintenance of the
NAAQS once attainment occurs, and prescribed rates of progress.
The SIP, and any implementing instruments, including permits,
must adhere to principles discussed in the Title I General
Preamble. (See reference 23.) These principles are:
quantifiability, enforceability, replicability, and
accountability. These four principles must be adhered to for any
emissions reduction to be creditable toward the 15 percent VOC
emissions reduction requirements.
52
-------
State implementation plans generally contain enforceable
emissions limits, recordkeeping, reporting, and testing
requirements adequate to satisfy these principles. The four
principles could be fulfilled by a combination of the SIP and
operating permits. For example, operating permits could satisfy
the principle of quantifiability because they are well suited to
contain source-specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements
and most source-specific measuring and monitoring requirements
(e.g., the permit may specify a test method where one is not
referenced in the SIP). The principle of enforceability and
accountability could be satisfied by stipulating source-specific
emissions limitations and control techniques in the operating
permit. Future permits may be able to satisfy the principle of
replicability, if they implement a replicable procedure by which
a permit requirement is revised. This procedure would have been
approved previously in the SIP.
8.2 Areas Requiring Emissions Reductions Less Than 15 Percent
Section 182(b) (1) (A) (ii) allows moderate, serious, and
severe ozone nonattainment areas to reduce VOC emissions by less
than 15 percent if the following conditions are met. First, the
State must demonstrate that the area has a NSR program equivalent
to the requirement in extreme areas (section 182(e)], except that
a “major source” must include any source that emits, or has the
potential to emit, 5 tpy of VOC. All major sources (down to
those with emissions of 5 tpy of VOC or greater) in the area must
be required to have RACT-level controls. The plan must also
include all measures that can be feasibly implemented in the
area, in light of technological achievability. To qualify for
the lesser percentage, the State must demonstrate that the SIP
includes all measures (both stationary and mobile) that are
achieved in practice by sources in the same source category in
nonattainment areas of the next higher classification.
If a moderate or above ozone nonattainment area chooses to
meet the requirements of section 182(b) (1) (A) (ii) to get a
“waiver” of the 15 percent provision, EPA interprets Title V to
require operating permits for all VOC sources in that area that
are considered major under this new definition of major source
(i.e., new and existing sources that emit or have the potential
to emit 5 tpy of VOC). This is because the definition of “major
source” in Title V expressly refers to “major stationary source”
as defined in Part D of Title I. Since, under the waiver
provision of section 182(b) (1) (A) (ii), “major stationary source”
would be defined as having the potential to emit 5 tons per year
for the purposes of Title I, this would become the definition of
major source for the purposes of Title V.
53
-------
54
-------
REFERENCES
1. 51 FR 43814. “Emissions Trading Policy Statement; General
Principles for Creation, Banking and Use of Emission
Reduction Credits.” December 4, 1986.
2. 57 FR 13498. “General Preamble, Implementation of Title I,
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.” April 16, 1992.
3. New Source Review Workshop Manual. Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Permitting , U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Draft. October 1990.
4. 57 FR 55620. “State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides
Supplement to the General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.”
November 25, 1992.
5. “Early Reductions Program/Title I Interface,” Memorandum
from John S. Seitz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, December 20,
1991.
6. 57 FR 61970. “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Compliance Extensions for Early Reductions.”
December 29, 1992.
7. 56 FR 25724. “Control of Air Pollution From New Motor
Vehicles and New Motor..Vehicle Engines: Gaseous and
Particulate Emission Regulations for 1994 and Later Model
Year Light-Duty Vehicles and Light—Duty Trucks; Final Rule.”
June 5, 1991.
8. 55 FR 23666. “Volatility Regulations for Gasoline and -
Alcohol Blends Sold in Calendar Years 1992 and Beyond.”
June 11, 1990.
9. 56 FR 64704. “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
Standards for Gasoline Volatility.” December 12, 1991.
10. Enforcement of Volatility Regulations’—— Questions and
Answers , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Field
Operations and Support Division of the Office of Mobile
Sources, Ann Arbor, MI. May 1992.
11. 57 FR 13416. “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives;
Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline.”
April 16, 1992.
55
-------
12. Technical Guidance - Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for
Control of vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 450/3—91—022a. 1991.
13. Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle Refueling Control
Programs , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI. October 1991.
14. 57 FR 52950. “Inspection and Maintenance Program
Requirements.” November 5, 1992.
15. I/M Costs, Benefits, Impacts and Analysis , U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources,
Ann Arbor, MI. Draft. February 1992.
16. 58 FR 9468. “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Regulations
Requiring On-Board Diagnostic Systems on 1994 and Later
Model Year Light-Duty Vehicles and Light—Duty Trucks.”
February 19, 1993.
17. Transportation Control Measures: State Implementation Plan
Guidance , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC. September 1990.
18. Transportation Control Measure Information Documents , U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources,
Ann Arbor, MI. March. 1992.
19. Reference 4.
20. Guidance for Growth Factors,- Prolections. and Control
Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate—Of—Progress Plans , EPA—
452/R-93-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. March 1992.
21. Guidance on the Adiusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and
the 1996 Taraet for the 15 Percent Rate-of—Progress Plan ,
EPA-452/R-92-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. October 1992.
22. 57FR 32250. “State Operating Permit Program; Final Rules.”
July 21, 1992.
23. Reference 2.
56
-------
APPENDIX A
DEFINITION OF TERMS
This appendix provides the specific definitions of EPA terms
as they are used in this guidance. Different EPA programs
sometimes use different definitions of the same term (e.g., major
source). This appendix notes where conflicts occur in the
definition of a term used in this guidance. These definitions
are presented for the purposes of this guidance document only;
the reader is advised to refer to specific regulations, policies,
and sections of the Act to obtain complete definitions for the
program or title of interest.
Allowable Emissions The emissions from a source based on either
the maximum rated capacity of the source (unless the source is
subject to a federally enforceable permit which restricts the
operating rate, or hours of operation, or both) and the
applicable emissions standards, or federally enforceable
emissions limit.
Area Source Any stationary and nonroad sources that are too
small and/or too numerous to be included in the stationary point
source emissions inventories. For the purposes of section 112 of
the Act, any stationary source of HAP’s that is not a major
source.
Attainment Demonstration Moderate and above ozone nonattainment
areas must demonstrate that the reductions specified in the
revised SIP will result in modeled air quality for the
nonattaininent area that achieves, attainment by the applicable
attainment date. This requireinent.can.be met through.the
application of an EPA-approved mode1 and EPA—approved modeling
techniques described in the current. version of the Guidance on
Air quality Models, 9 which is currently under revision. Two
models are suggested: the UAN or EKMA. The EPA requires the
submittal of attainment demonstrations employing UAN for serious
and above areas and multi-State moderate areas as part of the SIP
revision due by November 15, 1994. Attainment demonstrations
based on EKNA for moderate. nonattainnient areas within..a single
State (intrastate moderate areas) must be submitted as part of
the SIP revision due by November 15, 1993, unless the State
chooses to use UAN, in which case the demonstration must be
submitted as part of the SIP revision due by November 15, 1994.
9 Guidance on Air Quality Models (Revised) , EPA—450/2—78—027R,
July 1986 (currently under revision).
A-i
-------
The use of EKNA is described in Guideline for Use of City—
Specific EKMA in Preparing Ozone SIP’s,’° as well as the
aforementioned guideline that is under revision. This document,
and the appropriate Regional Office, should be consulted before
an analysis is conducted with this modeling approach. The use of
UAM is described in Guideline for Regulatory Application of the
Urban Airshed Model.”
Attainment Determination The EPA must determine within 6 months
after the applicable attainment date whether an area has attained
the NAAQS for ozone. The attainment dates are as follows:
• Marginal areas -- November 15, 1993.
• Moderate areas —- November 15, 1996.
• Serious areas —— November 15, 1999.
• Severe areas —— November 15, 2005 (severe areas
with a 1986-1988 ozone design value
of 0.190 up to, but not including
0.280 parts per million have until
November 15, 2007).
• Extreme areas —— November 15, 2010.
In making the attainment determination, EPA will use the most
recently available,, quality-assured air quality data covering the
3-year period preceding the attainmentt date. For ozone, the
average number of exceedances per year after adjustment for
missing data are used to determine whether the area has attained.
Basic Inspection and Maintenance• (I/M ) Programs requiring the
inspection of vehicles including, but not limited to, measurement
of tailpipe emissions, and mandating that vehicles with tailpipe
emissions higher than- the program’cutpoints be repaired to-pass a
tailpipe emissions retest.. Basic I/Mprograms must be at--least
as stringent as the requirements set out’in section 182(a)(2)(B).
Directionally Sound Strategy An economic incentive strategy that
does not specify a program baseline, nor adequate procedures to
quantify emissions reductions.
‘ °Guideline for Use of City-Specific EKMA in Preparing Ozone
SIP’s , EPA—450/4-80-027, U.s. Environmental Protection Agency.
1980.
“ Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model ,
EPA-450/4-9l-013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
A-2
-------
Economic Incentive Program A1located ase1jne The initial level
of emissions for sources affected by an EIP. The emissions
reduction effect of the EIP’s incentive strategy is measured from
the EIP baseline. The EIP baseline year may be different than
the 1990 base year inventory required under Title I. Further,
the EIP baseline may be based on actual emissions, allowable
emissions, a combination of actual and allowable emissions, or
some other alternative.
Emissions Limiting Strategy An economic incentive strategy that
directly specifies limits on total mass emissions, emission—
related parameters (e.g., emission rates per unit of production,
product content limits), or levels of emissions reductions
relative to a program baseline that are required to be met by
affected sources, while providing flexibility to sources to
reduce the cost of meeting program requirements.
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M ) A program including,
at a minimum, computerized emissions analyzers, on—road testing,
denial of waivers for warranted vehicles or repairs related to
tampering, a $450 cost waiver requirement for emissions—related
repairs not covered by warranty, and inspection of the emissions
control diagnostic system (when required by EPA)... In addition,
enforcement through registration denial, annual inspections, and
centralized testing are required, unless less stringent measures
can be proven fully effective by the State (or in the case of
enforcement, more effective).
Housing and Urban Development (HUD Zones ,A portion of.a
nonattainment area targeted for economic growth by the
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of HUD.
Growth allowances are restricted to HUD zones under the Act.
Incidental Emissions Reductions Reductions inthe emissions of a
pollutant caused by the mandatory reduction in the emissions of
another pollutant.
Malor Modification The Act has multiple definitions for major
modifications depending on the. nonattainment classification and
the pollutant. Major modification thresholds are listed in
Table 2 for both VOC and NO 1 sources. The term major
modification is used to determine whether the modification of an
existing facility is subject to NSR requirements.
Malor Stationary Source The Act has multiple definitions for
major stationary sources depending upon the nonattairunent
classification and the pollutant. Section 302 of the Act defines
a major stationary source as one that directly emits, or has the
potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant. As
exceptions to this rule, major stationary source emissions
A-3
-------
thresholds, as defined in Part D of Title I of the Act, are
listed in Table 1 for both VOC and NO sources.
Milestone Compliance Demonstration For serious and above
classified nonattainment areas, demonstrating achievement of the
15 percent VOC emissions reduction over the 1990—1996 period, or
demonstrating subsequent 3 percent VOC emissions reductions per
year averaged over each consecutive 3—year period from November
15, 1996 until the attainment date. Section 182(g) (2) requires
that within 90 days of the date on which an applicable milestone
occurs (not including an attainment date on which a milestone
occurs in cases where the standard has been attained), States
with nonattainment areas must submit a demonstration that the
milestone has been met (e.g., the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction is demonstrated by February 13, 1997). The EPA expects
to release regulations pertaining to the requirements of the
milestone demonstration in the Summer of 1993.
Market Response Strateav An economic incentive strategy that
creates one or more incentives for affected sources to reduce
emissions, without directly specifying limits on emissions or
emission—related parameters that individual sources or even all
sources in the aggregate are required to meet.
Modification .With respect to section 112 of the Act, any
physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a
major source which increases the actual emissions of any HAP
emitted by such source by more than a de minimis amount or which
results in the emissions of any HAP not previously emitted by
more than a de minimis amount. ‘ -
Netting The procedure of determining the net emissions ‘increase
associated with a modification combined with certain previous and
prospective emissions changes at an existing majorcstationary
source. If an existing major stationary source proposes a
modification that will result in a significant net emissions
increase, it will be subject to all applicable NSR requirements.
Netting must take place at the same stationary source; emissions
reductions used in netting cannot be traded between stationary
sources.
1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Section 182(b) (1) (B) and (D)
describes the inventory• (hereafter referred to as the adjusted
base year inventory) from which moderate and above ozone
nonattainmerit areas must achieve a 15 percent reduction in VOC
emissions by 1996. This inventory is equal to “the total amount
of actual Voc or NO emissions from all anthropogenic (man—made)
sources in the area during the calendar year of enactment,”
excluding the emissions that would be eliminated by FMVCP
regulations promulgated by January 1, 1990, and RVP regulations
(55 FR 23666, June 11, 1990), which require specific maximum RVP
A-4
-------
levels for gasoline in particular nonattainment areas during the -
peak ozone season. The 1990 rate-of—progress base year inventory -
(defined below) removes biogenic emissions and emissions from
sources listed in the base year inventory that are located
outside of the nonattainment area. The adjusted base year
inventory removes the emissions reductions from the FMVCP and RVP
program from the 1990 rate—of—progress base year inventory. The
adjusted base year inventory, which is due by November 15, 1992,
is used to calculate the required 15 percent reductions.
Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory = Base Year Emissions
Inventory, minus the following:
• Biogenic source emissions.
• Emissions from sources outside of the nonattainment
area boundary.
• Emissions reductions from.the FXVCP. -
• Emissions reductions from the RVP rules.
1990 Base Year Inventory The 1990 base year inventory is an
inventory of actual annual and typical weekday peak ozone season
emissions that States use in calculating their adjusted and
projected inventories, and in developing their control strategy.
The base year inventory comprises emissions for the area during
the peak ozone season, which is generally the summer months. It
includes anthropogenic sources of N0 and CO emissions, and both
anthropogenic and biogenic sources of VOC emissions. Also
included in the inventory are emissions from all stationary point
sources and area sources as well as highway and nonroad mobile
sources located within the nonattaininent area, and stationary
sources with emissions of 100 tpy or greater of VOC, NOR, and CO
emissions within a 25-mile wide buffer zone of the designated
nonattainment area. The base year inventory contains off-shore
sources located within the nonattainment area boundaries and of f—
shore stationary sources with emissions.of 100 tpy or greater of
VOC, N0 , or Co emissions within the 25-mile wide buffer area.
For nonattainment areas that will perform photochemical grid
modeling (e.g., serious and above areas and multi—State moderate
areas), emissions for the entire modeling domain, which is
usually largerthan the .nonattainmentarea because ozone is an
area-wide problem, are required in the modeling inventory. This
modeling inventory could be submitted with the base year
inventory, or the modeling inventory submittal could b in a
separate package. It is important to note that the 1990 base
year inventory serves as the starting point for all other
inventories.
1990 Rate-of-Progress Base Year Inventory An accounting of all
anthropogenic VOC, CO, and NO, emissions in the nonattairnuent
area. This emissions inventory is calculated by removing
biogenic emissions and the emissions from sources that are
A-5
-------
located outside of the nonattainment area from the base year
inventory. This inventory is used in developing the adjusted
base year inventory. It is also used as the basis from which to
calculate the 1996 target level of emissions.
1996 Target Level of Emissions The 1996 target level of
emissions is the maximum amount of ozone season VOC emissions
that can be emitted by an ozone nonattainment area in 1996 for
that nonattainment area to be in compliance with the 15 percent
rate-of-progress requirements.. It is calculated by first taking
15 percent of the adjusted base year inventory emissions. This
emissions value is then added to the expected emissions
reductions due to the FMVCP and RVP program, and from corrections
to any deficient RACT rules and I/M programs. The summation of
the 15 percent, the expected reductions from deficient I/M and
RACT programs, and reductions from the FMVCP and RVP program are
then subtracted from the 1990 rate-of-progress base year
inventory to arrive at the 1996 target level of emissions. This
target is used by States to design their 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction control strategies. The projected control strategy
inventory used in the rate-of-progress plan must be at or below
the 1996 target level of emissions to demonstrate that the
15 percent VOC emissions reduction will be accomplished.
1996 Target-Level of Emissions = Rate—of—Progress Base Year
Inventory, minus the following:
• 15 percent of the adjusted base year inventory
emissions.
• Emissions reductions from corrections to any deficient
RACT rules.
• Emissions reductions from corrections to deficient I/N
programs.
• Emissions reductions from the pre—1990 FNVCP.
• Emissions reductions from RVP rules.
Of f sets Surplus emissions reductions secured from existing
source(s) by a prospective major new stationary source, or a
source planning major modifications, in order for the new or
modified source to obtain a nonattainment. area preconstruction
permit. Offsets are generally secured from other sources in the
vicinity of the new source or modification, but can also be
obtained, with limitations, from the source itself in the case of
a modification.
Offset Ratios For the purpose of satisfying the emissions offset
reduction requirements of section 173(a) (1) (A), the emissions
offset ratio is defined as the ratio of total actual emissions
reductions of VOC [ and NO unless exempted under section 182(f)]
obtained as offsets from existing sources to total allowable
A-6
-------
emissions increases of such pollutant from the new source. (See
Table 1 for a list of offset ratios by nonattainment area.)
Point Source Any stationary source that has the potential to
emit more than some specified threshold level of a pollutant or
is identified as an individual source in a State’s emissions
inventory. For base year SIP inventory purposes, point sources
are defined as sources emitting 10 tpy or more of VOC or 100 tpy
or more of N0 or Co.
Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan The portion of the SIP revision
due by November 15, 1994, which describes how serious and above
areas plan to achieve the post-1996, 3 percent per year VOC
emissions reductions averaged over each consecutive 3—year period
from November 15, 1996 until the attainment date. This SIP
revision also includes the attainment demonstration for moderate
interstate nonattainment areas and serious and above
nonattainment areas.
Potential to Emit The maximum capacity of a source to emit a
pollutant under its physical or operational design, except as
constrained by federally—enforceable conditions which may include
the effect of installed air pollution control equipment,
restrictions on the hours of operation, and the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed. Potential to emit is
used for major source determinations under NSR (40 CFR
51.165(b)].
Program Uncertainty Factor A factor applied to adjust the amount
of emissions reductions attributed to an EIP and credited in an
implementation plan demonstration to account for strategy—
specific uncertainties inherent in EIP’s that are based on
strategies other than emissions limiting strategies.
Rate-of-Progress Plan The portion of the SIP revision due by
November 15, 1993, that describes how moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas plan to achieve the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction. All moderate intrastate areas that choose to utilize
the ERMA in their attainment demonstration, are also required to
include their attainment demonstration in this SIP revision.
Reformulated Gasoline A blend of gasoline that is certified as
meeting all the requirements applicable to reformulated gasoline.
These requirements have been proposed as 40 CFR Part 80,
Subpart D, and include:
• At least 2.0 percent oxygen by weight.
• No more than 1.0 percent benzene by volume.
• No heavy metals, absent a waiver by EPA.
• No increase in NO emissions from baseline vehicles.
A-7
-------
• Required reductions in emissions of ozone forming
VOC’s.
• Required reductions in toxics emissions.
Compliance with the emissions requirements is determined by
comparing emissions of baseline vehicles (representative model
year 1990 motor vehicles) using a baseline gasoline (specified in
section 211(k) of the Act) with emissions of baseline vehicles
using the reformulated gasoline. The EPA’s proposed regulations
provide for the use of credits to meet the above requirements
under specified circumstances.
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP ) A maximum gasoline volatility level
established to reduce summertime gasoline volatility. Depending
on the area, gasoline RVP may not exceed 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi
between May 1 and September 15, beginning in 1992. Regulations
established by EPA are published in 40 CFR Part 80.
Rule Compliance Factor A factor applied to adjust the amount of
emissions reductions attributed to an EIP and credited in an
implementation plan demonstration to account for less than
complete compliance by sources affected by the EIP.
Rule Effectiveness (RE ) For stationary sources, a measure of the
extent to which a regulatory program achieves emissions
reductions. An RE of 100 percent reflects a regulatory program
achieving all the emissions reductions that could be achieved by
full compliance with the applicable regulations at all sources at
all times. However, regulations typically are not -100 percent
effective due to limitations of control techniques or
shortcomings in-the implementation and enforcement process. The
EPA allows the use of several different methods for determining
RE including an 80 percent default value; results from EPA
Questionnaires; or results from a Stationary Source Compliance
Division (SSCD) study.
Stage II Gasoline dispensing devices that control VOC vapor
releases during the refueling of motor vehicles. This process
takes the vapors that would otherwise be emitted directly into
the atmosphere during refueling, and redirects them back into the
fuel storage tanks.
Total Actual Emissions The total emissions from a source over a
year or other averaging period that is based on an emissions
unit’s actual operating hours, production rates, control
equipment, and types of material processed, stored, or combusted.
The averaging period used depends on the program. For example,
NSR netting baselines are based on 2 years of emissions and
operating permit fees are based on 1 year of emissions. For the
purposes of the 1990 base year inventory for ozone, actual VOC,
A-8
-------
NO , and Co emissions are based on a typical weekday of the peak
ozone season.
Transportation Control Measure (TCMI Any program that
encompasses elements of transportation system management and/or
transportation demand management. Transportation system
management strategies generally refer to the use of low capital
intensive transportation improvements to increase the efficiency
of transportation facilities and services. Transportation demand
management generally refers to policies, programs, and actions
that are directed toward increasing the use of high occupancy
vehicles (transit, carpooling, and vanpooling) and the use of
bicycling and walking. Section 108(f) of the Act lists the
following programs as examples of TCM’s:
• Accelerated retirement of vehicles.
• Activity centers.
• Area-wide ridesharing.
• Bicycling alternatives to motor vehicle travel.
• Employer-based transportation management programs.
• Limitations on extended vehicle idling.
• Control of extreme low-temperature cold starts.
• High occupancy vehicle lanes.
• Park and ride and fringe parking.
• Parking management programs.
• Minimization of congestion during special events.
• Traffic flow improvements.
• Transit improvements.
• Trip-reduction ordinances.
• Vehicle use limitations/restrictions.
• Work schedule changes.
Volatile Organic Compound Any compound of carbon, excluding CO ,
carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates,
and ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric
photocheinical reactions. This includes any organic compound
other than those EPA has determined to have negligible
photochemical reactivity.’ 2
‘ 2 See 57 Federal Register 3945, February 3, 1992.
A-9
-------
•IA ‘Y%
i i . D
S74,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
_____ Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
p
1
I( DflO t
JUN14 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas -- Enforceable Regulations and Compliance
Programs
FROM: D. Kent Berry, Acting Director
Air Quality Management Division 15)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Attached is a document entitled, “Guidance on Preparing -
Enforceable Regulations and Compliance Programs for the 15
Percent Rate—of-Progress Plans,” which was prepared to guide
States as they begin to develop the State implementation plans
(SIP’S) to meet the new rate—of—progress requirements of section
182 (b) (1). This document focuses on compliance and enforcement
aspects of control measures that moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas must include in their rate—of-progress plans.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require a specified
rate of emissions reductions for all ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or above. These areas must submit a SIP
revision detailing how the area will achieve a reduction in
volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions of at least 15 percent
between November 15, 1990 and November 15, 1996 (hereafter called
the rate-of-progress plan). The rate—of-progress requirement is
calculated from the 1990 base-year emissions inventory. The
rate-of—progress plan revision is part of the full SIP (including
an attainment demonstration based on modeling) for most moderate
areas, and a separate submittal for serious and above areas (due
November 15, 1993).
-------
2
The attached document provides technical guidance to support
the policy presented in 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 (“General
Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990”). The technical guidance provides
information on how to prepare enforceable stationary and mobile
source regulations and addresses compliance and enforcement
issues that typically arise during the development and
implementation of regulations.
We request that you forward this document to your State and
local agencies (an unbound original is attached). This document
will also be placed on the Technology Transfer Network, the
Management and Accountability Process System, and the State and
Local Air Directors Bulletin Board under the file name
ENFORCE.RPP. We will provide hard copies upon request as soon as
they are available.
We trust this information will be helpful to you as you
guide your States through the SIP development process. Questions
or comments on this document may be addressed to Carla Oldham at
(919) 541—3347.
Attachment
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Jane Armstrong, OMS
William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
John Bosch, TSD
Ogden Gerald, TSD
Tom Helms, AQMD
Steve Hoover, SSCD
Vishnu Katari, SSCD
Marty Martinez, TSD
Ned Meyer, TSD
David Mob].ey, TSD
Rich Ossias, OGC
John Rasnic, SSCD
Kiinber Scavo, AQMD
Laurel Schultz, AQMD
John Seitz, OAQPS
John Si].vasi, AQMD
Joe Tikvart, TSD
Mary Ann Warner-Seiph, TSD
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
Dick Wilson, OIlS
Howard Wright, TSD
-------
Guidance on Preparing Enforceable
Regulations and Compliance Programs for
the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Progr ims Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Plamung and
Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES . iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v
EXECUTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.0 INTRODUCTION .
1.1 Purpose
1.2 Statutory Requirements
1.3 Organization of Document . . . . . . . .
2.0 ESTABLISHING AN ENFORCEABLE STATE RULE
2 • 1 Stationary Source Regulations
Common RACT Rule Deficiencies . . . .
Model VOCRACTRu1es • . • . • • . .
2.2 Mobile Source Regulations • . . . . • .
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs
Stage II Vapor Recovery Control Programs
Transportation Control Measures (TCM’ s) .
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) . . . . . .
Reformulated Gasoline Program . . . .. . .
2.3 Economic Incentive Programs (EIP’s) .
Baseline EIP Issues . . . . . . . • .
Emissions Quantification . . . . •
Long—Term Averaging . . . . .
Criteria for Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting • . . • .
3.0 RULE EFFECTIVENESS . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . .
3.1 Compliance Effectiveness . . . . . . • .
Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD)
Study . . . . . . . .
3.2 Inventory Rule Effectiveness
3.3 Rule Effectiveness Improvements
3.4 SiPEffectiveness. . . • . . . . . . . . •1I
4 • 0 DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITh EPA REGULATIONS • . .
4.1 Current Regulations Related to Compliance .
4 • 2 Enhanced Monitoring and Compliance Certification
Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
REFERENCES . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . A—i
APPENDIX B: CHECKLIST FOR DETERMINING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF
STATE RTJLES • . • • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B—i
1
3
4
7
8
• . . 11
• . 11
• . . . 12
• . . . 13
. • . . 13
• . . . 14
• • . . i4
• • • . 15
• . . . 16
• • . . 17
• . . . 17
• . . . 18
• . • • 18
• . . • 19
. .
• .
. .
20
21
21
22
23
23
23
25
25
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
A-i. MAJOR SOURCE THRESHOLDS FOR OZONE A-4
iv
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Act Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
CC Compliance Certification
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CTG Control Technique Guideline
EIP Economic Incentive Program
EEMA Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach
EM Enhanced Monitoring
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
FR Federal Register
gal gallon
I/M Inspection and Maintenance
kg kilogram
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NO 1 Nitrogen Oxides
psi pounds per square inch
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology
RE Rule Effectiveness
RVP Reid Vapor Pressure
SIP State Implementation Plan
SSCD Stationary Source Compliance Division of EPA’s
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TcM Transportation Control Measure
tpy tons per year
UAI4 Urban Airshed Model
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound(s)
v
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 182(b) (1) of the Clean Air Act (Act) requires all
ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to
submit a State implementation plan (SIP) revision by November 15,
1993, which describes, in part, how the areas will achieve an
actual volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions reduction of at
least 15 percent during the first 6 years after enactment of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) (i.e., up to November 15,
1996). The portion of the SIP revision that illustrates the plan
for the achievement of this emissions reduction is subsequently
defined in this document as the “rate—of—progress plan.”
The purpose of this document is to provide States with
guidance on how to prepare enforceable stationary and mobile
source regulations for their rate—of—progress plans. Developing
clear, concise, enforceable rules and establishing strong
compliance programs helps to ensure that the emissions reductions
projected for specific control strategies are actually achieved.
The document identifies the minimum criteria and the information
sources that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will
use to evaluate the enforceability of regulations, and to
determine compliance with Federal guidelines and regulations.
States should follow the guidelines provided in this document as
part of their quality assurance process involved in the
development of control measures for their rate—of—progress plans.
This document attempts to address compliance and enforcement
issues that typically arise during the development and
implementation of regulations. The document discusses the ke-
elements needed in stationary and mobile source regulations to
make the regulations enforceable. For stationary sources, issues
related to the development of reasonably available control
technology (RACT) rules are discussed. For mobile sources,
issues related to inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs,
Stage II vapor recovery programs, transportation control measures
(TCM’ s), gasoline volatility control programs, and reformulated
gasoline programs are discussed. The document also discusses
issues related to the development and implementation of economic
incentive programs (EIP’s) for nonattainment areas. The EPA is
preparing regulations to implement the enhanced monitoring and
compliance certification (EM and CC) requirements of the Act.
This document provides a general overview of some of the key EM
and CC elements that States will need to consider when preparing
their regulations for stationary sources.
Rule effectiveness is a measure of the degree to which all
affected sources comply with an applicable regulation over time.
This document discusses the use of rule effectiveness
measurements to estimate compliance effectiveness, inventory rule
effectiveness, rule effectiveness improvements, and SIP
1
-------
effectiveness. Emphasis is placed on the method for determining
compliance effectiveness using the Stationary Source Compliance
Division (SSCD) study.
2
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 182(b) (1) of the Act requires all ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to submit a
SIP revision by November 15, 1993, which describes, in part, how
the areas will achieve an actual VOC emissions reduction of at
least 15 percent during the first 6 years after enactment of the
CAAA (up to November 15, 1996). Emissions and emissions
reductions shall be calculated on a typical weekday basis for the
“peak” 3-month ozone period (generally June through August). The
15 percent VOC emissions reduction required by November 15, 1996
is defined within this document as “rate—of—progress.”
Furthermore, the portion of the SIP revision that illustrates the
plan for the achievement of the emissions reduction is
subsequently defined in this document as the “rate—of—progress
plan.”
It is important to note that section 182(b) (1) also requires
the SIP for moderate areas to provide for reductions in VOC and
nitrogen oxides (NOr) emissions “as necessary to attain the
national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone” by
November 15, 1996. This requirement can be met through the use
of EPA-approved modeling techniques and the adoption of any
additional control measures beyond those needed to meet the
15 percent emissions reduction requirements. States with
intrastate moderate ozone nonattainment areas will generally be
required to submit attainment demonstrations with their SIP
revisions due by November 15, 1993 (such areas choosing to use
the Urban Airshed Model (TThN) to prepare their attainment
demonstrations will be allowed to submit attainment
demonstrations by November 15 ,“3.994) States choosing to run !Th1’I
f or their intrastate-moderate areas must submit-by November 1 ,
‘The EPA recognizes that the Act terms, for both the
15 percent Voc emissions reduction requirement of section
182(b) (1) and the section 182(c) (2) (B) requirement for 3 percent
per year Voc emissions reductions averaged over each consecutive
3-year period from November 15, 1996 until the attainment date,
as reasonable further progress requirements. However, because
the Act requires sIp revisions for the 15 percent reduction to be
submitted in 1993 and SIP revisions for the 3 percent per year
reductions to be submitted in 1994, EPA believes that it would be
clearer, within the context of both the 15 percent rate-of—
progress plan and the post—1996 rate-of—progress plan guidance
documents that EPA is producing, to create distinct labels for
these two seemingly similar reductions. The 1994 SIP revisions
describing the requirement for 3 percent VOC emissions reductions
averaged over each consecutive 3—year period from November 15,
1996 until the attainment date, constitute the post-1996 rate-of—
progress plan. -
3
-------
1993, their 15 percent rate-of-progress plan and a committal SIP
addressing the attainment demonstration. The committal si
subject to a section 110(k) (4) approval would include, at a
minimum, evidence that grid modeling is well under way and a
commitment, with schedule, to complete the modeling and submit it
as a SIP revision by November 1994. The completed attainment
demonstration would include any additional controls needed for
attainment.
Section 182(c) (2) requires all ozone nonattainment areas
classified as serious and above to submit a SIP revision by
November 15, 1994 which describes, in part, how each area will
achieve additional VOC emissions reductions of 3 percent per year
averaged over each consecutive 3—year period from November 15,
1996 until the area’s attainment date. It is important to note
that section 182(c) (2) (C) allows for actual NO 1 emissions
reductions (exceeding growth) that occur after the base year of
1990 to be used to meet post-1996 emissions reduction
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious
and above, provided that such NO 1 reductions meet the criteria
outlined in forthcoming substitution guidance. The portion of
the SIP revision (due in 1994) that illustrates the plan for the
achievement of these post—1996 reductions in VOC or NO 1 is
subsequently defined in this document as the “post-1996 rate—of-
progress plan.” This plan must also contain an attainment
demonstration based on photocheinical grid modeling. The EPA will
distribute a separate guidance document on the development of the
post—1996 rate—of—progress plan in early to .mid—1993.
Demonstrating achievement of the 15 percent VOC emissions
reductions by November 15, 1996, and then subsequently -
demonstrating achievement; of the 3 percent per year VOC emissions
reductions averaged over each consecutive 3—year period from
November 15, 1996.until an area’s attainment date, are termed
milestone demonstrations. Achievement of the milestones must be
demonstrated within 90 days of the milestone date (i.e., the
15 percent VOC emissions reductions must be demonstrated by
February 13, 1997). The EPA is currently developing a rule which
will describe the information and analysis required for the
milestone demonstrations. The rule is scheduled for promulgation
in the summer of 1994.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide States with
guidance on how to prepare enforceable regulations and compliance
programs for their rate-of-progress plans. Developing clear,
concise, enforceable rules and establishing strong compliance
programs helps to ensure that the emissions reductions projected
for specific control strategies are actually achieved. This
document is intended to provide the minimum criteria for
4
-------
developing enforceable control measures. In addition,
information sources are cited that inform States of the criteria
EPA will use in evaluating stationary and mobile source
regulations submitted as SIP revisions under their rate—of—
progress plans. States should follow these guidelines as part of
the quality assurance process involved in the establishment of
their control measures. In addition, this document provides
guidance to States on EPA’S forthcoming EM and CC regulations, as
well as EPA’s criteria for the measurement and determination of
source compliance.
Compliance and enforcement issues (e.g., recordkeeping)
related to the implementation of control measures needed to meet
the 15 percent voc emissions reduction requirements are addressed
with respect to the following EPA regulations and guidance:
• VOC SIP deficiencies and model Federal RACT rule
guidance.
• Mobile source guidance, such as the TCZ4 SIP
guidance and information documents.
• Title V operating permit regulations.
• Enhanced monitoring and compliance certification
regulations.
Because some of the guidance and regulations are in the
development stage, States should track them as they evolve
through the regulatory process. For these cases, this document
serves as a general discussion of how EPA’ S enforcement and -
compliance regulations-and directives relate to the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements.
As part of the SIP revisions required under Title I of the
Act, States are required to make any necessary corrections to
their current RACT rules (PACT fix—ups) and provide for
additional PACT rules (PACT catch-ups). Although emissions
reductions due to PACT fix-ups are not creditable toward meeting
the 15 percent voc emissions reduction requirement, examination
of past PACT rule deficiencies can help a State avoid developing
new rules with similar deficiencies. Emissions reductions from
new PACT catch-up rules are creditable toward the 15 percent
requirement. The EPA has identified compliance issues related to
States’ current programs, and has issued SIP calls to States
where EPA has noted significant PACT deficiencies. This document
highlights guidelines that will assist States in developing PACT
rules that comply with EPA guidance.
Additionally, new mobile source emissions reduction programs
are required in particular ozone nonattainment areas under the
CAAA. This document cites the appropriate EPA guidance and
5
-------
regulations that States should use in developing these programs.
The effective use of this information will assist States in
developing and implementing mobile source programs that meet the
objectives of the Act.
An economic incentive program (EIP) is not a mandatory
requirement for any area to meet the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction requirement. However, some areas may chose to
establish EIP’s in order to allow for increased flexibility and
innovation in their control strategies. Therefore, this document
briefly discusses some of the general design and implementation
issues that the forthcoming EIP rules and guidance will address.
Rule effectiveness (RE) reflects the ability of a regulatory
program to achieve all the emissions reductions that could have
been achieved by full compliance with the applicable regulations
at all sources at all times. Many specific RE applications may
be generically referred to as RE. The appropriate method for
determining and using RE depends upon the purpose of the
determination: control program compliance, SIP inventories, SIP
improvement creditability, and SIP progress. This document
provides background on these four elements of RE. Emphasis is
placed on determining compliance effectiveness using a
methodology developed by EPA s Stationary Source Compliance
Division (SSCD), known as the SSCD Study. The SSCD Study
estimates the degree of compliance with an existing regulation by
comparing actual and allowable emissions for sources included in
the study.
The EM regulations combined with the CC requirements under
Part 70 will mandate which sources must certify compliance, hoy
they must certify compliance, and how often they must certify -
compliance. The EM regulations will be implemented primarily
through the operating permits program under Title V of the Act.
Final regulations covering the implementation of the operating
permits program have been promulgated. (See reference 1.) Since
the EM and Cc requirements will only apply to certain stationary
sources, enforcement and compliance guidance is also discussed
for those sources that will not be subject to the EM and CC
requirements.
This guidance is part of EPA’s technical memoranda whose
objective is to assist States in preparing rate—of—progress plans
demonstrating how nonattainment areas are to achieve a 15 percent
reduction in Voc emissions over the period 1990 to 1996. This
guidance is not intended to supersede other reports or guidance,
and guidance documents that address certain subjects more
completely are identified herein.
6
-------
1.2 Statutory Requirements
Sections 182(b) (1) (A) and 182(c) (2) (A) of the Act specify
that ozone nonattairunent areas classified as moderate or above
develop SIP’s to provide for attainment of the national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone. One element of each SIP
must outline the adoption of RACT rules for designated source
categories and all major sources (section 182(b)(2)]. New model
RACT rules have been developed by EPA and may be used as
guidelines for areas subject to the RACT “fix—up” requirements of
section 182(a), and the RACT “catch-up” requirements specified in
section 182(b)(2). (See reference 2.)
Section 182 (a) (2) (8) of the Act requires that moderate ozone
nonattainment areas meet the basic 1/14 program standard. In
addition, enhanced I/N programs, which must meet a higher
performance standard than the basic 1/14 program, are to be
implemented in any areas classified as serious or above (section
182 Cc) (3)]. According to section 182(d) (1), severe and extreme
nonattairunent area SIP’S must include a transportation control
measure (TCM) program. Section 182(c) (5) presents TCN’s as
potential control measures f or serious nonattairunent areas where
future vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and congestion parameters
exceed those predicted in the SIP. Also, other nonattainment
areas may select TCM’s as part of their overall control strategy.
A listing of some of the possible TcM’s, including provisions for
reducing ‘fliT and improving traffic flow, is provided in section
108(f) of the Act.
Stage II systems are vapor recovery systems installed at
gasoline pumps to reduce vehicle refueling emissions. Section
182(b) (3) of the Act requires that all ozone nonattairunent àréas
classified as moderate or above implement a Stage II vapor
recovery program as a control measure. -...Section - 202 (a) (6) of the
Act provides an exemption from the Stage II requirement for
moderate ozone nonattainment areas after EPA promulgates on—board
vapor recovery standards. After consulting with the U. S.
Department of Transportation, EPA published in the Federal
Register its decision against promulgating on—board vapor
recovery standards (57 FR 13220, April 15, 1992), removing the
possibility of a Stage II exemption for moderate areas. However,
on January 22, 1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit ruled that EPA’s decision not to
require on—board vapor recovery controls be set aside and on-
board vapor recovery standards be promulgated pursuant to section
202(a) (6) of the Act. The EPA is currently studying a schedule
for complying with the court’s ruling.
These provisions of the Act indicate that a State’s
obligation to adopt Stage II rules for moderate areas continues
until on-board rules are actually promulgated. When on—board
rules are promulgated, a State may withdraw its Stage II rules
7
-------
for moderate areas from the SIP consistent with its obligation
under sections 182(b) (3) and 202(a)(6). Further guidance on
Stage II requirements for moderate nonattairunent areas seeking
redesignation will be forthcoming.
The EPA is further considering how this court ruling affects
a State’s obligation under section 184(b) (2) regarding Stage II
or measures that get equivalent emissions reductions in the
Northeast ozone transport region. The section 184(b) (2)
requirement applies to all areas in the region regardless of the
ozone designation or classification. Guidance concerning the
Northeast ozone transport region will be issued at a later date.
Title II of the Act specifies Federal mobile source
regulations and control measures that must be implemented for
specified ozone nonattairunent areas. For example, section
2 11(h) (1) mandates that EPA promulgate rules making it unlawful
for any person during the high ozone season to sell, offer for
sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce
into commerce gasoline with a Reid vapor pressure (RVP) in excess
of 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi). Section 2 11(h) (2) further
provides that EPA may not impose a standard lower than 9.0 psi in
an attainment area for ozone, unless the area was formerly a
nonattainment area. Section 211(h) (4) provides a 1 psi waiver
for certain gasoline blends containing 10 percent ethanol. Under
section 211(k) of the Act, the sale of reformulated gasoline will
be required in the nine largest cities with nonattaininent areas
having the highest ozone design value, taking effect January 1,
1995. Other nonattainment areas may opt-in to this Federal
reformulated gasoline program.
Section 702(a) of the CAAA amended section 114(a) of theAct
by establishinq stricter provisions concerning the recording,
reporting, and monitoring of emissions from any part of a
stationary source which emits or has the potential to emit any
regulated pollutant. Section 702(b) of the CAAA amended section
114 (a) (3) of the Act by adding EM and CC requirements that apply
to owners or operators of major stationary sources. The EPA is
currently developing regulations to implement the EM and CC
program, and proposed rules are expected in June 1993.
1.3 Organization of Document
This document is organized as follows. Section 2 provides
an overview of the characteristics of an enforceable rule, and
cites the guidance that EPA will use, at a minimum, to evaluate
the acceptability of State regulations for controlling VOC
emissions from stationary and mobile sources. Once the rules
have been developed and implemented, a State may want to measure
the degree to which the affected sources are complying with the
regulations (known as rule effectiveness) in order to identify
weaknesses in the control strategies and to improve the accuracy
8
-------
of emissions estimates for the nonattainment area. Section 3
describes the four elements of rule effectiveness, including a
discussion of the method for calculating compliance
effectiveness. Section 4 of this document discusses how formal
determinations of source compliance with EPA regulations will be
made, which provides the basis for evaluating rule effectiveness.
Appendix A provides definitions for terms used throughout this
document. Appendix B provides a checklist that States may use to
evaluate the acceptability of their rules.
9
-------
10
-------
2.0 ESTABLISHING AN ENFORCEABLE STATE RULE
When States establish regulations as part of their SIP’s to
control stationary or mobile sources, the rules must undergo a
review by EPA to determine their acceptability. The general
criteria that are used to evaluate a rule take into account the
overall clarity and completeness of the rule. The rule must
clearly indicate what limits or standards apply to what sources,
and must outline enforceable compliance procedures (i.e.,
compliance test methods and inspections). In addition, the rule
must specify the time frames within which the provisions must be
met. Test methods, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements must be specified to establish the procedures for
determining a source’s compliance status. In addition to
clarity, simplicity is an important characteristic of a rule
because complex rules are more likely to be misunderstood and
violated. Appendix B provides a checklist for States to use as
guidance when developing rules to meet EPA requirements.
General characteristics of an enforceable rule include:
• A specific statement defining which sources comprise
the regulated universe.
• An established emissions standard or limit that is
consistently applied to regulated sources.
• A clear statement of the compliance period.
• A description of the test methods and monitoring
procedures used to• evaluate compliance ‘ dt1tthe -
applicable limit.
• Conversion .factors to convert test data inth unitS of
the applicable standard (i.e., a calculátio óonversion
procedure to determine compliance).
• Nonitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
that are consistent with the compliance time frame.
• Penalties (e.g., fines, sanctions) for sources in
violation.
• Exemptions from the rule.
2 • 1. Stationary Source Regulations
The Act specifies that moderate and above nonattainment area
SIP’s must include RACT regulations for designated source
categories and all “major new or modified sources.” The EPA has
issued control technique guideline (CTG) documents that contain
information on recommended air pollution control techniques and
11
-------
their costs for many industrial source categories. A summary of
the existing CTG documents is provided in the EPA document
entitled Guidance for Growth Factors. Projections and Control
Strategies for the 15 percent Rate-of-Progress Plan . (See
reference 3.) The CTG’s provide guidance to States for
developing their RACT rules. The CTG’s represent EPA’s
assessment of the degree of emissions reduction that is
reasonable for a specific source category. Upon publication of a
CTG document, States must submit a SIP revision that incorporates
regulations for the applicable source category. The CTG guidance
is not binding; a State may elect to follow the guidance or,
alternatively, may choose to adopt regulations which differ from
the CTG. The “alternative” RACT rule must be approved by EPA in
the initial SIP submittal or in a SIP revision.
It should be noted that the major source size cutoff is
lower for higher ozone nonattainment area classifications. For
example, in moderate ozone nonattaininent areas, major sources are
defined as those emitting 100 tons per year (tpy) or more,
whereas in serious nonattainment areas, the size cutoff for a
major source is 50 tpy. Table A—i presents the major source size
cutoffs for classified and nonclassified nonattainment areas and
the ozone transport region nonattainment and attainment areas.
Common RACT Rule Deficiencies
The EPA issues a SIP call to a State pursuant to section
110(a) (2) (H) when it finds significant deficiencies in a State’s
RACT rule(s). A deficiency involves a rule or portion of a rule
that is less stringent than RACT recommendations defined by a CTG
document. The publication èfltit1ed Issues Relating to VOC
Requlatiori Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations (see reférénce
4), lists the most prevalent ozone SIP deficiencies identified by
EPA. Most of the -revisions to. . RACT rules required by the 1988
and 1989 SIP calls havebeen carried out, although some
deficiencies still exist. -In the event that these deficiencies
are not corrected within 2 years after a finding of deficiency is
made, the Act authorizes EPA to prepare a Federal implementation
plan (FIP) for the negligent area.
Described below are some of the more prevalent RACT
deficiencies identified by EPA. States should be aware of these
common RACT deficiencies while establishing their RACT rules so
they can avoid future problems.
Under the pre—ainended Act, RACT was required for sources not
regulated by a CTG that have the potential to emit 100 tpy of a
regulated pollutant. Some States have mistakenly interpreted
this provision as applying to individual emissions units emitting
100 tpy or more, but EPA interprets “non—CTG source” as the
aggregate of all the nonregulated sources at the plant.
12
-------
Many proposed State regulations specif led a greater number
of RACT exemptions than those recommended in the CTG documents.
The exemption cutoff s established in some cases were not clearly
defined, which led to loose interpretations of the exemption
cutoffs. Many rules specified an inaccurate vapor pressure
cutoff, which resulted in some photochemically reactive VOC’s
escaping regulation.
Coating rules for VOC’s specify an emissions limit that is
usually expressed as kilograms (kg) of VOC/liter of coating (less
water and exempt solvents) (pounds of VOC/gallon (gal) of coating
(less water and exempt solvents)]. Many rules have not expressed
these limits as equivalent kg VOC/liter or pounds of VOC/gal of
solids as applied. The coating limit must be expressed in this
form (i.e., as-applied solids basis) in order to make a
compliance determination when cross-line averaging, emissions
trading, add-on control equipment, and/or credit for improved
transfer efficiency are allowed. Additionally, definitions
involved in a majority of VOC coating rules have been found to be
unacceptable or ambiguous.
Compliance time frames associated with a particular
emissions limit must be specified, and records must be kept
consistent with this compliance period to determine compliance
with the emission limitation. Missing or deficient records
render an accurate evaluation of compliance status impossible.
Also, the use of the most current EPA—approved test methods is
required, unless States submit alternative rnethods that are
formally approved as part of the SIP.
Model VOC PACT Rules
Model Federal VOC PACT rules are available to guide States
in developing rules for controlling VOC emissions from source
categories covered by CrG documents. A State may obtain a copy
of the model PACT rules from its EPA Regional Office. (See
reference 5.) These model rules will serve as the basis for
FIP’s for areas failing to completely address deficiencies in
their existing PACT rules. Most of the previously released CTG
documents do not contain compliance provisions. However, the
model PACT rules include provisions for compliance certification,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, as well as the test
methods and procedures that enable a determination of compliance
status. -
2.2 Mobile Source Regulations
In addition to stationary source controls, ozone
nonattainment areas must adopt rules to reduce emissions from
mobile sources. As with stationary source rules, effective State
mobile source control measures should follow the general criteria
outlined in section 2.0 of this document, which are the basis of
13
-------
any enforceable control program. Specific mobile source
provisions must be included in SIP’s for particular nonattairunent
area classifications. The measures that are required differ by
nonattainment area classification, and are outlined in the
General Preamble. (See reference 6.) It should be noted that
the RVP and reformulated gasoline programs are both Federal
programs that will go into effect without State action. There is
no statutory requirement that States adopt their own version of
these programs under State law. The following discussion
presents the various State and Federal mobile source programs and
refers the reader to the appropriate program development
guidance.
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs
The EPA is required to establish minimum performance
standards for I/M programs. Final regulations were published on
November 5, 1992 in the Federal Register . (See reference 7.)
Marginal ozone nonattaiñment areas with current or previously
required I/M programs are required to submit SIP revisions
necessary to meet EPA’S existing basic I/M program standards,
which will be specified in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S. Moderate
ozone nonattainment areas must implement a basic I/M program
regardless of whether an I/H program was previously required.
For areas classified as serious and above with a 1980 population
of 200,000 or more, an enhanced I/H program must be implemented.
This enhanced I/H plan must meet higher performance standards
than the basic I/H program. These standards, will also be
described in 40 CFR Part 51. In addition, guidance on the costs
and benefits of enhanced I/M programs has been released by EPA in
draft form. (See reference 8.) -
Stage II Vapor Recover , Control Programs
Owners or operators of gasoline dispensing systems that are
subject to Stage II controls are required to install gasoline
dispensing pump vapor control devices. 2 These systems are
designed to control VOC releases, including releases of benzene
and other toxics, during the refueling process of motor vehicles.
The Act mandates that all areas classified as moderate and above
for ozone nonattaininent implement a Stage II program as a control
measure. Two documents are available to guide States in
developing and implementing acceptable Stage II programs.
Technical information on Stage II programs is available in a 1991
2 Although Stage II technically is a stationary source
control measure, it is included with the mobile source
regulations in this document because the Office of Mobile Sources
is responsible for Stage II enforc ’nent activities. In addition,
EPA has recommended that the MOBILE5 model be used to calculate
emission factors for estimating refueling emissions.
14
-------
document entitled Technical Guidance — Stage II Vapor Recovery
Systems for Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities . (See reference 9.) A second document,
Enforcement Guidance for Staae II Vehicle Refueling Control
Programs (see reference 10), establishes the recommended elements
for an acceptable Stage II program. These criteria include:
• Establishment of training and public education
programs.
• Identification of facilities which will be subject to
Stage II requirements.
• Data collection (recordkeeping) to monitor compliance.
• Periodic inspections to ensure compliance.
• Establishment of appropriate penalties for sources
violating the regulations.
Stage II vapor recovery programs are rated based on an in—
use effectiveness value which is the control efficiency of the
system multiplied by the RE value determined for the system. The
RE value accounts for efficiency decreases associated with
defects in the installation and/or operation and maintenance of
the system. All Stage II systems certified in California have
been shown to operate with at least 95 percent control
efficiency, a value which must then be multiplied by the
appropriate RE value to yield the appropriate in—use
effectiveness value. For example, using the 80 percent default
RE value for a system that is certified upon installation would
yield an in—use-effectiveness value of 76percent (i.e., 0.80x
0.95). However, a State can use an 86 percent in-use
effectiveness value if no gasoline dispensing-facilities are
exempt from the Stage II requirements, all below—ground vapor
piping systems are 100 percent properly installed, and the vapor
piping systems are inspected annually. For details concerning
these requirements, the reader should refer to the technical
guidance cited previously.
Transportation Control Measures (TcM’s
According to the Act, TcM’s will likely be necessary
elements of control strategies for many nonattainment areas. A
listing of some of the possible measures to be implemented is
found in section 108(f) of the Act. These plans describe
strategies to reduce vehicle trips, induce changes in the type of
vehicles used, shift travel time, and/or improve traffic flow.
Two EPA documents comprise the guidance focusing on
identifying, evaluating, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing
Tal’s: Transportation Control Measures: State Implementation
15
-------
Plan Guidance (see reference 11), and Transportation Control
Measure Information Documents . (See reference 12.)
Transportation control measures should provide the following so
that EPA can approve the measures in a SIP submittal:
• A complete description of the measure and, if possible,
its estimated emissions reduction benefits.
• Evidence that the measure was properly adopted by a
jurisdiction(s) with legal authority to execute the
measure.
• Evidence that funding will be available to implement
the measure.
• Evidence that all necessary approvals have been
obtained from all appropriate government offices.
• Evidence that a complete schedule to plan, implement,
and enforce the measure has been adopted by the
implementing agencies.
• A description of any monitoring program to evaluate the
measure’s effectiveness and to allow for necessary in—
place corrections or alterations.
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP )
The Act mandates that EPA promulgate regulations pertaining
to the handling of gasoline with an RVP in excess of 9.0 psi
during the peak ozone season • In additi6n, :thè Aet further
states that EPA may not establish a standardlower than 9.0 p i
in an attainment area for ozone, unless the area had been
redesignated attainment from a former nonattajnaent area.
In the Phase II volatility rul making (see reference 13),
EPA established Federal RVP standards for 1992 and beyond; the
maximum RVP allowed under this rule is 9.0 psi. However, for
particular ozone nonattainment areas, EPA stipulates a standard
of 7.8 psi. The EPA recently revised this regulation on December
12, 1991, to conform with section 211(h) of the Act. (See
reference 14.)
The EPA document entitled Enforcement of Volatility
Reaulations — questions and Answers (see reference 15), addresses
questions concerning how EPA intends to implement and enforce the
gasoline volatility regulations. Topics cover the applicable RVP
standard, regulated parties, defenses, test and sampling methods,
inspections, and notice of violations. A final section deals
with the relationship between State volatility programs and
Federal volatility standards. A State may adopt and enforce a
more stringent RVP standard only if its SIP so provides. The EPA
16
-------
may approve such a SIP revision upon a finding that the more
stringent State RVP standard is necessary to achieve the
applicable NAAQS (section 211(c)(4)]. For a thorough description
of these issues and a listing of ozone nonattairiment areas and
their required RVP standards, refer to the above referenced
document.
Reformulated Gasoline Proaram
Section 2 11(k) of the Act mandates that EPA promulgate
regulations prohibiting the distribution and sale of conventional
gasoline in particular ozone nonattainment areas. The CAAA
require the sale of gasoline, that has been reformulated to be
less polluting, in the nine largest cities having designated
nonattainment areas with the highest ozone design values and any
nonattaizunent areas reclassified as severe. This prohibition
becomes effective January 1, 1995. Proposed provisions for the
reformulated gasoline program were published April 16, 1992 in
the Federal Register (FR). (See reference 16.) The Federal
reformulated gasoline program will be extended to additional
ozone nonattainment areas upon application of the Governor of the
State to EPA (“opt-in areas”).
2.3 Economic Incentive Programs (EIP’s)
Section 182(g) (4) (B) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate
rules for EIP’s. The proposed rules were published February 23,
1993 at 58 FR 11110. (See reference 17.) A State with an
extreme ozone nonattainment area must submit an EIP when it fails
to submit a milestone compliance demonstration or to meet an
applicable rate—of—progress milestone. In additionr EIP’ s’ are
identified as an-option for-States to .select.upon such fai1ür s
in serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas. Discretionary
EIP’s may be implemented by a State, as explicitly allowed for in
sections 110(a) (2) (A) .and 172(c) (6) of the Act, for stationary,
area, and mobile sources. The purpose of this section is to
briefly discuss the forthcoming EIP rules (for mandatory EIP’s)
and guidance (for discretionary EIP’s) as they will address some
of the general design and implementation issues related to
approvable EIP’s.
The EPA’s upcoming rules and guidance are intended to ensure
that EIP’s will result in real and quantifiable emissions
reductions and that such reductions will be surplus to reductions
required by, and credited to, other SIP provisions to avoid
double-cow ting of reductions. Additionally, the rules are
intended to ensure that such programs contain adequate and
appropriate compliance requirements to ensure that programs are
enforceable and that reductions are permanent within the time
frame specified in the program. The rules are not intended to
limit the flexibility and innovation of such programs.
17
-------
The creditability of emissions reductions obtained under
EIP’s toward the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirements
is discussed in the EPA document entitled Guidance on the
Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate-of-Proqress Plans and
Other provisions of the Clean Air Act . (See reference 18.)
States should keep in mind that reductions from EIP’s, must occur
bef ore November 15, 1996, to be creditable toward the 15 percent
VOC emissions reduction requirements. Post-1996 VOC reductions
from EIP’s will be addressed in forthcoming guidance on the post-
1996 rate-of—progress plans.
Baseline EIP Issues
Many types of EIP’s require an emissions level as a starting
point for the program. This baseline level is required to
administer the program and measure the program’s level of
compliance with its stated emissions reduction goal. The total
emissions level used as a starting point in an EIP is referred to
as the EIP baseline. For instance, a marketable allowance
program with an emissions cap must initially allocate some level
of allowable emissions to affected sources. After the program
begins, affected sources may adjust their individual emissions
cap by buying or selling emissions allowances from other sources.
All affected sources must periodically demonstrate that they are
in compliance with their emissions cap, as adjusted by trading.
The EPA is currently considering allowing the States
considerable flexibility in determining any baseline used as a
part of an Eli ). Under certain circumstances, a State may choose
to establish an EIP baseline different than 1990 actual
emissions. In such cases, an EIP baseline may be established as
a function of actual emissions, allowable emissions, a
combination of actual and allowable emissions, or some other
basis. A State may want to establish the EIP baseline based on a
consideration of equity, economic conditions, or political
viability. However, it should be noted that the State must use
the 1990 actual base year inventory as the baseline for the
State’s rate—of—progress plan. This issue is discussed in the
EPA document entitled Guidance on the Adiusted Base Year
Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Taraet for the 15 Percent Rate—
of-Proaress Plans . (See reference 19.)
Emissions Quantification
Economic incentive programs require the development and use
of accurate, reliable, and replicable methods to quantify
emissions, including baseline emissions. Such methods should
address:
• The general conceptual approach to quantification.
• The averaging time of the data to be used.
18
-------
• The means by which shutdowns; operational downtime;
and batch, seasonal, and cyclical operations are to
be accounted.
• Appropriate sources of data.
• The adequacy of the quality of the data.
The selected approach to emissions quantification should be
the most effective for a particular source type. Potential
approaches include direct measurement of emissions, either
continuously or periodically; equations which are a function of
process or control system parameters, ambient conditions, and
throughput or production rates; mass balance calculations which
are a function of inventory, usage, or disposal records; or any
combination of such approaches. It is expected that the
forthcoming rulemaking and guidance will not require the use of
any particular quantification approach, but will establish
criteria for selecting quantification approaches for different
general types of sources. This will help provide reasonable
certainty and consistency among programs with regard to emissions
quantification.
Long-Term Averaging
The EPA requires that typical summer weekday emissions be
used in constructing the rate—of—progress plan and attainment
demonstrations. States wishing to incorporate long—term
averaging (i.e., longer than 24—hours) to quantify emissions in
their EIP will be required to ensure that the EIP:
• Is consistent with the rate—of—progress plan and
attainment demonstrations.
• Is accompanied by a demonstration that the
aggregate effect in terms of daily emissions and
ambient pollutant concentrations is equivalent to
that which would be obtained with a 24—hour
averaging time.
• Contains additional constraints to ensure
equivalency with all applicable RACT requirements.
The EPA anticipates the need f or additional guidance on
criteria for equivalency demonstrations, outlining the type of
data that a State would need to demonstrate statistical
associations between short— and long—term averaging times.
19
-------
Criteria for Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Economic incentive programs are inherently more flexible and
less prescriptive than traditional technology or performance
standards and, therefore, depend more heavily on monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to ensure compliance and provide for
adequate enforcement. Because a wide range of monitoring methods
are available to show compliance for different sources, EPA
expects to leave the selection of the most appropriate approach
to the State in designing a program. However, EPA expects to
provide criteria on the selection of appropriate monitoring
methods, as well as recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
each affected source category.
The above discussion of EPA’S current position regarding
EIP’s is not official policy, but does reflect EPA’s current
approach towards developing the EIP rules. The final EIP rules,
when promulgated, may differ from the above discussion.
20
-------
3.0 RULE EFFECTIVENESS
Rule effectiveness (RE) reflects the ability of a regulatory
program to achieve all the emissions reductions that could have
been achieved by full compliance with the applicable regulations
at all sources at all times. The appropriate method for
determining and using RE depends upon the purpose of the
determination: control program compliance, SIP inventories, SIP
improvement creditability, and SIP progress. Many specific RE
applications may be generically referred to as RE. The following
common uses fall under the generic umbrella RE.
• Identifying and addressing weaknesses in control strategies
and regulations related to compliance and enforcement
activities is called compliance effectiveness. These
applications fall under the purview of EPA’S Stationary
Source Compliance Division (SScD).
• Improving the accuracy or representativeness of emission
estimates across a nonattairnuent area is called inventory
rule effectiveness. When used in a base year SIP (the usual
application), it is also called base year inventory RE.
When used for projections beyond the base year to develop
rate—of-progress plans and demonstrate attainment, it is
called projection year inventory RE.
• Rule effectiveness improvements are measures taken to
improve rule compliance and affect emission reductions as
part of a rate-of-progress emission reduction program.
• Measuring, defining, and refining the control strategy
process to achieve the- required emission reductions
designated in the CAA is more accurately called SIP
effectiveness.
This section provides background on all four elements of RE;
however, the discussion focuses on the determination of
compliance effectiveness. The EPA is developing detailed
guidance on the above applications of RE in a forthcoming
document entitled, Rule Effectiveness: Integration of Inventory
Compliance, and Assessment A p1ications . This document will be
released in the summer of 1993.
3.1 Compliance Effectiveness
Compliance effectiveness is a determination made to evaluate
the compliance (or noncompliance) of a particular source category
in a single geographic area using the SSCD Protocol Study
approach. The SSCD study methodology is detailed in a December
21, 1992 EPA memorandum. (See reference 20.) The study results
help to identify specific implementation problems which need to
be addressed by the State and EPA compliance and enforcement
21
-------
staff in order to achieve greater rule effectiveness in the
future.
Stationary Source Compliance Division (SSCD) Study
The SSCD Study procedure consists of two phases. The first
phase involves field inspection of a representative number of
sources, whereby all applicable rules and policies are identified
and a determination of compliance status is made. The second
phase involves an office evaluation of the specific components of
rule implementation. The RE and compliance effectiveness
calculations are based on a comparison of actual emissions to the
allowable emissions for sources included in the study. Emissions
must be documented and the calculations must be based on
emissions testing, sampling, and usage data. The SIP
effectiveness calculations are based on a comparison of baseline,
current and projected emissions as determined in the base year
inventory, the current emissions inventory and projections of
uncontrolled growth and emissions after control by the
regulation.
Starting in 1989, RE studies were performed for single point
source categories according to the SSCD study protocol. The most
prominent implementation problems revealed in the studies
involved:
• Inspection frequency.
• Compliance determinations.
• Inspection thoroughness.
• Regulation exemptions.
• Variances.
• Permit loopholes.
• Reporting and recordkeeping discrepancies.
• Procedures to identify unregistered (or unknown)
sources that are subject to regulation.
While the SSCD study provides a good indication of the
compliance of a certain source category, it cannot be used to
determine compliance status per Se. In other words, it cannot be
used as an enforcement I subjecting sources with an RE value
below a certain limit to fines or sanctions. Section 4 of this
document discusses EPA’ s provisions for determining source
compliance.
22
-------
3.2 Inventory Rule Effectiveness
Base year inventory RE is an adjustment to estimated
emissions data to account for emission underestimates due to
compliance failures and the inability of most inventory
techniques to include these failures in an emission estimate.
The RE adjustment is a category-specific, emission adjustment
applied to both point and area sources operating under emission
control rules. By definition, all source categories for which a
regulation exists should have an RE value between zero and 100
percent. Inherent in past emissions inventories was the
assumption that regulatory programs are 100 percent effective.
However, EPA has determined that 100 percent RE is uncommon.
Therefore, actual emissions reported in the SIP were
underestimated because RE was overestimated. Guidance is
available on the estimation and application RE values to the base
year emissions inventory. (See reference 21.)
Rule effectiveness must also be factored into the projected
inventories that support the SIP rate—of—progress plans. New
control measures cannot be assumed to be 100 percent effective;
the emissions estimates based on the emission control strategies
must account for the same effects of noncompliance as did the
base year inventory.
3.3 Rule Effectiveness Improvements
A rule effectiveness improvement is an ..improvement in the
implementation of a rule for a regulatory program. It refers to
a comparison of the implementation of the rules before the
improvement to the implementation of the rules after the -
improvement. Rule effectiveness improvements must reflect actual
emissions reductions. An RE improvement can take several forms,
ranging from more frequent and in depth training of inspectors to
larger fines for sources that do not comply with a given rule.
The purpose of an RE improvement is to provide States with
additional measures to achieve actual emission reductions for
their SIP’S.
Achieving creditable emissions reductions through RE
improvements is discussed in the EPA document entitled Guidance
for Growth Factors. Prolections and Control StratecTies for the 15
Percent Rate-of—Proqress Plan . (See reference 22.) More
detailed information will be provided in the forthcoming document
entitled, “Rule Effectiveness: Integration of Inventory,
Compliance, and Assessment Applications.”
3.4 SIP Effectiveness
SIP effectiveness is defined as the ability of the
attainment plan to achieve the planned emissions reductions. It
is estimated by comparing actual emissions reductions to the
23
-------
projected emissions reductions. By contrast, RE estimates the
degree to which an existing rule is working. High SIP
effectiveness may be due to over compliance, unrelated source
process changes, or overestimated growth. Low SIP effectiveness
may be caused by inadequate rules; poor compliance, emission
violations, variances, and enforcement problems; and unrealistic
baseline emissions, or underestimated growth. SIP effectiveness
evaluations can be used in con]unction with compliance program
effectiveness to determine where implementation, emission
projections and/or rule development resulted in emission
shortfalls. Evaluating SIP effectiveness during implementation
of measures contained in the 15 percent rate—of—progress plan (or
attainment plan) may provide the State information to enable
revision of the SIP as necessary to achieve the emissions
reductions originally contemplated.
24
-------
4.0 DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITB EPA REGULATIONS
The degree of compliance with established VOC regulations is
a significant factor in determining whether the emissions
reductions required under the rate—of-progress plan will be
achieved. Data collected and reported under monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements will assist in
certifying the emissions reductions. This section discusses
existing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting provisions and
briefly describes the forthcoming enhanced monitoring (EM) 3 and
compliance certification (CC) regulations.
4.1. Current Regulations Related to Compliance
Certain sources are already required under new source
performance standards to conduct monitoring and submit reports
detailing compliance and performance test methods. These
standards and the specific sources to which they apply are
described in 40 CFR Part 60. (See reference 23.) General source
surveillance provisions are ‘outlined in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart K
(see reference 24), including the emissions monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of SIP’S. Continuous
emissions monitoring is required for a small number of specific
source types under this regulation. In addition, some CrG
documents provide recommended monitoring and recordiceeping
provisions for the applicable source category. The forthcoming
EM and CC regulations described below are being developed to
complement and expand upon the above mentioned rules, targeting
the most significant sources of air pollution.
4.2 Enhanced Monitoring and Compliance Certification Regulations
Enhanced monitoring refers to monitoring by a source to
certify continuous compliance -with emissions iimitatIons and
standards. “Enhanced” means modified, if necessary, -to meet the
specifications outlined by the forthcoming EM regulations as
required by the CAAA. When promulgated, the EM regulations
combined with the CC requirements of Part 70 viii mandate which
sources must certify compliance, how they must certify
compliance, and how often they must certify compliance. In
accordance with section 114(a) of the Act, this certification is
anticipated to apply to pollutants for which the source has been
defined as major, occur no less than annually, and be based on
information collected by an enhanced monitoring protocol. The
necessary components that must be contained in a compliance
certification include:
3 Enhanced monitoring in this context refers to specific
monitoring requirements for stationary sources and should not be
confused with enhanced air quality monitoring.
25
-------
• Identification of the applicable requirement that is
the basis of the certification.
• The method used for determining the compliance status
of the source.
• The compliance status.
• Whether compliance is continuous or intermittent.
It is expected that the EM regulations will be implemented
primarily through the Title V operating permit program. The
objective of the operating permit program is to implement, and to
ensure compliance with, the stationary source requirements of the
Act. Monitoring, recordiceeping, and reporting are some of the
required elements of permits issued for a regulated source. The
forthcoming EM regulations will further clarify these
requirements as they relate to the Title V operating permit
program.
An enhanced monitoring protocol may include all sampling,
measurement, analysis, recording, recordkeeping, and reporting
devices or procedures; and all testing, calibration, operation
and maintenance, data reduction, calculation, quality assurance,
and corrective action procedures. An enhanced monitoring
protocol provides a reasonable level of assurance that any period
of noncompliance will be detected.
Under the EM rules, the source owner or operator will
propose an enhanced monitoring protocol based on the selection
criteria outlined in the rules. If an adequate monitoring system
4.s not in place for an existing source, the permit application
must describe plans to establish an approvable protocol.
Permitting authorities.wil-ltdetermine whether or not the proposed
enhanced monitoring protocol meets the enhanced monitoring
criteria. New sources will be required to adopt EM requirements
in preconstruct ion permits.
The EPA will not specify a particular type of monitoring
protocol for each source category. However, certain criteria
will be included in the EM regulations to ensure that a
monitoring protocol is sufficiently reliable. It is important to
note that certain sources are already required under other
established regulations to employ an approvable enhanced
monitoring protocol. (See reference 24.)
In certain cases, recordkeeping may serve as part of the
enhanced monitoring protocol to determine compliance (e.g., where
compliant coatings are used to meet a VOC standard at an
uncontrolled source). Alternatively, sources may select process
or control system parameter monitoring protocols provided they
can be correlated to the emissions limit. Permits for sources
26
-------
using process or control monitoring protocols must specify an
operating parameter standard that will be maintained. For
example, the permit might stipulate a minimum operating
temperature for an incinerator. Another option for sources, when
choosing a monitoring protocol, is a continuous emissions
monitoring system that employs a direct emissions monitoring
technique. Continuous emissions monitoring systems designed to
monitor VOC emissions are available and may be used to certify
compliance.
27
-------
S
REFERENCES
1. 57 FR 32250. “State Operating Permit Program; Final Rules.”
July 21, 1992.
2. “Volatile Organic Compounds Rules for Reasonably Available
Control Technology,” Memorandum from G.T. Helms, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ozone/CO Programs Branch,
Research Triangle Park, NC, to Regional Division Directors.
June 24, 1992.
3. Guidance for Growth Factors Projections, and Control
Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-of—Progress Plans ,
EPA-452/R-93—002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, NC. March 1993.
4. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies.
and Deviations . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC. May 1988.
5. Reference 2.
6. 57 FR 13498. “General Preamble, Implementation of Title I,
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.” April 16, 1992.
7. 57 FR 52950. “Inspection and Maintenance Program
Requirements.” November 5, 1992.
8. I/N Costs. Benefits. Impacts and Analysis . Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources,
Ann Arbor, MI. February 1992.
9. Technical Guidance — Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for
Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities . EPA—450/3—91—022a. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
November 1991.
10. Enforcement Guidance for Staae II Vehicle Refue1in Control
Programs . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Mobile Sources, Ann Arbor, MI. October 1991.
11. Transportation Control Measures: State Im 1ementation Plan
Guidance . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC. September 1990.
12. Transportation Control Measure Information Documents . U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources,
Ann Arbor, MI. March 1992. -
29
-------
13. 55 FR 23666. “Volatility Regulations for Gasoline and
Alcohol Blends Sold in Calendar Years 1992 and Beyond.”
June 11, 1990.
14. 56 FR 64704. “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
Standards for Gasoline Volatility.” December 12, 1991.
15. Enforcement of Volatility Reaulations —— Questions and
Answers . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Mobile Sources, Field Operations and Support Division, Ann
Arbor, MI. May 1992. -
16. 57 FR 13416. “Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives;
Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline.”
April 16, 1992.
17. 58 FR 11110. “Economic Incentive Program Rules.” February
23, 1993.
18. Guidance on the Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate—of—
Progress Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act ,
EPA-452/R-93-007, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, NC. May 1993.
19. Guidance on the Adlusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and
the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate-of—Progress Plan ,
EPA-452/R-92-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, NC. October 1992.
20. “Revised Rule Effectiveness National Protocol,” Memorandum
from John B. Rasnic, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Stationary Source Control Division, Washington, DC, to EPA
Regional Office Division Directors. December 21, 1992.
21. Guidelines for Estimatina and Airnlvina Rule Effectiveness
for Ozone/CO State Im plementation Plan Base Year
Inventories . EPA—452/R-92-O1O. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch,
Research Triangle Park, NC. November 1992.
22. Reference 3.
23. 40 CYR Part 60. Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources .
24. 40 CFR Part 5].. Reauirements for Preparation, Adoption, and
Submittal of Implementation Plans .
30
-------
APPENDIX A: DEFINITION OF TERMS
This appendix provides the specific definitions of EPA terms
as they are used in this guidance. Different EPA programs
sometimes use different definitions of the same term (e.g., major
source). This appendix notes where conflicts occur in the
definition of a term used in this guidance. These definitions
are presented for the purposes of this guidance document only;
the reader is advised to refer to specific regulations, policies,
and sections of the Act to obtain complete definitions for the
program or title of interest.
Attainment Demonstration Moderate and above ozone nonattaininent
areas must demonstrate that the reductions specified in the
revised SIP will result in modeled air quality for the
nonattainment area that achieves attainment by the applicable
attainment date. This requirement can be met through the
application of an EPA-approved model and EPA-approved modeling
techniques described in the current version of the Guidance on
Air Quality Models, 4 which is currently under revision. Two
models are suggested: the UAM or the Empirical Kinetic Modeling
Approach (EKMA). The EPA requires the submittal of attainment
demonstrations employing U1 }1 for serious and above areas and
multi-State moderate areas as part of the SIP revision due by
November 15, 1994. Attainment demonstrations based on EKMA for
moderate nonattainment areas within a single state (intrastate
moderate areas) must be submitted as part of the SIP revision due
by November 15, 1993, unless the State chooses to use UAI4, in
which case the demonstration must be submitted as part of the SIP
revision due by November 15, 1994. The use of EKMA is described
in Guideline for Use of City-Specific E 1A in Preparing Ozone
SIP’s, as well as the aforementioned guideline that is under•
revision. This document, and the appropriate Regional Office,
should be consulted before an analysis is conducted with this
modeling approach. The use of UAN is described in Guideline for
Regulatory A p1ication of the Urban Airshed Model.’
‘ Guidance on Air Quality Models (Revised) , EPA—450/2—78—
027R, July 1986 (currently under revision).
5 Guideline for Use of City—Specific ERMA in Preoarina Ozone
SIP’s , EPA-450/4—80-027, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1980.
‘ Guideline for Regulatory A lication of the Urban Airshed
Model , EPA-450/4—91—013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
A-].
-------
Attainment Determination The EPA must determine within 6 months
after the applicable attainment date whether an area has attained
the NAAQS for ozone. The attainment dates are as follows:
• Marginal areas —— November 15, 1993.
• Moderate areas —- November 15, 1996.
• Serious areas —— November 15, 1999.
• Severe areas —— November 15, 2005 (severe areas
with a 1986-1988 ozone design value
of 0.190 up to, but not including
0.280 parts per million have until
November 15, 2007).
• Extreme areas —- November 15, 2010.
In making the attainment determination, EPA will use the most
recently available, quality—assured air quality data covering the
3—year period preceding the attainment date. For ozone, the
average number of exceedances per year after adjustment for
missing data are used to determine whether the area has attained.
Basic Inspection and Maintenance (I/Mi Programs requiring the
inspection of vehicles including, but not limited to, measurement
of tailpipe emissions, and mandating that vehicles with tailpipe
emissions higher than the program cutpoints be repaired to pass a
tailpipe emissions retest. Basic I/M programs must be at least
as stringent as the requirements set out in section 182 (a) (2) (B).
Compliance Certification A demonstration of compliance through
the use of an enhanced monitoring protocol, adhering to the
provisions outlined in section 114(a) of the Act.
Compliance certification Report A report submitted by a ..
stationary source to the permitting authority at least annually,
demonstrating compliance with the applicable requirements ôf ‘the
CAAA.
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System The equipment used to
sample, analyze, and provide a permanent record of emissions on a
continuous basis.
Control Techniaue Guideline (CTG ) Documents prepared by EPA to
meet the requirements of section 108 of the Act which recommend
RACT for particular categories of stationary sources • These
include 29 CTG’S published prior to 1990 and 13 new CTG’s
mandated by section 183 of the Act. These documents provide
information relating to the cost of installation and operation,
the emissions reduction benefits, energy requirements, and the
environmental effects of reasonably available emissions reduction
techniques applicable to a particular category of existing
sources. Each CTG category document recommends RACT controls
based on the “presumptive norm” for a particular source category.
A-2
-------
Enhanced InsDectjon and Maintenance A program including, at a
minimum, computerized emissions analyzers, on—road testing,
denial of waivers for warranted vehicles or repairs related to
tampering, a $450 cost waiver requirement for emissions-related
repairs not covered by warranty, and inspection of the emissions
control diagnostic system (when required by EPA). In addition,
enforcement through registration denial, annual inspections, and
centralized testing are required, unless less stringent measures
can be proven fully effective by the State (or, in the case of
enforcement, more effective).
Enhanced Monitoring The monitoring of emissions limitations and
standards by a source to certify compliance. “Enhanced” refers
to modified, if necessary, to meet the requirements described
below for an enhanced monitoring protocol.
Enhanced Monitoring Protocol An enhanced monitoring protocol may
include all sampling, measurement, analysis, recording,
recordkeeping and reporting devices or procedures; and all
testing, calibration, operation and maintenance, data reduction,
calculation, quality assurance, and corrective action procedures.
Major Stationary Source The Act has multiple definitions for
major stationary sources depending upon the nonattainment
classification and the pollutant. Section 302 of the Act defines
a major stationary source as one that directly emits, or has the
potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant. As
exceptions to this rule, major stationary source emissions
thresholds, as defined in Part D of Title 1of the Act, are
listed in Table A-i for both VOC and NO 1 sources.
Reasonably Available Control Technoloav (RACT ) The lowest
emissions limit that a particular source is capable of achieving
by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available, considering technological and economic feasibility.
RACT “Catch-ups ” The application of RACT for all applicable
sources as listed in section 182(b) (2), regardless of what was
previously required. Each moderate and above ozone nonattairunent
area (as well as attainment areas within the ozone transport
region) are subject to the PACT “catch—up” requirement of section
182 (b) (2). The new law requires any of the above areas that had
not previously been required to adopt RACT consistent with all of
the CTG’s to “catch-up” and apply PACT to all sources covered by
a preenactment or post—enactment CTG document. Many of these
areas were not previously required to apply PACT to sources
covered by Group III CTG’s (CTG’s published after September
1982). In addition, areas previously considered rural
A-3
-------
TABLE A-i. MAJOR SOURCE THRESHOLDS FOR OZONE
NONATTAINMENT AREA CLASSIFICATIONS
Ozone Nonattainment Area
VOC
(tpy) 6
NO
(tpy) 6
Extreme
•
10
10
Severe
25
25
Serious
50
50
Moderate
100
100
Moderate, in an Ozone Transport
Region
50
100
Marginal
100
100
Marginal, in an Ozone Transport
Region
50
100
All Other Nonattaininent Areas,
an Ozone Transport Region 7
outside of
100
100
All Other Nonattainment Areas, in an Ozone
Transport Region 7
Attainment, in an Ozone Transport Region :
100
50
100
100
6 tpy = tons per year
7 The other nonattainment areas are submarginal, transitional, and
incomplete/no data. -
A-4
-------
nonattainment, which had to apply PACT only to certain major
sources in certain CTG categories under prior policy, will have
to revise their SIP’s to apply PACT to all sources, including
noninajor sources, that are covered by any CTG. The PACT “catch-
up” provision also requires these nonattainment areas to adopt
PACT rules for all major sources not covered by a CTG.
Additional information on the RACT “catch—up” program will be
provided in forthcoming guidance regarding the interaction of
RACT rules with emissions inventories.
PACT “Fix—uDs ” Corrections States are required to make under
section 182(a) (2) (1) to their current RACT rules to make up for
deficiencies (e.g., improper exemptions) in pre—amendment plans.
Under PACT “fix-ups,” States are required to have PACT rules that
comply with section 172(b) of the pre—1990 Act, as interpreted by
EPA’s pre—amendment guidance. Since the RACT “fix—up” provisions
refer to PACT as required by pre-amended section 172 (b), only
areas subject to pre—ainended section 172 (b) need to meet the PACT
“fix—up” requirement. Therefore, for nonattaininent areas that
will be expanded to contain regions that were designated
attainment prior to enactment, the PACT corrections are only for
the original nonattainment area. The PACT “fix-up” provision
essentially codifies EPA’s SIP calls, issued in May 1988 and
November 1989 (as announced in the Federal Reaister on September
7, 1988 (53 FR 34500) and July 30, 1990 (55 FR 30973)]. The PACT
fix—ups were due on May 15, 1991. Between May 24 and June 24,
1991, EPA’s Regional offices mailed letters to several Governors
and air agency officials concerning the progress of the States in
meeting PACT “fix—up” requirements and listing the outstanding
deficiencies that still had not been corrected. Additional
information on the PACT “fix-up” program will be provided in
forthcoming. guidance regarding the interaction of PACT rules with
emissions inventories.
Rate-of-Proaress Plan The portion of the SIP revision due by
November 15, 1993, that describes how moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas plan to achieve the 15 percent VOC emissions
reduction. All moderate intrastate areas that choose to utilize
the EXMA in their attainment demonstration, are also required to
include their attainment demonstration in this SIP revision.
Reformulated Gasoline A blend of gasoline that is certified as
meeting all the requirements applicable to reformulated gasoline.
These requirements have been proposed as 40 CFR Part 80,
Subpart D, and include:
• At least 2.0 percent oxygen by weight.
• No more than 1.0 percent benzene by volume.
• No heavy metals, absent a waiver by EPA.
• No increase in NO emissions from baseline vehicles.
A-5
-------
• Required reductions in emissions of ozone forming
VOCI S.
• Required reductions in toxics emissions.
Compliance with the emissions requirements is determined by
comparing emissions of baseline vehicles (representative model
year 1990 motor vehicles) using a baseline gasoline (specified in
section 211(k) of the Act] with emissions of baseline vehicles
using the reformulated gasoline. The EPA’S proposed regulations
provide for the use of credits to meet the above requirements
under specified circumstances.
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP ) A maximum gasoline volatility level
established to reduce summertime gasoline volatility. Depending
on the area, gasoline RVP may not exceed 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi
between May 1 and September 15, beginning in 1992. Regulations
established by EPA are published in 40 CFR Part 80.
Rule Effectiveness (RE ) For stationary sources, a measure of the
extent to which a regulatory program achieves emissions
reductions. An RE of 100 percent reflects a regulatory program
achieving all the emissions reductions that could be achieved by
full compliance with the applicable regulations at all sources at
all times. However, regulations typically are not 100 percent
effective due to limitations of control techniques or
shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement process. The
EPA allows the use of several different methods for determining
RE including an 80 percent default value, results from EPA
questionnaires, and results from an SSCD study.
Stage II Gasoline dispensing devices that control VOC vapor
releases during the refueling of motor vehicles. This process
takes the vapors that would otherwise be emitted directly into
the atmosphere during refueling, and redirects them back into the
fuel storage tanks.
Transportation Control Measure (TCM ) Any program that
encompasses elements of transportation system management and/or
transportation demand management. Transportation system
management strategies generally refer to the use of low capital
intensive transportation improvements to increase the efficiency
of transportation facilities and services. Transportation demand
management generally refers to policies, programs, and actions
that are directed towards increasing the use of high occupancy
vehicles (transit, carpooling, and vanpooling) and the use of
bicycling and walking. Section 108(f) of the Act lists the
following programs as examples of TcM’s:
• Accelerated retirement of vehicles.
• Activity centers.
• Area-wide ridesharing.
• Bicycling alternatives to motor vehicle travel.
A-6
-------
• Employer—based transportation management programs.
• Limitations on extended vehicle idling.
• Control of extreme low-temperature cold starts.
• High occupancy vehicle lanes.
• Park and ride and fringe parking.
• Parking management programs.
• Minimization of congestion during special events.
• Traffic flow improvements.
• Transit improvements.
• Trip-reduction ordinances.
• Vehicle use limitations/restrictions.
• Work schedule changes.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC ) Any compound of carbon,
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid,
metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, which
participates in atmospheric photocheinical reactions. This
includes any organic compound other than those EPA has determined
to have neg .igible photochemical reactivity. 8
857 Federal Register 3945, February 3, 1992.
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B:
CHECKLIST FOR DETERMINING THE ACCEPTABILITY OF STATE RULES
1. Does the rule clearly cite the State’s correct authority for
rulemaking?
____YES NO
2. Does the rule include any uncorrected deficiencies as
specified in a SIP-call?
____YES ____NO
3. Does the rule clearly define which sources are subject to
the rule?
____YES ____NO
4. Does the rule document the State’s authority to install,
maintain, and use emissions monitoring and control devices?
____YES ____NO
5. Are all applicable requirements identified in the permit:
Emissions limits? ____YES ____NO
Averaging times? ____YES ____NO
Compliance schedule? ____YES ____NO
Monitoring? ____YES ____NO
Recordkeeping? ____YES ____NO
Reporting? ____YES ____NO
Operation and maintenance? ____YES ____NO
Test requirements?’ ____YES ____NO
6. Is the required test method explicitly stated in the rule?
____YES ____NO
‘For examples of approved test methods, see “Test Methods or
Procedures for Group I, II, and III CTG’s” in: Issues Relatinc to
VOC Requlatjons. Cutpoints. Deficiencies, and Deviations , EPA,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Program Branch, Air Quality Management
Division, Office of Air Quality Management, May 25, 1988.
B—i
-------
7. Is the averaging time in the compliance test method
explicitly stated in the rule?
____YES ____NO
8. Is the averaging time used in the rule consistent with
protecting the ambient standard (i.e., equal to or shorter
than the time associated with the standard)?
____YES NO
9. If bubbling or averaging is allowed, is there an explicit
description in the rule of how averaging, bubbling or
equivalency is to be determined?
____YES ____NO
10. Do requests for extended averaging times for VOC sources
include the criteria outlined in John O’Connor’s January 20,
1984 memo titled “Averaging Times for Compliance with VOC
Emission Limits - SIP Revision Policy?”
____YES ____NO
11. Is the compliance date no later than the approved date of
attainment?
____YES ____NO
12. Does the State require the source to keep records sufficient
to enable a determination of compliance status?
____YES ____NO
13. Are the units of compliance (e.g., pounds of VOC/gal of
coating minus water and exempt solvents) clearly stated in
the rule?
____YES ____NO
14. If a compliance calculation is required to determine
compliance, is the formula stated in the rule?
____YES ____NO
B-2
-------
15. Does the rule affirmatively require records to be kept and
reports made? Categories of records are:
Monitoring provisions for
add-on control ____YES ____NO
Quantity of each coating used ____YES ____NO
Solids and solvents content of
each coating used ____YES ____NO
Allowable and actual emissions ____YES ____NO
Transfer efficiencies ____YES ____NO
Hours of operation of each line ____YES ____NO
16. Is it clear in what units and on what time basis the
records/reports must be kept/reported?
____YES ____NO
17. Does the frequency of recordkeeping coincide with
emissions/production averaging time?
____YES ____NO
18. Are the allowable exemptions clearly defined and
distinguished from what constitutes a violation?
YES ____NO
19. Is the calculation procedure for exemption clearly speci ied
in the rule?
____YES ____NO
20. Does the rule include malfunction provisions specifying what
exceedance may be excused?
____YES ____NO
B-3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
28JUL 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Correction Errata to the 15 Percent Rate—of-Progress
Plan Guidance Series
FROM: G.T. Helms, Chief
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch ( -i5)
TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I—X
This memorandum corrects several errors in the 15 percent
rate—of—progress plan guidance series.
1. There is an error in the Table entitled, “Major Source
Thresholds and Minimum Emissions Offset Ratio Requirements for
Ozone Nonattairunent Area Classifications,” in the following 15
percent guidance documents:
• “Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory
and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress
Plans” (EPA—452/R—92—005), p. A—3. -
• “Guidance for Growth. Factors, Projections, and Control
Strategies f or the 15 Percent Rate—of—Progress Plans”
(EPA—452/R—93—002), p. A—3.
• “Guidance on the Relationship Between the 15 Percent
Rate—of—Progress Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean
Air Act” (EPA—452/R—93—007), p. 12.
• “Guidance on Preparing Enforceable Regulations and
Compliance Programs for the 15 Percent Rate—of-Progress
Plans” (EPA—452/R—93—005), p. A—4.
The error is in the item, “All Other Nonattainment Areas, in an
Ozone Transport Region.” The volatile organic compounds tons per
year (tpy) should be 50 tpy rather than 100 tpy.
2. The document entitled “Guidance on the Relationship
Between the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress. Plans and Other
Provisions of the Clean Air Act” (EPA—4521R-93—007), has an error
concerning the creditability of certain transportation control
measures. Section 5.8 of this document states the following on
page 39:
1
U.
0
-------
2
Emissions reductions resulting from TCM’s are
creditable if the T M is not already
federally mandated (e.g., the employee trip
reduction program required under section
182 (d) (1) (B) for severe and extreme ozone
nonattainment areas), or is not part of an
already existing SIP. As with all other
emissions reductions, emissions reductions
associated with TcM’s are only creditable to
the 15 percent rate-of-progress plan if they
are quantifiable, real, enforceable,
replicable, accountable, and occur by
November 15, 1996.
The correction revises the first sentence of the preceding
paragraph:
Emissions reductions resulting from TcM’s are
creditable if the T M was not a pre—1990
control measure in an already existing SIP.
As with all other emissions reductions,
emissions reductions associated with TcM’s
are, only creditable to the 15 percent rate-
of-progress plan if they are quantifiable,
real, enforceable, replicable, accountable,
and occur by November 15, 1996.
3. In the document, “Guidance for Growth Factors,
Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate—of—
Progress Plans” (EPA-452/R-93-002, March 1993), there are several
errors in Chapter 6.
a. On page 55, the text under the table, last sentence,
“The ((20O—RE )/1O0] factor is not valid for low RE values”
is incorrect and should be deleted.
b. On page 57, the sentence before the heading, “Equation 5
- Projection calculated from permitted emissions rates,”
(“The ((200 - RE)/100] factor is not valid for low RE
values”) is incorrect and should be deleted.
c. On page 57, the second and third paragraphs under the
heading, “Equation 5 - Projection calculated from permitted
emissions rates,” should read as follows:
-------
3
The equation for projecting emissions in this case is:
[ (200— REPY )
EMIS = ER [ 100 * EMISBYO ] (5)
( 200 1? Ear ) BY,Anrnial J
100
where: EMIS = Projection year emissions ozone
season typical weekday (mass of
pollutant/day)
ER = Projection year annual emissions
cap (mass of pollutant/year)
BY = Base year RE (percent)
RE = Projection year RE (percent)
EMIS 0 = Base year ozone season typical
weekday emissions (mass of
pollutant/day)
EMISBY,A UI I = Base year annual emissions (mass of
pollutant/year)
The factor EMIS , 0 /EMIS y , converts the long—term annual
emissions cap to an ozone season typical weekday emissions cap
using the ratio of base year. ozone season typical weekday to
annual emissions. Note that the mass units (i.e., tons, pounds)
must be equivalent in both terms. These projections must also
account for RE. The factor, “((200 — RE)/100],” adjusts
emissions for RE. See the. explanatIon under- equation (2) for
additional information about this factor.
d. On page 65 under: “6. Mass Emissions Limit—Based
Permits,” the second and third paragraphs should be replaced
with the following:
The long—term annual limits will be used for emissions
projections since these are more representative of expected
rather than maximum activity. These limits must be
converted to reflect ozone season typical weekday
conditions. Annual limits are converted using the ratio of
base year ozone season emissions to base year annual
emissions.
Base Year Operating Conditions
Ozone season emissions = 150 lb/day = 0.075 tons/day
Annual emissions = 23 tpy
RE =80%
Projection Year Conditions
Current permit = 30 tpy
RE =80%
-------
4
Equation (5) is used to calculate projection year emissions
as follows:
( 200 - REPI !)
100 f EMISy
F2vJIS , = ER * B . (5)
( 200 — BY ) I. EMIS 8 y g.. 1
100
[ (200 — 80) 1
EMZS = 30 * f(200—80) ] * [ 0.075 ] = 0.098 tons/day= 196
100
Please share this information with your State and local air
pollution control agencies. Any questions about these
corrections may be addressed to Kiinber Scavo at (919) 541-3354 or
Laurel Schultz at (919) 541—5511.
cc: William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCQ
Kent Berry, AQMD
John Bosch, TSD
Ogden Gerald, TSD
Phil Lorang, 014S
Ned Meyer, TSD
David Misenheimer, TSD
David Mobley, TSD
Carla Oldham, AQMD
Rich Ossias, OGC
David Sanders, AQMD
Ki]nbér Scavo, AQMD
Laurel Schultz, AQMD
John Seitz, OAQPS
John Silvasi, AQMD
Joe Tikvart, TSD
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
Dick Wilson, OMS
Mary Ann Warner-Selph, TSD
Howard Wright, TSD
-------
itO !
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 7
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
S44 , tdF
MJB 23 I 3
AI AND ftADIATION
M (ORANDUM
SUS JECT: Guidance on Issues Related to 15 Percent Rate—of-
Progress Plans
FROM: Michael H. Shapiro I
Acting Assistant A ministrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR—443)
TO: Director, Air Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Divis±on,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division.
Regions VII, VIII, IX , and X
As you )cnew, section 182(b) (1) of the Clean Air Act (Act)
requires States to submit, by November 15, 1993 for all ozone
nonattainmerit areas classified as moderate and above, a State
implementation plan (SIP) that provides for a 15 percent
Juct * .Ln emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) by
November 15, 1996. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide
guidance related to these SIP submissions.
Committal SIP’ffi for 15 Percent Plan Control Measures
.vSzal States asked to what extent will the Environmental
ProtecU Q1a. Agency (EPA) accept committal SIP’S for the measures
necessáj to achieve the 15 percent reduction. Under section
110(k) I () of the Act, EPA has the authority to conditionally
approve a SIP submittal based on a commitment by the State to
adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain. A
previous memorandum identified specific cases in which EPA would
accept commitments for submittals which veze due by November 15,
1992. For the 15 percent rate-of-progress plane, EPA will not
allow commitments to adopt the measures needed to meet the 15
percent reduction requirement and any such plans would not be
considered approvable.
c: s1.a% m.I
-------
2
f9x Substitution for Continaencv Measures
Section 3.72(c) (9) of the Act requires moderate and above
ozone nonattairunent areas to adopt contingency measures by
November 15, 1993. These measures would have to be implemented
if the area fails to make reasonable further progress (RPP) or to
attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the
applicable attainment dat .. In addition, section 182(c) (9) of
the Act requires serious and above areas to adopt contingency
measures which would be implemented if the area fails to meet any
applicable milestone. When triggered, the contingency measures
must be implemented without further action by the State or the
EPA.
The “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 3.990” (57 FR 13498, April 2.6,
1992) requires that the contingency measures generally must
provide reductions of 3 percent of the emissions from the
adjusted baee ycar inventory. The reductions must be achieved in
the year following that in which the failure has been identified.
Thzs. percent represents 1 year’s worth cC redi ctions under the
post—1995 rate-cf-progress requirement.
The contingency measures that are required to be adopted by
November 15, 1993 are for both failure to achieve RIP and failure
to attain. While the contingency measures to address failure to
achieve RIP must be for VOC, the contingency measures for failure
to attain may be for VOC and/or NOx. Since these measures will
be implemented after 19.96, and because these measures serve two
purposes (i.e., failur, to achieve RIP and failure to attain),
the contingency measures could provide for less than 3 percent in
VOC reductions as long as some of the measures are for VOC and
the area would have the difference (up to 3 percent) in NOx
reducti ps Based on discussions with EP A’s Office of General
1 nsei, ‘ e have determined that States must adopt a minimum of
0.3 percent in VOC measures of the 3 percent contingency measure
requirement to be legally defensible. Therefore, in an area that
has demonstrated that NOx controls ar. needed for attainment, 2.7
percent of the required 3 percent could be NOx contingency
measures; at least 0.3 percent must still be voc to cover the
contingsmcy requirement for meeting RIP. Note that this applies
to modrnt.. areas as well; moderate areas must submit an
approva$. plan that shows how they will achieve the 15 percent
requir.á nt but are not required to submit a demonstration that
the milestone was achieved. Moderate areas, of course, must
demonstrate that they have attained the NAAQS for ozone by
November 15, 1996.
-------
UU4/tJlj
3
In order for NOx contingency measures to be acceptable, the
State must ad2 .re to EPA’s forthcoming guidance on P Ox
substitution. In addition, States must show with modeling
evidence that NOx reductions are needed in a particular
nonattainasnt area. Therefore, in order to give States enough
time to Consult EPA’S guidance On NOx substitution and to
determine if NOx reductions are needed, EPA viii accept
cojttal. for contingency measures that are due November 15,
1993. If the contingency measures themselves an, not included
with the November 15, 1993 submittal, that submittal must include
a commitment, with schedule, for contingency measures to be
adopted by November 15, 1994.
We believe that this is acceptable due to the fact that the
earliest a contingency measure would be implemented would be in
1997 • The first attainment date and milestone date for areas
that are required to adopt contingency measures is November 15,
1996. The EPA will expect all actions needed to make the
measures fully effective to occur within 60 days after EPA
notifies the State of its milestone failure or within 6 months of
its attainment failure. Therefore, the State would not need to
implement ths contingency measures until 1997 and EPA could
accept measures that could not be impl.m.rntsd until 1997.
Upon activation of the conting,ncy measures, reductions of
up to 3 percent (or such lesser percentage that will cure the
identified failure) must be achieved 1 year following the date on
which the failure had been identified. The State must achieve
these reductions while conducting additional control measure
development and implementation as necessary to correct the
shortfall if it is beyond the 3 percent the State would have
already adopted. In determining what measures shou],d be
implemented if less than 3 percent reduction is needed to cure
th a...Lail ej all VOC contingency measures should be required
first fol1 Visdby the appropriate percentage of NOx measures-that
will correct the shortfall.
1 J.rcen Wiij er Provision
Und - esction 182(b) (1) (A) (ii), areas can submit plans
demon.t j* g less than a 15 percent emission reduction if the
foiiow 7iditions an. met. First, the State must demonstrate
that th has a new source reviev program equivalent to the
in extreme areas [ section 182(e) ), except that a
“major source” must include any source that salt., or n th.
potential to emit, 5 tons per year (tpy) of ‘ i CC. Second, all
major sources (down to those with emissions of 5 tpy of VOC or
greater) in the area must be required to have RACI-level
controls. Third, the State must demonstrate that the SIP
includes all measures (both stationary and mobile) that are
achieved in practice by sources in the earn. sourc. category in
nouiattainnent areas of the next higher classification. Fourth,
-------
05/21/93 13.02 V9 19 541 0821 .4GMD RTP — oGc OO$1OQ1
4
the plan must include all measures that can be feasibly
implemented in the area, in light of technological achievability
and cast.
If an area chooses to meet the requirements of section
182(b) (1) (A) (ii) to get a waiver of the 15 percent provision 4 A
interprets title V to require operating permits for all VOC
sources in that area that emit or have the potential to emit S
tpy of VOC. This is because the definition of “major source” in
title V expressly refers to “major stationary source” as defined
in part D of title I. Since, under the waiver provision, “major
stationary source” would be defined as having the potential to
emit 5 tpy for the purposes of title I, this would become the
definition of major sourc. for the purposes of titi. V.
I suggest that you provide a copy of this memo to your
affected State and local agencies. Inquiriss may be directed to
John Silvasi at (919) 5415666.
cc: Air Branch Chief, R.gions I-X
William Becker
Rich Ossias
Lydia Wegman
Dick Wilson
-------
: 1 ( ç) ( )
‘ o
tO $ i,
.:IiI t J
1%
SD
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Aic Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
SEP I 0 I9 3
MEMORANDT.TM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Credit Toward the 15 Percent Requirements from
Architectural and Industrial intenance Coatings
Seitz Qua1 ity 10)
Director, Air, Pesticides Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, .ir, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Aix and Toxics Division,
Regions VI I, VIII, IX, and X
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently
involved in negotiations concerning the development of a
regulation for architetural and industrial maintenance (AIX)
coatings. The Afli coatings are defined as coatings applied to
stationary structures and their appurtenances, portable
buildings, pavements, and curbs. These coatings include of f-the-
shelf paints sold to c3nst2mers, as well as certain industrial
specialty products (e.g., traffic paints and coatings for such
items as bridges and petroleum storage tanks). The negotiations
are still under way, but it appears that the regulation viii be
successfi Il developed, possibly as a national rule.
- ing their 15 percent
volati] anic cømpounds (VOC) plans which are due November 15,
1993 r take :redit for reductions from this emissions
category since it seei :s apparent that reductions will be achieved
by the Ant rule by 1995. We anticipate that this rule will
reduce AIM emissions by approximately 25 percent from current
emissions from the sa level of paint use. It will be
acceptable for States to assume a 25 percent reduction from their
AIM coatings emissions inventory and incorporate this reduction
into their 15 percent b c plan. Portions of plans incorporating
such an assumption will be approvable by EPA.
I.’..
I
-------
2
I trust that this information will be helpful to you. If
you have any questions, please call Bill Johnson at (919) 541
5245.
cc: Air Branch Chiefs, Reijions 1-IX
-------
io aC !‘)
SF .
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
06 OC1 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of “Guidance for Growth Factors,
Projections and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent
Rate of Progress Plans”
FROM: G. T. Helms. Chief’1 ”
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-15)
TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I—X
This memorandum clarifies the document entitled, “Guidance
for Growth Factors, Projections and Control Strategies for the 15
Percent Rate of Progress Plans,” (EPA—452/R—93—002) which was
released in March 1993. Section 6.5 of this document discusses
the effects of equipment replacement and new source requirements
on the 15 percent plane. However, this discussion, as it relates
to new source review, is inconsistent with the document entitled,
“Guidance on the Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate—of-
Progress Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act,” (EPA—
452/R—93-007) which was released in May 1993. As discussed in
this document, emissions reductions projected to occur from the
part D new source review offset requirements are not creditable
toward the 15 percent rate-of-progress plan requirements.
However, at the time of reconciliation, any additional, actual,
permanent, and enforceable emissions occurring after 1990
resulting from offsets that are not used to offset minor source
growth will be creditable in the milestone compliance
demonstration due in February 1997 for serious and above areas.
The EPA’S Office of General Counsel concurs with this position.
A cor ected version of section 6.5 of the growth factors
document, *.jch is consistent with the relationship document, is
attached
Please share this information with your State and
appropriate local air pollution control agencies. Any questions
about this correction may be addressed to Laurel Schultz of my
staff at (919) 541—5511, or me at (919) 541—5527.
Attachment
-------
2
cc: John Seitz
Lydia Weg an
Dick Wilson
Jane Armstrong
Rich. Ossias
David Mobley
John Silvasi
Kimber Scavo
Laurel Schultz
David Solomon
Dan DeRoeck
Mary Ann Warner-Seiph
Terry W sie, Region IX
Williar ecker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
-------
6.5 EffectS of Equipment Replacement
Failure to consider the effects of equipment replacement and
NSPS requirements for an affected facility’s existing capital
stock, may result in development of a SIP which requires more
emissions reductions than necessary to meet rate—of—progress
milestones or NAAQS attainment dates.
As an existing facility wears out and is replaced with newer
equipment, it may become subject to a NSPS: To the extent NSPS
requirements are more restrictive than present requirements on
the existing (not modified or reconstructed) facility, future
emissions will be reduced. The implications of such emissions
reductions can be assessed using the following formula:
Ext = ((Eb — En) • (1 + r) exp t]
where: Ert = Emissions reductions in year t
Eb = Emissions in the base year
En = NSPS emissions
r = Annual replacement rate for worn out capital
stock
t = Years from the base year
Consequently, zeró net growth emissions need not be the same
as baseline; they might actually be less.
-------
01’ O
IO Sr 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
/
4
OCT 29 93
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Rate-of—Progress Plan Guidance on the 15 Percent
Calculations
FROM: D. Kent Berry, Acting Director_ 4 &,6.-j )14L t,g41_
Air Quality Management Division (XD-1 )
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxica
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The Clean Air Act (Act) requires a specified rate of
emissions reductions for all ozone areas classified as moderate
and above. Moderate and above areas must submit a State
implementation plan (SIP) revision detailing how the area will
achieve a reduction in volatile organic compounds emissions of at
least 15 percent between November 15, 1990 and November 15, 1996
(hereafter called the rate—of—progress plan). The rate—of—
progress requirement is based on the 1990 base-year emissions
inventory. The rate—of—progress plan revision is part of the
full SIP (including an attainment demonstration based on
modeling) for most moderate areas, and a separate submittal for
serious a$ above areas (due November 15, 1993).
ThC 4*Osie/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch coordinated the
developaè t of a series of guidance documents to guide States as
they develop their SIP’S to meet the new rate-of-progress
requirements of section 182(b) (1). These documents were released
between October 1992 and June 1993. In addition, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards staff presented a satellite
training workshop on the 15 percent rate-of-progress plans and
the attainment demonstrations in the spring of 1993. The
guidaace documents and the workshop explained the procedures for
calculating the 15 percent requirement that was first put forth
-------
2
in the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).
Several variations have been suggested for the calculation
procedures of this requirement. One suggestion would allow
States to offset only 15 percent of the growth rather than all of
the growth. Another suggestion would take credit for the Federal
motor vehicle control program as a means to achieve the total
reductions necessary to meet the 15 percent requirement and
offset growth.
Regarding the requirement to account for growth, the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) interpretation of the
Act ensures that actual reductions will occur if an area is to
meet the 15 percent reduction requirement. Some of the
alternative interpretation suggested could lead to a situation
where, due to significant growth, an area’s projected emissions--
even after applying a 15 percent reduction-—could be higher in
1996 than in 1990, but the area would still be considered as
meeting the progress requirement. We do not believe this
reflects the intent of the Act. States should, therefore, follow
the guidance documents issued by EPA when developing their 15
percent rate-of-progress plans that are due November 15, 1993.
Thus, we do not foresee allowing the variations such as those
discussed above.
A second issue ariées as a result of some confusion
concerning the above-cited EPA guidance on 15 percent plans. The
EPA intends to determine the approvability of the 15 percent
rate—of—progress plans using four basic criteria: (1) the base—
year inventory and associated projections must be appropriately
justified; (2) the target level of emissions is properly
calculated; (3) the target level of emissions will be achieved if
the strategies adopted and identified in the plan are shown to
successfully achieve the necessary level of reductions by the end
of 1996; and (4) contingency measures of 3 percent (or a
commitment to adopt such measures) are included. Some of the
confusion associated with the guidance may come from the
discussion of total required reductions. The best test of
whether a 15 percent rate-of-progress plan will be acceptable is
not wheth & certain amount of reductions is achieved, but
whether thS rojected emissions in 1996 will be at or below the
S attachment to this memorandum explains specifically
how these calculations are to be done.
Finally, there is apparently some confusion concerning the
creditability of reductions due to the Federal motor vehicle
control program (FMVCP). The Act states that emission reductions
tram “(a]ny measures relating to motor vehicle exhaust or
evaporative emissions promulgated by the Administrator by
January 1, 1990” are not creditable toward the 15 percent
requirement. This means that reductions due to the pre—1990
-------
3
FMVCP standards are not creditable but that reductions due to any
new standards promulgated January 1, 1990 are creditable.
We suggest that you forward this information to your State
and local agencies. If you have questions or comments, please
contact Kimber Scavo at (919) 541-3354 or Laurel Schultz at (919)
541—5511.
Attachment
cc: John Seitz
Lydia Wegman
Dick Wilson
Rich Ossias
David Mobley
Tom Helms
Kimber Scavo
Laurel Schultz
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
-------
ATTACHMENT
A specific question that has been raised is whether the 1996
projected emissions that are used to calculate the total required
reductions (box “C” in the attached flowchart) should reflect the
effects of the noncreditable Federal motor vehicle control
program (FMVCP) and Reid vapor pressure (RVP) requirements.
There are at least three approaches to this. All three
approaches will result in the same answer if followed carefully.
However, some may be easier than others depending on what work
has already been done. Method 3 may be the simplest of the three
because it does not require individual calculation of reductions
associated with each mobile source measure. In all cases
(including method 3), full dormentation must be provided,
including information on MOB :5a input and vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) used in the c. - ;ulations.
States should also note that the test of the plan will be to
determine whether the reductions from the measures listed below
are greater than or equal to the “Reductions Needs by 1996 to
Achieve 15 Percent Net of Growth” (box C - box D). Because of
the possibility for errors in these reduction calculations,
States should double-check their calculations by looking at
whether the projected emissions for 1996, including growth and.
all of the controls expected to be in place, will be at or below
the calculated 1996 target. If there is a discrepancy between
the results calculated by comparing the projected 2.996 inventory
to the target and the results calculated above, it is likely that
some of the reductions have been double—counted. The EPA intends
to compare the 1996 projected inventory (that should be submitted
with the documentation of the 15 percent rate-of-progress olan)
to the target as th primary test of whether a State’s pi
demonstrates the re -uired reduction.
1. Growth Projections without Control Prolections
(a) The State can project the 1996 emissions as if the
reductions from FMVCP and RVP will not occur. In other words,
the “1996 Estimated issions (Anthropogenic)” is the “1990 Rate—
of-ProgressBase-Year Inventory” (box A) multiplied by the
appropriati g owth factors. The on-road mobile portion of this
1996 inv is determined by multiplying the 1990 emission
factors 1996 VMT. The “Reductions Needs by 1996 to
Achieve 15 rcent Net of Growth” (box C - box D) will represent
U. of the reductions needed by 1996, including pze-enactment
FMVCP and RVP that will occur anyway.
(b) The reduc-ions that will count toward this total are as
follows:
Pre-enactment FMVCP and RVP
I/M corrections
Tier 1 (post—1990 vehicle emission standards)
Enhanced I/M
-------
2
Reformulated gasoline
RACT corrections
Reductions from any other stationary or mobile source
measures
States should take care that the reductions are properly
calculated. For example, the reductions associated with the pre-
enactment FMVCP and RVP in this ãase are calculated as the
difference between the product of box A times growth factors
(i.e., 1990 emission factors times 1996 VMT) and 1996 projected
emissions with no new Clean Air Act (Act) measures (1996 emission
factors with NEWFLG=5 and Phase II RVP times 1996 VMT). Note
that this is different than the calculation used to adjust the
1990 base-year inventory.
The reductions associated with Tier 1 standards are then
calculated as the difference between 1996 emissions with no new
Act measures (calculated in the previous step) afld 1996 projected
emissions with NEWFLG=1 and Phase II RVP. Reductions for other
measures can then be calculated sequentially in the same manner
(i.e., compare 1996 projected emissions with the new control
measure in place to 1996 emissions without the new control
measure in place but with all the previously calculated control
measures in place).
2. Growth Projections with Federal Mobile Source Control
Projections -
(a) The State can project the 1.996 emissions as if the
reductions from FMVCP and RVP will occur, but no additional
mobile or stationary source controls will be in effect. In this
case, the “1996 Estimated Emissions (Anthropogenic)” is
essentially the “1990 Adjusted Base—Year Inventory” multiplied by
the appropriate growth factors. The on-road mobile portion of
this 1996 inventory is determined by multiplying the 1996
emission factors (with NEWFLG=5, Tier 1 turned of f, Phase II RVP
on) by the 1996 VMT.
(b) The “Reductions Needs by 1996 to Achieve 15 Percent Net
of Growth” (box.C — box D) will represent all of the reductions
needed by 996, in addition to pre-enactment FMVCP and RVP that
will occurJ ni..y. The reductions that will count toward this
total are- J fol1ous:
Tféri (post-1990 vehicle emission standards)
Enhanced I/M
Reformulated gasoline
I/M corrections
-------
3
RACT Corrections
Reductions from any other stationary or mobile source
measures
3. Growth Projections with all Current Control Projections
(a) The State can project the 1996 emissions as if the
reductions from FMVCP and RVP and any other mobile and stationary
source controls, planned or in effect, will occur. In this case,
the “1996 Estimated Emissions (Anthropogenic)” is essentially the
“1990 Rate—of-Progress Base—Year Inventory” with the. appropriate
growth factors and controls applied. The on-road mobile portion
of this 1996 inventory is determined by multiplying the 1996
emission factors (with NEWFLG=1, enhanced I/M, reform, and any
other controls turned on) by the 1996 ‘.TXT.
(b) The “Reductions Needs by 1996 to Achieve 15 Percent Net
of Growth” (box C - box D) will represent all of the additional
reductions needed by 1996. The reductions that will count toward
this total are as follows:. - Reductions from any other stationary
or mobile source measures.
-------
FINAL BASE
YEAR (1990)
INVENTORY *
BIOGENICSI
EMISSIONS OUTSIDE
NONATTAIN ENT AREA
ADD ___
GROWTH
1
%0 C 1996 ESTIMATED
EMISSIONS
(ANTHROPOGENIC)
1990 RATE OF
PROGRES S
BASE YEAR
INVENTORY
C-D
SUBTRACT
FMVCP
RVP REDUCTIONS
1990
ADJUSTED
BASE YEAR
INVENTORY
IA-B I
“P
D
TARGET LEVEL
4 FOR 1996
REDUCTIONS NEEDS
1996 TO ACHIEVE
PERCENT NET OF
1B51
REDUCTIONS FROM:
FMVCP/RVP
RACT RULE CORRECTIONS
I/H CORRECTIONS
* DOES NOT INCLUDE PRE-ENACTZ4ENT BANKED EMISSION CREDIT
SUBTRACT
V
EMISSION
REDUCTI ON
REQUIRED BY
1996
m 1Lip1y
by 0.15
B
Ii ,
TOTAL
EXPECTED
REDUCTIONS
BY 1996
ADD
Figure 1.
Flowchart for rate-of-progress calculations.
-------
l o Sr 4 ,
- ___
4( pq t
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
DEC g1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Credit for 15 Percent Rate-of—’
Reductions from the Archil
Maintenance (AIM)
FROM:
TO:
John S. Seitz,
of Air Quality
Director, Air, Pesticides and
Management Division. Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director,
Regions
Air and Toxics Division,
VII, VIII, IX, and X
This memorandum supplements my memorandum of September 10,
1993 concerning State credit for reductions from the forthcoming
Federal AIM coating rule. As you know, a number of States have
indicated that reductions from this source category are crucial
to their 15 percent rate-of-progress plans. In order to allow
States to take credit for expected reductions from the Federal
rule while still providing necessary safeguards, EPA will approve
a committal State Implementation plan (SIP) under section
110(k) (4) if the following conditions are met:
1. tee must submit a SIP by April 1994 committing to
adopt an ___ rule if EPA does not promulgate a national rule by
February
The commitment must be to adopt and submit a State rule
1995 and to implement the rule and achieve reductions by
1996.
3. Emissions reductions in the State-adopted
equivalent to the committal SIP, or else a new plan
submitted to make up the shortfall.
2.
by March
November
rule must be
must be
0/1
Plans for
al
-------
2
4. States that submit such a commitment will be allowed to
take credit in their 15 percent rate—of—progress plans for these
reductions.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this
approach, please contact Laurel Schultz at (919) 541-5511.
cc: Kent Berry
Alan Eckert
Bruce Jordan
Mary Nichols
Rich Ossias
-------
‘ 919 541 0044
09121/95 09:32
EPA OAQPS
OP11ONAL FQfIM 99(7 -90)
NOx SUBSTITUTiON GUIDANCE
December, 1993
Office of Air Quality Plarming arid Standards
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
FAX TRANSMITTAL
t J0oi
0. 1 11 *
-------
09/21/95 09:32 ‘ 919 541 0044 EPA OAQPS 002
Section 1: Background
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) mandates a
15% reduction of volatile organic compound (Voc) emissions from
the 1990 base inventory by November, 1996 in all ozone
nonattainment areas classified moderate and above. Areas
classified serious and above must achieve the 3% per year VOC
reductions past November, 1996 as part of the reasonable further
progress (RFP) provisions ( 182 [ c](2] [ Bfl. However, Section
182 (c)(2)(c) allows the post-1996 RFP plan to accommodate a less
than 3% per. year Voc reduction if it can be demonstrated that
substitution of NOX emission reductions (for VOC reductions)
yields equivalent ozone reductions. Underlying this substitution
provision is the recognition that NOx controls may effectively
reduce ozone in many areas, and that the design of strategies is
more efficient when the characteristic properties. responsible for
ozone formation and control are evaluated for each area.
The purpose of this document is to provide a procedure that
can be applied to meet the post-1996 Section 182(c)(2)(B) RFP
requirement as well as the Section 182 (c)(2)(C) equivalency
demonstration requirements. The intent of this guidance is to
facilitate implementation of the most effective ozone precursor
control strategies, while meeting the intent of the CAA RFP
provisions.
The guidance consists of two basic steps that are
established in Sections 2 and 3 of this document. First, an
equivalency demonstration requires that cumulative RPP emission
reductions must be consistent with the NOx and VOC emission
reductions determined in the ozone attainment modeling
demonstration. Second, specified reductions in NOx and VOC
emissions should be accomplished in the interim period between
1996 and the attainment date, consistent with the continuous RFP
emission reduction requirement. Section 4 provides the legal
rationale underlying this guidance and the guidance is summarized
in Section 5.
-------
09, ’21/95 09:33 - 919 541 0044 - EPA OAQPS j003
Section 2: Test for Equivalency — Use of Strategies Aimed at
the Mandated Attainment Year
[ The condition for deiuonstratini equivalency is that State-
proposed emission control strategies must be consistent with
emission reductions required to demonstrate attainment of
the ozone NAAQS for the designated year of attainment.]
The provision for NOx substitution recognizes that a VOC—
only control pathway may not be the most effective approach for
effecting attainment in all areas. Consequently, NOx reductions
are placed on a near equal footing with VOC through substitution.
This document establishes two conditions pursuant to both the
substitution and RIP provisions in the Act. The first condition
requires that control strategies incorporating NOx emission
reduction measures must demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS will be
attained within time periods mandated by the Act. This condition
reflects the Title I provision for gridded photochemical model
demonstrations (Section 182(c)).
The second condition, addressed below in Section 3,
maintains the requirement for periodic emission reductions in
order to realize progress toward attainment. Flexibility is
introduced by allowing VOC and NOx reductions rather than VOC
reductions alone. A third condition exists in which the periodic
emission reductions must be consistent with the model attainment
demonstration.
The basis for equivalency is the ability of a given control
strategy (i.e., any particular mix of NOX and VOC emission
reductions) to effect attainment of the ozone NAAQS by the
designated attainment year. Section 182(0) of the CAA requires
that State implementation plans (SIPs) for serious and above
nonattainment areas include a demonstration of attainment of the
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Ambient Standard (NAAQS) with
gridded photocheinical modeling. These SIP revisions are due by
November 15, 1994 and provide the framework for demonstrating
equivalent ozone reductions through the substitution of NOx
emission reductions for VOCs. Model application procedures for
demonstrating attainment are provided in EPA’s Guideline for
Regulatorv _ p ticatjpn of the Urban Airshed _ M ode1 , (EPA—450/4—91—
013).
This modeling requirement already exists as a Title I
provision for areas classified serious and above. Due to the
flexibility described below in Section 3.0 which permits
virtually any set of NOx and VOC RFP reductions in years prior to
the attainment date, a linkage to the attainment year control
strategy is required. This linkage provides assurance that the
RFP reductions are consistent with the SIP attainment
demonstration. States are required to justify substitution by
illustrating “consistency” between the cumulative emission
2
-------
09/21/95 09:33 ‘ 919 541 0044 EPA QAQPS I 0Q4
changes emerging from the RFP/substitutiori proposal arid the
emission reductions in the model attainment demonstration (or
comparable modeling analysis). The EPA will approve substitution
proposals on a case-by—case basis. Generally speaking, any
reasonable substitution proposal will be approved. Linkage to
the modeling demonstration provides a screen to remove
unrealistic (and inefficient) substitution proposals.
3
-------
• 09121/95 09:33 919 541 0044 EPA OAQPS I j 005
Section 3: Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Requirements
(The condition for meeting the RFP emissions reduction
provision is that the sum of all creditable VOC and NOx
emission reductions must equal 3% per year averaged every
three years.]
The RFP provisions require periodic emissions reductions
until attainment is reached. In the absence of the NOx
substitution provision, an area classified serious or above would
be required to reduce VOC emissions after 1996 an average of 3%
per year every three year period until attainment. This guidance
maintains the 3% per year emissions reduction requirement.
However, no specified set of VOC or NOx controls is mandated.
Reasons for not requiring specific “exchange” rates among VOC and
NOX emissions include:
1. The strong likelihood that optimum “exchange” rates
vary from year to year and across a geographic area as
an area’s emissions distribution and atmospheric
chemistry change over time;
2. Uncertainty in modeling analyses, particularly when
attempting to ascertain responses from small percentage
perturbations in emissions; and
3. Resource limitations associated with modeling specific
control measures during interim years before attainment
dates.
Any combination of VOC and NOx emission reductions which
totals 3% per year, and meet other SIP consistency requirements
described in this document are allowed. These requirements
ensure that the cumulative R?P reductions are consistent with the
emission reduction measures identified in the model attainment
demonstration. A percentage basis rather than a mass basis is
used for calculating the RFP emission reductions. A percentage
basis is applied to avoid “absurd” calculations. For example,
substitution of NOx reductions for VOC on a ton for ton basis
could yield calculated NOx reduction requirements which exceed
the available NOx inventory in cases where the base VOC inventory
greatly exceeds the NOx inventory. To illustrate, a 50% VOC
reduction is analogous to a 100% NOx reduction assuming the VOC
inventory is twice the NOx inventory and substitution is based on
mass rather than percentage equivalency. The percentage basis
also is consistent with the RFP “percent” reduction requirement,
therefore buoying the legal justification underlying this
guidance.
4
-------
09.121/95 09:34 ‘919 541 0044 EPA OAQPS . ‘ juu
The calculation to determine yearly VOC and NOx emission
reduction totals must be based on typical summer day inventories
(sam basis used for RFP and modeling inventories) . Specific
details regarding calculation procedures and emission inventory
definitions are found in separate documents, including EPA’s
forthcoming Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate—of--Progress Plan and
the Attainmertt Demonstration . The following equation generally
describes the method to calculate the total 3% per year emission
reductions:
RV/VOCBASE + R,/NOxBASE >=. 0.03
where; typical summer day VOC reductions in mass units
RN = typical summer day NOx reductions in mass units
VOCBASE themass of anthropogenic VOC emissions
in the 1990 adjusted base inventory, and
NOXBASE = the mass of anthropogeniç NOx emissions
in the 1990 adjusted base inventory
(note, the cumulative mass reductions are not
constrained to 3% per year so that RFP reductions
greater than 3% per year are not discouraged.]
The values of Rq and R include only the creditable emission
reductions from the nonattainment area of concern.
For instance, VOC or NOx reductions from the pre—enactment
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), which are not
creditable toward the 3% per year requirement are not included.
Potential “creditable” NOX emission reductions which are
available for substitution purposes are described in EPA’s
forthcoming Guidance on the Post—1996 Rate—of—Proqress Plan and
the _ Attainment DemonstratiozL
The attainment strategy requirements must be met in addition
to the RPP condition. Total emission reductions are determined
by the attainment demonstration, implying that reductions
averaging greater than 3% per year averaged from 1996 to the
specified attainment year are required if shown to be necessary
by the model demonstration. The 3% per year RFP requirement is
thus a minimum requirement. Further, the NOx emission reductions
credited toward RFP may be capped by the cumulative reductions
dictated by the model demonstration. For example, an approved
control strategy emerging from a model demonstration for a
serious area might show reductions of 6% NOx and 80% VOC,
relative to 1990 emissions, are needed by 1999. Assuming zero
creditable NOx emission reductions from 1990 through 1996, NOx
reductions averaging 2% per year over the 3 years from 1996 to
1999 represent a cap on the NOx RFP reductions. The reason for
5
-------
.09 21/95 09:34 ‘ 919 541 0044 EPA OAQPS ‘ Joua
linking the RFP reductions to the attainment strategy is to avoid
RFP reductions which are not consistent with the model
demonstration. Note that the sum of emissions totalling 3 per
year are required to meet the basic RFP provisions -- they are
not capped by the attainment demonstration. Thus, cases might
exist where VOC reductions from the RFP provisions might exceed
the cumulative VOC emission reductions in the attainment
strategy. Such cases do not conflict with the attainment
demonstration since additional VOC reductions will not increase
peak ozone. On the other hand, the NOx cap is necessary because
NOX reductions have the potential for increasing peak ozone.
6
-------
09./21/95 09:35 ‘ 9I9 541 0044 EPA OAQPS ‘ _Juu
Section 4: Discussion of Equivalency
(The following discussion provides the legal ‘rationale
underlying the interpretation of “equivalency” and the
linkage between the RFP and NO Substitution provisions
within the Act.]
“Equivalency” is riot defined strictly in the context of,
“What specified level of NOX reductions, compared to VOC, results
in equivalent ozone reduction?” Instead, any combination of VOC
and NOx reductions is “equivalent” so long as the reductions are
consistent with those identified as necessary to attain the NAAQS
in the modeling demonstration and provide for steady progress in
leading to the emission reductions identified as necessary to
attain the NAAQS by the specified attainment year.
In allowing a combination of NOX and VOC controls or the
substitution of NOx emissions reductions for voc emissions
reductions, Section 182(c)(2)(C) of the statute states that the
resulting reductions “in ozone concentrations” must be “at least
equivalent” to that which would result from the 3% VOC reductions
required as a demonstration of reasonable further progress (RFP)
under Section 182(c)(2)(B). This provision could be interpreted
to mean that the amount of NOx reductions appropriate for
substitution purposes is an amount which, when compared to
predicted VOC reductions, results in the sane reductions in ozone
concentrations that the VOC reductions would achieve in that
area. However, such an interpretation could result in a
demonstration showing that very small NOx reductions provide an
adequate substitute for large VOC reductions. This is because
under some conditions substantial VOC reductions produce only
small — even insignificant — reductions in ozone concentrations,
while minimal NOx reductions under the same conditions may
produce the same degree of ozone reductions. EPA believes
Congress would not have intended States to meet the Act’s
progress requirements with emissions reductions that would
produce only minimal improvement in ozone concentrations.
The second sentence of Section 182(c)(2)(C) requires EPA to
issue guidance “concerning the conditions under which NOx control
may be substituted for (or combined with] VOC control.” In
particular, the Agency is authorized to address in the guidance
the appropriate amounts of VOC control and NOx control needed, in
combination, “in order to maximize the reduction in ozone air
pollution.” Further, the Act explicitly provides that the
guidance may permit RFP demonstrations which allow a lower
percentage of VOC emission reductions. The implicit assumption
under that language is that such lesser levels of VOC reductions
would be allowed only because of the correspondingly higher
percentage of NOx emission reductions to be authorized as a full
or partial substitution for the otherwise required VOC
reductions. In light of the entire set of language and
7
-------
•09fl21/95 09:35 ‘ 919 541 0044 EPA OAQPS I J0Q9
Congress’s evident intent under this subsection to maximize the
opportunity for ozone reductions, EPA believes that Section
182(c)(2)(C) confers on the Agency the discretion to select, for
purposes of determining equivalent reductions, a percentage of
NOx ezuission reductions which is reasonably calculated to achieve
both the ozone reduction and attainment progress goals intended
by Congress. Nothing in the Act or in the legislative history
directly addresses the case where NOx reductions that are
substituted for VOC reductions, and which meet the plain
grammatical meaning of “equivalency,” nonetheless result in
insignificant ozone reductions. To avoid such a result and give
meaningful effect to what Congress likely intended regarding the
substitution provision, EPA has decided to rely in its NOX
substitution guidance on the only point of reference provided by
Congress concerning what may constitute an appropriate
quantitative reduction target for RFP purposes, namely the 3
percent per year required under Section 182(c)(2)(B). Under that
approach, EPA would approve substitutions of NOx for VOC that
would ensure that the sum of the respective creditable percent
reductions of each of these pollutants areawide, averaged over 3
years, would be no less than 3 percent from the baseline.
As additional evidence that Congress was concerned with
getting more than minimal reductions in ozone concentrations
through substitution, EPA notes that the RPP demonstration
described in Section 182(c)(2)(B) focuses on reductions of a
specified quantity of VOC emissions per year. (Similarly, the 15
percent RIP reductions required for Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas focuzes on reductions of that specific quantity of VOC
emissions per year.) B contrast, the alternative RFP
demonstration in Section 182(c)(2)(C) allows flexible VOC/NOx
emission reduction strategies, but only so long as the overall
quantitative reduction in ozone concentrations is equivalent to
the amount which, for Serious ozone nonattaininent areas, Congress
initially determined must be met (i.e., the ozone concentrations
achieved by VOC reductions of 3 percent per year) in order to
ensure expeditious progress towards attainment. In this regard
the House Committee Report states: “NOX reductions may not be
substituted for VOC reductions in a z ann r that delays attainment
of the ozone standard or that results in lesser annual reductions
in ozone concentration than provided for in the attainment
demonstration.” H.R. Resp NO. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 239
(1990).
B
-------
.09 21/95 09:36 ‘919 541 0044 EPA OAUPS
‘ jU.LV
Section 5: Suiinnary
The RFP requirements under Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA
are intended to insure that the SIP “provide for such Specific
annual reductions in emissions of VOC and NOx as necessary to
attain the NAAQS for ozone by the applicable attainment date.”
This language is interpreted to mean that 1 to meet the RFP
requirement, it is necessary to show that steady progress is
being made toward implementing measures called for in an area’s
attainment strategy. Further, the Act also specifies minimal
annual percentage reductions in creditable emissions which must
be realized in an RFP program. Section 182(c)(2)(C) increases
the flexibility in which the annual emission reductions can be
derived by allowing NOx emission reductions substitution for VOC
after 1996. The recommended procedure responds to these concerns
by imposing two requirements.
1. Establish a strategy incorporating reductions in VOC
and/or NOx sufficient to meet the NAAQS within
timeframes specified by the Act. This is to be done
using approved photochemicál grid models in a mariner
consistent with published Agency guidance on the use of
such models in attainment demonstrations. In the
context of the NOx ‘substitution guidance, the purpose
of this first step is to establish an ultimate target
toward which the RFP program is aimed.
2. For interim years, any mix of annual reductions in voc
and NOX is permissible so long as it reflects
(a).a logical step toward implementing the attainment
strategy identified in (1), and
(b) results in a combined annual VOC and NOx reduction
of 3% per year.
• The requirement for continuous VOC emission reductions
amounting to 3% per year has been modified to allow flexibility
in the mix of VOC and NOx emission reductions, while maintaining
a 3% per year reduction in the of NOx and VOC emissions. A
principal assumption underlying t iis guidance is that optimum
control strategy designs may differ among various nonattainment
areas.
The NOX substitution provision permits greater flexibility
for States in designing effective emissions control strategies.
Furthermore, because the test for equivalency is identical to the
NAAQS attainment test for serious and above areas, the
demonstration imposes negligible additional resource burdens for
those areas already required to perform gridded photochemical.
modeling.
9
-------
fir ’—
(.I )
I——
flr p
!1, 1/: 8
L
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - o j
r 5 Office of Air Quality Planning arid Standards /
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
ii
4 L 01 çS’ A’ i g
AUG 5 1994 0/i -
M EMORANDtJM
SUBJECT: Clarification of Policy for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
Substitution
FROM: John S. Seitz,. Director
Office of Air Quality P1 ning and Stafdards (MD-iD)
TO: Director, Air Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Divisjon
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify past guidance
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency’ (EPA) on NOx
substitution 2 for the post—1996 rate-of-progress (ROP) plans.
Specifically, this memorandum clarifies what the EPA will accept
as evidence that NOX substitution for volatile organic compounds
(VOC) reductions is a viable approach for meeting post-1996 ROP
requirements prior to completion of modeling supporting an area’s
attainment demonstration. -
Background
When the NOx substitution guidance was developed, it was
assumed that required modeling attainment d:?lnonstraLions would
generally be completed in a timely manner. Consequently, the
policy assumes that information produced by the demonstrations
“Transmittal of NOx Substitution Guidance,” memorandum from
John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Air Division Directors, December 15, 1993.
2 ”Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and the
Attainment Demonstration,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-452/R-93-015,
January 1994.
-------
2
would be, in most casés, available to assist decision makers to
reach sound decisions concerning NOx substitution to meet post—
1996 ROP requirements.
Recent information from Regional Office modeling contacts
indicates that it is likely that some areas may not complete
their attainment modeling analyses by November 1994. Perhaps
even more significant, very few modeling demonstrations are
expected to be completed appreciably before the Act’s
November 15, 1994 deadline for submitting State implementation
plan revisions reflecting ROP requirements and additional
measures needed to attain the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). This latter possibility raises the likelihood
that there may be insufficient time prior to November 1994 to
take full advantage of information generated in the attainment
demonstration modeling to support a ROP plan reflecting partial
or full substitution of NOx for VOC reductions.
NOx Substitution Policy
The December 1993 NOX substitution guidance identifies
several prerequisites for NOx to be substituted, in part or in
full, for VOC reductions to satisfy ROP requirements. For
purposes of this discussion, the most pertinent of these appears
on pages 2 and 3, “States are required to justify substitution by
illustrating ‘consistency’ between the cumulative emission
changes emerging from the reasonable further progress/
substitution and the emission reductions in the model attainment
demonstration (or comparable modeling analysis).” The guidance
goes on to say on page 3 that, “The EPA will approve substitution
proposals on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, any
reasonable substitution propsal will be approved.”
In the absence of a complete modeled attainment
demonstration, the following prerequisites are consistent with
the intent of the guidance on NOx substitution.
1. The NOx reasonably available control technology (RACT)
regulations should be adopted and submitted to the EPA by the
State seeking to substitute !‘IOx for VOC to meet ROP requirements;
EPA will have to approve the NOX RACT rules no later than the
date of approval of the ROP plan featuring NOx substitution.
2. At least one of the two following conditions should be
met: (a) modeling of at least one episode should have been
completed with photochemical grid modeling which shows that NOx
reductions are useful in reducing ozone concentrations; or (b) a
regional modeling analysis supporting use of NOX controls to
reduce ozone within the area under consideration for use of NOX
substitution should be available.
-------
3
The first pr equisite shows that, indeed, NOx controls are
a part of the area’s strategy to attain the ozone standard. The
prerequisite in 2(a) is preferable to that in 2(b), and will take
precedence, because it is more likely to reflect assumptions and
inputs to be used in the attainment demonstration. In any event,
either photochemical grid modeling or regional modeling results
are needed to show that NOx control is useful in helping an area
to attain the ozone NAAQS. It is only necessary to show this for
one of the episodes selected for the attainment demonstration.
This follows because the attainment strategy ultimately selected
must show predicted ozone to be less than or equal to 120 parts
per billion for all selected episodes.
Questions ‘on this clarification may be directed to John
Silvasi at (919) 541—5666, or Ned Meyer at (919) 541—5594.
cc: Doug Grano
Tom Helms
Steve Hitte
William Hunt
Ned Meyer
Rich Ossias
Kimber Scavo
Laurel Schultz
John Silvasi
Joe Tikvart
Lydia Wegman
-------
..—-.
iL1h ’ 4 i. :jz 4J . UO 4
- ‘. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 0(3
Office of Air Quality PIarlr!nç and Standards
______ Researcf Triangle Park. Nonh Carolina 27711
• - . /
NOV29 1994
MORANDW (
SUBJECT: Credit for the 15 Percent Rata-of Pxogress Plans for
Raduct ions from the Architectural, and Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and the Autobody
Ref ininshing Rule
PROM: John S. SBitz, Director
Off ice of Air Quality (MD—b)
TO: Director, Aix Pesticides and Toxics
- Manag ’ nt Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
• Region V -
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxic Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Divisi on,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
AIM Coatings
This memorandum supplements my memorandum of December 9,
1993 concerning State credit for reductions from the forthcoming
Pedoral AIM coating rule. In that memerandum, us provided
conditions that States must meet in order to taics credit for the
AIM co Ung rule. The conditions were for States to submit a
commi .by April 1994 to adopt and submit a State rule by
March. 5if EPA does not promulgate a national rule by Pebruary
1995. our expectation that EPA will not promulgate a
natisàâ u1. until May 1996 • with an effective date of August
1996. -
We now anticipate that this rule will reduce AIX emissions
in unregulated areas by approximately 15 percent by the end of
1996. This estimated reduction was determined using 1990
baseline voc levels, incorporates growth, and includes accounting
for rub. effectiveness and rule penetration. Reductions in years
beyond 1996 are expected, and additional guidance may be issued
for thes. reductions in the future. - -
-------
11/29/94 13:33 S19 541 0824 EPA-OZONE-CO ‘ -. OGC-K
2
Because a number of States have indicated that reductions
from this source category are crucial to their 15 percent rate—
of-progress plans, and that there is concern that sane States may
not b. able to adopt their own rule before March 1995, we find
the following two amendments to our previous conditions
acceptable:
1. States that are adopting their own rule may no4i have
until July 1995 to complete the rule.
2 States that are having difficulties adopting their own
rule may take credit for the 15 percent reduction described above
without adopting or committing to adopt back-up measures.
We encourage States that take the 1.5 percent credit for AIM
to develop backup measures in case the national rule is delayed
bsyond 1996. If EPA’s rule does not provide a 15 percent
reduction by the and of 1996, the State will be responsible for
developing control measures to make up the shortfall. If the
State fails to do so, EPA will have to disapprove the 15 p.rc.nt
rate-of-progress plan. Fifteen percent rate-of-progress plans
that assume a 15 percent reduction for the AIX coating rule may
be found complete if all other completeness criteria are mat.
Autobody Refinishina
In addition to the above credit for the 15 percent rate-of-
progress plans, EPA finds It acceptable to allow a 37 percent
reduction from current en.issions for autobody refinishing. The
national r ale for autobody refinishing is expected to be proposed
in uly l 35 and promulgated in February 1996, with an effective
date of August 1996. Because of the limited number of
manufacturers that this rule affects, States may assume 100
percent rule effectiveness presuming the instructions on how to
apply the coatings e followed. In addition, rule penetration
does not apply because the rule affects all sources within the
category. We encourage Stat.. to develop backup measures in this
case as val]. because the same approval restriction, will apply.
If have any questions or comments concerning this
approacW $iase contact Kimber Scavo at (93g) 541—3354, or
Laurel Sbhultz at (919) 541-5511. Any questions regarding the
status of the AIM rule may be directed to Ellen Ducey at (919)
541-5408. Any guestions regarding the statu, of the autobody
ref iniehing rule may be directed to Mark Morris at (919) 541—
5416.
cc: Sally Shaver Rich ssias
Bruc Jordan WilLs Becker
Lydia Wegman
Alan Eckert
-------
Sr 4 ,
‘1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 2771 I
‘p
OFFICE OF
AIR QUALITY Pt ANNING
iAR 2 2 ANOSTANOAHOS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of—Progress Plans for
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance (AIM) Coating ule
FROM: John S. Seitz, Directo
Office of Air Quality ing and St ndards (MD—b)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Division II
Director, Air, Ra4iation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Division V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and To)cics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
This memorandum supplements my memorandum of November 29,
1994 concerning State credit for reductions from the forthcoming
Federal AIM coating rule. In response to comments received to
revisit our decision to use an 80 percent rule effectiveness for
this national regulation, we have decided to. increase the assumed
rule effectiveness to 95 percent. Five percent is assumed to be
lost due to the uncertainty involved in allowing manufacturers
and importers the option to pay an exceedance fee to manufacture
coatings with volatile organic compound (VOC) contents above the
standards. In addition, in response to industry comments about
our reduction calculation procedure, we have slightly modified
our calculation assumptions for reductions achieved from one of
the regulated categories. This modification increases the
reduction estimate slightly. The combined effect of these two
changes increases the overall reduction estimate to 20 percent in
unregulated areas by November 1996. Reductions in years beyond
1996 are expected, and additional guidance may be issued for
these reductions in the future.
-------
2
States that are having difficulties adopting their own rule
may take credit for the 20 percent reduction described above
without adopting or committing to backup measures. However, if
EPA’s rule does not provide a 20 percent reduction by the end of
1996, the State will be responsible for developing control
measures to make up the shortfall.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this
approach, please contact Laurel Schultz at (919) 541—5511. Any
questions regarding the status of the AIM rule may be directed to
Ellen Ducey at (919) 541—5408.
cc: William Becker, Executive Director, STAPPA/MIAPCO
Alan Eckert, OGC (2344)
Bruce Jordan, OAQPS/ESD (MD-13)
Rich Ossias, OGC (2344R)
Sally ShIver, OAQPS/AQSSD (MD-15)
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS (MD-b)
-------
(ci’L C( .)
Jfr 1
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711
I
4j
OFACEOF
MR QIJAUTV PtANNING
t4AV 5 AND
‘1OPANDt1M
SUBJECT: Fifteen Percent Rate-of-Progress P1ans—-Additior al
Guidance
FROM: 3ehn S. Seit , Directo
Office of Air Quality P an tan s (MD—b)
TO: Director, Air,, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Divi5ion, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Ai , Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III.
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
• Region V
• Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
• Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, IX , and X
Section 182 (b) (1) of the Act required States to submit, by
November 15, 1993 for all ozone nonattainment areas classified as
moderate and above, a SIP that provides for a 15 percent -.
reduction in emissions of VOC by November 15, 1996. The purpose
of this memorandum is to provide guidance on completeness of 15
percent plans as they relate to the enhanced I/N program.
.On December 20, 1994, Carol Browner, Administrator, sent a
letter to the Governors to communicate her plan tg provide
flexibility for States required to implement vehicle emissions
I1M. The. A will propose to establish a nev “low—enhanced” TIM
performa jà, standard applicable to States that have shown they do
not nee Ull enhanced I/N program, as currently, defined, to
fulfill l5 percent rate-of-progress plan requirement, or if a
State ca áäJce up the emissions reductions needed for the 15
percent plan from other sources.’ In most cases, States are
relying on reductions from the enhanced I/N program as a portion
of the 1.5 percent rate-of-progress plan. The EPA continues to
believe that a high-tech, test-only I/N program provides a large
LMemorand from Margo I. Oge, Director, Office of Mobile
Sources, to the Regional Air Division Directrs, dated
December 29, 1994, subject “I/N Requirements and Flexibilities.”
-------
o5/OP/9-3 08:25 541 0824 EPA_OZONE-CO .-.-‘ 0CC—DC I JOO4/OO4
2
(and cost—effective) contribution to the substantial overall
emissions. reductions required for the 15 percent p1an States
should be aware that achieving these reductions with other
programs may prove more difficult and costly.
Where a State can demonstrate that incremental reductions
between what would have occurred under the I/U program that the
State has chosen to adopt and what would have occurred with the
high enhanced 1/14 program can be achieved from other sources by
December 31, 1996, EPA will accept, for the purpose of
completeness, a commitment for rules to achieve those incremental
reductions. The cc mitiaent mus€ identify the measure(s) and the
amount of raductic - 3 expected to be achieved. If all other
requirements are met, a 2.5 percent plan that contains such a
mmitment may be found complete. For States that are currently
subject to a finding- of failure to submit or incompleteness, this
commithen must be submitted and found complete before the 18-
month clock expires in order to avoid sanctions. Rovever • any 15
percent plan that contains such a commitment may net be
considered to be fully approvable until the measures are fully
adopted.
.This approach is acceptable and necessary, as a practical
matter, because the changes in EPA’s approach to provide
flexibility for the I/H program are recent. Therefore, some
States may need additional time to develop ether measures in
order to achieve the reductions necessary for the 15 percent
plan. T. is guidance upersedes any statement i to the contrary in
the Augt. t 23, 1993 Lnorandu]u from Michael Snapiro, Acting
Assistant Adininistrz .r for Air and Radiation.
Please share this information with your State and local air
pollution control agencies. The contact persons for this
guidance are Laurel Schultz (919-541-5511) or ICimber Scavo
(919-541—3354). Please feel free to call Sally Shaver, Director,
AQSSD, (919—541—5505), if there are any questions.
cc: Air 8ranc b1.f, Regions I-X
Alan Ecice f4
William Bnltt
Phil Lorang
Mary Nichols
Merge Oge
Rich Ossias
Sally Shaver
Lydia Wegman
-------
r.CV—29—1994 29: 2 FROM OtIS 2ND FLCOR
TO
9i i3s694 69 P.øi
OPTOr4AL FORM 99 (,. )
FAX TRANSMITTAL Ddpug.IØ .
To & MM? r F m ? J 4 I
pn Iu’
ue
?aiI
j$H I.417..73 $ 3099-101 GEP4ERA . SERVICES £DM i
UNFTED STATES ENVIRON _________________________________
• y: WASH1NQ I
3.
MOxiu,wt M AIR A?Cs RADIATION
Subject: SIP credits for 4 Federal Nonroad Engine Emissions
• Standards and Cert tn Other Mobile Source Prograñts
Pro ns Mary Nichoip,
- Assietant Adr in3.sfr tor
• for Air and Radibtion
To: Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10
• The purpose of this memorandum is to p ovide guidance on how
EPA i itends to allow SIP ôredits for national mobile source
ineasu.ree. not yet pzomulgated. Although a. single policy will bà
applied to all states, -the actual cre4ite associated these nieasurü
will vary. depending on evaluation dates. Therefore, this
memorandum will be followed by subsequent memoranda from EPA’ s
Off ice of Mobile Sources .detailing methodologies for states to use
in calculating the benefits of these mea ures in nonattàinment.
areaCon specific evaltation dates.
This memorandum describes current policy, and does not
constitute final action. Final action Will be taken La the context
of notice-and-comment rulemaking or other appropriate actions
concexning the relevant SIP submisèioris.
• EPA is wider court order to promulgate national emissions
standards for several categories of nonroad eq iipment .or engines
over the next three years. Many of these standards will not be
promulgated until after the deadlines for nonattainment.and rate-
of-prngreea SIP aubntis3jong. EPA has received several requests
from states for guidance on whether and how states could take
credit in SIPS for national .emission standards not yet promulgated.
Seine states have suggested that they be allowed to use the same
approach that EPA ha used in the recently proposed Federal
Implementation Plans for California.
Ba cka round
SIPo demonstrating ättairirn nP. and post-1996 rate-of-progress
reductions in VOC inyer.tories are due November 15, 1994. However,
EPA is not expected to promulgate most nonroad standards until
ftcr that date. E?A•is r c red by court order to finalize the
Pederal emission standards on the following schedule;
-------
,l 54 : 3 FROM O11 2ND FLOOR
TO
913 136684363 . P. 02
• ‘
- . ‘ .,.
• -p .r..
• b
.Small’Nonroad Spark Ignition Engines-- Ma , 1995
Phase I • •
• Small’ Nonroad Spark Ignition Engines-- pri1 1997
Phase II. •
Marine PleasuFe Cft November 1995,
•,
Implementation’ of these, standards will odcur over the peric d
from 1996 to .2001, and will apply only to newly built equipiftent.
buè to the proposed’phase-in of the standards and’ the effects of
fleet tur7apver, benefits of theSe programs are expected to be small
prior. to the end of the century. Nevertheless, areas ‘with.
-attainment deadlines of 2Q05 or later, there is the potential for.
substantial benefits from ,thege programs.
‘In addition to’ the national nonroad stan ardr given above, ‘two
other ‘national mobile source control programs have similar
situations regarding late deadlines for final rules compared to the
SIP . deadlines. EPA is under” court-ordered deadline to finalize
th Federal Test Procedure ( P) revision rule by October 1995 and
the gasoline detergent ‘additive rule by. June 1995.
The PIP roac
• on’ Fe ruary 14, 1994, EPA’ released proposed’ Federal
Implementation Plans for California.. These. proposed plans take
credit for -the national nonroad standards given above. For small
onread ga o1ine engines in the PIPe, a 40% ra iuction in VOC’
emissions was assumed for phase I and a- 90% total reduction was
assumed for phases I and II combined. The total benefit for Phase
I and II assumed in’the’ FTP is baeed,on the assumption .that the
final .national rule will include new. exhaust standards in
,combination with other’ measures such as evaporative , mission
controls, spillage control programs, fuels reguiromonts, nd
programs to accelerate :f1 t turnover. ,
For heaVy duty óompresaion ign.iti’on ‘nonroad ágines, EPA
proposed in the, FIPs a control program based -on a combination of
proposed national standards and more stringent set âf standards
specifically for the YIP areas. ‘Benefits for the national
standards were based on a 6.9 g/bhp-hr NOx standüd.
1?or,marine pleasure craft, benefits in the PIPs are based on
an assumption of an 80% reduction in .exhau et’ RC emiaaions from
outboard engines and,(an 8% reduction in exhaust XC emiésionc from
inboard engines, plus FIP-specific programs to encourage the use of
only engines meeting the new standards.
• ‘For the riatio ’paJ. smaU engine and marine pleasure craft
programs in particular, these benefits are not exact since’ in both
cases they will depend on public comment to proposed rules and in
the’c se of tile small engine standards, they w 11 also depend in
-------
‘.- - 4 9:54 FROM 0ri5 21’ID FLOGR TO 913136684369 P.03
part on the outcome of the regulatory negoUaUuu process.
However, for the. FIPs., EPA’s Office of General Counsel has
concluded that we are justified in giving credit to these programs
even with this uncertainty. The promulgation of most of the e
rules i’s.imminent and all are legally compelled by specific dates.
The •range of uncertainty with regard to the benefits of the final
rules is entail, especially in comparison to the tota.L emieaion9
inventory. Consequently, the potential error in . inventOry
estimates and therefpre, the potential error in the required
stringency for all other control measures in :the nenattainnient
area, is small. Finally, we proposed in the PIP a commitment that
ifthe final rules are less stringent than we have anticipated, we
:will prbmulgate a more stringent program for the FIP areas, which
will achieve the specified reductions..
Application of the PTP Approach to Other _ State and Other ontro1.
Measures .
EPA believes that, with certain cond tione. states may take a
similar approach in their SIPs for the national programs described
abov. and for other required Federal mobile source measures,
including thos subject to court-ordered deadlines. The fact that
these are required 1 Federal rules, and •indeed with court-ordered
dc dlineo, creates special. circumstances that allow EPA to consider
• them enforceable SIP.e].emnents, provided states also commit to adopt
gap-filling nteasureá to account for any shortfalls, identified
later, between currently anticipated and actual final
benefits. These gap-filling measures do not necessaril have to.be
• in the same invento± category as the rule they are meant to
d( count for.
By extension of this line of reasoning, EPA believes that, in
addition to the YIP nonzoad iiie u described above, states s ould
also be able to take c: edit for the gasoline detergent additives
rule and.certain aspects of the FTP revision rule, both of which
are also under court-ordered deadlines.
Subsequent memoranda will detail ;he calculatioii of SIP
credits for. these p ogram . States should not count on achieving
reductions .identic4 to those published in the technical: support
documents for the California FIPs, for several reasons. In. some
cases (such as heavy duty nonroa an marine pleasure craft), the
FIP benefits inclu de additional FTP-specific measures that are not
part of EPA’s propc e4 national rules.
The Office, of General Counsel has. concluded that this policy
of authorizing SIPs. tâ take credit for ‘reductions form Federal
measures is consistent .wjth the overall scheme of the Clean Air Act
oz ne nonattainment provisions, as well as the relevant provisions
by theil terms. Congrens anticipated that attainment of the ozone
primary national ambient air quality standard would result from a
cDnmbination of State .and Federal actions. As a result, the
reductions from Federal measures are arr integral part of Congress’s
blueprint for attainment. Therefore, SIPs should be allowed to
-------
CU-29— 994 Z9:54 FROM OtIS 2ND FLOOR TO S131366o4 P.B4
account ‘f or. those reductioi s.’ In particular, the. attainment
demonstration. provisions of sections 183(b).(l) (A) Ci) (Mqderate
• areag) and 182(c) (2) (A)’ (Serious and higher classified areas); as
well as the rate”of’.Progress CROP) provisions of . sections
‘182 (b) Cl) (C) . (initial 15% required reductions). and 182 Cc) (2) (2)
subsequent 3% per year required reductions) may b read to assiune.
the creditability o . r ductións from Federal measures (other than
those , specifically, identified in the RO? provisions ‘ as
noncred t ’ablR). ‘ Purther. . denyiig SIP credit for reductiQna from
Federal measures would unduly burden the States because States
would be obliged to develop and begin to ia lement SIP measures to
a ure the full amount of reductions needed for ROP and attainment,
but .they could ubsequently retract those SIP provisions when the
Federal rneaaures are promulgated and begin y4elding reductions.
cc:’ Mary Smith, OMS
• ‘Richard Wilaon, O R
- ‘Jobn’ .Seitz, OAQPS
‘Alan Eckert, 0CC
1 2
-------
Sr 4 ,
F
_____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
“4 / NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
t G 28 1994
OFFICE OF
MEMOPANDUM AIR AND R DIATON
SUBJECT: Future Nonroad Emission Reduction Credits for Court-Ordered Nonroad Standards
FROM: Philip A. Lorang, Director
Emission Planning and
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics
Management Division, Regions 1 and 4
Director Air and Waste Management Division,
Region 2
Director, Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division,
Region 3
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region 5
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division,
Region 6
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions 7, 8,9, and 10
- This memorandum provides guidance for the calculation of emission reductions resulting
from federal nonroad engine emission standards that have court-ordered deadlines for
promulgation. The guidance is intended for use in the preparation of State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submittals, such as post-1996 rate-of-progress plans and attainment demonstrations due in
November 1994.
The attached memorandum explains EPA’s policy regarding SIP credits for national mobile
source measures that are court-ordered but not yet promulgated.
The guidance in this memorandum is based on analyses performed for the proposed federal
nonroad standards and the Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) that EPA has proposed for the
South Coast, Ventura, and Sacramento areas of California. Emission reduction credits resulting
from the guidance represent the anticipated effects of national standards that have been made final
(in the case of heavy duly diesel engines), have been proposed and are subject to a court-order for
finalization, or are court-ordered but have not yet been proposed. If final standards are less
stringent than proposed or anticipated, states will be required to make up any shortfall in emission
reductions that occurs. For that reason, states may want to include a safety margin in their
emission reduction estimates to guard against the prospect of overestimating emission reductions
and underestimatingthe need for additional controls. On the other hand, if final standards prove to
be more stringent than proposed or anticipated, states will be able to claim the additional credit that
is identified.
The first section of this guidance provides a list of the promulgation deadlines for the
recently promulgated and court-ordered standards. It is followed by a description of each of the
fmal and proposed standards. The next section identifies the nonroad equipment types affected by
each standard and provides guidance for applying the specified annual fleet average emission
reductions associated with each standard to an area’s nonroad inventory. l’he guidance concludes
with information concerning the calculation of the identified emission reduction credits.
Fs ’nieC , . ...
-------
-2-
Court-Ordered Nonroad Standards
EPA is under court order to promulgate standards for new nonroad engines in the
following categories by the indicated dates:
Heavy Duty Compression Ignition (CI) May 1994 (completed)
Engines
Small Nonroad Spark Ignition (SI) May 1995
Engines Phase I
Small Nonroad Spark Ignition Engines May 1997
Phase II
Outboard/Inboard Marine Engines November 1995
Emission Standards
Heavy Duty Compression Ignition ( Diesel) Engines
On May 31, 1994, the EPA Administrator signed a regulation setting final emission
standards for new heavy duty compression ignition engines. These standards were published in
the Federal Reaister on June 17, 1994 (59FR3 1306). They axe the first of the court-ordered
federal nonroad emission standards to be finalized. The final heavy duty diesel regulations adopt
the proposed nitrogen oxide (NOx) and smoke standards for large nonroad CI engines with a
power output measured at or above 37 kilowatts (kW), or 50 horsepower (hp).
The heavy duty diesel regulations also set standards for hydrocarbon (HC), carbon
monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PM) emissions for engines at or above 130 kW. These
standards, which were not included in the initial proposal, are consistent with those adopted by
California.
Table I lists the heavy duty diesel standards by pollutant and power output. Table 2
provides the effective dates of the standards by power output.
Table 1
Final Standards for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines
Power Output
kW
(hp)
HC
g/kW-hr
(g/bHp-hr)
CO
g/kW-hr
(g/bHp-hr)
NOx
gIkW-hr
(g/bHp-hr)
PM
g kW-hr
(g/bHp-hr)
Smoke
A/ [ IP*
(Percent)
130kW
( 175 hp)
1.3
(1.0)
11.4
(8.5)
9.2
. (6.9)
0.54
(0.4)
20/15/50
75to<130
(l00to<175)
--
--
9.2 -
(6.9)
--
20/15/50
37to<75
(50 to <100)
--
--
9.2
(6.9)
--
20/15/50
* Smoke opacity standards are repoited in terms of percent opacity during an acceleration mode,
a lug mode, and the peak opacity on either the acceleration or lug mode.
-------
-3-
Table 2
Implementation Dates for Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards
Power Output, kW (hp)
Implementation Date*
130 to 560
(175 to 750)
January 1, 1996
75 to <130
(lOOto <175)
January 1, 1997
37 to <75
(50 to <100)
January 1, 1998
>560
(>750)
January 1, 2000
* The standards apply to all engines manufactured beginning on this date.
The heavy duty diesel standards affect engines used primarily in agricultural, heavy
constnaction, and industrial equipment. The regulation specifically excludes engines regulated by
the Mining Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for underground use and engines used in
aircraft, for propulsion of locomotives, and in marine vessels.
Small Spark Ifnition ( Gasoline) Engines
EPA is regulating new spark-ignition engines with a power output at and below 19kW (25
hp) in two phases. The proposed Phase I regulation, which was published in the Federal Register
on May 16, 1994 (59FR25399), identifies exhaust emission standards for HC, CO, and NOx for
all new small gasoline engines manufactured on or after August 1, 1996. (In response to
comments received on the proposal, EPA is considering implementing the final standards
beginning with the 1997 engine model year rather than as of the August 1, 1996 date.) The
proposed standards are based on engine class, which is defined by engine displacement and the
type of equipment powered by the engine, i.e., handheld versus non-handheld. The specified
engine classes are:
Class I - non-handheld engines less than 22.5 cubic centimeters (cc) in
displacement (e.g., those used in lawnmowers);
Class U - non-handheld engines greater than or equal to 225 cc in displacement
(e.g., those used in commercial lawn and garden equipment, garden
tractors, generator sets);
Class ifi - handheld engines less than 20 cc in displacement (e.g., those used in
small string trimmers, edgers);
-------
-4-
Class IV - handheld engines equal to or greater than 20 cc and less than 50 cc in
displacement (e.g., those used in chain saws, large trimmers, edgers);
Class V - handheld engines equal to or greater than 50 cc in displacement (e.g.,
those used in commercial chain saws).
The proposed Phase I standards by engine class are listed in Table 3.
Table 3
Small Gasoline Engine
Proposed Phase I Exhaust Emission Standards
Engine Class
HC + ?JOx
g/kW -hr
HC
glkW-hr
CO
g kW-hr
NOx
g/kW -hr
I
16.1
--
402
—
II
13.4
--
402
—
ifi
--
295
805
5.36
N
--
241
805
5.36
V
--
161
402
5.36
Phase LI standards for small gasoline engines, which will cover exhaust and evaporative
emissions, are currently being negotiated through a regulatozy negotiation process that is expected
to continue through May 1995. EPA is under court order to propose Phase II standards by May
1996. The court-ordered deadline for publishing final Phase II standards is May 1997. The
standards themselves are expected to take effect in 2001.
While emission standards for Phase II of the federal program have not yet been proposed,
EPA estimated likely emission reductions resulting from the combined Phase I and IL standards for
use in the California FIPs. The guidance in this memorandum is based on reductions proposed for
the FIPs.
The small gasoline engine regulations will affect small engines used in a broad range of
equipment categories, including lawn and garden, utility, small farm and construction, and light
industrial applications. Large engines, which dominate some nonroad equipment types, are not
affected. The small gasoline engine regulations also specifically exclude engines used in marine
vessels, underground mining equipment, motorcycles, aircraft, and recreational vehicles. This
guidance identifies the equipment types included in the EPA-provided nonroad inventories for
which emission reduction credits apply.
-------
-5-
Marine Engines
The EPA Administrator signed proposed emission standards for marine engines on October
31, 1994. The proposed standards will be published in the Federal Register in early November
1994. The emission reductions cited in this guidance are based on EPA’s analyses done in support
of the proposed rule.
EPA has proposed emission standards for all new gasoline (spark-ignition) and diesel
(compression-ignition) marine engines. The proposed standards for gasoline engines are divided
into two groups: those for outboard engines and personal watercraft (PWC) (e.g., Jet Skis) on the
one hand and those for inboard and stemdrive engines on the other.
Gasoline Marine Engines
EPA has proposed HC, NOx, and CO emission standards for gasoline-powered marine
engines. For outboard engines and personal watercraft, the proposed HC standards are scheduled
to be phased-in over a period of nine years, beginning with the 1998 model year and becoming
more stringent each year. For stemdrive and inboard engines, the proposed HC standards are to
become effective with the 1998 model year with no phase-in period.
The proposed NOx and CO standards for all gasoline-powered marine engines are
scheduled to begin with the 1998 model year with no phase-in.
Diesel Marine Engines
EPA has proposed to amend the existLng heavy duty diesel regulations to include diesel-
powered marine engines. This approach would subject all marine diesel engines to the NOx, HC,
CO, PM, and smoke standards that have been promulgated for land-based diesel engines with a
power output of 130 kW or higher ( 175 lip). These standards would apply to all diesel-powered
marine engines, regardless of power output. However, EPA has proposed two different effective
dates based on an engine size cutoff of 560 kW. Marine engines with a power output below 560
kW would be subject to the standards as of January 1, 1999, and marine engines with a power
output at 560 kW and above would be subject to the standards as of January 1, 2000.
Other Engines
While EPA has the authority to regulate other nonroad engines, SIP credit may be taken for
only the court-ordered standards discussed above. At this time, neither a time frame nor a level of
control has been identified for other nonroad engines not subject to court order.
EPA is required by statute to promulgate final emission standards for locomotives by
November 15, 1995. (See Section 213(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.) The
Agency’s policy regarding emission reductions resulting from future locomotive standards will be
discussed in a separate memorandum.
Emission Reduction Credits
EPA has calculated emission reductions likely to result from final and proposed federal
nonroad standards. The calculations incorporate EPA and industry estimates about equipment
populations, survival, and usage rates as well as EPA emission factors. The result is an annual
fleet average emission reduction percentage. The guidance below explains how to apply the fleet
average emission reduction percentages to area-specific nonroad inventories by equipment type,
after accounting for projected growth.
-------
-6-
Table 4 indicates which of the 79 equipment types contained in the EPA-developed nonroad
emission inventories are affected by the three sets of court-ordered nonroad standards.
While the engines subject to the heavy duty diesel standards are found primarily in the
agricultural, heavy construction, and industrial equipment categories, not all of the equipment types
in these general categories are powered by engines that fall within the affected horsepower ranges.
Consequently, emission reductions should be applied on an equipment-type basis rather than to the
entire category.
Similarly, the small gasoline regulations generally apply to equipment categorized as lawn
and garden, utility, small farm and construction, and light industrial. However, some equipment
types in these categories are powered primarily by engines with a rated horsepower above 25,
which is the cutoff for the regulation. Since it proved beyond the scope of this guidance to derive
rule penetration rates for each equipment type, emission reductions are allocated to the 79
equipment types on an all-or-nothing basis. That is, the emission reduction credits provided in
Table 5 aie assumed to apply (or not to apply) to all engines within an equipment type, even
though some of the engines powering the indicated type of equipment may not be subject to the
standard by virtue of being outside of the horsepower range to which the standard applies.
EPA identified an equipment type as being eligible for the small gasoline emission
reduction benefits based on the average horsepower of engines used in the equipment, as indicated
by Table 2-04 of.the 1991 Nonroad Engine and Vehicle Emission Study (NEVES). The small
gasoline assignments presented in Table 4 reflect equipment types that are powered predominantly
by engines below 25 hp apd thus subject to the standards. Other equipment types within the same
overall category most often use engines above 25 hp and so do not receive emission reduction
benefits.
The marine standards will have different effects on emissions from outboards and personal
watercraft than on emissions from inboards and stemdrives, as mentioned earlier. Table 4
indicates whether the outboard/PWC (OBIPWC) or inboard/stemdrive ( lB/SD) benefits apply to
each of the five vessel types listed in the EPA-provided nonroad inventories. Personal watercraft
were not included in the EPA-provided nonroad inventories.
While the EPA-supplied inventories are separated by gasoline 2-stroke and 4-stroke
equipment and diesel equipment, specified reductions, if indicated, should be applied equally to
gasoline 2-stroke and 4-stroke equipment, since EPA calculated overall reductions for the two
categories combined.
In cases where an identified equipment type can be powered by either diesel or gasoline
engines, care should be taken to apply the correct emission reductions (or increases) to the correct
inventory component. For example, for some equipment types, 2-stroke and 4-stroke gasoline
engines are subject to the small gasoline standards, but if the same equipment is powered by a
diesel engine, the heavy duty diesel standards may apply.
While the court-ordered regulations are expected to set emission standards for HC, CO ,
and NOx (and in some cases particulate matter and smoke), the significance of the resulting
emission reductions will vary by pollutant depending upon the significance of the uncontrolled
emissions that the regulations aim to address. For example, NOx is the primary pollutant of
concern from heavy duty diesel engines, and the heavy duty diesel emission standards will have
the most effect on NOx emissions. It is unlikely that the HC and CO emissions will change much
as a result of the heavy duty diesel regulations, and, consequently, this guidance assumes that there
is no change. However, since small gasoline and recreational marine emissions are primary
nonroad contributors to HC emissions, HC is the pollutant most targeted for emission reductions
by those regulations (although changes in NOx occur as well).
-------
.7-
Table 4
Standards Applying to Nonroad Equipment Types
Class
Equipment Type
2-stroke
4-stroke
Diesel
£
rthnme s/Edgersf Brash Qitteis
Small Gas
Small Gas
Lawnmowers
Small Gas
Small Gas
I
Leaf Blowers/Vacuums
Small Gas
Small Gas
1
Rear Engine Riding Mowers
Small Gas
Small Gas
1
Front Mowers
Small Gas
Small Gas
I
Chain Saws <4 hp
Small Gas
Small Gas
— 1_
Shredders <5 hp
Small Gas
Small Gas
— 1_
Tillers <5 hp
Small Gas
Small Gas
Lawn and Garden Tractors
Small Gas
Small Gas
— 1_
Wood Splitters
Small Gas
Small Gas
MD Diesel
1_
Snowblowers
Small Gas
Small Gas
Chippers/Stump Grinders
MD Diesel
I
Commercial Turf Equipment
Small Gas
Small Gas
1
Other Lawn and Garden Equipment
Small Gas
Small Gas
-
2
Aircraft Support Equipment
MD Diesel
2
Terminal Tractors
lID Diesel
3
All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs)
3
Minibikes
3
Off-Road Motoicycles
3
Golf Carts
Small Gas
Small Gas
3
Snowmobiles
3
specialty Vehicles Carts
Small Gas
Small Gas
4
Vessels v/Inboard Engines
.
Rec. Marine
L B/SD
Rec. Marine
LB/SD
4
Vessels w/Outboard Engines
Rec. Marine
OB/PWC
Rec. Marine
OB/PWC
4
Vessels w/Stemdrive Engines
Rec. Marine
lB/SD
Rec. Marine
LB/SD
4
Sailboat Auxiliary Inboard Engines
Rec. Marine
lB/SD
Rec. Marine
LB/SD
4
Sailboat Auxiliary Outboard Engines
Rec. Marine
OB/PWC
Rec. Marine
OB/PWC
5
Generator Sets <50 lip
Small Gas
Small Gas
5
Pumps <50 hp
Small Gas
Small Gas
5
Air Compi ssors <50 lip
Small Gas
Small Gas
5
Gas Compressors <50 hp
5
Welders <50 hp
Small Gas
Small Gas
5
Pressure Washers <50 lip
Small Gas
Small Gas
6
Aerial Lifts
6
Forklifts
MD Diesel
6
Sweepers/Scrabbers
MD Diesel
6
Other General Industrial Equipment
Small Gas
Small Gas
MD Diesel
6
Other Material Handling Equipment
lID Diesel
7
Asphalt Payers
MD Diesel
7
Tampers/Rammers
Small Gas
Small Gas
7
Plate Compactors
Small Gas
Small Gas
7
Concrete Payers
lID Diesel
7
Rollers
Small Gas
MD Diesel
7
capers -
MD Diesel
-------
-8-
Class
Fguipment Type
2-stroke
4-stroke
Diesel
7
Paving Equipment
Small Gas
Small Gas
RD Diesel
7
urfacing Equipment
Small Gas
Small Gas
7
ignal Boards
Small Gas
Small Gas
7
iencheis
I - ID Diesel
7
ore/Drill Rigs
RD Diesel
7
Excavators
LID Diesel
7
Concreteflndustrial Saws
Small Gas
Small Gas
RD Diesel
7
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Small Gas
Small Gas
7
Cranes
LID Diesel
7
Graders
H]) Diesel
7
Off-Highway Tzudcs
RD Diesel
7
Cnishing /Proc. Equipment
LID Diesel
7
Rough Terrain Fodthfts
ND Diesel
7
Rubber Tiied Loaders
RD Diesel
7
RubberTiredDozers
HDDiesel
7
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Crawler Tractors
I-ID Diesel
7
RD Diesel
7
Skid Steer Loaders
7
Off-HIghway Tractors
HD Diesel
7
Dumpers/renders
Small Gas
Small Gas
7
Other Constniction Equipment
RD Diesel
8
2-WheeL Tractors
Small Gas
Small Gas
8
Agricultural Tractors
H]) Diesel
8
Agricultural Mowers
Small Gas
Small Gas
8
Combines
H]) Diesel
8
rayers
Small Gas
RD Diesel
8
alers
.
LIDDiesel
8
Tkllers >5 hp
Small Gas
Small Gas
8
wathers -
RD Diesel
8
vdro Power Units
Small Gas
Small Gas
8
ther Agricultural Equipment
H]) Diesel
9
Chain Saws >4 hp
Small Gas
Small Gas
9
hedders >5 hp
Small Gas
Small Gas
9
kidders
ND Diesel
9
FellerWBunchers
LID Diesel
Class Codes
I = Lawn and Garden
2 = Airport Service
3 = Recreational Equipment
4 = Recreational Marine
5 = Light Commercial
6 = Industrial
7 = Construction
8 = Agricultural
9 = Logging
Table 5 provides the estimated annual emission reduction or increase percentages associated
with each of the court-ordered nonroad standards for 1990 through 2010. Emission reductions
appear as negative numbers, and increases appear as positive numbers. Since some controls on
HC emissions result in an increase in NOx emissions and vice versa, some of the standards will
cause one or the other of those emissions to increase.
EPA calculated national annual emission reductions or increases for each standard by
comparing a baseline inventory scenario to a control scenario, which incorporates estimates of
future population and activity levels, equipment survival rates, and the new standards. The
-------
-9-
emission benefit analyses factor in differences in population and activity by equipment type to
arrive at aggregate national emission reductions or increases for all equipment subject to the
standards. The percentages provided in Table 5 should be applied equally to all equipment types
designated in Table 4.
Heavy
Duty
Diesel
Table 5
Fleet Average Annual Emission Reduction Percentages
Marine
Inboard and
Sterndrive
Equation 1 below describes how the percent reductions (or increases) in Table 5 are applied
to the emissions from the nonroad equipment types designated in Table 4, after accounting for
growth. The results are projected emissions that incoiporate the anticipated effects of the couzt-
ordered nonroad standards.
Before the emission reductions in Table 5 can be applied to an area’s nonroad inventory,
the 1990 base year emissions should be projected to future years based on the nonroad projection
guidance issued on February 4,1994 in a memorandum from Philip A. Lorang to EPA Regional
Office Air Division Directors. The memorandum is entitled “Guidance on the Projection of
Nonroad Inventories to Future Years.”
Small Gasoline
Phase I Phase H
Outboard and PWC
Calendar
Year
NOx
HC
NOx
HC
NOx
HC
NOx
1990
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1991
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1992
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1993
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1994
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1995
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1996
-0.5%
-4.5%
+15.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1997
-1.7%
-12.8%
+44.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1998
-4.8%
-19.0%
+65.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1999
-7.8%
-22.9%
+79.6%
-0.2%
+0.8%
÷0.0%
-0.0%
2000
-10.7%
-25.2%
+87.3%
-1.0%
+3.4%
+0.2%
-0.1%
2001
-13.5%
-265%
+91.7%
-2.2%
+7.7%
+0.4%
-0.2%
2002
-16.2%
-35.1%
+94.5%
-4.0%
+14.1%
+0.8%
-0.4%
2003
-18.8%
-43.4%
+96.2%
-6.4%
+22.5%
÷1.2%
-0.7%
2004
-21.2%
-51.4%
+97.3%
-9.4%
+33.2%
+1.8%
-1.0%
2005
-23.5%
-59.2%
+97.9%
-13.2%
÷46.2%
÷2.5%
-1.4%
2006
-25.5%
-67.0%
+98.3%
-17.6%
+61.8%
+3.4%
-1.8%
2007
-27.2%
-74.7%
+98.7%
-22.8%
+80.0%
+4.3%
-2.3%
2008
-28.7%
-82.3%
+98.7%
-25.9%
+90.9%
+4.9%
-2.7%
2009
-29.9%
-90.0%
+98.7%
-29.1%
+102.2%
+5.5%
-3.0%
2010
-31.0%
-90.0%
+98.6%
-32.4%
+113.8%
+6.2%
-3.3%
-------
- 10-
Projected Emissionscy,j = Emissions 1 99 0 ,ij * growth factorcya * (1 + % changecy )
Equatibn 1
where
CY = calendar year
i = nonroad equipment type
j = pollutant (HC or NOx)
Emissions = HC or NOx in tons per summer or winter day
% Change = percent reduction or increase in emissions from Table 5
Table 6 provides an example of how the emission reductions for HC identified in Table 5
for small gasoline engines would be applied to ozone season emissions from 2-stroke
lawnmowers. The example follows the format of the EPA-supplied 1990 base-year nonroad
inventories, which provide emissions in tons per s’immer or winter day (tpsd or tpwd) for 2-
stroke, 4-stroke, and diesel engines within each nonroad equipment type.
Table 6
Example HC Emission Reduction Calculation for Lawnmowers
Reduction
from Small
1990 HC Growth 1990 Emissions Gasoline Projected
_________ Emissions Factor x Growth Standanis Emissions
Calendar Year ( lpsd ) _________ ( tpsd ) _________ ( q sd )
1990 9.15 1.00 9.15 0.0% 9.15
1991 1.01 9.24 0.0% 9.24
1992 1.02 9.33 0.0% 9.33
1993 1.03 9.42 0.0% 9.42
1994 1.04 9.52 0.0%’ 9.52
1995 1.04 9.52 0.0% 9.52
1996 1.05 9.62 -4.5% 9.19
1997 1.06 9.70 -12.8% 8.46
1998 1.07 9.79 -19.0% 7.93
1999 1.08 9.88 -22.9% 7.61
2000 1.08 9.91 -25.2% 7.41
2001 1.09 9.97 -26.5% 7.33
2002 1.10 10.07 -35.1% 6.53
2003 1.10 10.07 -43.4% 5.70
2004 1.11 10.17 -51.4% 4.95
2005 1.12 10.25 -59.2% 4.18
2006 1.13 10.34 -67.0% 3.41
2007 1.13 10.37 -74.7% 2.62
2008 1.14 10.43 -82.3% 1.84
2009 1.15 10.52 -90.0% 1.05
2010. 1.15 10.52 -90.0% 1.05
-------
— 11 —
The numbers used in the example above, other than the percent reductions, are
fictitious and should not be used in actual SIP subrnittals.
Calculations similar to those shown in Table 6 should be performed for the appropriate
engine types within each equipment type affected by the couit-ordered nonroad standards and for
each pollutant, according to the equipment type mapping in Table 4 and the emission changes in
Table 5.
Benefits for Reformulated Gasoline
If a state wishes to calculate the benefits of using reformulated gasoline in nonroad engines,
those benefits should be applied to a future year nonroad inventory prior to calculation of the
emission changes resulting from the court-ordered nonroad standards. EPA issued guidance for
determining nonroad reformulated gasoline benefits in a March 17, 1994 memorandum from Philip
A. Lotang and Robert E. Maxwell entitled “Nonroad Engine Hot Soak and Running Loss
Emission Data Guidance” and the earlier August 18, 1993 memorandum from Phil Lorang entitled
“VOC Emission Benefits for Nonroad Equipment with the use of Federal Phase 1 Reformulated
Gasoline.”
For areas using reformulated gasoline, states should apply the specified reformulated gas
benefits separately to the evaporative and exhaust components of future year nonroad HC
emissions. The evaporative/exhaust split in nonroad emissions can be derived from the composite
HC inventory based on the guidance mentioned above. Once the separate reformulated gasoline
benefits axe applied, the resulting evaporative and exhaust emissions should be re-combined to
obtain composite projected HC emissions. The appropriate emission changes resulting from the
court-ordered non.road standards should then be applied to those total future year HC emissions.
This method is approximate because it overlooks some of the interaction between the fuel
and engine emission regulations, but it is the best method available for applying reformulated
gasoline benefits to the current inventories with a reasonable amount of effort.
Heavy Duty Diesel Engines
The methodology that EPA used to calculate aggregate annual NOx reductions is described
in the regulatoiy support document for the heavy duty diesel regulations, which is available in the
OMS section of the Technology Transfer Network (Tl’N) bulletin board. Annual benefit
calculations were performed separately for each of the three applicable power ranges (50-100 hp,
100-175 hp, and 175+ hp), which have different implementation dates. Integrating these separate
calculations yields the combined emission reductions for all equipment affected by the standards.
Additional NOx reductions will accrue beyond 2010 due to the additional engine turnover.
Because of the relatively long lives of heavy duty diesel engines, many unregulated engines will
still be in use in 2010. EPA expects the maximum NOx reduction from the heavy duty diesel
standards to be 37% in 2025, when the fleet is expected to have turned over.
Small Gasoline Engines
The draft regulatory support document for the proposed Phase I small gasoline standards
describes the benefit calculations for the first phase of these regulations. That document is also
available on the ‘TTN. EPA has refined its analysis since the Phase I standards were proposed, and
the emission changes provided in this guidance reflect updates to those initial benefit calculations as
well as to the percentages reported in a draft of this guidance.
-------
- 12 -
The estimated HC benefits of the combined Phase I and II standards are based on the
benefits proposed in the California FIPs, which project a cumulative 90% HC reduction at full fleet
turnover. The NOx increase resulting from the standards is a consequence of achieving the more
significant reductions in HC.
Since Phase U standards have not yet been negotiated, states may include a safety margin
in their emission reduction estimates to allow for the possibility that the final regulations do not
result in the HC emission reductions projected above. Table 7 below provides alternate annual
emission reductions based on a lower cumulative Phase I and U benefit of 70%. (Table 5
assumes 90%.) States may wish to use the Table 7 reductions as a more conservative estimate of
HC benefits from the Phase 11 small gasoline nile. The changes in NOx emissions remain as
reported in Table 5.
Table 7
Alternate HC Reductions for Small Gas Phase I and U
Small Gasoline
Phase I + II
Calendar
Year
HC
1990
0.0%
1991
0.0%
1992
0.0%
1993
0.0%
1994
0.0%
1995
0.0%
1996
-4.5%
-12.8%
1997
1998
-19.0%
1999
-22.9%
2000
-25.2%
2001
-26.5%
2002
-32.6%
2003
-38.4%
2004
-43.9%
2005
-49.2%
2006
-54.5%
2007
-59.7%
2008
-64.8%
2009
-70.0%
2010
-70.0%
Marine Engines
The estimated changes in HC and NOx emissions cited in Table 5 for marine engines are
based on analyses done for the proposed standards.
-------
-13-
The proposed standards for gasoline-powered outboard engines and personal watercraft are
expected to result in a 75.0 percent decrease in HC and a 263.5 percent increase in NOx when fully
phased in and at fleet turnover. For gasoline-powered inboards and stemdrives, which have much
lower baseline HC emissions than outboards, the focus of the proposed regulations is on NOx
control. As a result of the proposed regulations, at fleet turnover, NOx emissions from inboards
and stemdrives are expected to decrease by 7.7 percent, with an increase in HC of 14.3 percent.
Because of the proposed nine-year phase-in period and the long lives of marine engines,
marine emission levels will continue to change beyond 2010 as morn and more uncontrolled
engines axe replaced by controlled engines. For the fleet of gasoline-powered marine engines as a
whole, the eventual combined effect of the standards is anticipated to be a 70.1 percent drop in HC
emissions and a 31.6 percent increase in NOx emissions.
The proposal to regulate marine diesel engines may have the effect of reducing NOx
emissions from marine vessels below the levels specified in this guidance. However, EPA is
unable to include SIP credits for marine diesel engines at this time due to concerns regarding
quantification of credits and applicability of the regulations to specific types of marine diesel
engines.
Conclusion
Of the three sets of court-ordered nonroad standards discussed in this guidance, only the
heavy duty diesel standards have been finalized. The estimated emission reductions cited for the
other proposed standards reflect EPA’s cunent plans. While all of the emission reduction
estimates are based on significant, detailed analysis, if the final standards are different than current
assumptions, the emission reductions cited here may not occur. EPA recommends that states take
such a possibility into consideration in their SIP planning.
All of the proposed and final standards and their regulatory support documents will be
placed on the OMS section of the UN bulletin board as they become available.
Attachment
cc Alan Eckert, OGC
Charles Gray, Jr., OMS
Lany Jones, ORD
Robert Maxwell, OMS
David Mobley, OAQPS
Norm Possiel, OAQPS
John Silvasi, OAQPS
Mary Smith, OMS
Richard Wilson, OAR
-------
P. Redesignations
-------
p. Redesignat ions
P.1. Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment -- Sept. 4, 1992 memo from John Calcagni
P.2. Approval and Promulgation of Maintenance Plan and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes for Carbon
Monoxide State of New York (Proposed Rule) 58 FR 38108 (July 15,
1993)
P.3. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National inbient Air Quality (NAAQS) on
or after November 15, 1992 - - Sept. 17, 1993 memo from Michael H.
Shapiro
P.4. Reclassification of Areas to Nonattainment and 15 Percent
Rate-of-Progress Plans - - Sept. 20, 1993 memo from John S. Seitz
** Requirements for Reduced RVP in State Maintenance Plans - -
Nov. 8, 1993 memo from Michael Horowitz (See Reid Vapor Pressure
section]
P.5. Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainnient Areas - - Nov. 30,
1993 memo from D. Kent Berry
P.6. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio
(Final Rule) 59 FR 48395 (Sept. 21, 1994)
P.7. Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations for
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas - - Nov. 30,
1994 memo from D. Kent Berry
P.8. Part D New Source Review (part D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting Redesignation to Attainment - - Oct. 14, 1994 memo from
Mary D. Nichols
P.9. Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable Ozone
Nonattainment Areas - - Nov. 16, 1994 memo from Sally L. Shaver
P.10. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Florida (Direct Final Rule), 60 FR 41 (Jan. 3, 1995)
P.11. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of
Michigan (Final Rule) 60 FR 12459 (March 7, 1995)
** Potential Request from Colorado f or Permanent Change in
Denver’s Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Standard -- Apr. 4, 1995 memo
from David Cole (See Reid Vapor Pressure section]
-------
** Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility Amendments (Proposal), 60
FR 20934 (Apr. 28, 1995) (See Inspection and Maintenance section]
P.12. Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting
the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard -- May 10, 1995
memo from John S. Seitz
P.13. Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements --
Provisions for Redesignation, 60 FR 1735 (Jan. 5, 1995)
-------
j2,
IO S?l
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
4 SEP 1992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Procedures for ate Areas
to Attainment
FROM: John Calcagni,
Air Quality
TO: Director, Air, and Toxics
Division, Re4ions I and I v
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Purpose
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
expects that a number of redesignation requests will be submitted
in the near future. Thus, Regions will need to have guidance on
the applicable procedures for handling these requests, including
maintenance plan provisions. This memorandum, therefore,
consolidates the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’S)
guidance regarding the processing of requests for redesignation
of nonattainment areas to attainment for ozone (03), carbon
monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM—]O), sulfur dioxide (SO,),
nitrogen dioxide (NO,), and lead (Pb). Regions should use this
guidance $ a genera! framework for drafting Federal Register
notices prtaining to redesignation requests. Special concerns
f or areas seeking redesignation from unclassifiable to attainment
will be addressed on a case—by—case basis.
Backaround
Section 1o7(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
states that an area can be redesignated to attainment if the
following conditions are met:
Processing Requests
-------
2
1. The EPA has determined that the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) have been attained.
2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully
approved by EPA under section 110(k).
3, The EPA has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions.
4. The State has met all applicable requirements for the
area under section 110 and Part D.
5. The EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including
a contingency plan, for the area under section l75A.
Each of these criteria is discussed in more detail in the
following paragraphs. Particular attention is given to.
maintenance plan provisions at the end of this document since
maintenance plans constitute a new requirement under the amended
Clean Air Act. Exceptions to the guidance will be considered on
a case—by-case basis.
1. Attainment of the Standard
The State must show that the area is attaining the
applicable NAAQS. There are two components involved in making
this demonstration which should be considered interdependently..
The first component relies upon ambient air quality data. The
data that are used to demonstrate attainment should be the
product of ambient monitoring that is representative of the area
of highest concentration. These monitors should remain at this
same location for the duration of the monitoring period requ ed
f or demonstrating attainment. The data should be collected and
quality-assured in accordance with- 40 CPR 58 and recorded in the
Aeroinetric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) in order for it to
be available to the public for review. For purposes of
redesignation, the Regional Office should verify that the
integrity of.the air quality monitoring network has been
preserved.
FOr. PII’ 1O, an area may be considered attaining the NMQS if
the number f expected exceedances per year, according to 40 CYR
50.6, is lul than or equal to 1.0. For 03? the area must show
that the average annual number of expected exceedances, according
to 40 CFR 50.9, is less than or equal to 1.0 based on data from
all monitoring sites in the area or it. affected downwind
environs. In making this showing, both P11-10 and 03 must rely on
3 complete, consecutive calendar years of quality-assured air
quality monitoring data, collected in accordance with 40 CPR 50,
Appendices H and K. For CO, an area may be considered attaining
the NAAQS if there are no violations, as determined in accordance
-------
3
with 40 CFR 50.8, based on 2 complete, consecutive calendar years
of quality—assured monitoring data. For SO 2 , according to 40 R
50.4, an area must show no more than one exceedance annually ad
f or Pb, according to section 50.12, an area may show no
exceedances on a quarterly basis.
The second component relies upon supplemental EPA-approved
air quality modeling. No such supplemental modeling is required
for 03 nonattainment areas seeking redesignation. Modeling may
be necessary to determine the representativeness of the monitored
data. For pollutants such as SO 2 and CO, a small number of
monitors typically is not representative of areawide air quality
or areas of highest concentration. When dealing with SO 2 , Pb,
PM-l0 (except for a limited number of initial moderate
nonattainment areas), and Co (except moderate areas with design
values of 12.7 parts per million or lower at the time of passage
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990), dispersion modeling
will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively sources’
impacts and to determine the areas of expected high
concentrations based upon current conditions. Areas which were
designated nonattainment based on modeling will generally not be
redesignated to attainment unless an acceptable modeling analysis
indicates attainment. Regions should consult with OAQPS for
further guidance addressing the need for modeling in specific
circumstances.
2. State Implementation Plan (SIP A prova1
Th SIP for the area must be fully approved under section
110(k),’ and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the
area. It should be noted that approval action on SIP elements
and the redesignation request may occur simultaneously. An area
cannot be redesignated if a required element of its plan is the
subject of a disapproval; a finding of failure to submit or to
implement the SIP; or partial, conditional, or limited approval.
However, this does not mean that earlier issues with regard to
the SIP will be reopened. Regions should not reconsider those
things that have already been approved and for which the Clean
Air Act Amendments did not alter what is required. In contrast,
to the extent the Amendments add a requirement or alter an
existing z jj ireaent so that it adds something more, Regions
should coi j r those issues. In addition, requests from areas
known to Iffacted by diapers ion techniques which are -
inconsistáE ’iith EPA guidance will continue to be considered
unapprovable under section 110 and will not qualify for
redesignation.
Section 110(k) contains the requirements for EPA action on
plan submissions. It addresses completeness, deadlines, full and
partial approval, conditional approval, and disapproval.
-------
4
3. Permanent and Enforceable Improvement in Air OuaLitV
The State must be able to reasonably attribute the
improvement in air quality to emission reductions which are
permanent and enforceable. 2 Attainment resulting f row temporary
reductions in emission rates (e.g., reduced production or
shutdown due to temporary adverse economic conditions) or
unusually favorable meteorology would not qualify as an air
quality improvement due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions. -
In making this showing, the State should estimate the
percent reduction (from the year that was used to determine the
design value for designation and classification) achieved from
Federal measures such as the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program and fuel volatility rules as well as control measures
that have been adopted and implemented by the State. This
estimate should consider emission rates, production capacities,
and other related information to clearly show that the air
quality improvements are the result of implemented controls. The
analysis should assume that sources are operating at permitted
levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence is presented
that such an assumption is unrealistic.
4. Section 110 and Part D Raauirements
For the purposes of redesignation, a State must meet all
requirements of section 110 and Part D that were applicable prior
to submittal of the complete redesignation request. When
evaluating a redesignation request, Regions should not consider
whether the State has met requirements that come due undQr the
Act after subini:tal of a complete redesignation request.
2 This is consistent with EPA’S existing policy on
redesignations as stated in an April 21, 1983 memorandum titled
“Section 107 Designation Policy S msI. ry.” This memorandum states
that in order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the
State must show that actual enforceable emission reductions are
responsible for the recent air quality improvement.” This
element of he policy retains its validity under the amended Act
pursuant t .ction 193. (Note: other aspects of the April 21,
1983 iaemor*I 4Ua have since been superseded by subsequent
memorandui i terested parties should consult with OAQPS before
relying on these aspects, e.g. those relating to required years
of air quality date.]
3 Under section 175A(c), however, the requirements of Part D
remain in force and effect for the area until such time as it is
redesignated. Upon redesignation to attainment, the requirements
that became due under section 175A(c) after submittal of the
complete redesignation request would no longer be applicable.
-------
5
However, any requirements that came due prior to sith Ittal of the
redesignation request must be fully approved into the plan at or
before the time EPA redesignates the area.
To avoid confusion concerning what requirements will be
applicable for purposes of redesignation, Regions should
encourage States to work closely with the appropriate Regional
Office early in the process. This will help to ensure that a
redesignation request submitted by the State has a high
likelihood of being approved by EPA. Regions should advise
States of the practical planning consequences if EPA disapproves
the redesignation request or if the request is invalidated
because of violations recorded during EPA’s review. Under such
circumstances, EPA does not have the discretion to adjust
schedules for implementing SIP requirements. As a result. an
area may risk sanctions and/or Federal implementation plan
implementation that could result from failure to meet SIP
submittal or implementation requirements.
a. Section 110 Requirements
Section 1l0(a)(2) contains general requirements for
nonattainment plans. Most of the provisions of this section are
the same as those contained in the pre-amended Ace. We will
provide guidance on these requirements as needed.
b. Part D Requirements
Part D consists of general requirements applicable to all
areas which are designated nonattainment based on a violation of
the NAAQS. The general requirements are followed by a series of
subparts specific to each pollutant. The general requirements
appear in subpart 1. The requirements relating to 03, CO, P11-10,
SO 2 , NO 2 , and Pb appear in subparts 2 through 5. In those
instances where an area is subject to both the general
nonattainment provisions in subpart 1 as well as one of the
pollutant-specific subparts, the general provisions may be
subsumed within, or superseded by, the more specific requirements -
of subparts 2 through 5.
If an qa was not classified under section 181 for 03 or
section CO, then that area is only sub)ect to the
provision iubpart 1, “Wonattairuient Areas in General.” In
addition N .vant provisions in subpart 1, an 0 and CO area,
which is ctaaeifi.d, must meet all applicabl, requirements in
subpart 2, “Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,”
and subpart 3, “Additional Provisions for Carbon Monoxide -
4 Genara l guidance regarding the requirements for SIP’S may
be found in the “General Preamble to Title I of the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments,” 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
-------
6
Nonattainment Areas,” respectively, before the area may be
redesignated to attainment. All P14-10 nonattajnment areas
(whether classified as moderate or serious) must similarly meet
the applicable general provisions of subpart 1 and the specific
P14-10 provisions in subpart 4, “Additional Provisions for
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.” Likewise, SO 2 , NO,, and
Pb nonattainment areas are subject to the applicable general
normattainment provisions in subpart 1 as well as the more
specific requirements in subpart 5, “Additional Provisions for
Areas Designated Nonattainment for Sulfur Oxides, Nitrogen
Dioxide, and Lead.”
i. Section 172(c Requirements
This section contains general requirements for nonattainment
plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements may be found
in the General Preamble to Title I (57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992)]. The EPA anticipates that areas will already have met
most or all of these requirements to the extent that they are not
superseded by more specific Part D requirements. The
requirements for reasonable further progress, identification of
certain emissions increases, and other measures needed for
attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only
have meaning for areas not attaining the standard. The
requirements for an emission inventory will be satisfied by the
inventory requirements of the maintenance plan. The requirements
of the Part D new source review program will be replaced by the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program once the
area has been redesignated. However, in order to ensure that the
PSD program will become fully effective immediately upon
redesignation, either the State must be delegated the Federal PSD
program or the State must make any needed modifications to its
rules to have the approved PSD program apply to the affected area
upon redesignation.
ii. Conformity
The State must work with EPA to show that its SIP
provisions are consistent with section 176(c) (4) conformity
requirements. The redesignation request should include
conformit ocedures, if the State already has these procedures
in place. : itionally, we currently interpret the conformity
requireme jtb apply to attainment areas • However, EPA has not
yet issuedklts conformity regulations specifying what areas are
subject to the conformity requirement. Therefore, if a State
does not have conformity procedures in place at the time that it
submits a redesignation request, the State must commit to follow
EPA’S conformity regulation upon issuance, as applicable. If the
State submits the redesignation request subsequent to EPA’s
issuance of the conformity regulations, and the conformity
requirement became applicable to the area prior to submission,
-------
7
the State must adopt the applicable conformity requirements
before EPA can redesignate the area.
5. Maintenance Plans
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the amended Act stipulates that for
an area to be redesignated, EPA must fully approve a maintenance
plan which meets the requirements of section 175A. A State may
submit both the redesignation request and the maintenance plan at
the same time and rulemaking on both may proceed on a parallel
track. Maintenance plans may, of course, be submitted and
approved by EPA before a redesignation is requested. However,
according to section 175A(c), pending approval of the maintenance
plan and redesignation request, all applicable nonattainment area
requirements shall remain in place.
Section 175A defines the general framework of a maintenance
plan. The maintenance plan will constitute a SIP revision and
must provide for maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in the area
for at least 10 years after redesignation. Section 175A fu±ther
states that the plan shall contain such additional measures, if
any, as may be necessary to ensure such maintenance. Because the
Act requires a demonstration of maintenance for 10 years after an
area is redesignated (not 10 years after submittal of a
redesignation request), the State should plan for some lead time
for EPA action on the request. In other words, the maintenance
demonstration should project maintenance for 10 years, beginning
from a date which factors in the time necessary for EPA review
and approval action on the redesignation request. In determining
the amount of lead time to allow, States should consider that
section 107(d)(3)(D) grants the Administrator up to 18 months
from receipt of a complete submittal to process a redesignation
request. The statute also requires the State to submit a
revision of the SIP 8 years after the original redesignation
request is approved to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for
an additional 10 years following the first 10-year period (see
section 175A(b)].
In addition, the maintenance plan shall contain such
contingency measures as the Administrator deems necessary to
ensure propt correction of any violation of the NAAQS (see
section l751 &)]. The Act provides that, at a minimum, the
contingens jsasures must include a requirement that the State
will implelént all measures contained in the nonattainient SIP
prior to red.signation. Failure to maintain the NAAQS and
triggering of the contingency plan will not necessitat. a
revision of the SIP unless required by the Administrator, as
stated in section 175A(d).
The following is a list of core provisions that vs
anticipate will be necessary to ensure maintenance of the
relevant NAAQS in an area seeking redesignation from
-------
8
nonattainment to attainment. We therefore recommend that States
seeking redesignation of a nonattainment area consider these
provisions. However, any final EPA determination regarding the
adequacy of a maintenance plan will be made following review of
the plan submittal in light of the particular circumstances
facing the area proposed for redesignation and based on all
relevant information available at the lime.
a. Attainment Inventory
The State should develop an attainment emissions inventory
to identify the level of eaissipns in the area which is
sufficient to attain the NAAQS. This inventory should be
consistent with EPA’S most recent guidance on emission
inventories for rionattainment areas available at the time and
should include the emissions during the time peri; i associated
with the monitoring data showing attainment. 6
Source size thresholds are 100 tons/year for SO,, NO,, and
PM-lO areas, and’5 tons/year for Pb based upon 40 CFR 51.100(k)
and 51.322, as well as established practice for AIRS data. The
source size threshold for serious PM-b areas is 70 tons/year
5 wIlere the State has made an adequate demonstration that air
quality has improved as a result of the SIP (as discussed
previously), the attainment inventory will generally be the
actual inventory at the time the area attained the standard.
6 The EPA’S current guidance on the preparation of emission
inventories for 01 and CO nonattainment areas is contained in the
following documents: “Procedures for the Preparation of Emission
Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone: Volume
I” (EPA—450/4-91—0l6), “Procedures for the Preparation of
Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone:
Volume II ” (EPA—450/4—91—014), “Emission Inventory Requirements
for Ozone State Implementation Plans” (EPA—450/4-91-ObO),
“Emission Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide
Implementation Plans” (EPA-450/4-91’.Oll), “Guideline for
Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model” (EPA-450/4-91-
013), “Proc 4ur.s for Emission Inventory Preparation: Volume IV,
Mobile Sou S” (EPA—450/4-81—026d), and “Procedures for
P*eparing. - desion Inventory Projections” (EPA-450/4-91-O]9).
The EPA does not currently have specific guidance on attainment
emissions inventories for 502. In lieu thereof, States are
referred to the guidance on emissions data to be used as input to
modeling demonstrations, contained in Table 9.1 of EPA’S
“Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised) (EPA—450/2—78—027R),
July 1987, which is generally applicable to all criteria
pollutants. Emission inventory procedures and requirements
documents are currently being prepared by OAQPS for PM-b and Pb;
these documents are due for release by summer 1992.
-------
9
according to Clean Air Act section 189(b)(3). However, the
inventory should include sources below these size thresholds if
these smaller sources were included in the SIP attaii’ t
demonstration. Where sources below the 100, 70, and 5 tons/year—
size thresholds (e.g., areas with smaller source size
definitions) are subject to a State’s minor source permit
program, these sources need only be addressed in the aggregate to
the extent that they result in areawide growth.
For 03 nonattainment areas, the inventory should be based on
actual “typical summer day” emissions of 01 precursors (volatile
organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) during the attainment
year. This will generally correspond to one of the periodic
inventories required for nonattainment areas to reconcile
milestones. For CO nonattairiment areas, the inventory should be
based on actual “typical CO season day” emissions for the
attainment year. This will generally correspond to one of the
periodic inventories ‘required for nonattainment areas.
b. Maintenance Demonstration
A State may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS
by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its
precursors will not exceed the level of the attainment inventory,
or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and
emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS. Under
the Clean Air Act, many areas are required to submit modeled
attainment demonstrations to show that proposed reductions in
emissions will be sufficient to attain the applicable NAAQS. For
these areas, the maintenance demonstration should be based upon
the same level of modeling. In areas where no such modeling was
required, the State should be able to rely on the attainment
inventory approach. In both instances, the demonstration should
be for a period of 10 years following the redesignation.
Where modeling is relied upon to demonstrate maintenance,
each plan should contain a summary of the air quality
concentrations expected to result from application of the control
strategy. In the process, the plan should identify and describe
the dispersion model or other air quality model used to project
ambient concentrations (see 40 CFR 51.46).
In ei case, to satisfy the demonstration requirement the
State should project emissions for the 10-year period following
redesignation, either for the purpose of showing that emissions
will not ncrease over the attainment inventory or for conducting
modeling. The projected inventory should consider future
growth, including population and industry, should be consistent
7 Guidance for projecting emissions may be found in the
emissions inventory guidance cited in footnote 6
-------
10
with the attainment inventory, and should document data inputs
and assumptions. All elements of the demonstration (e.g.,
emission projections, new source growth, and m deling) should be
consistent with current EPA modeling guidance. For O and CO,
the projected emissions should reflect the expected actual
emissions based on enforceable emission rates and typical
production rates.
For Ca, a State should address the areawide component of the
maintenance demonstration either by showing that future Co
emissions will not increase or by conducting areawide modeling.
Preferibly, the State should carry out hot-spot modeling that is
consistent with the Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised), in
order to demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS. In particular, if
the nonattainment problem is related to a pattern of hot-spots
then hot-spot modeling should generally be conducted. However,
hot-spot modeling is not automatically required. For example, if -
the nonattainment problem was related solely to stationary point
sources, or if highway improvements have been implemented and the
associated emission reductions and travel characteristics can be
qualitatively documented, then hot-spot modeling is not required.
In such cases, adequate documentation as well as the concurrence
of Headquarters is needed.
Any assumptions concerning emission rates must reflect
permanent, enforceable measures • In other words, a State
generally cannot take credit in the maintenance demonstration for
reductions unless there are regulations in place requiring those
reductions or the reductions are otherwise shown to be permanent.
Therefore, the State will be expected to maintain its implemented
control strategy despite redesignation to attainment, unless such
measures are shown to be unnecessary for maintenance or are
replaced with measures that achieve equivalent reductions (see
additional discussion under “Contingency Plan”). Emission
reductions from source shutdowns can be considered permanent and
enforceable to the extent that those shutdowns have been
reflected in the SIP and all applicable permits have been
modified accordingly.
Mode1ixq used to demonstrate attainment may be relied upon
in the mai$ e demonstration where the modeling conforms to
current E j uidance and where the State has projected no
significalanges in the modeling inputs during the intervening
time. Wh.t the original attainment demonstration may no longer
be relied upon, States will be expected to remodel using current
8 The EPA-approved modeling guidance may be found in the
following documents: “Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised),” OAQPS, RTP, NC (EPA—450/2—78—027R), July 1986; and
“PM—b SIP Development Guideline,” OAQPS, RTP, NC (EPA-450/2-86—
001), June 1987.
-------
11
EPA referenced techniques. 9 This may be necessary where, for
example, there has been a change in emissions or a dian in the
siting of new sources or modifications such that air quality may
no longer be accurately represented by the existing deling.
c. Monitoring Network
Once an area has been redesignated, the State should
continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring
network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the
attainment status of the area. The maintenance plan should
contain provisions for continued operation of air quality
monitors that will provide such verification. In cases where
measured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled
congestion) have changed over time, the State may also need to
perform a saturation monitoring study to determine the need for,
and location of, additional permanent monitors.
d. Verification of Continued Attainment
Each State should ensure that it has the legal authority to
implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and to
maintain the NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(2)(3) and (F) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended, and regulations promulgated at 40 CFR
51.110(k), suggest that one such measure is the acquisition of
ambient and source emission data to demonstrate attainment and
maintenance.
Regardless of whether the maintenance demonstration is based
on a showing that future emission inventories will not exceed the
attainment inventory or on modeling, the State submittal should
indicate how the State will track the progress of the maintenance
plan. This is necessary due to the fact that the emission
projections made for the maintenance demonstration depend on
assumptions of point and area source growth.
One option for tracking the progress of the maintenance
demonstration, provided here as an example, would be for the
State to periodically updat. the, emissions inventory. In this
case, the maintenance plan should specify the frequency of any
planned in!emtory updates. Such an update could be based, in
part, on annual AIRS update and could indicate new source
growth ant other changes from the attainment inventory (e.g.,
changes in. vehicle miles travelled or in traffic patterns). As
an alternativ, to a complete update of the inventory, the State
may choose to do a comprehensive review of the factors that were
used in developing the attainment inventory to show no -
significant change. If this review does show a significant
change, the State should then perform an update of the inventory.
9 See references for modeling guidance cited in footnote 8.
-------
12
Where the demonstration is based on modeling, an option for
tracking progress would be for the State to periodically
(typically every 3 years) reevaluate the modeling assumptions and
input data. In any event, the State should monitor the
indicators for triggering contingency measures (as discussed
below).
e. Contingency Plan
Section 175k of the Act also requires that a maintenance
plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly
correct any violation of the XAAQS that occurs after
redesignation of the area. These contingency measures are
distinguished from those generally required for nonattainment
areas under section l72(c)(9) and those specifically required for
01 and Co nonattainnent areas under sections l82(c)(9) and
1 7(a)(3), respectively. For the purposes of section 175k, a
State is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures
that will take effect without further action by the State in
order for the maintenance plan to be approved. However, the
contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the
SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures are adopted
expediently once they are triggered. The plan should clearly
identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for
adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action
by the State. As a necessary part of the plan, the State should
also identify specific indicators, or triggers, which will be
used to determine when the contingency measures need to be
implemented.
Where the maintenance demonstration is based on the
inventory, the State may, for example-, identify an “action level”
of emissions as the indicator. If later inventory updates show
that the inventory has exceeded the action level, the State would
take the necessary steps to implement the contingency measures.
The indicators would allow a State to take early action to
address potential violations of the NAAQS before they occur. By
taking early action, States may be able to prevent any actual
violations of the WAAQS and, therefore, eliminate the need on the
part of EPA to redesignate an area to nonattainment.
Other 1 icators to consider include monitored or modeled
violations the NAAQS (due to the inadequacy of monitoring data
in some situE tions). It is important to note that air quality
data in excess of the NAAQS will not automatically necessitate a
revision of the SIP where implementation of contingency measures
is adequate to address the cause of the violation. The need for
a SIP revision is subject to the Administrator’s discretion.
The EPA will r- ew what constitutes a contingency plan on a
case-by-case basis. t a minimum, it must require that the State
will implement all . asures contained in the Part D nonattainment
-------
13
plan for the area prior to redesignation (see section 175&(d)J.
This language suggests that a State may submit a SIP revision at
the time of its redesignation request to remove or reduce the
stringency of control measures. Such a revision can he a roved
by EPA if it provides for compensating equivalent re xtions. A
demonstration that measures are equivalent would have to include
appropriate modeling or an adequate justification. Alterna-
tively, a State might be able to demonstrate (through
EPA-approved modeling) that the measures are not necessary for
maintenance of the standard. In either case, the contingency
plan would have to provide for implementation of any measures
that were reduced or removed after redesignation of the area.
Summary
As stated previously, this memorandum consolidates EPA’S
redesignation and maintenance plan guidance and Regions should
rely upon it as a general framework in drafting Federal Reaister
notices. It is strongly suggested that the Regional Offices
share this document with the appropriate States. This should
give the States a better understanding of what is expected from a
redesignation request and maintenance plan under existing policy.
Any necessary Changes to existing Agency policy will be made
through our action on specific redesignation requests and the
review of section 175k maintenance plans for these particular
areas, both of which are subject to notice and comment rulemaking
procedures. Thus, in applying this memorandum to specific
circumstances in a rulemaking, Regions should consider the
applicability of the underlying policies to the particular facts
and to comments submitted by any person. If your staff members
have questions which require clarification, they may contact
Sharon Reinders at (919) 541-5284 for 03— and CO-related issues,
and Eric Ginsburg at (919) 541—0877 for SO 2 —, PM—b—, and
Pb—related issues.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
John Cabaniss, OMS
Denise Devoe, OAQPS
Bill Laxton, TSD
Rich Ossias, OGC
John Rilnic, SSCD
JohnI tz, OAQPS
Mike- SbIpiro, OAR
LydiaW*qman, o Ps
-------
A
I’’
3 Qg FeaLp J - Va . 58, 134 I hwsday, Ju1y 5. 19 3 P opçae i Rule&
- •-- -- . .- L..- - -
en award of .du t1ona1 a.efj - .**iU: n1Tunegtg m dbsta Iv.dnii. .- 101-649.104 StaL 2399, cad ifled at 42
bUowlngih ofe - orbefat AugustiI,19ø3. •. U.S.C . .? ! -7671q.)B etheQfyo
deoendsntwi!ew ‘r Afl .hauid.be . area violated
C L) VA baa notified the ntaran Cf the addressed to: Wfl!fitmJ; MuazynsU th* a) sthlIdard In 1989, the Act
adverse action. and ‘ I- - PLVAct(ng F gf coal AdminIa etar. •- u n’iinL .J the nonattalnme!it
(LI) VA hu provided the vetara with ; EnVI1 OO aOtII P Ot 5C ss1 ucy, desfg!rathtn of thearee end expanded ft
O period of 80 days In Whkh to de t ri* Wew boundarfeeto fnduds all of Ooondage
, Idance for the purpose p [ ahawing. Hew York tozm County (ai tf on 1O?(d)f1j(C)ft) .
that the ed’WIdIoflaI M& d i itho . çpf at thu stat. sulanltlali are Fuitb.nnoin. It we ’ cleNthed by
not be red w ”4 -: lb. followIn addresses for opezetlon of law us low moderat. C X)
(21 Wb the ieductfcn Is hued saWy tnupectfafl dsrluguoniiai busIness noneftafnmeut ewe. fth Ii defined &
on wnttan , ctui hours .. an area expeileodng CX) h utTatfOfl5
InformaUan u to - - . abo s the eight-hour atuidard. but lees
status vided - jija.zt4i A y, •-
4MaA N. Yak I • 0
thtth.fn lbimadani .. - .. dIffi*.t40a1R.1.333)
detezwln.thei - -. •• •...‘. Mtly.afrqushtydafa
___ ____ 3.11.- the Slate ear monitosixig
(‘) VA Will Sat fld att 5 en Air Rasowoss. so wolf Ras&Amsay;N network that (htgindags
— a piwdwlf on notice-u - y i - . •. .... ..Coun y ha. th.a)
i., u.. .ot -.a-I.slP. . - - .. q
ijua. iju .In i Oa ‘i.ai. ‘— . - . 1. 1 UP5 U 7 uiW
I ._jft i_..,.t.I ._... J 3 F I1 II ’ ’ .. . .
v’ wui Nfl UUUW u WV UIflH o. . Ci.I.1 4 u 001
ntew . i aus withi ‘ ‘thd*oá iaeo to lbs presonL
.da cnsI — , - - .uVw.i .1 w-— . - • -. -. -
inductIon In —4-. .. Fidesi 1034A, ThtoOZ5 JflID søout to ply with
— 3* U3C 511 sw i Naw York 1O27 __ __
IFS Des. S i Mon VtIM 2317. , . a a)
‘ N S . Pl i8 -$IFP( (TA 5V e’tAU I SW. eed jiCeuMy on Navesnbei
- -7..-.; ., 13.clgimd .
14 AL PRO ION .. 10 .3(11 and lfloI NA IQ . J’ ’-.y 32, 19 . New .-
AGENCY . :.. the t___
4 OCFRP I S2e 1dSI __ ___ __ __
( 5 1 gb ., I Ow*a’t N..-NV $I,,I ,W’llua t msst.tbswh1 I aon ” The
4W 94 1. . Ja)) fffi1AT .mblon4 a ir qualIty . - ____
Ares.forAfrOlaIIIyPbunnW . . ___ uTy.nd !o .__‘
P°e’ - 6Intafn lw.tsed splaIeiv1uI5
at New Yore fi i..i ... it WD. - ‘ ____ ______
_ 2,1*7Sew — _______
p of the Qty of Syrece.e In - . -
- OAoidags County. New York i MN: • _ .4i.4 A’ MflI1 5
SU MY The Enviro sntd?to& ff “ 4iiii’ ’ ie ’ 107sf (ha- 5.
Agency (EPA) Is announcing Its b ’ ” z 1177A ii nonaafl(u1T e1twltkre 5p&L. t °’• IA_)
to redesignate Onondage County kJ to (hi CX) ILAAQ&(43 FR. 8962 and(4 - p 1—m . . -— °‘
York State to attainment of the FR 5119.) EU accordance witk..’ : - ___ ___
quality standards far 110 of the 1977 Act. New York Sl.t.
(CD) and to a a CGSW fm’the -. .
that will ( Ii..uw t x’____ . onat” ’ent ares In 3979. ‘* tally - - u:ape. z .-”-- &atvesa.t ‘ -— 4 ’
___ . s d.- y
s. f k . IA... . a - .e( ttfl . .I D.Ial TI IIIS .I& S 55-
IJU f US WI 1.7. l5 IWW 11 $ IIWW W •5 - —4 _ 5
State submitted e ma ’ . pt ’ of the 1977 Ad. (Se. 90 (7R 52.1673. - lIlIi*. w b I.i th.&
a , s. ...4 to redesfgeatoib.C a. ks 31 50 FR 25073.) In Its P.)lsw York Stats mess ftipo __ib .. .g .
County CD ncnattaSnm I ewe * .ed’ p ).ded that Onondags (‘- . .ntywiM: ___
n000tt.lnment to at h ii. nt . In thW ? “ attain the CO .tandardby December31, atleta. - -——- -..
.ctlon EPA Ii propcslxi* to app1v.1 4 eW 1982. Subsequently. on Mirth 3,1984. - sinia- - - -
Ya s— .r theym tIm EPArednord th. gins of the . - .. . hut wat . th *a. thsA cyd.ddu o
seaabewues am th in . i 17SA ‘ ianatf lnvnent area to the CO hot-epotat N1L.’.L. ___
an O7 3) l of (ha ( ieen Mr Act, : - *he 4i.fm .dlcm of AImlind end Lad — ___ ___
fir wJ nL...ana gfl Adedi Sl t . of SyN{—Ia . -
1 g .- ”ions. ruspedively. UIi1 EaàT . (49 FR 6439) The batepot monitor tsdu4 ’t £ I . 1 f áa Oc1a b
eccad vIo1ati ofib . .‘ ‘ t from-c . Z *aiuI,r IPIUW W i
wdfhscmsr. a fodareffy abla . WxI 1983 to 1908 and In 19e’ . - -• - Oa.a j i.y IL*9NJ
of the CX) Slate lemontstfonPt n 61? -‘ On Hov.mhu 16.1990. the SOIIAIIt .YOIk S.ga tsa d I&b d I
Onesfogs Cairety. * (thi Act) wu amended. (PUkL , baa of
-------
& iiI ag1st.r I VoL 58, No. 1341 Thwsdq y 3.5, 199 l Pxopoed,Iulee
ETI1UIIOI
s. I ax1x of17i. A flsta
apedfic reouikmnàts that so siso must
meet In or I to adesigasted frow
0 o ” ”meflttO tI.lit’nent . They arr
1. The sies b. st .d lb.
appU bIe NML ______
a. The esm Mis I 4I P1riJL..JS1P
ued 4 1l k) A aa4th..e.
must hive mst aUmievmtw 4 . L. . .
under e ee 110 eed D of the Ad
uatbs
perminaet d .J ....U.md
maLn ’ pIee as 17M
Section IYSft also de8nss e
eLsui 1 iLs of en 4y JAi nteusn
plee. ‘I eIinenti . a bu.year
m v t y: ______
fortenyusr saft Aap i.th.
ledeulguatlon iequeiäLq iw.jr
measures. The Ad reç 1res.thutate to
submits revised m ‘ic p4so might
yearuaftm ,dwignadoL .Ths revised-
— must wcontinüed slni .nanriii
of the stondard f ans d1tlim I
yemu. he th follaW ijuctIou, ‘A
analyzes New Tmk’a uhenltIal with
totheis u gr .’tl?u
‘ .. •
D I. Review dS Z. iguedem
tefl wYcik’a
red. d uàtfor.g,.
C y
of iedlou 1l)7td Wil ero’U&abig Is
theIofdemut tIem of o* Ui *t. has
.dth..d.uàdtheeeyequlnmeets. A
Technkal SuppestUáth.on ,on lie st-
the ‘A RemU ’.li m
more dslullskofthubmlttaL.
‘ . Z 4! - .•..
NawYiik. l nlts—ç .-Jha’ -
red r 1 . iliy.duta that
show theCO ,em not
violated in 1990m 190L 11 d .
wars aillEbil by NewXmk8ate In
---with 3QA .de ew1ng
EPA guldanna on _____
çellycontrolandars lnthe l i’A.
Mreme che — 4on d1 IseeI
System LA 1 Thestemes dma
pressntedbu New Yesh I
p ch A . 1 on isI.sism..
stt ’.” cdlbs , ndd evthe-
1it r-r’ t1 5 t .wputod. lb..
mum has ths ø -’.-yattoIon
fi r stimimuontof 1k. 07 NAAQt 1.-
___ :
— . - “u •
— l bs— - Js*.
1Is1iat1OOIbItIL óu.li
radesignatlon. the Swe uubmltted dale -I1O(a)( A wunher ofth. zeçthemonis
from 1992 to AIRS.’the.. deli muju ‘ did flat ‘ “ 5 ifl mthik.i ,,si 1 4 ,
AIRS sod also show noah ual1ty -. ‘therefore. EPA balusies th th .p .
violations. •.
C L ail Aim_A 5QP ThotMeot’a ... M tothnee r.qufr.tnMaa that isem..
amended. w57F .R27936 and 2 3a... -
• (June 23, 19923 , menyare düpli . Iv .of
othequLre itbeAiiE’Ahas -
2A. New Yorks 197007 SIP analyzed the SIP and deimln.d tbm
Ii 1985, EPA fully New .-- tv th the re f -.
York’s 1979 07 SIP far ndsga *Iim imded C*IOfl 11O(s)L23. This
County as meeting the requirements of analjsli Ii co&it 1 i In the T,rJi ’ilr.I...
section 11O(s)(2) end PátDof the IOn Su tDq ’ ” sq.. .• : ‘
Ad. The SIP WU mpe 1dNd 2C.Pst U RequI emeute’ _“
mII Ion reductions from the SIP, ..:.g’ B seNmw York luienittad the—-
measures, 1k. F.dim,i Mote hatT : reon 10 ? dag*
( o1 Pro and County prier to tea time any PeilD.-
Imy uvvmenta at the downtownA .4L ’ v1 wents become spp1h 1iLi L&,’ -
Syracuse het..pol, I itor toiilavambier 15. z992. these..
the si” 1 n”ent of the CO NAAQSt “ requirernonti are not due pirpcme of
EPA s . d the O1- c t,— reaedgnatlon. EPA does eat s that the
CX)SlPa ’ illi9i7 ct - StatsdNewkhusiaEPA-.
requkamenti. TM 1990 Aaondiiaetato P
the Ad modified section 1I0(m1(2) M .dwttion p1 101 8OW S
un& Part U, revised p dIn at ” 55504.($ee 40 aa
added now requb.un—’ i Jar SLIGáOJ This prt sm wIU. ply to,.
cIa. ofn’-fl-’sotaram, ’-& , -, Onomli9s C intyiiuiw” ’y eq .
EPA requires that state iøt.deslgita on to kIJim U t • -
requesting rads4natlou havssSfl;jhi -, J’ - iiy Ma pram In. biehi%
contains all mesunreelbatmura d è’ t -. pto$cts that ff.c* itwp. l tLimi
under the 1990 Adb W4l apptóii lçui th. basis di( y
• whirk the State .nbinftiid 1ti ‘ w1th SW provisions. Secllcra3.70 of t
- red tlon matAu & Adti iUIrei to:devalap.’ -
OnonJega Cointywas dauf fl,d anspaztailan/efr quality amfermIt
modaruteCOnonatteI t us. ’ fth 4 Th- i ur’v winthsi. att_
design veins under 12.7 ndi. c:; .i
07 SIP requirenisats for èsi m l jii thenpi.ad a ED” --..
‘(es. w . .Med fuels) uuweiue ev ilem..RA1ra* prom.Igstad laiL- .
mr5mlttafon Nqvember 15 1 .199 a 1ri nIstIon .. Haw.ew,tIew.
York submitted lie reuse DI.quIIII .1!YdTkbU . -.----- 1 U.d to dewl
on November13, 1992. Thmufmu,ZIsw tAa utormity rreu dse ‘ vet wIth -
York doe, not have toIoc1ud the.1990. -the anal dersl In the.
Ad c .ulrol pruwa..a into Its 07 SIP Tar jede4.aIfr ve . New York
Onondags County for the purposes of commits to submit, if .l..vemy , s o-
redeslgsullon.’ New York requlid the.. appropriate SIP rø(skm .oowdiegto
use of oxygenated fuels during the 07’ ,the schedule set forth In the fedmul
season of 1002-3 pendIng EPA regulations. In .ddftkx.. the Syrearm
oftheredaalg!I i mlionhequest .... Met opolitan 1 aeapwWionCeond1
• Forth. pw of red Ignidtnn , to . °(SMT( he. eseohud to follow EPA
meet the m iwwsnt that the SIP conformity guldellose when EPA
canteins .11 app1Icobkxequ1rement -releases them. The ? eqnvd sluo contains
under the Act. EPA has revlmd examples wbui f IC has
SIP and It nihhti .11 the inseam,. that °lmpleamitsd procedures to kiewe that
wars &th. Ad prior to-the time.., projects underway. Indodleg th . 1992-
New Tart . L IUd this r,dee%n.51 00 97 1 auport.Uon -
request and ns.L ’- ..—”ce plan.’. - Pro n,oonform with the mIsting SIP.
21. SectIon itO Ruquiresim ‘- .3 I s liAr qi&I ,1i Th to
Mthou seclltir 110 was amended PiJIOOoflI Wed SI fOI eOLIIe A euuum
by the 1990 amendments to the Ad. the . Undëths tO?? Ad. EPA p iv d
- SIP for OnnttdegeCouMy still eito the .the New York 073W 10 , (Mandega
requlremsolsofemonded eaction. “County At that tint. and now, EPA Is
satlsfledThattherulea 1ntheSIP
‘ Ait.ii *th _.. enforcoab1s.-Th fwv, the immIs oi
.. redudfsos.thieved as a-result of ti
• i; t.k i:mise -zulesmresnforcoabls.The SIP meii
____ • . were - ‘-
V. Limit. “—:‘ ‘:
2—34
-------
38110
Federal Register L Vol: 58, No.134./ Thursday. July 15, 1993 I Proposed t(ules
den) Motor Vehici. Contrel Prcç.m
LPMVQ ), Traffic flow im .w .r . .ient5 it the
downtown SyTanas. hot-spot, end Air
monitoring at the worst CX) hotipot.
In lt redesignatlon request. New York
shows that hi SIP measures were
Implemented. The EPA-approved
MO8ll .E4.1 model show. that the
FMVO’ and traffic Improvements have
d.aeased C D emissions In the
downtown area by 57 percent from 1984
to 1991. The large decrease In emissions
rkowsth st Lh.SIP is thersason that the
CO SIP has caused att nment of the CO
NAAQ& The FMV . in particular.
continues top decreues In CX)
,. , k4ous u new, cleaner cars are
bought to replace older cars. This.
continuing pro sm acuounts for much
of the emission reductions In recent
years that eIi.nin .ted the violations In
Onondaga County.
In the redesignation request and the
maintenance plan, NYSDEC and S!iffC
commit to continue Implementing the
SIP. New York has continued to monitor
at the worst CO hct.spot. where the
monitor recorded the vioLations used to
designate Onandags County as
inaftaininent under the Act and where
now records the subsequent
alnm”t of the CO standard..
Review of Mointenanc Plan
Submittal
In today’ s notice. EPA Is proposing
approval of the State’s maintenance
plan for Onondaga County because EPA
finds that New York’s submittal meets
the requirements of section lisA. If
EPA determines after notice end
comment that it should give final
approval to th. maintenance plan,
Onoadaga County will be able to be
redesignated to attainment
Undersection llSAofLhoAct,a
maintenance plan must include an
attainment emission inventory, ,
contingency measures and a
demonstration of attA nffient for at least
ten years after the area is redesignated.
As for future years, section liSA of
the Act requires the State to iubmit a
revised maintenance SIP eight years
after EPA takes final action
redesipating the area to atfainni*nt If,
as EPA anticipates, final action is taken
in 1993, th. revised maintenance SIP
will bedne In 2001 and itwili provide
for m1nt” of the 0) air quality
ui.i.ilitwd for sn dft ans1 ten years.
Ini ntmy
Pbw York ib Ithd comprehensive
wins of CX ) emissions from point.
area, stationary and mobile sources
using 1991u the base year for
calculations to demonstrate that the CX)
standard will be maintained In
Onondags County. Since air monitoring
recorded attainment In 1991, 1991 is an
acceptableyearfortheatt nment
inventory. New York’s submittal
contains summaries by source category
(reproduced in Tabl• 1) and detailed
inventory data (contained in the
docket).
TABLE 1—ONONDAGA COUNTY CO
Es.esSIoNs
(Tons per day)
1991
1991
2003
—
Pc g’
St.tlonmy*is.
Nnwc Mo.
bU .
OiwnsdMnhTMe
Toist ....... ..
0
31
38
301
0
31
38
210
0
39
134
370
288
205
( Some OO8STVns do not to is to
kIdSpIIid.rI mue ngöJIng naid conversion.)
‘TPs 5 ca y orsy pose scuens
list w t over 100 rns per year ot CO. Po it
acirces list er less Sian 100 toes per year
are udod hi Vie Stasonaly Asi* source
cst y
Stationary aid mobile source ‘ -
Inventories were compiled following
EPA guidance. Mobile source e’nI’slon
estimates were prepared following the
approach recommended by EPA. New
York used the Highway Performance
Monitor System to estimate vehicle
miles traveled and used the MOBILE4 l
emission model for CO emission
estimates.
48. Demonstration of Continued
Attainment -
S? t (1C projected CX) emissions for
Onondaga County, using New York’s
att*ii m .ut year Inventory, through
2003. EPA anticipate, that this will be
ten years from the date of the
redellgnkHon to attainment, as required
by the Act. Tab!. I shows that the CO
mniaalons In Onondaga County will
decrees. throughout the period. so the
future emissions estimates do not
the attaInment year inventory.
This sbbws that the present situation of
att ment of the CX) standard will be
maintained. The decrease In emissions
Is hum the FMV0 and traffic flow
Improvements at the downtown
Syracuse hot-spot. These are programs
in the State’s 19790) SIP and no
additional measures are needed to
maintain atf lnment of the air quality
standard.
In addition. air modeling for the four
CO hot-spots with the greatest potential
for violating the CO standard show that
concentrations will decrease throughout
the period due to the SIP measures. This
modeling conforms with EPA guidance
and is located In the docket.
4C. Verification of Continued
Attainment
As required, the State will track
continued attainment during the
maintenance period. New York will
continue to operate Its bot’spot monitor
located In downtown Syracuse In
accordance wIth 40 0 ’R part 58. U the
monitor records a concentration above
the CX) standard, New York will activate
Its contingency measure.
- In addition, New York State will also
prepare a revised CD emission
inventory every three years. During the
revision of the emission Inventories, the
State will reevaluate the growth factors
and other assumptions that were used to
develop the attainment and future year
inventories. - -.
4D. Contingency Plan
If. despite its best efforts to
demonstrate continued compliance with
the NAAQS. Onondaga County should
exceed the NAAQS. New York has
provided ways to detect and eHmiiiate
air quality problems. New York Slat. -
has committed to respond to an
exceedance of the CD standard In
Onondsga County by Implementing a -
contingency measure, oxygenated fuels,
that should eliminate future COal:
quality problems. This commitment was
Included lithe redasignatlon request
that was presented for public comment
by the Stat. during the comment period
endIng December 31, 1992.
The downtown. Syracuse monitor is
the monitor that recorded violations
during the 1980s. Two analyses of
intersections In Onondaga County, one
In the 1980. and a more recant analysis
Included In the redeslgnatlon request.
show that the monitor Is located at the
worst hot-spot In Onondaga County. U
this monitor attalni the CX) standard, it
can reasonably be assumed that all of
Onondaga County Is attaining the (Xl
standard.
If the downtown Syracuse monitor
records an exceedance of the CX) air
quality standard, Now York will
implement its oxygenated fuels program
In the Syracuse Metropolitan Statistical
Area as soon as possible, but no Later
than the beginning of the following CO
season. To Implement this commitment.
the State could use its proposed
oxygenated fUels rule, scheduled for
adoption this year If it contains a
provision to Implement the program in
the Syracuse Metropolitan Statistical
Area If the State monitoring network
records an exceedance of the CD
standard In Onondega County. Or the
State can adopt an emergency rule to
-------
Fedarni tegI ar I Vul. 58. No.134 / Tht aday, July 15, 1993 1 Proposed Rules
36111 .
linpiemelit the piogr n (as It did to lanuarY 19,1989(54 FR 2214—222* On
Implemsflt oxygenated bela during the January 8,1989. the Office of
igg2- U) mason) . Management and Hudget (0MB) waIved
Table 2 SW revis Ions (54 FR 2222) from
the requlamentaofem* 1 0 03of
EPA Is soliciting public comments E,iV1 àr 12291 t of
this notice and on issues relevant to t EPA . sub ilned
EPA” proposed adlon. Comments ivill for a permanent waiver for Table 2 SIP
be considered before I*1E1113 fiflal C 1O revisions from the requirements of
Interested parties may participate In the 3 of E Jve Order 12291.
federal rule making 111 sdwe by o has ngrasâ to confimie the
submitting written comments to the “ u ” . ‘• - it
person and address listed In the rules no EPA ’. request.
AXRUUS rc”i ’ at the bsg e 1ng of ___
this notice. L1it (S LvI . -
Proposed Action 40 QR * 52
In today’s notice EPA proposes to Alt p ’41 ’ noitroL Carbon
.ppzom the Onondega County, manw1 1I11, nL . meMaI reLitluni,
York U) m m 4 ntsm*nce plan bec” . it Reporting and tocordkeeplng
meets the requirements of section 275A. iaqubomti.
In addition, EPA Is pz ’p ’ .’ g LPFOed 40 aa t 81
of New York’s request to red. IgnmIm ___
Ononda&a County to ea ” ” of the Al, pollatlon trol, NatiOnal p lrs ,
CO standard. subject to final approval of Wild ’ ar 5 .
the “ “t” c plan. EPA Is proposing A.iL.dt 42 U.S.C 74b1-7171q.
approval because New York has Dste& Jan.2 1. 1593.
demonstrated compliance with the ww 1 1.
requirements of section 107(d)(3XE) for
rede s i&natf on. U .d - i-en; $45 semi
Nothing In this action should be _________
construed as permitting or allo vtng or — ‘
establishing a orecedsot for any future
reciue stfori e,ls loniotnySWor
radeslgnetfon. Eeth request for re,Wcn FEDERAL A11ONS
to the SIP oriedeelguetlon shall be COMMISSION
considered eaperetely In Light of specific
techninsi, ecoonmic, and env1ru u . . .ssd.l
factors and in relation to relevant • (MM Dodari Ne. 99-1 13,1-0379)
statutory end regulatory requirements. _______
Under the Regulatory Flesibility Ad.. Radio Broadcasting Si. A u Star
5 U.s.c 600 et. erq., EPA must prepare Yafley, Idaho
aregnletm ()mdbllity analysis
____ ____ AOBICV: F.deral Communications
assessing die Impact of any proposed or Comm1 1oa .
final nile en email entities. ________
5 U.S.C 603 and 804. Allemstively, ACI1OIL PZIJVO 5Sd rule
EPA may notify that the rule will not
haves sipi ut Impact sranY This document requests
_________ comments ens petition by Sun Valley
sub i” 1 number of I t 1 Fine Arts Broadcasting requesting the
Small entitles Include bisL allotment of ørarmel 298C to Sun
small not-for-profit ontmpda, and.
goverunhent entities with hu .4frem Valley. Idaho. as that community’s third
local aural fl...,mel 298C can be
over populations of is .. than 50.000 allotted to Sun Valley In compliance
people. ________ _______ _____
Redesignatlon of an aresto _ n _ i _ with the Ceemk 1ou’s miii4m
_____ ____ distance separation requirements
undox . ln ” 107 XE) of tha’ without a e s2rLctIon. The
Air Act does not impose any new ____
reaulrements on n satin coordinates far tl .mnne l 298C at Sun
Re lesignatIon La an action Valley are North LatItude 43-41-48 and
the staIns of. geogriphIaiil . West LongItude 114—21—00.
does not lmp .1. , soy um Jatary DATES: Comments must be filed on or
______en . i . before August 30. 1993. and reply
comments on or before September 14.
__ _ 1993.
numberd s , mII entities. AOORUS03: Federal Communications
This action bee been ‘ 4—m !.d an a Commission. Washington. DC 20554. In
Te l de2 4 bythe gL11mI add lt lontofillngcommentsw lthth.
Administrator iindm , the procedures F , lntere’ted parties should serve the
published In the !.deril Register on petltIoner or Its counsel or consultant,
as follows.. John F. Garemgfta, Pepper &
Cor ” 1 . 1778 IC Street, NW. nil
Washington. DC 20006 AI1cniey
petitioned.
FOR URThEN MFO APorI AC1
Nancy 3. Walls, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 634—6530.
SUP .Ben(TARY u ATI0w This isa
synopol of the Commission’s Notice of
Propueid P .il n.W , .g S AM Docket 74 ,
93—183. adopted Jonir 18. 1993. 1
released July 1,1993. The full test of
this Commission decision Is available
(or Inspection and copying during
normal business hour, In the F(E
Reference C— (Room 239). 1919 M
Street, NW.. Washington. DC The
complete test of this decision may elan
be purtheo d from the Commlssiona
copy contractors, Intenialicuel
Trensalptlmi Service. km.. (202)857—
3800, 1Q19 M Street. NW., room 246, or
2100 M Street. NW.. Suits 140,
Washington. DC 20037.
mvvi qf the Regulatory
Flexzbillty Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Is Issued until the matter Is
no longer eub)sct to Commission
consideration or court review, all ax
port. tacts are prohibited In
Commission ptoceeding . such
one. which Invoke channel allot
See 47 OR 1.1204 (b) (or r iIes
governing permissible ax porte contacts.
For Information regarding proper
filing procedures for comments, see 47
OR 1.415 and 1.420.
List dSubJsds In 42 01 Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal fl’------ .Judons Commkelon.
& ‘ C. Eager.
Chief. Allocations Bmnch, lWkycnd Rules
Dinsian. Mom Media Vi..oe .
IFR Dec. 93-16935 Filed 7-14-93:1.45 .ml
utters case 1$4t-M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATiON
Rsswth and Spadsi Program.
Adm en
49CFR Part 171
(Docket HM-600 Notice NO. 13-171
RUt 2I37— 7
Hazardous Material. In tntrnstat•
• Commerce; Correction
AGENCY: Resesith end Special Procaine
Administration (R ’A). Deperti
Transportation (DOT).
ACn Notice of proposed rule
(NPRM3; eo..-,ction .
2—36
-------
p3
J
OST 4 -
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY C ‘
_____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
‘ 4 PQ 0 tC
I 1 OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of
the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) ational Ambient Air
Quality Standards (N QS) on o a er November 15, 1992
FROM: Michael H. Shapiro
Acting Assistant A inistra o
for Air and Radiation (ANR—443)
TO:. Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
I. Puriose
The purpose of this memorandum is to address State requests
to redesig te from nonattainment to attainment of the ozone and
CO NAAQS Under section 107. Specifically at issue are requests
submitted Oft or after November 15, 1992 where outstanding Clean
Air Act (Act) requirements have not been met. This memo provides
guidance on the statutorily-mandated control programs that must
be in the EPA-approved SIP if EPA is to approve the redesignation
request. The Act’s requirements for redesignation and a list of
EPA’s redesignation policy and guidance are included in
Attachments A and B. In the future, further guidance may be
provided for redesignations submitted after November 15, 1993.
1X Recycled/Recyclable
-------
2
II. Policy Summary
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the Act as amended (amended Act)
provides that the State must have met all applicable requirements
of section 110 and part D in order to be redesignated.
Furthermore, section 107(d) (3) (E) (ii) provides that the State
must have a fully—approved SIP for the area seeking
redesignation.
The EPA is interpreting these section 107 provisions to
require satisfactory completion of the current Act planning
requirements. Specifically, before EPA can act favorably upon
any State redesignation request, the statutorily-mandated control
programs of section 110 and part D (that were due prior to-the
tine of the redesignation request) must have been adopted by the
State and approved by EPA into the SIP.
Thus, with respect to redesignation requests submitted on or
after the Act’s deadline for submittal of the required programs,
States must generally adopt and provide for implementation of
their regulations for all of the programs that were due. States
must submit these plans to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.’
This would include such requirements as emissions inventories
and/or emission statements. Such requirements must be met in
order for the area to have a fully—approved SIP that meets all
requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
The amended Act, however, also provides that upon
redesignation, a State may move measures from the implemented SIP
to the contingency plan portion of the SIP if the State
demonstrates that such measures are not needed for maintaining
the NAAQS. Many areas sought redesignation at or about the same
time they were required to adopt and implement the requirements
due on November 15, 1992. In many instances, the State will be
able to immediately move these measures to the contingency plan
without implementation.
III. ExceDtions to Policy
The EPA; decided to review the requirements to determine if
something 1$ than full adoption of these regulations would be
acceptablè wLder the Act for areas seeking redesignation.
Exceptions o this policy on the States’ need to complete the
full planning and adoption process for the November 15, 1992
mandated programs are very limited. The language in the Act
allows a degree of flexibility in only four program areas. These
are: (1) basic inspection and maintenance (I/M), (2) annual
updates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasth and annual
‘Note that this represents a departure from earlier guidance
for part D new source review (NSR) regulations.
-------
3
estimates of actual VMT for Co nonattairiment areas, (3) nitrogen
oxides (NOx) reasonably available control technology (PACT), and
(4) small business programs (SBP).
These exceptions are only applicable in areas for which EPA
approves a redesignation. The States should be aware that if EPA
denies a redesignation request, rules submitted in accordance
with this guidance may also be disapprovabl. Finally, because
EPA anticipates issuing onboard regulations by January 1994,
States seeking redesignation of areas classified as moderate may
have some flexibility with respect to the Stage II requirement.
Our guidance for State submittals covering these four
programs is described in the following paragraphs.
Basic I/K
For areas where maintenance plans do not rely on
implementation of a basic I/K program immediately following
redesignation, the I/K component of the SIP should include:
1.- Legislative authority for basic I/K such that
implementing regulatiQfls can be adopted without any further
legislative action.
2. A provision in the SIP providing that basic I/M be
placed in the contingency measures portion of the maintenance
plan upon redesignation.
3. An enforceable schedule and commitment by the Governor
or his designee for adoption and implementation of a basic I/K
program upon a specified, appropriate triggering event..
Note that, for purposes of consideration of a redesignation
request submitted after November 15, 1992, the commitment as
described in the I/K regulation (see 57 FR 52950, November 5,
1992) is not sufficient to meet the Act’s requirement for a
fully-approved SIP.
In ad jtion, please note that, EPA’S final I/K regulations
in 40 CFR t 51 require a fully-adopted I/K program by
November * ‘1.993. At this time, our preliminary interpretative
guidance oi b sic I/K jn this memo is not discussed in the I/K
• regulations. Therefore, EPA is proceeding to establish this
interpretation through regulatory action, thus enabling EPA to
accept legislative authority and a commitment to adopt and
implement basic I/K regulations for those areas being
redesignated to attainment.
-------
4
VMT Forecasting
The VMT forecasting SIP for CO should include:
1. Annual forecasts of VMT (i.e., average daily VMT for the
peak 3-month CO seasons for 1993, 1994, and- 1995 in moderate
areas above 12.7 ppm, and until 2000 in serious areas).
2. An enforceable commitment by the Governor or his
designee to estimate actual annual VMT for each of these years
(by September 30 of the following year) and to update the
forecast of the VMT in the remaining years.
3. A request that the commitment be moved to the —
cont .ngency plan portion of the SIP upcn redesignation, becoming
a ccrtingency provision triggered by a specified trigge ing -
event.
4. Adopted contingency measures to reduce CO emissions.
The implementation of such measures is contingent upon either:
(a) an annual estimate of actual VMT or updated forecast of VMT
exceeding the previous forecast for that year, or (b) the area
failing to attain by the CO attainment deadline. These
contingency measures must meet the requirements of section
187(a) (3) as interpreted by the April 16, 1992, “General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990,” including the requirement that no further action by the
State is needed for them to take effect.
NOx RACT
Section 182(f) provides that States may request an exemption
from the NOx RACT requirements. The NOx RACT requirements of
section 182(f) do not apply if additional reductions of NOx would
not contribute to attainment. 2 In an area that did not implement
the section 182(f) NOx requirement but did meet the ozone
standard, as demonstrated by adequate monitoring data consistent
with EPA guidance, it is clear that the additional NOx reductions
required b section 182(f) would not contribute to attainment,
- although t might contribute to maintenance. Therefore, EPA
believes thit if a State submits a redesignation request along
with a sectIon 182(f) exemption request based on monitoring data
demonstrating attainment of the ozone NAAQS, further
documentation is not required. The State may follow one of two
approaches in making such a submittal:
2 Note that the section 182(f) exemption for NOx RACT and NSR
requirements described in this section is applicable only for
States outside an ozone transport region, since only those States
fall under the section 182(f) “contribute to attainment”
provision.
-------
5
1. Submit a redesignation request along with a section
182(f) exemption request based solely Upon monitoring data
showing that the area’s air quality is meeting the ozone NAAQS;
submit a maintenance plan SIP revision, which includes a NOX
RACT program as a contingency measure. In lieu of adopted NOx
RACT rules, such a NOx RACT program may consist of an enforceable
schedule and commitment by the Governor or his designee to adopt
and implement the NOx RACT rules upon a specified, appropriate
triggering event.
2. An exemption request based on both ambient monitoring
and urban airshed modeling consistent with EPA guidance that
shows additional NOx reductions would not contribute to
attainment in the area. In this case, NOx RACT rules do.,not have
to be included as a contingency measure of the maintenance plan.
For several reasons, the Act can be interpreted as not
requiring the section 507 SEP submittal in order for EPA to
approve a redesignation request. The SBP submittal is required
regardless of whether there are any designated nonattainment
areas within the State. In addition, the SEP is not a control
measure intended to contribute to the emission reductions
achieved by an area; rather it is a service provided to help
small businesses comply with requirements of the Act. For the
above reasons, EPA is interpreting the SBP as not being an
applicable requirement for any specific nonattairunent area that
is seeking redesignation. However, EPA will continue to ensure
that States make SEP submittals in a timely fashion.
Staae II Vapor Recovery
Stage II vapor recovery remains an applicable requirement
for moderate ozone nonattainment areas until EPA promulgates
onboard vapor recovery regulations. Section 202(a) (6) of the Act
provides t t once anboard regulations are promulgated, the Stage
II regulattons required under section 182 (b) (3) are no longer
applicable ±br moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Therefore,
final redesignation for a moderate nonattainment area that occurs
after EPA’s onboard regulations are promulgated does not have to
include a Stage II SIP control program. For redesignation
requests that are submitted before EPA promulgates onboard rules
and that do not include Stage II rules for moderate areas,
Regional Offices may prepare rulemaking actions proposing to
approve the redesignation, if appropriate, as long as final
approval occurs after EPA promulgates onboard regulations.
-------
6
IV. Coordination of SIP Submittals and Redesianation
Reczuests
If the State elects to follow the approach above, the State
should submit the SIP control program as described above along
with the redesignation request and maintenance plan. The EPA
will review the required SIP submittal(s) against EPA policy and
guidance and in coordination “ith the redesignation request and
maintenance plan. Approvabi.. - -y of the redesignation is directly
related to the approvability the SIP submittals (i.e., EPA is
precluded from approving a r t tsignation to attainment if the SIP
is not approvable).
As a general policy, a State may not relax the adopted and
implemented SIP for an area upon the area’s redesignation to
attainment. States should continue to implement existing control
strategies in order to maintain the standard. However, section
175A recognizes that States may be able to move SIP measures to
the contingency plan upon redesignation if the State can
adequately demonstrate that such action will not interfere with
maintenance of the standard. The type of demonstration necessary
is dependent upon the pollutant for which the area has been
redesignated to attainment.
In order to make such a demonstration for an area
redesignated to attainment for CO, EPA believes that the State
could submit a revised control strategy demonstration showing
that the measure is not necessary to maintain the standard. For
ozone, the State would need to submit an attainment modeling
demonstration consistent with EPA’S current “Guideline on Air
Quality Models,” showing that the control measure is not needed
to maintain the standard. The EPA intends to be very cautious in
approving such revisions in cases where the control measures were
implement d during the time the area attained the standard; the
State’s demonstration should indicate an ample margin of safety
with to maintenance of the standard.
V. iclusion
In summary, full adoption of all of the statutorily-required
programs, as well as a schedule and an enforceable commitment for
an implementation date, are necessary for redesignation to
attainment from nonattainment for ozone or CO if the
redesignation request is submitted after the statutory due date
for the program. The fe exceptions to this requirement are
basic If ? !, annual update; of VMT forecasts, and estimates of
actual VMT, NOx RACT, and SBP.
If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders at
(919) 541—5284, or Annie Nikbakht at (919) 541—5246.
-------
7
Attachments
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Kent Berry, AQMD
Rob Brenner, OAR
Mary Henigin, OAQPS
Alan Eckert, OGC
Robert Kellam, TSD
- Rich Ossias, OGC
John Seitz, OAQPS
Paul Stolpinan, OAR
Jan Tierney, 0CC
Lydia Weginan, OAQPS
Dick Wilson, OMS
-------
Attachment A
Criteria For Redesipnation Under Section 107(dl
Section 107(d) (3) (E) of the Act states five criteria that
must be met before the Administrator may redesignate an area to
attainment. The criteria are:
1. The EPA has determined that the NAAQS have been
attained.
2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully
approved by EPA under section 110(k).
3. The EPA has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions.
4. The State has met all applicable requirements for the
area under section 110 and part D.
5. The EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including
a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A.
-------
Attachment B
The EPA policies for implementing section 107 of the Act for
redesignations are contained in the following memorandums.
1. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,” John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992.
2. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992.
3. “Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,” G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
Programs Branch, June 1, 1992.
4. “Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,” C. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992.
In the event that EPA does not approve the redesignation,
the applicable I/N program requirements and guidance can be found
in 57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992 and in 40 CFR part 51. The
applicable VMT forecast guidance is described in the document
entitled, “Section 187 VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance,”
January 1992.
-------
LJ/jU/ .b UO. J ) ,J1J. uO t jp g i4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North CarolIna 27711
c Cr
£0 SEP g 3
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reclassification of Areas to Nonattainment and 15
Percent Rate-of-Progress P1
FROM: ohn S. Seitz , Director .k z 7 ) J ’ ‘
Office of Air Quality P1 “ t ’ !an ar (MD-b)
TO; Winston A. Smith, Director
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
Region IV
This is in response to your August 20, 1993 memorandum
requesting guidance on the reclassification of areas to
nonattainment and the’ 15 percent rate-of-progress Elans. Your
specific questions are addressed as follows:
1. If an attainment area becomes a moderate nonattairunent
area, what is the year of the baseline inventory? Will it be
1990 or some other year? If it is a year other than 1990, how
will it be determined?
Answer: Section 1 51(b) (1) of the Clean Air Act (Act) covers
areas that were attainment after enactment and that are
redesignated to nonattainment. These areas are subject to the
requirements under section 110 upon classification, except that
any absolute, fixed date applicable in connection with any such
requirement is extended by operation of Jaw by a period equal to
the length of tine between the date of the enactment of the Act
and the date the area is classified. Therefore, the base—year
inventory year would be the year in which the area was
redesigna dto nonattainment.
2. ó i there any regulatory programs that if adopted for
nonattainaeflt areas would be creditable toward the 15 percent
requirement but if adopted prior to the nonattainment designation
would not be creditable?
Answer: A regulatory program adopted for a nonattairunent
area that would be creditable toward the 15 percent requirement
could be considered nencreditable for an area that was
redesignated to nonattainment if the regulatory program was
adopted and implemented prior to the base-year inventory year in
the redesignated area. Thus, the base-year inventory must
-------
iO/93 0808 9l9 541 MiMi) X l ? -‘ U ,i’.. dJUU4/0U5
2
reflect actual einiss ions including the effect of reductions
occurring prior to that year. Only reductions that occur after
the base year are creditable toward the 15 percent requirement
(assuming that they meet the other creditability requirements of
section 182(b)(l)(D)]. Also, if a regulatory program that met
the creditability provisions was adopted and implemented prior to
the base year but continued to result in emissions reductions
after the base year, then those emissions reductions occurring
after the base year would be creditable to the 15 percent
requirement.
3 • If a State implements nonregulatory/voluntary programs
and is lubsequently designated nonattainment for ozone, can the
State use these programs to meet-the 15 percent requirement by
passing legislation and submitting a Stats implementation plan
(SIP) revision?
Answer: The program would be creditable only if the
reductions occur after th. base year.
4. Can a State pass legislation lowering the Reid vapor
pressure (RVP) of gasoline below the 9 • 0 allowed in attainment
areas for purposes of maintaining the standard? If ’ h.y can,
what are the procedures that must be. followed?
Answer: States are generally preempted under section
211(c) (4) (A) from establishing controls on the .RVP of gasoline
for purposes of motor vehicle emissions control unless the State
RVP control is identical to the Federal requirement.’ A State
may, however, adopt and enforce a nonidentical RVP control if an
applicable SIP so provides. The EPA may approve such a SIP
provision only if the State RVP control is “necessary to achieve”
the national ambient air quality standards (MAAQS) that the SIP
implements.
The EPA has previously approved several State RVP controls
where the State was able to show that an RVP control more
stringent than the Federal requirement was necessary to. achieve
attainment for designated ozone nonattainment areas in that State
Lsee. e.q., , EPA’s approval of a Maryland State RVP control
published at 56 FR 23804 (May 24, 1991)]. That decision
describes , criteria used by EPA in determining whether such a
SIP revis1 i is necessary to achieve the NAAQS.
1 The Federal RVP standards were promulgated under both
section 211(c) and 211(h) of the Act. States are generally
preempted under section 211(c) (4) (A) from establishing State fuel
standards that are net identical to those established under
section 211(c). California is not subject to this preemption
pursuant to section 211(c) (4) (8).
-------
J / UF .J UG.U UO 4 •a ga.u i r juu ,uu
3
For an area that is currently designated attainment, a State
would generally have to demonstrate that the RVP measure is
needed in the attainment area in order to achieve the standard In
another area that is not in attainment. The EPA approved a SIP
revision for statewide RVP controls in the State of New York
based on such a showing. However, it is questionable whether EPA
would have authority to approve a State RVP control adopted
solely to maintain compliance with the NMQS in attainment areas.
If a State would like to pursue this latter issue, then we would
work with the Office of General Counsel to determine under what-
conditions EPA could approve such a SIP submittal.
The process for obtaining a waiver of Federal preemption for
State RVP controls involves submission by the State of a SIP
revision in section 110 of the Act. The PederaiRegister notice
referred to above provides detailed information on the criteria
used by EPA in acting on such a SIP revision.
If you have any further questions or concerns, please give
me a call.
cc: Air Division Director, Regions I, II, III,.V—X
Kent Berry
Gary Dolce
Tom Helms
Howard Hoffman
Phil Lorang
Kimbr Scavo
Laurel Schultz
John Silvasi
Dick Wilson
-------
:.
MEMORANDUM
UNIHD.SIAIES NVIRONMEN1AL Pf 4 0 1 1.LIIuN /UII t J •
Office of Au Ouality Plann.i q .nu I SI.ulk ..i
Rt b4 .Il r.h I ii.uiiqIs P 1 k. Noi iii (.ii IIIi ‘.1 1 /1;
NOV3(J 1993
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
D. Kent Berry, Acting Director
Air Quality Management Division
Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations
for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainmen Areas
(MD-I)
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV -
Director, Air and. Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air,, Radiatiofl and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI -
Director, Air and Toxics. Division,
Regions VII, -VIII, IX, and X
This memorandum provides guidance on the use of actual -
emissions in maintenance demonstrations for ozone and CO
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment. This
guidance supersedes previous Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) guidance set forth in the September 4, 1992 memorandum from
John Calcagni to Air Division Directors, “Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment”
(redesignation policy), which required emission projections for
these areas to be based on allowable emissions.
The EPA has previously issued guidance on the use of actual
emissions in protecting emissions to meet the requirements for
the 15 percent z e!.of-progress plans for ozone nonattainment
areas. 1 For co tsncy, this memorandum extends the policy of
using actual ea1 jens to maintenance projections for ozone and
CO areas, as veil. This guidance is not intended to apply to
emission .projections in control programs for the other criteria
pollutants (see discussion under “Other Pollutants”).
‘See Guidance for Growth Factors. Prolections. and Control
rate ies for the 15 Percent Rate—of Proaress Plans (EPA—452/R—.
—002, March 1993).
7—14
-------
2
Ozone and CO Policy
Actual emissions from a source are the emissions based on
the source’s actual operating hours, production rates, and
control equipment for the processes carried out at the source.
Actual emissions take into consideration normal operating
conditions as well as instances when deviations, occur. For Ozone
and CO areas, the term allowable emissions refers to emissions
estimates based on enforceable emission rates and actual
production rates and hours.
Consistent with the earlier rate—of-progress plan gui&nce,
ozone and CO maintenance projections may be based on actual
emissions for sources or source categories that are currq y
subject to a regulation and that the State does not anticTpate
subjecting to additional regulation. Similarly, the maintenanèe
projections may be based on actual emissions for sources or
source categories that are currently unregulated and are not
expected to be subject to future regulation. (The State still.
has the option of using allowable emissions for these two cases.)
However, for sources that are expected to be subject to
additional regulation, the projections. must be based on the new
allowable emissions limits because the new actual emissions are
not yet known.
Upon approval of a redesignation request and associated
maintenance plan by EPA, all future imissions calculations or
projections to implement other air quality requirements for an
area must be consistent with the maintenance demonstration
(unless a more stringent requirement applies). For example, if -
projected emissions from a source used in the maintenance
demonstration are based on actual emissions, that source must use
actual emissions in determining the credit avai. able for
emissions trading, innovative strategies, economic incentive
-plans, and emissions budgets.
Other Pollutants
Under the redesignation policy, emissions projections for
particulata matter (PM-b), sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen
dioxide, .s . ead (Pb) nonattainment areas are still required to
follow c flhiit EPA modeling guidance •2 The modeling guidance
requires th t maximum allowable emission limits for major point
sources be used in demonstrating maintenance of short-term.
2 Tb.e EPA-approved modeling guidance may. be found in the
following documents: UGuideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)’
(EPA—45012-78—027R, July 1987) nd “PM—b SIP Development
Guideline” (EPA—450/2—86—OO1, June 1987).
-------
3
jards. 3 It is necessary to continue the u ‘
,able emissions when projecting emissions
:tainment areas because, in some cases lar ‘- ‘rt 5 øur es
0 peratin at full capacity could by themselves
excee e of the applicable national ambient 3i
star 1a d In contrast, large point sources are to be
dominant emission sources in inventories for ozi 3
onattai1 m 1t areas, and it is unlikely that the mu1titU Of
smaller sources would be operating at maximum cap3 tY
ultaneously.
S
For further information regarding the use C actual azid
allowable emissions for maintenance demonstrati° for o:one and
Co areas, please contact Carla Oldham at (919) j..3347. For
jnformation Ofl projecting emissions for S02, Pt 1’ ’ and Pb
nonat ainment areas, please contact Robin Dunking at 9l9) 541-
5335.
cc: Air Branch chief, Regions I-X
John Cabaniss, OMS
Mary Menigin, OAQPS
Bob Kellam, TSD
Rich Ossias, OGC
John 1 asnic, SSCD
John Seitz, OAQPS
Ann Goode, OAR
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
3 flaxiraua allowable emissions are calculated usj
Zorceable (i.e. allowable) emission rate multiplied by the
Zimum operating capacity of that source at contiflU0’ operat1°’
tUnlesm there are federally—enforceable limits 0 1% the hourS of
itjon).
-------
Eederal Register / VoL 59. No. 182 / Wednesday. September21 , igg / Rules and Regu1ations g jg5
provisions to implement an NSR not iemove existing requirements nor source categories which may not be
program in accordance with the Clean does if impose any new Federal exempted and because the State has not
Air Act reqwrements. Furthermore. requirements, adopted the new pennitUng
Ohio’s existing regulations exempt two This action has been dqsified’as a requirements of the Clean Air Act
types of sources which may not be Table 2 action by the Regional Amendments of 1990 in a clear or
exempted under the Act and applicable Administrator under the procedures enforceable m nmer .
USEPA regulations. For these reasons, published in the Federal Register on . * a
USEPA takes fluial action to disapprove january 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214—2225). as IFR Doe. 94—23349 Filed 9-20-94 8:45 amj
Ohio’s submittal for failure to satisfy revised by an October 4. 1993 --
part D requirements. memorandum from Michael a Shapiro, _____________________
Under section 179(a)(2), one of the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air -
sanctions set forth Lfl sectiOn 179(b) and Radiation. The O has exempted 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
hail apply unless the deficiency has this regulatory action. from Executive.
ieen corrected within 18 months of the Qrder 12866 review. - - (0H0644239A, OHOI.2.4230A, 0H32. .2-
,ffectlve date of this disapproval. Under section 307(b)(1) of the clean 6231 A; FRL-6073-63 -
xteusive discussion of USEPA’S Air Act, petitions for judicial review of ,
• .i. . ... k 1’ - uga no -
auctions p . ures. given .e • __ action must uu .w iu we uflitcu- Im tatlon Plans and
0 ugust . . StatesCourto ppeals or e of Areas forAlrQualfty Planning
FR 39832. Pw tiant to 40 CFR 52.31. appthpriate circuit by November 21. - Pu ohio
inless a revised plan has been i o. Filing a petition for -
ubmltted and proposed for approval in reconsideration by the M!nin ctxator of AGENCY: United States Environmental
he meantime, a requirement for two- this final rule does not affect the finality Protection Agency 6EPA).
or-one offsets shall apply to any of this rule for the purposes of judicial ACTiON: Final rule. - . -
ierints Issued after (insert date 18 review nor does It extend the time -
nonths after O days from date of within which a petition for judicial . SUMMARY US 6.JR approving a
roblimlionj for major nOw sources and view may be filed, and shail redesignatlon request and maintenance
nodIRratlops In nônattainment areas. postponed10 effectiveness of such iule’ plan for Preble. Columbiana, and.
llghway fnndlng nr5lons shall apply or action. This action may notbe” “ Jefferson Counties. Ohio as a revision to
Insert date 24 months after 30 days. p Hngs to. Ohio ’s State Iznplementi t4nn Plan (SIP)
iom date otpubllcatlonj. 8 51fl enforce its reoulremnntg. (See gectjon” .for m,a . •, .. -
rethôdjl nbeabeensubinlttedand 307(b)(2).) “ ‘ i - -“ .- Therevislon isbasedonaroquest.
imoosad fur apprâval Inthemeanlime, - . - • -j . -. : -c i , ‘ frn the State o OhIo t za d ata ’1 - ,
‘t thIhk1n tMs action should be .. stj&SubJecfs lfl 4Q ulb1 these arOas. and approve their
óns&iiód.a&permlttfng allowing a’,. - Eovfr . . 5jflf Iw 5 p 5fl 5 , afl4 fl
any fub - .pollutlon a bd mdn thIde:u1 suppgrtth Iafa tb e Si .áibmift c1
que xey1 pnteny SW U PA . ‘ Hyd o ’b 1Ok ’v bI ’i& 5e.h ‘ Under tn ’A1fAi nitfoiis ,
thSU IM&Oach f6rzevldon. - ’ re tión. Nltr6g à ’ssdd ‘canbè’chuiód If fflclent dala axb
frth ht0f ; Per cu matter, Roper igan&’ -M - availabl tqwarrant suhchengs. .
Y ° ’ __op em t ’Sulfu 4.
116 USEPfrmuIts 1*k effeilvedate,i.
rreparea regulatory. fleidbllity analysis —a - deI1’- tim h.ns ’i %Lhs , .. ,hflJ I
aseealnjthalmpacbof any proposed oi . cl tei, p j2;. 1. 49 of the Code’ :
gofl bn*afl elitIties. (5 U.S.C 6 of Federil R gulatIonsii meuded as .“
&604 Aiteruadvel USEPA may r ADORESSES comments
dgnf ’nt Ithn OD sub antW •“ . ‘ - PARI 5w-APPROVAL AND.. , . ,: WlIIbna L. MacDowell,
iumberof.inñntides. Sm*)1 entitles PROMULGATIONOF ‘,. ‘ - ‘ ‘ - 1- RegulatiönD veI6pmt,Se t ioizAfr )
uclude satail businesses small not-fer . dPLBW1TATION PLANS , . ,, Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), United’
fit” and t ‘‘ ‘• ‘- ‘ - • -. • - . -. — States Environmental Protection.
__=: :;; E c
State .. • A I T 4 7 9 1 ,7i( CopIed of the requested redes1gnatibb .
“ “ umier ai iffi 4fléod “ vf D of ‘ ‘ ‘.. . - -- . ‘ - . - - .-.. -- - mainteñanceplan, and other matenalr
t Clean Air A i t aI auy Subpart - reI*tm to this iul w ,* W, g I
existing ntss pl1cableto 2. Secti 52i8791s amended ‘ --: for public Inspection during
naltilitles. Any pm Wthg Federal Ing paragraph (a) to- ead as. follo vm thofollowj
requirements r n tn In place after this . . - - ‘. • • - . - -- - -
disapprovaL’ Federal disapproval of the. g52.1879 $.vIew of flaw scarce. and’ - United States Envlronmen -
State submittal does not affect its State.’ mo icatloes . — , . ‘ ‘;:..‘.‘ . “- • Protection Agency. Region 5 Air and ‘.
enforceability. Moreover, USEPA’s (a) The requiremetits of sections 172 Radiation DIvision, 77 WestJecksem
disapproàl of the submittal does not 173.182. and 189 for permitting ol-: - Boulevard (AE-17J) ChIcago, ’flhInoi%
impose any new Federal requirements. major new sources and major . ., ‘ -. ,. 60604; and Air Docket 6102. United
Theiefor , USEPA certifies that this -. modifications In nonaltAinment roes-,: States Environmental Prt w4 il , 3 Z ’
disapproval action would not have a ’: ’ for ozone. particulate ? m *tOI . sU1fUL Agency, 401 M’Street, SW. W14nu
significant impact’ on a ubstantiil ‘: dioxfde, and carbbii ionoxldeare not - DC 20480. (It is recommended’that you
number of small entities because it does met, because Ohio’s regulations exempt telephéne William Jones at (312) 886- -
-------
48396 Federal Register I Vol. 59, NO. 182 ! Wednesday, September 21, 1994 F Rules and Regulationi
Y
Non
Iwo—
ig9 _
o6___
-ü 4
.027
.•a34
..‘ ...-
TA8LE Z—NO
‘PoW
-. -
Ya 2
.-
6058. before visiting the Region S reviewed in a proposed nulPmAking consistent with those established in the
Office.) published on December 20, 1993, (see Federal rule by November25 and 30.
58 FR 66334) in which USEPA proposed 1994. respectively. Because the deadline
william J s, R uiation Devekixeent to pp the requests due to a Jack for such submittals has not yet come
section, &ai1 ± ( . of maintenance and contingency plans due, it is not an applicable requirement.
17J), U.S. Environmental Protection and enforceability deficiencies in their under section 107(d)(3)(E) (v), for
Agency. Region 5. Chicago. Illincns Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) approval of this zedesignation request.
60604. (312) 886-6058. Reasonably Available Control -
Techn 1 1 AtI1 s A. Preble County
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON: Under oogy .
Section 107(d) of the pro-amended the State has submitted The maintenance plan provided for
Clean Air Act (CAA), the United States additional information to address the this county consists of an rnissions and
Environmental Protection Agency bass of the proposed disapprov4 The air quality summary; a mobile, azea, and
(USEPA) promulgated the ozone re zew of the previous submittal and the point source emissions inventory; and
attainment status for each area of every basic re4esi nanon requirements are not Permits-to- nstall for all subject sources
State. For Ohio Preble Columbiana. summarized in this notice, but the in Preble County -. - -
and Jefferson Counties were designated IS to thS December 20 The a .I ons summary for volatile
as nonattainment areas for osone. 5 43 1993,iiot above fore - OlgInIC comPou nds (VOCal and oxides
FR 8962 (March 3, 1978). and 43 FR summary 01 lUrl .flOfltS 5RU the . of nitrogen (NOxJ are provided below•
45993 (October 5, 1978). On November P ° °’ £115 Apiu 14.1994. -
,nna .1. i-i A A . . - and August 10. 1994, submittals TABLE I —VOC ELess oNs IN T’
1.1, £ J . we . .ean £111 . -
Amendments 1990 were enacted. Y
Pub. L. No.1 49,104 Stat. 2399. ___
codified at 4- ...C 7401—7671q. . S1ii n 176(c) of the Act ‘ u1res
Pursuant to .tcn 107(dXl)(C) of the to revise their alPs totablish
CAA, Preble, jefferson, and Colna Mit , n - aitenia and procedures to eneme that
Counties retaled their d slgnatiwms of p g actions, b.e& they are taken,
noimattainment for ozn1 a ztlon of conform to the air ausliw p)amiing ______ ____ ____ ____ ____
law. 5FR56694 6, pi i sSW.11m
1991). At the same time Preble, and ., . r—ñmment to determine 6wmi’v -
Jefferk& Cdunties __ 1 fied a ‘ ia s . - C
transitional arees and Cohiu1 Ianui. ... and p pjectn deelaned :.- _____-. ____ ____ ____
Con w! Aed as an lncoznpIete €ià titI __
dataarea. - - . - ‘- -. -, us. -the -RedemI nsjtAct . ..
1ieOhfo Envifoumental Protectia as”
AguiC 1O estedthatPzebls , .t a r eraI , ,‘ 199Q Z ..U0 I 410 fi0J1
Conmty zed cIg t*t d to at?ai1mdM t In, :- o .co &1e-kae6 Ma12
a latter dated May 23.1988; and that’ - .. . . rovidm t the co 1WrevIsIo s - 2006 Q 0 ic& .. 2.8i E1O
J eff and Colu iMai Counties - .: to be i ’1’ .i 4n. d. State . be - ’- k
___ T n jxe
defed4, 1988 O D 5120 the Lie t6 de e ie
199 e Sth!etEnviWn ante1° Ii EPA ( a.’ L _t ___ ____
f the ons1 M ‘e air dber
diS e 1 j .wvwtb N I initted oneyear ii ten ( io) yeeILThew (
(683 34bII comm t p inulgattos Of tb nalUSEPA 4 - - ‘ ‘.
perfod was from P em bê20 1993 —‘i co kimftyregu1etton& Wheil that date ____
January 19. 1994. lx i Januery.1e ?peased withcut such lon t-. - _____
1ettez be State of Ohio nt isated a 90-.€ USEPAS GenWelPresmbl. for tht- a la quality nienithaing - by
day extension of the —.“en ’ period. ‘- -lmplementatlon of Thi. i - - .- ‘ the State shows that the ar Is fIn 1
On Februiiy 18,1994, the U ’4 -‘: - -‘ -- j . ‘ f ____An bIemsi Al
extended the m m15.f pemiod until ‘would establish a em.ibmittaf late: See 57 Q hy endards (NAAC$) ____
April 19 .r 1994 (see 59P 8S).Th.€ PR 13498.13557 (April 16.1992). - Pralule County. which eis4aMd
OEM submitted in L The USEPA t j9 flOila , .Ii1 1t prior toemctmenLOfth
contingency plans - - - hit- transportation InT%ityzugulitlons Clean Alr Ad AmsaRtmk%& Of 2990 1
submittal dated April-____ - : :- -- November24, 1993(58 FR 62188] and - mz st esii ...teXiethig RACFñlerfor
requested parallel 1 u-, lthe -. general conformity regulations on -- enforceebthty defidenides. Sed 7J R
submittal. The results Of A’Rpubllc November 24. 1993(58 FR 63214). - 13562. Thó State submitted copies of ‘
hearing and resulting IevkL 51 to the Thes. couformmuity rIdes iSquli. that PermetMo4iutall feral) sublect iuw ’
maintmm and contingency plan w - States adopt both transportation and - -. in the County. These penmib lndfciti-4
submitted in a letter dated August 10. . : general conformity revisions In the SIP that flO 5u u In the County i
1994. Notwith ding them subunlttaIs - for areas none”ainment or - - - a cted bye Volatile Ou1c ’
no public comments spedflcaUy -subject to a maintenance plan ap Avvod Compound ( OC) Reasonably Available
commenting an the proposed under section 175A of theAct. Pursuant Control Technology (RACIJ ruleibat
nilemAlcing were ieceived during the - to section 51.396 of t± transpoitati on has an enfotceabilit r defideucy The -
extended comment period. - . - - - . - conformity rule end section 51,851 of — one source that would have been .-‘
- — —- -- - -:. - the”—Ofamfmmity rule, the Stats of gfT j ( de easar ) was permanentl j
- ‘ ‘ ! ‘ —. ; . - Ohio is required to subthft SIP revisions - shut down.This satisfies the -‘ “
The State’s May 23.1986. and July 14. - conlalning trazisportallon and general - requirement for correcting enforceability
1986, requests were previously conformity aiteria and procedures - deficiencies in the county. -
PoI* I Area
Mob
se es
..-
45.52
4&12
•43•93
4i.13
‘41.88
4? 64
-4.16
2.53
1.96
TONS
!R.P t $
s
uo acen oi
-------
- Federal Registez:I;VaL 59; No. 182 ..LWêdnesday. Septeni iet Zf
The maintenance plan.also includes a. - TABLE 4.—VOC EMISSIONS p 1 i ToNs
contingency measure that the State will . PER SUMMER DAY - -
use to ensure maintenanceof tha - ____ ____ ____ ____
‘IAAQS for ozone.The -Statebas ‘•.
committed to lower ReId - .Vapw Pressure _____ ___ ___ ___ ___
(RVP) gasoline as the c ” genCy
measure. This would be-lmpJameniedln 1990 — 1.13 6.50 .8.51
1996 120 . 8.40 4.96
the case of a violation in the area. In 2005. 1.33 6.30 4.11 ___
order for the State to üselowerRVP
16.14
.12.53
11.74
gasoline, a finding of ndeasslty muat • .. -
first be made by USEP under Section ç. .JA81 -E 5 . 44 Ox EP SSiCNS IN TONS
211(cX4)(C). of necessity su DAY
is not provided. Ohio EPA has; -
committed to chaos tn.alternatio U —.’ • Yew
unspecified emisslofl control meesut - : - . ____ ____ ___
deemed appropriate bs id upon - tho
consideration of coet.effectivAnese VOC g99 j ..
reduction potentlil, eco ándcind 2005... . ____ ____ ____
social considerations, orbthà fattors
that the State Judges toboappropriate. . The total emissions are rejected t
This dedsiori would be mideund .‘ d thaso in the county aJ,a 8 a reeul ,-
Linpiemented withIn 12 months from.. the county Is expected tomnlnbiln.the
the official notification b J A that ozone air quality standard. .me m bfle.
a waiver would not be az ted. bRA: so i NOx and VOC enthsiâna ..T.
also provided the ftJlow pg sCliOdUIö for o$ct1ons fo he year 2005 wIflbe the.
Imptanwtnffng theI* woVRVP meamiài udget for traneportatlon conforinit) .
IMPLB 1NGLÔ E* p thrams Isitill phffRII IThIIfl ! of the -
• . . ..*g. ,.. F - :
plan aIãincIudee. r
• fingencyme ethattheS st w1U:; : 1
•• ;
4 o
ti from b19
£-;
3 nwwEi bum tIlt/
4 mouthS b.tm bIQ .
• TABII EMissioNs iN ToNs
PER SUMMER DAY
:•
.
Pau*
mutes
Area
sauces
,b e
scuices
j
.
iggq
1996. _
2005 .......
0.06
0.06
0.01
4.60
. 4.80
4.90
7.00
- 6.05
. 5.05
1166
10.89
.. 10.
Thetotal emi on are projectecttà
decrease In the county and, as a result.
thIcounty.is expected to maintain the
o ne air, quality standard. The mobile
SQU CeNO and..VQC ni ons •. — r-
proJecticnsIor the yeax2005 will be the
budgetfor trinsportatlon tonformityi . -
The ini,* ,usiki ,r planalso Includes ar
amtlngancy’nieaswe that the Statewill.
-nest nsema ln’e”env, of the-
NAQ fee nzaii. , -This Is the same plan
thavls oittH nd.*h foi - Preble County.
-1 bis county Is *lIIIilAP tQ Jefferson In
that it was not Included nthb post 1987
USEPASU calLl tera tó’OEPA, and
- i ri clladaibavIng RACT ;... . . -
e sndss es Columblana County was
noUnMolatlon of the NAAQS. Thai
rAh(a oInty1s not-subject toe’
t iOoon RACI t ’e .
‘• E-;
appli neRsm plan
app çabi desal -a1r pollutantixmtnl
regu atiOns-( v)-TheAdmlnhstrator s
fully appzovfng maintenance plans fee-
ih. counties as meeting the -. -
reaüliemenb.of sethen l iSA; and (v) -
r’
ithisacdc -
roudie;tho
without
llbe óms :
21. 1996.- ’”
- ‘21,1994,thent
USA’ vIfl ibflsh a document that --
withdraws the action, a iid will addzeis
the tombiiit31nth finalTuleanthe
xOq’iested iiiia . i4 *tjon and SIP -
i v1if hIth has been prãposed foi .
.ap rbvalIn thi-proposid feasecthi&
of this Federal Register. The comment
Yea
Poll
mutes
Poll
ee
...378
376
340
Area
mutes
Area
mutes
- 2.
2.7
-2.6
1.89
1.98
2.25
10.40
-10.60
10.80
M e
sauce.
MX
m
J
- - -4.1
a4
__ &i m ty ct it 0 ithin Of
0 crkiu . th. NAAQS.-Thus Jeff on Co mtyIt
__ __ - _____ O OW
ON0 ..OUJp Y : -- -.
• ianceplauprovIi *.
patedofaujmJu Ion-. -
____ mithilfi , area, and Pdt :
- -.- is inventories. -
__________ :- ‘ The Mv ons summaries fo 901ali1e.
- . - •, • ,compounds (VOCs and o,ddes
kj Couo - -.0ffltrO9efl(NOx)areProv lded
— . •• - i .• • . - : . - .. —
-• 7benisIn’ ’ut nre pIa my fCI r--TA8CE 6.—VOC- EMissioNs INTO
this unty g,nslats .of emlsslo s, and . - PER SuMMER DAY - -•
airquality ñisrjes d - -
and pointsourte m ’ thdeC -:
.Tha infon swkjE fni. n1sti1i - ___ ___ ___ ___
organic compounds ( iO( iEiiidbxides lggo . ...
of nitzcgei (NOx) are provided be1ow --- 1996..
2006_
jet ”
19 .37
18.70
Poll
sues
Pa
muom
Mole
muom
I
Tcta
TetaW
—
- 4•.
385.4
2J
348.0
11.66
6.79
5 .65
.. . —
—
q.—— - —.-: -:
______ — &...i.L..1 __ _.
! -i
i (fl
Q 0 6 * .’ lnd Nol,ember8 1989), and Was naves —
‘ C1tiL89 havthg RAC1 defldancjee, a
- ant iid
-------
48398 Federal Register I Vol, 59, No. 182 I Wednesday. September 21,1994! Rules and Regulationi -
period will not be extended or entities with jurisdiction over List of Subjects
reooened. populations of less then 50,000. , .t.
P1othinginthisactions liauldbe SlPappovalsunderSection lloand 4 rurQ1t52
construed as permitting or allowingor I. pail D of AA do not Envonmental Prot on. Air
establiching a precedent for anY future create any new requirements. but pollution control, Intergovernmental
request for revision to any SIP. Each simply approve requirements that relations, Ozone.
request for revision to the SIP shall be te is already Imposing. Therefore, to cni pti t 81
considered separately in light of specific bec the feder J SIY.approval dop
technical, economic, and environmental not impose any new requirements, I Air pouution contro
factors and in relation to relevant it d not have a significant Dsteé Septe.bai 5,1994.
statuory and regulatory requements. impact on any small entities affected. Valdas V. A * fr
This action has been clammed as a , I
. ,. LI L S • . L • £vAOreoVor, ue . . nauii Os ft
javie wz j uOfl uy we el u Federal-State relationshin under the
Administrator under the pedures CM., tin of a Chapter 1, title 40 of the Code of
published In the Federal Register on - • F ’ ___ Federal Regulations is amended as
federal Inquiry Into the economic
memorandum from Michael IL Shapiro, j of i1 The CAA PART 5 EIJDEDJ.
A A A TTUflI boT? concerning Sn’s on such grounds. - 1. The au’ ty citation for, part 52
I. 1. UnIon Electric Co. v. USEPA. 427 U.S. continues d as follows
uuClni wu genera. UIIL uCSO , . , ,.
tables. On January 6, 19 .e Office of 256-66 1976,i 42 - - - A% b.rU SC 740t-
2°(3)SIP revisions eestgnadon of anarea toattaimnent Subpart Kk—tAme q
54 FR 222) fromlhe requirements of under Section 107(dX3XEJ ° AA 2. Section 52. 885 Is ama. ii by -
iectlon 3of Executive Order 12291 ie does not Impose any new requii mints anew paragraph (ali5) to read as
ip odo tw(2)yeats.US ’Ahes -’. enema Isan ,. .
nibmitted mm ,..i rermanaiui ... action that affects the statui of. ‘• ‘ .. -; -. •‘
silver for Ta ie two (2) and Tablethzee geographical area ad does not Impose: •ftIIJS Cop . mJ Ø, .in
3 ) g tO any ulatczyrequlrementsaru.ouroes ...- : •
onlinue the tern waiver until The Adminisnitor cRitI& 5 that the (a) ‘ “- -• ‘- -
nich time asit ru 2 USEPA’s ... • pp tinl of the mde4natiaui re 9 Uest - 5) The for
iquest. Thfhie eot ues in will not affect a substantW number of - Preble, Cálumblana, and Jaff’.’ .on -
snderExecia’4ve ,( der 12866 whfçI . “ ‘ - - ; Counties.
iupereededbecudve Ordm 12291 on Under .et Io’i 3ô7(bXi) of the, sarr • • .. .., • - ‘ -
epterabà 30 1993 0MB has eximpted Afr A petftioiis for judf’ aI review of : - ..v1 $44
bIs.roguIstã acticn from E O: 12866 thfs ” ’ must beflled th the Uthted ‘- PARt 81—DESIGNATION OF AREAS
FOR AIR QUAIJVY PURPOSES—OHIO
-UadaThi Re ulatoiy P llt A t. 1 appropr1at dkOuItbj Nó embér21, •
seq.. U A rnu 1994. Filing a -
menaregulaflaidb1lityaualys(s rec IeratIonbytheAdm1 1i erot;. C i, 0 - , SIO
iI IaIdnngthd ImOy 1oic ft ]j j IIy4ZIISC 7401-7
nof eon iaall àtiti6s. (5 U.SC- 603 of .Jjf in § ai tihe
md 604.) Alternat lvsly , -USEPA may te .oaybe ftle&and shall note. . ‘+d L . revislig the entries foi
ëitIfyth Xthi rule wlWno have a --i, of Kh ruIr Col’ ,Pieble, end Jefferson — ‘
dgntffrcTlt Impact cáa substantial mio t.mayiot bL ’4 l$ - to read erfoilowm
iumberofcin a l lenddes .Sinal )ent ldes • th.l dIa lmth c eedthpto ’ .L • •. - . . .. -- - :.-,•.. . :
idudaUbnesses,srnallnot-iop en itereqil eats(Seesecticn •81.33. C lii ..: - .
profitentezprIsesandgavernment 2A 307(b)(2).) - : r * * *.* , -
• - • - • — - .
- ‘ ‘‘i- . - OHIo OzoNE — — - 4 ‘
‘“
..
‘ m 4 - Type
-, Dotel
— ‘- - - • -—.- • —. ,
• J .$._—_ •> ‘ .V’i Y .‘ ‘f r , ’. - ,. cj.,- ,-
-. • - — - • . - •—. S ‘ • 1 -
Cc sit aiia Comfl Ares C4*Jltluls Couly - Ootuber 21 1994, . Mal .. i*
. , — f ( • - - ., -.- i. , -
- •‘i ---; - . — . - - - — •.- . - - • ..._.: • •. S
— . . - £ . - . - . , ., - • -— .•• • - -
Is’Couudy kea PiebIe Coility ‘ -O ot 21 i99t ’ Z Mh6., rt.’
Stem eiwiIe ken Jellersoe Coma*y bctcbe, 21,1994. . AtTa i’ . - -—
-- .••.•• - •—I —
-
———-——— .- S.
- -
•,
• S • - •— • ‘5
S
-
“— -. — ‘ -
- ‘Ns Ie b Nowen er 15, 99 w es oUierMse noted
- ‘ . •3• 5 • •• • -
• * ‘S•— — ‘a .. .- •*••• S. •-. ,• -—
- - • ‘ :. -
IFR Do 94-2329OFUed 9 -29-94; &4S emi.
- coos o* - - - -- -
-------
4. 4...fl.
MORANDUM
UNIT eD STAftS ENVIRONMENIAL Pf ()It. .IR)N A I N( \
Oflice ot ai Quality Plai nii q .i’’ I Siu.i .,. d.
h(*.4 .I( cI I ri;iiiqIt Paik. No ( .ii
NOV3 01993
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations
for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainmen Areas
D. Kent Berry, Acting Director
Air Quality Management Division (MD—iS)
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV -
Director, Air and. Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III -
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics. Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
This memorandum provides guidance on the use of actual -
emissions in maintenance demonstrations for ozone and CO
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment. This
guidance supersedes previous Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) guidance set forth in the September 4, 1992 memorandum from
John Calcagni to Air Division Directors, “Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment”
(redesignation policy), which required emission projections f or
these areas to be based on allowable emissions.
The EPA has previously issued guidance on the use of actual
emissions in projecting emissions to meet the requirements for
the 15 percent rate—of—progress plans for ozone nonattainment
areas.’ For consistency, this memorandum extends the policy of
using actual emissions to maintenance projections for ozone and
CO areas, as veil. This guidance is not intended to apply to
emission projections in control programs for the other criteria
pollutants (see discussion under “Other Pollutants”).
‘See Guidance for Growth . Proiect . and Control
ateqies for the 15 Percent Rate—of Progress Plans (EPA—452/R-
-002, March 1993).
7—14
-------
2
Ozone and CO Policy
Actual emissions from a source are the emissions based on
the source’s actual operating hours, production rates, and
control equipment for the processes carried out at the source.
Actual emissiOnS take into consideration normai operating
conditions as well as instances when deviations, occur. For Ozone
and CO areas, the term allowable emissions refers to emissions
estimates based on enforceable emission rates and actual
production rates and hours.
Cons istent with the earlier rate-of-progress plan gui ance,
ozone and CO maintenance projections may be based on actual
emissions for sources or source categories that are currently
subject to a regulation and that the State does not anticipate
subjecting to additional regulation. Similarly, the maintenance
projections may be based on actual emissions for sources or
source categories that are currently unregulated and are not
expected to be subject to future regulation. (The State still
has the option of using allowable emissions for these two cases.)
However, for sources that are expected to be subject to
additional regulation, the projections. must be based on the new
allowable emissions limits because the new actual emissions are
not yet known.
Upon approval of a’ redesignation request and associated
maintenance plan by EPA, all future Ainissions calculations or
projections to implement other air quality requirements for an
area must be consistent with the maintenance demonstration
(unless a more stringent requirement applies). For example, if -
projected emissions from a source used in the maintenance
demonstration are based on actual emissions, that source must use
actual emissions in determining the credit available f or
emissions trading, innovative strategies, economic incentive
- plans, and emissions budgets.
Other Pollutants
Under the redesignation policy, emissions projections for
particulate matter (PM—b), sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen
dioxide, and lead (Pb) nonattaininent areas are still required to
follow current EPA modeling guidance. 2 The iodeling guidance
requires that maximum allowable emission limits for major point
sources be used in demonstrating maintenance of short—term
2 The EPA-approved modeling guidance may be found in the
following documents: “Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)’
(EPA—450/2-78—027R, July 1987) and “PM-b SIP Development
Guideline” (EPA—450/2—86—OOl, June 1987).
-------
3
idardS• 3 It is necessary to continue the
wable emissions when projecting emissions
. attaiflment areas because, in some cases, larc€ s ur.es
0 peratifl at full capacity could by themselves 3
exceed ce of the applicable national ambient , ir ; tY
standard. In contrast, large point sources are j Ke1y to be
dominant emission sources in inventories for
onattaifl1 ent areas, and it is unlikely that the it tu e of
smaller sources would be operating at maximum ca. 3 tY
simultaneously.
S
For further information regarding the use C actual axed
allowable emissions for maintenance demonstrati0 for o:on
co areas, please contact Carla Oldham at (919) For
jnformatiofl on projecting emissions for S02, pt(l ), 3T.d Pb
onat aiflment areas, please contact Robin Dunkifl t 919)
5335.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
John Cabaniss, OMS
Mary Henigin, OAQPS
Bob Kellam, TSD
Rich Ossias, OGC
John Rasnic, SSCD
John Seitz, OAQPS
Ann Goode, OAR
Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
3 Maxi um allowable emissions are calculated uSj the
enforceable (i.e., allowable) emission rate mUltiP11 by the
ximu m operating capacity of that source at contiflU S operation
fii .i... there are federally—enforceable limits on hours of
tion).
-------
..,J. ., d•
• f(D 1T
I 1% UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFRCI OP
*1* N1O lACtATION
SUBJECT: Part D New Source Review (part U NSR) Requirements for
Preas Re esting Redesignat ion to Attainment
flOX:
‘ Assi tant Admini tor
for Air and Radiation (6301)
Director, Air, Pest icides and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV -
Director, Air and Waste Management Divis ion,
Region II
Dirictor, Air, Radiation and Tozica Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Mr, Pesticides and Toxica Division
Region VI
Director, Air and Taxies Division,
Region. VIZ, VIII, IX, and X
I. Iflt1 Ø4pcjiqp
With this memorandum, EPA is amending one aspect of quid nc.
issued September 4, 1992k and September 17, 19932 regarding
requirements for nonattainment areas requesting rsdesignation to
attainment. In these previous memoranda, EPA indicated that
-States must submit and receiv, full approval of any part D NSR
regulations that were required by the Act to be submitted to EPA
prior to or at the time cf the submission of a couplets
redesignation request. ml EPA has reconsidered that policy,
however, and is establishing a new policy under which
1 Xemorandum entitled, “Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Arias to Attainment,” from John Calcagni, Director,
Air Quality Management Division, to Regional Air Division
Directors.
‘Memorandum entitled, “SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting
Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and CO
NAAQS On or After November 15, 1992,” from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administzator for Air and Radiation, to Regional
Air Division Directors.
P* tedon A yded Pap. ,
-------
i.c —v ’’”
4J ‘ ‘
j i1I/94
2
nonattainnent areas may be redesignated to attainment
notvithstanding the lack of a fullyapproved part 0 NSR program,
provided the program is not relied upon for maintenance. In
addition, EPA is not re uiring that existing part 0 NSR rules be
placed in the contingency portion of the maintenance plan
pursuant to section 175A of the Act. As discussed below,
however, EPA believes its new policy will assure that the
statutory goals of part D uSE and section 375k to protect and
1 aaintain the NMQS ar . achieved.
The EPA believes that this new policy is justifiable under
the Agency ‘a general authority to establish exceptions
to statutory requirements wher, th. application of th. statutory
requirement. would be of trivial or no value environmsxita!ly.
[ see AlabalnaPewarcQ . V. g5 ]5, 636 1.24 323, 36061 (D.C. Cit.
- 1979).]
I X. ac1caroundiC1.an Air Aot Reguirrnnts
Section 2.07(4) (3) (E) of the Act requires that a State have
in plac. a fully.approved SIP meeting all the requirements
—applicable to a nonattainment area under section 2.10 and part D
of title I oZ the Act in order for the area to be redesignated to
attainment. .‘ -
In addition, section 375k requires that the area must have a
fully.appreved maintenanc, plan containing contingency
provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of
th. applicable 1JAAQS that occurs after radesignation of the area.
At a minimum, the contingency plan must “include a requirement
that the Stat. vii ]. implement al ) measures with respect to the.
control of the air pollutant concerned Which were contained in
the State implementation plan for the area before radasignat ion
of the area as en attainment area.”
The NSA requirements ar. contained in section 110(a) (2) (C)
and in parts C-and 0 of title I of the Act. Broadly sp.aking,
section 110(a) (2) (C) of tb. Act mandates th. development of a
preconstruction review program to assure that the construction or
modification of any stationary source is consistent with
attainment of the NMQS. The nonattainment NSA program in part D
NSR and the attainment area prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) progran in part C apply to major new sources
and modifications of existing major sources. (Implementing
regulations that set forth minimum requirements for Stats or
local programs and Federal permitting programs have been
promulgated at 40 CPA part 51 subpart I and appendix 5, and 40
c i a section 92.21, respectively.)
To assure. that major new or modified sources do net
interfere with reasonable further progress towards attainment,
nonattaira.nt area part 0 NSR requires installation of control
crt z ..
-------
0 1d1004/OO T
p 10/14/94 15:59 ‘ 919 541 O82 EPA_OZONE
3
technology representing the lowest achievable emissions rate
(LAZR) and emission off ets. To prevent “clean air areas from
significant degradation, the PSD program requires installation of
best available control technology (BACT) and modeling to show
that the new or modified source viii not cause or contribute to.
violation oi a NAAQS or a PSD air quality growth increment.
Previously, EPA intàpreted those provisions toqether to
‘equirs that any area seeking redseignation to attainment must
have fully-approved part D 1 SR rules as part of the required
fully-approved SIP. In addition, upon ;edesiqnation, th. part D
N$R rules were to - be placed in the maintenanc, plan contingency
provisions in accordance with section 175A of the Act unless the
area needed to continue implementing part 0 NSR as on. .l .nt of
the maintenance strategy.
III. NSR Policy atid. LecaL matioi ale
Tb. EPA now believes that a d& minimis exception to the
requirement of section 107 (d) (3) (2) for part D NSR is justifiable
because requiring the adcption and full approval of a part D NSR
program as a prerequisite to r.designation would not be of
significant environmental value in certain circumstances. The
EPA has reconsidered its earlier position because, once an area
is redesignated to attainment, the part 0 NSR program may be
replaced by the corollary P 50 program, if it i shown through the
maintenance demonstration that the area will maintain without
part 0 NSR and because part 0 NSR need not become part of the
contingency plan.
A. Preconatruction Review Programs in Attainment Areas
There are several provisions in the Act and in EPA’s
regulations that require preconstx’uction review of new or
modified major sources in attainment areas to assess the impact
of the proposed emissions increases on the applicable N AQS. -
These include the P60 program which covers 100 ton per year (tpy)
or 250 tpy or greater sources (depending on the source category),
the preconstruction review requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(b) that
cover 200 tpy or greater sources, and the Interpretive Offset
Rule. .s to ozone, there are some particular requirements that
apply. The EPA believes these programs will ensure that major
nov sources and modifications are given adequate praconstructien
review.
After redesignation to attainment, State PSD rules, or
Pederal PSD rules in a delegated program, must ensure, as
required by sections. 165(a) (3) (5) and 110(a) (2) (C) of the Act,
that preconstruction revie of new and modified major sources
vii ] prevent increases in emissions that would cause or
contribute to violations of the NMQS. (See 40 CIR 51.166(k), 40
R 52.21(X). ]
-------
iU/Le/ 4 iQ•
4
In addition, EPA ’S regulations at ‘40 CFR 51.165(b) require
that SIP’s contain preconstruction review requirements that
apply to new or modified 100 tpy or greater sources of a
pollutant in areas designated attainmont or unclassifiable for
the pollutant in cases where the new or modified source would
contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. This requirement provides
for precenstruct ion review for sources that are exempt from PSD
due to PSD’s higher (250 tpy) major sourcs threshold for certain
sourc. categories.
In the absence of SIP provisions that comply with 40 CFR
51.165(b) or a part D NSft program, States would have to use the
Interpretive Offset Rule at 40 C1’R 51 appendix S as a surrogate
rulà for permitting new end modified major sources in these
attainment areas. (S .. 45YR 31310, Kay 3.3, 1980.)
Por $03, PM—b, NO 2 , and CO , EPA has established 1.v.as ot
mbi•nt impact.. to determine whether the major new or modified
source would cause or coittribut to a violation. Where the
source is found to cause or contribute to a violation, the source
• would be subj sot to more stringent technology and emissions.
“mitigation requirement. of appendix S or a 40 CPR 51.165(b)
pro raa.
With particular respect to ozone, because of the difficulty
in modeling the impact of emissions from specific sources on
ozone formation, EPA regulations (40 CFR 51.165(b) (3) and
appendix 5] do not fully address how emissions of ozone
precursor. should be treated to assur. that major new or modified
source. do net cause or contribute to a )1AAQS violation.
Neverthebos., if preconstruction monitoring or other information
indicates the area is not continuing to meet the standard after
redneignation to attainment, appendix S or a 40 CYR 51.165(b)
program would also apply. The EPA believes that in any area that
is designated or redesignated as attainment under section 107,
but experiences violations of the NAAQS, these provisions (and
any izplementiv g SIP provisions) should be interpreted as
requiring major new or modified sources to• obtain VOC emission
offsets of at least a 1:1 ratio, and aspruuming (consistent
with section 182 Ct)] that 3.11 NOx off8stl ar, necessary.’
In addition, attainment (PSD) plans require that major new
and modified sources apply BACT. Generally, BACT differs from
LAIER by enabling permitting authorities to justify, based on
The EPA. is in the process of revising EPA’s rules for NSR
and P50, seas of which will replace appendix S. However, the
proposed revisions will not change the substantive permitting
requirements where an attainment area is violating the ozone
IIA&Q$.
-------
1O’i4’ jO•UU L U* 4 trA —ULU ’ cU uuo#uus
5
economic, energy, and environmental impact., the use of control
technologies less effective than the most stringent available.
In an area that is not meeting the NAAQ$, EPA believes that due
to consideration of thu NAAQS violations, the State may impose a
more stringent lsvel of control than might be othsrvi e selected
as BACT. (Sea Draft New Source Rsviev Manual, page 8 • 54 (October
1990).]
Taken together, these preconstruction review programs can
assure that major new or modified sources achieve the statutory
goals of part D NSR end the maintenance provisions of section
l75A
B. Part D KSR and Contingency Provisions
Requiring the full approval of a part 0 $SR program would
ensure that th. program would become a contingency pro4sioar in
the maintenance plan. As stated above, pursuant to section
275A(d) and section 107(d) (3) (E), the contingency- plan must
contain, at a minimum, all measures contained in the
nonattainment SIP. However, EPA is interpreting the term
“measure” as used in section 175A(d) so a. not to include part 0
NSR.
The term “measure” is not defined in section 175A(d) and
Congress utilized that term differently in different provisions
of the Act with respect to the P50 and part 0 NSR permitting.
programs. For example, in section 110(a) (2 (A), Congress
required that SIP’s include “enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures, means, or tchniques . . . as may be
necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of
the Act.” Xn section 1lO(a)(2)(C), Congress required that SIP’s
include “a program to pr vids for the enforcement of the
described in subparagraph (A) • m d regulation of th. modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas -
covered by th. plan as necessary to assure that national ambient
air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as
required in parts C and D (i.e., PSD and part 0 NSR).” ( phasis
added.]
If the term “measures,” as used in sections 110(a) (2) (A) and
110(a) (2) (C), had been intended to include P50 and part 0 NSR,
there would have bun no point to requiring that SIP’s include
both measures preconstruction review under part. C and 0 (P50
or part D NSR). Thus, in sections 110(a) (2) (A) and (C), it is
apparent that congress distinguished the requirement for
“measures” from the requirement for preconstruction review
programs. On the other hand, in other provisions of the Act,
such as section 161 Congress appears to have included P 50 within
the scope of the term “measures.”
-------
6
The fact that Congress used the undefined term “measure”
differently in different previsions of the Act indicatss.that the
term is susceptible to acre than one interpretation and that EPA
baa the discretion to interpret it in a reasonable manner in the
context of section 175k. Inasmuch as Congress itself has used
the term in a manner that excluded PSD and part D NSR from its
scope, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret “measure,” as
used in section 175k(d) • not to include part D NSR. The
reasonableness of this interpretation is further supported by the
fact that PSD, a program that is the corollary of part D NSR for
attainment areas, goes into effect in lieu of part D NSR,’ and
that, as discussed above, EPA intends to implement the PSD and
other NSR programs in a way that viii achieve the basic utory
goals of part D NSR. Therefore, EPA does not believe thit par 0
NS& need be part of an area’s contingency plan.
IV. Othar Jecuired Proarams
The EPA is not changing its previously stated policy with
respect to the need Car States to adept and receive Lull approval.
of other programs required. by the Act prior to or at the time of
-- the submission of a redesignation request. The existenc. of a
cer’âllary program for attainment area . distinguishes part D NSR
from other required programs under the Act, such as enhanced
inspection and maintenance and reasonably available control
technology (RACT) programs, which have no corollary program.
Moreover, EPA believes that those other required programs are
clearly vithin th. scope of ths term !m.asure” as used in section
175k.
For further information regarding part 0 !ISR requirements.
for areas redesignatirtg to attainment, please contact Carla
Oldhaa at (919) 541—3347; for general information about PSD
requirsinents for attainment areas, contact Dennis Crumpler at
(919) 541—O$71 -
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
EPA is not suggesting that NSR and PSO are equivalent, but
merely that they are the same type of program.
-------
/2?
j O 57
tat UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
NOV 161994
M MORAN1MTh1
SUB3ECT: Limited naintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiabis
Ozo e Nen ta nment Areas
PROM: S y aver, D ector
Air Quality Strategies & Standards.Divisipn ( —35)
TO: Director, Air, Pøaticid.s and Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and TV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxic.. Division,
Region .111
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V . -
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxic. Divi. .on
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxic. Division,
Regiens’VIt, VIII, IX, and X
I. P2M
This memorandum seti forth new guidance on aint.nance plan
requirements for certain nonclaisifiable ozone nonattainaent
areas seeking redesignation to attainment; In particular,
nonclasaifiable ozone areas vhose design values are at or below
o • 106 ppm (85 percent of excesdanco levels of th ozone NAAQS) at
the time of red.signation say choose to submit a less rigorous
maintenance plan than was formerly required. This new option is
being termed a L imited maintenance plan. Nonclassifiable ozone
areas with design values greater than 0.106 ppm will continu, to
be subject to full maintenance plan requfr.ments described in the
Septaabe 4,- 1992 memorandum, NProc.dursa for Processing Requests
to Redsái ate Areas to kt’ .ainment, from John Calcagni, farmer
Director of the OAQPS Air Quality Management Division to the
Regional Air Division Directors.
There are three types of nonclassifiable ozone areas:
submarginal, transitional, and incomplete/no data. A description
of these areas is included as Attachment A.
-------
Li/JU/ 4 u..iu
2
II.
Section 107(d) (3) (E) of the Act provides that a
nonattainment area can be redesignated to attainment if the
following criteria are met:
1 ’
.1. The EPA has determined that the NAAQS for the applicable
pollutant has been attained.
- 2. The applicable impl.aentatiori plan has been fully
adopted under section 110(k).
• 3. The EPA has determined that the improvement in air...
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in___
emissions •
• . 4. The . State has met all applicable requirements f th
area under section 120 and part D.
5 • The EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including
a contingency plan, for the area under section 175k.
.1
Section 175k of t1 . provides the general. framework for
maintenance plans. The maintenance plan must provide, for
maintenance of the NAAQS .f or at least P10’ yesre’ after
radseignation, ’ incluM g any additional. control measures a. may
be necessary to ensure such maintenance. . addition,
maintenance plans are to ‘contain such contingency’ provi.ion as
EPA deems necessary to assur. the proi t correction of a.
violation of the )1A&QS that ocaurs after red?siqnation. The
contthge ’ - measures must include, at a min .‘ rn, a rec irsrnent
tha- the ate will implement all control m . - ures co .tained in
the nonat. 4inment SIP prior to. rsdësignatior
Seyond these requirements, however, section 175k does nOt
define the content of a maintenance plan. . Thus, EPA has the
authority to exercise reasonable discretion to determine those
requirements. The EPA has previously issued guidancs on meeting
all five criteria for redesignation including maintenance plans
(see Attaeb a.’ t B). The EPA now believes that it ii justifiable
and approp Let, to apply a d tffsrent set of maintenance plan
requirsmsnt$’. (described herein) to a limited category of ozone
nonattainment- areas--nonclassifiable areas whose monitored air
quality is equal to or less than 85 percent of exceedance levels
of the ozone NAAQS. The EPA does not believe that the full
maintenance plan requirements need be applied to these areas
because thy have achieved air quality levels veil below the
‘Section 175 also requires that 8 years after
redesignation, the State must submit an additional. plan to
provide for maintenance for a second follow—on 10—year period.
-------
L.L,jUfl 1 u..a.i. . .
3
standard without the application of control measures required by
the Act for classified ozone nonattainment areas. Also, these
areas do not have either a recent history of monitored violation
of the ozone NAAQS or a long prior history of monitored air
quality problems. The EPA believes that the continued
applicability of prevention of signifjcant deterioration (PSD)
requirements, any control measures already in t he SIP, and
Federal measures (such as the Federal - motor vehicle control
program) should provide adequate ‘assurance of maintenance for
these areas.
III. Oualifyinci for the Limited Xaint.nanc. Plan Option
To qualify for the limited maintenanc, plan option,• the
baone design value for the area, based on the 3 years of ta
used to demonstrate attainment, must be at or below 0.106 ppm
(85 percent of exceedance levels of the osone NAAQS).. -
Additionally, the design value for the area must continue to be
at or below 0 106. ppm until the time of final EPA. action. on- the
redesignat ion. The method for calculating design values is
presented in t e June 18. 1990 memorandum, 5 Osone and Carbon
MonOxide Design Value Ca lculations, from William C. Laxton,
former Director of tb 0?tQPS Technical Support• DLvis ion to
Regional Air Directors. The morandum focuses primarily on
determining design values for nonattainment areas in order to
classify the areas as marginal, moderate, serious, sever., or
.xtr.ae. Therefore, the document discusses determining the
design value for an area based on the monitors. which are
exceeding the standard. In the case of a nonattainient area
seeking redesignat ion to attainment, all monitors must be meeting
the standard. To assess whether a nonclassifjabla area meets the
applicability cutoff for the limited maintenance plan, a separate
design value must be developed for every monitoring site. The
highest of these design values is th. design value for th. whole
- area. If the area design value is at or below 0.106 ppm, the
State may select the limited maintenance plan option for the
first 10-year maintenance period. If the design value for the
area exceeds 0.3.06 prior to final EPA action on the
rsdesiqnatjqn, the area *o longer qualifies for the limited
maintenan. lan and must instead submit a full maintenance plan.
The EPA issue guidance - in the future on the applicability of
the limi tma intenance plan option to the second follow-on 10—
year maintá sTsánce period.
I V. Limited MaintenanceP1ar Elements
Following is a list of core provisions which should be
included in a limited maintenance plan. Any final EPA
determination reg4rding the adequacy of. a limited maintenance
plan will be made following review of the plan submittal light
of the particular circumstances facing the area proposed for
redesignation and based on all relevant available information.
-------
4
a. Attainment Inventory
The State should develop an attainment emissions inventory
to identify a level of emissions in the area which is cuff icient
to attain the NAAQS. This inventory should be consistent with
EPA’s -most recent guidance 2 on .missio s inventories for
nonattainment areas available at the time and should represent
emissions during the time priod ‘associated with the monitoring
data showing attainment. The thv ntory should be based on actual
“typical summer day” emissions of VOC and NOx (ozone .precursorB).
Emissions of Co are not necessary in the attainment inventory
because they will not be tracked for maintenance purposes.
b. . -. .. __ .. _ . . I3emoflStrati... .
The maintenance deacnstration requir. nt is considered tp.
be satisfied for nonclassifiabim areas if the monitoring_data:’
show the area is meeting the air quality criteria discuEld’
above • There is no requirement to -project .emiss.ions over the.
maintenance period. Th EPA believes if the area begins the
maintenance period at or below .85 percent of .xceedance . levels,
the-air quality along with the continued applicability of PSD
requirements, any ontro1 measures already in the SIP, and
Tederal measures, should provide adequate assurance of
maintenance over the initial 10-year maintenance period.
When EPA approves a limited maintenance plan, EPA is.
concluding that an emissions budget may be treated as essentially
not constraining for the length of th. maintenance period because
it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so
much growth in that period that a violation of the ozone NAAQS
would result.
c. M torli a W.±wçrjei2r(f(eatlon f C ttnu.d Attainment
To verify the attainment status of the area over the
maintenance period, the maintenance plan should contain -
provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, EPA-
approved au quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40
CFR part S$ . This is particularly important for areas using a
limited aaf*t ànance plan because there will be no cap on
emissions...
The EPA’s current guidanc. on the preparation of emissions
inventories for ozon. areas is contained in the following
dc ts: Procedures for the Preparation of Emission
Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone: Volume
I” ( 1—45O/4-9l—0l6), “Emission Invátory Requirements for Ozone
State Implementation Plafls” (EPA-450/4-91-O10), and “Procedures
far ission Inventory Preparation: Volume IV, Mobil. Sources’
( A—45Of4—8l—026d).
-------
.L/. U/W4
5
d. Contingency Plan
Section 175k of the Act requires that a maintenance plan
includ, contingency provisions, as nsc.ssary to promptly correct
any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after reds.ignation of the
area. These contingency measures do nt have to be fully adopted
at the time of redesignat Lon. However, the contingency plan is
considered to be an enforceable pert of the SIP and should ensure
that the contingency measures are ‘adopted expeditiously once they
are triggered by a sp.cified event. The contingency plan should
identify the measures to be promptly adopted and provide a
schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the
measures • The State should also identify specific indicators, or
triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency
m asures need to be implemented.. While a violation of. thd’RKAQS
is an acceptable trigger, States may wish to choose a pre
violation action level as a trigger, - such as nn sxceedancq- of.-tha
NAAQS. By taking early action, a State may be able to prevent
any. actual violation of the- NAAQS and,.- therefove, eliminate any
need on the part of EPA to redesignate an area back to
-nonattaixnnent.. . -
I
V. Conformity Determinpt ions Under Limited Maintenance Plans
The.transportatien conformity r ••(55 FR 62288;
November 24, 1993) and the general conformity rule. (58 . 63214;
November 30, 1993) apply to nonattainm nt. areas and maintenance
areas operating under - maintenance plans. Under either rule,
means of demonstrating conformity of Federal actions is to
indicate that expected emissions from planned actions are
consistent with the emissions budget for the area. As discussed
above in section IV(b), emissions budgets in limited maintenance
plan areas may be treated as essentially not constraining for the
length of the initial maintenance period because it i.
unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much
growth in that period that a violation, of the ozone NA QS would
result. In other word., A would be concluding that emiesibne
need not be cspp.d for the maintenance period. Therefore, in
areas with roved limited maintenance plane, Pederal action.
requiring ormity determinations under the transportation.
conformity i*JØ- could be COnG idered to satisfy the U budget test
required in? *eotions 93.1L8, 93.119, and 93.120 of the rule.
Similarly, in. these areas, Federal actions subject to the general
conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the budget testU
specified in section 93.158(a) (5) (i)(A) of the rule.
Per further. information regarding th. limited maintenance
plan option for nonclassifiable ozone areas, pleas. contact Carla
Ol aa at (919) 541—3347. For information, regarding
transportation conformity requirements, please contact Kathryn
Sargeant of the Office of Mobile Sources at (313) 668—4441. For
-------
Li/JU/ 4 j u:. vee,
6
information regardtng general conformity requirement., please
contact Doug Granc at (919) 541—3292.
Attachments
-------
ATTACE ENT A
The EPA used 1987-8 as the primary data years in
determining designations and classifications for ozone areas set
forth in the November 6, 1991 final rule on Air Quality
Designations and Classifications (56 PR 56694). Certain ozone
nonattainment areas could not be classified as marginal or above
under Table 1 of section 181 (a) (1) ef th. Clean Air Act either
becaus. of incomplete monitoring data. or because they were
nonattainment pro-enactment but did not violate the itandard
during 1987-89. These areas are ollectively called
nonclassifiabje areas. Zionclassifiable ozone areas consist of
transitional, vub vginal, and incomplete/no data areas.
Transitional ar.as
• An area is considered transitional under section 185 .if it
was designated nonattainnent both prior to enactment and at the
ti*e of. enactment, and did not violate the primary NAAQS for
ozone over the 3—year period from 1987—1989.
Section 185k of the act reqiairod EPA tO make a
detErmination, by June 30, 1992, whether the designated
• transitional areas had continued to meet th. ozone NAAQS through
D. ember 31, 1991. All 1.2 transitional areas were attaining the
NAAQS through December• 31., 1991 and none are b’own to have
violated the standard since. En May and ‘June of 1992, Regional
Administrators sent letters to Governors of States with
transitional areas notifying them of EPA’s determination.
Bubmarginal areas
Compliance with the ozone NAAQS is determined on the basis
of expected exceedances ,jtijch include, an adjustment for missing
data.’ The aubm rgina1 ’ category includes areas that violated ‘the
ozone NAAQS during 1987—89 but had a design value for the period
of less than • 121 ppm (the lower limit for marginal areas) du. .tc
the adjustment for missing data when calculating expected,
exceedances. Presently, there are no submarginal areas. -
TncempletaImo data ar.ai
• Ce ozone area designated nohattainment prior to
• enactment that at enactment did not have sufficient air quality
monitoring data to determine whether they wore or were not
violating the !ThAQS. These areas are termed incomplete/no data
areas. These include areas which do not have monitors.
Currently, there are 47 incomplete/no data areas.
‘This adjustment procedure is described in 40 CFR part 50.9,
appendix H.
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Thu EPA policies for implementing sections 107 and 175k of
the Act for redesignations ar. contained in the following
memorandums.
1. “Procedures for Processing R juests to Redesignate Areas
to Attainment,” John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992.
- 2. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requir m ts for Areas
Sub 4tting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone
and Carbon Monoxide (CC) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(RAkQS) on or after November 15, 1992,” Michael. Shapiro, Acti ng.
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993.
3. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Action. Submitte-.
Response to Clean Air Act (CM) Deadlines,” John Calca nt’o
Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992.
4. “Contingency xeasures for Ozon. and Carbon Monoxide (CC)
Red signations,” G. . Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide -
Programs Branch, June 1, 1.992.
5. “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990” (57 FR 13498; April 16,
1992).
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No I I Tuesday, Janu ry 3. 1995 / Rules ancFRe ujatLons
illinois’ August 15. 1994. withdrawal of
its SIP submission. In the proposed
‘cs section of this Federal Register
EPA Is withdrawing Its May 13.
3. proposed site-specific RACI
ufretnents for AlIsteel ’s paint
operations end Its June 13, 1993.
proposal to disapprove the State’s SIP
submission and to promulgate a new
rule for the adhesive operations. In this
final rule USEPA Is withdrawing the
May 31. 1991. and the June 4. 1993.
stays pending reconsideration, since
they are no longer necessary to.complet.
reconsideration of the subject rules. It
should be noted that USEPA!s June 29.
1990, FIP regulations remain In place.-
Pursuant to the good cause exception
In section 553(bXD) of the
Administathe Procedure Act. USEPA
Is taking r .l action without proposaL
Tho USEPA believes notice-end-
comment rulemehbig isunnec csary to
rescind the stay of the FIP ivies because
the stay affects only one party and that
party requested the stay. Furthermore.
there ware no commo ts when USEPA
Initially promulgated the stay. In
addition, USEPA believes It Is In the
public interest to forego notlce ’.nd-
coinmant ru1 ’ btg and to ii-ednd the
stay as expeditiously an possible
because (1) Allateel has withdrawn the
‘eIIUon for recn sIdesaUon upon which
p stay was based. , and (2) an a result
lhe resdulon of the stay, the June 29,.
90 liP regulations are fully
enforcs ab ls.
LMOfS b iiiIsb40Q ’RPart52
Environmental protection. Air
pollution cu.trJ , Volatile iu &ulC
xmpou d. - ,. - . . , :..
Entsd l minbsr 23,1994. ‘: “
A,1i ’ ‘ ‘ . : -‘.
For the res ’ slated In the
preamble, part 52. chapter 1.1111.40 of
he Code of Federal Regulations Is
imended an follows: -
Subpart 0—Illinois
152.74 (Amsad.dj
2. Section 52.741 Is amended by
removing and reserving paragraphs
(zKl)(ii) and (z)(5J, sad In paragraph
(zXIKI), by removing the semicolon and
the word ‘and” at the . end of the
.a ..graph and adding a pcrwd.
£ ic. 01-3227 5 FlIed 12—30—94; &45 anti
o,ssN p
4OCFR PartS S2and 81
(F1.54—1-6026a; FRL-6089 —2J
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Pu posea State of Florida
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: Direct final rule.
$JNMARY: On June 23, 1993. the State of
Florida. through the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEPJ.
submitted a maintenance plan ends
request to redesignate the Duval County
area from Intnsltlonal nonattainment to
attAInment for ozone (0,). The 0,
nonaltainment area consists only of
Duval County. Under the Clean Air Ad
(CM), designations can be revlsed If
sufficient data are available to warrant
such revisions. In this action. EPA Is
approving Florida’s request becaus, It
meets the maintenance plan and
redesignatlon iequkements set forth hi
the CAA and EPA Is approving the 1990
baa. year “ ons inventory. The
approved malnt i.iw plan w 111
bacon . a federally enforceable pert of
the State Implemantatlon Plan (SIP) for
the Duvel County nonattlnment ares.
0AT This final rule will be effective
March 0.4995 unless adverse or eritknl
comments are received by February 2,
• 1995.11th. effectIve date Is delayed,
timely notice will be published In the
Federal Rigid.’.
AOORUSES Written comments on this
action should be add . ued to Joey
LVasseur, at the EPA Regional Office
listed below. Copies of tire decumans .
relative to this action are available for
: du r iu =.
locations. The Interested parsons
wanting to e7amlne these docwnents
should make en appointment with the
appropriate office at least 24 hours
before the visiting day
Air and Radiation Docket and
information Center (Alt Docket 0102),
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington. DC 20400
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region IV Air Programs Branch. 345
Courtland Street. NE.. Atlanta.
Georgia 30305
Air Resources Management Division,
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Twin Towers Office
Building. 2600 Blair Stone Road.
Tallahassee. Florida 32399-2400
FOR FURT)fR r4FORMATION CONTACT Jooy
LaVasseur, Regulatory Planning and
Development Section, AIr l’Tograms
41
Branch. Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Management Division. Region IV
Environmental Protection Ageiuc -, 345
Courtland Street, NE., Atlania, C ergia
30365. The telephone number Is 404/
347—3555 ext. 4215. Reference rile
FL.54—1—6 020.
SUPPLEMENTARy INFORMATION; The CM.
as amended In 1977 (1977 Act) required
areas that were designated
- nonattainment based on a failure to
meet the 0 national amhicnt air quality
standard (NAAQS) to develop SIPs with
sufficient control niessurns to
expeditiously attain and maintain the
standard. Duval County was designated
under section 107 of the 1977 Act as
nonattainment with respect to i!u’ O
NAAQS on Man h 3, 19711. (4:; 1N fl ’ 1 114,
40 (JR Section 111.3101 In arvnrdsuice
with section 110 nftlin 1977 A1.
- State submitted a par* -L 1l’ on April
30. 1979, whIch was supplemonted en
August 27. 1979, end January 2Z’ 1980.
whIch EPA conditi lly epprovid on
March 18.1980, and ftlly approved on
May 14, 1981. as meeting the
requirements of section 110 and part U
ofthe Ig77Act. -
On November 15, 1990. the CAA
Amendments of 1990 were enacted
(1990 Amendments) IPub. L. 101—549,
104 Stat. 2399, codlflod at 42 USC.
45 7401—7071q). The nonattainmont
designation of Duval County was
continued by operation of law pursuant
to section 107(dHIXCXI) of the 1990
Amendments. Furthermore, It was
classified by operation of law as
transItIonal for 0, acuwdlng to section
181(CXI). (See 58 FR 56694 (Nov. 6,
1991) and 57 FR 56762 (Nov. 30, 1992),
codified at 4O R 81.310.)-
Dire.! County more ieomMly has
-- ambient monitoring data that show no
violations of the 0, NAAQS. during the
peeled from 1987 through 1993. In
addition, there have been no
exceedences reported Fur the 1994 0.
season, to date. Therefore. In an effort to
comply with the amended CM and to
ensure continued attainment of the
NAAQS, Florida submitted an 0,
maintenance SIP for the Duval County
area on June 23. 1993. and a
supplemental revision on August 23.
1994. Florida also requested
redesignation of the errs to attainment
with respect to the 0, NMQS.
- The 1990 Amendments revised
section 107(d)(tftEJ to provide five
specific requirements that an area must
moot In order to be redesignated from
ncinattainmant to attainment.
1. The area must have attained the
a 1 iplir.ablo NAAQS:
2. The area must fleet ;,Il rnliivant
requirements under section 1111 and pert
o of the CAA;
p/U
S
1. ’
reatinues to read as foL
Aatb . ,illy. 42 USC. 740
-------
- . 42
Federal Register F Vol. 60, No. I I Tuesday, January 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulaliotis
3. The area muit have a fully
approved SIP under soctlOftllO(k) of
the CAA;
4. The air qualily improvement must
be permanent and enforceable; and
5. The area must have a fully
approved maintenance plan pursuant to
section 175A alike CAA;
The Florida redosignation request for
the Duval County area meets the five
requirements of section 107(d)(3XE).
noted above. The following Is a brief
description of how the State has
fulfilled each of these requIrements.
Because the maintenance plan is.
critical elsenent of the redesignatlas.
request. E PA will discuss Its evaluation
of the maintenance plan under Its
analysis of the redeslgnatlon request.
LAtIgI ient .1 the 03 NAAQS
Th. florida request Is based on an
analysis of quality assured 0, air quality
data which Is relevant to the •
maintenance plan and to the -
redoslguation ruqueát. The ambient air
0, monItoring data fur calendar year
—1987 through calendar year 1989 show
an expected excoedence rate for the 0,
standudellosstban 1.Operyearoflhe
Oi NAAQS In the Duval County area.
resulting In a classification of
transitional. The most recent ambient 03
data for the calendar zear 1991 through -
1993 continued to show an expected
exceedence rate of less than 1.0 per year
of thu 0. NAAQS In the Duval County
area. (See 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H).
Because the Duval County aura has
complete quality-assured data showing
no violations of the standard over the
most rec.ent consecutive three calendar
year period, the Duval County area has
met the first stidutmy criterion of
attainment of the O NAAQS. In
wIdilino. there have been no ambient air
e,tceedences to date In 1994 for 0.i.
Florida has committed to continue
monitoring in this ares in accordance
with 40 CFR part 5&
2. Meeting AppPfib’ equImaienti of
Section IU) and
On Miy 14. 1 A fully iujiprnved
Florida’s SiP fur County area
as mei’ting the requliemonts of section
110(a) 12) and port DoItho 1977 Act (46
FR 266411). The 19’JQ Amendments,
however. modifiNi anction 110(eX2)
and, underpart D. revised section 172
meladded new tequueinenls for .11
as iainment areas. Therefore, for
o(redmignntlou. to meet the
. mquI — ” that the SIP contain all
1. _ M . requirements-under the Act,
EPA has reviewed the SIP to ensure that
It contains all measures that were duo
under the 1900 Amendments prior to or
at the ti he State submitted its
redeeig -it request.
A. Section 110 Requirements
Although section 110 was amended
by the 1990 Amendments, the Duval
County SIP meets the requirements of
amended section 1 10(aX2J. A number of
the requirements did not change In
subatance and, therefore, EPA believes
that the pie-amendment SIP met these
requirements. As to those requirements
that were amended. (seS 57 FR 27936
and 23939. June 23, 1993), many are
duplicative of other requirements of the
Act. EPA has analysed tire SIP and
determined that ills consistent with the
requirements of amended section
11O(e)(2).
B. Part D RequIrements
Before Duval County may be
redesignated to attainment, it also must
have fulfilled the applicable
requirements of part D. qnder part Dan
area’s classIfication Indicates the
requirements to which It will ho subject.
Subpart I of part D sets forth the basic
nonattalnment requirements applicable
to all nonaltalnment areas, classified as
well as nonclasslflable. Subpart 2 of part
D establishes additional requirements
for nonattainment areas classified under
table I of section 181(a) or table 3 of
section 188(a). Subpart 2 requirements,
however . are not applicable to
transitional areas. The Duval County
•area was daeslfled as transitional (See
56 FR 56894, codIfied at 40 R
§ 81 .530). Therefore. In order to be
redesignated to attainment, the State
• must meet the applicable requirements
of subpart I of part D. specifically
sectIons 172 (c) nd 176, and is not
subject to the requirements of subpart 2
of part D. EPA interprets section
107(dX3)(EXv) to moan that, for a
redeeignatlon request lobe approved.
the State must have met all
requirements that became applicable to
the subject area prior to or at the time
of the submission of the redosignatlun
request. Requirements of the Act that
come dun subsequent to She submIssIon
of the ruduisignal ion request :iintlnu.n to
be applicable In the area (see section
175A(c)) and, if the radealgualkin is
disapproved, the state remains obligated
to fulfill those mquirsensrnts.
With the e. AIOfl of the RACI
requirement. far transitional 0
nonattainnient areas that attained the
standard as of December 31.1991, EPA
has not determined that the section
172(c) requirements were applicable
prlur to November 15,1993. Thus, no
section 172(c) requirements other than
the RACE requirement are applicable
rcrqulrenwnls for purposes of this
rodesignatiun. For RACT. EPA has
stated that transitional ozone
nnnaitalnment areas must Correct any
enforceabIlity deficiencies in their
existing RACF rulo prior to being
redesignated to attainment. The SIilo
corrected all identified deficlonclos In
the State RACT regulations. The
regulations apply in Duval County.
Section 178(c) of the Act requires
stales So revise their SIPS to establish
criteria and procedures to ensure that
Federal actions, before they are taken,
conform to the air quality planning
goals in the applbaubla state SIP, lire
requirement to determine confonuuity
applies to transportation plans.
programs and projects dov Ioped.
or approved under Title 23
‘U.S.C. of the Federal Transit Act
(“I - -t ortatior nformlLy”). as well us
to her Federal Actions (“general
ce dy”). Section iid further
pr’:. .‘s thae4ke conformity revisions
to •‘ uihmltied by States must be
ömsistnuul with Federal curiforurity
regulations that the’ Act required EPA tu.
promulgate. Congress provided k it tire
Slate revisions to be subm!tted one year
after the date for promulgation of fiural
EPA conformIty regulations. When thirt
date passed wIthout such promulgation.
USEPA’s (‘icnerni rmenzl,ku fur the
bnplenurntatlon of Title I Infonned
Slates that its conformity regulations
would esiablich a submittal date j.c .i,
FR 13498. 13557 (April 16. 1992)1.
‘Ilic I JSEI’A promulgaled final
trauuipurtatkin conformity reguhuutiuius our
Noveuubcr 24. 1993 (58 FR 62mM) and
gr’neral conformity regulations on
November 30, 1993(58 FR 63214).
These conformIty rules require that
States sihipt linth transper ration and
gnnrerai cunkirmity provisIons in tire 511’
for areas designated nonnttainnwnt or
sub jeu.t to a maintenance plan approved
under CAA section 1 775A. Pursuant to
section 51.396 of the transporlallon
conformity ruin and section S1.8! 1 of
the gencral confurnuily nile, Iho Slate of
Finilda Is requireul to submit a SIP
nevie;iiui u’nuIt.uinilig Imnspuftnl inn
iuuifuurniily crili’ria and priwrduuri—s
consistent with those established in the
Federal rule by November 25. 199.t
Similarly. Florida hr rnquuire ul to subunit
a SIP revision containing general
conformity crlti ’rla and procedures
consistent with those established in tius,
Federal riukiby December 1,1994.
Because tire deadlines furthese
sulmilitals have nut yet ,nture due. uhu y
are not applicable requirements undrr
sectiuun 107(dWJHF)iv) and. thus.
affect approval of this redeicignati
request.
-------
Federal Register I VoL 60, No. 1 ! Tuesday; January 3. 1995 / Rules end Regulations
43
3. Fully Approved SIP Under Section
110 (k) of the CA.A
Based on the approval of provisions
under the pro.am ded CAA and EPA’.
prior approval of SIP revisions under
the 1990 Amendments. EPA has
deturiuluied that the Duval County area
has a fully approved SIP un’ 4 r seotiqa
1101k). which also meets the applicable
requirements of sectIon 110 end part D
as discussed above.
4. Improvement In Air QuaIItf Due to
Perinan’ t and Enforceable Measures
Under the pie-amended CAA, EPA
approved the Florida SIP control
strategy for the Duval County
nonattainment area, satisfied that the
rules and the emission reductions
achieved ass result of those rules were
enforceable. The control measures to
which the emission reductions are
attributed are volatile organic
compound (VOC) reasonably available
control technology (RACF) regulations,
Stage I vapor recovery provisions.
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP), and lower Reid Vapor
--Pressure (RVP). RACF regulations
reduced VOC emIssions from those
soutces subject to RACF by 28% from
1977 through 1990. Stage I controls
applicable to gasoline stations
previously not subject to regulations
ruilucud V(X emissions from those
soirrun by 82% from 1981 through
1990. The FMVCI reduced VOC
omissions from motor vehicles by
Total
• 31.82% from 1985 to 1992. The
reduction in RVP from 11.5 psI In 1985
to 7.8 psi In 1992 has reduced
summertime VOC mobile source
emissions by 25.38%.
in assodallon with Its emission
inventory discussed below, the State of
Florida has demonstrated that actual
enforceable on reductkme are
responsible for the air quality
Improvement and that the VOC
emissions in the bass year are not
artifirixily low due tolocal economic
downturn. EPA finds that the
combination of e’d fl ’tg EPA-approved
state and federal measures contribute to
the permanence and .tfoiveebillty of
reduction in ambient O levels that have
allowed the area to aH ta the NAAQS.
5. Fully Approved MaI I n . Plan
Under Section 175A
Section 175* of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a malnt t.n plan for
areas seeking redesignatlon from.
to H lnmm1L The plan
must demonstrate “ t” d attainment
of the sppllcshle NAAQS for at least ten
years after the A hi.Inl.lTsf r app. v a
redeslgnatlon to at ” ’ent . EIght years
after the redeelguatlen, the state west
submit a levised nialntanth .r. plan
which demonstrates stt Imnent for the
ten years foilowlng the InItial ton-year
period. To provide for the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures, with a schedule
VOC EMiSslolts INVENTORY SUMMARY
[ To e s per
for IrnplementatI . adequate to assure
prompt coi ect1on of any air quality
problems. In this notice, EPA
approving the State of Florida’s
maintenance plan for the Duval County
area becsuse EPA finds that F1o ide.
submittal meets the requirements of
section 175A.
A. Emissions Inventory—Base Ycer
Insenwry
On November16, 1992, the State of
Florida submitted comprehensive
Inventories of VOC., nitrogen oxides
(NO,J. and carbon monoxide (CO)
from the Duval County area.
The Inventories Include hiogenic, eisa,
stationary, and mobile sources using
1990 as the base year for calculations to
demon ate maintenance. The 1990
inventory Is cd ed representative
of atteinment conditions because the
NAAQS was notvlolaj9 4 during 1990
This Inventd 7’1s beitig approved in this
notice.
The State submittal contaIns the
detailed Inventory data and u”p”.’les
by county and source category. The
comprliauitve hue year “ ons
Inventory was submitted In the NEDS
f9imat. Finally, this inventory was
prepared In acoordance with EPA
guidaiici. It also contains summary
tables of the base year and projected
mnt— ’ ’e year inventories. EPA’s
TSD contains mere in-depth details
regarding the base year inventory for the
Duval County area.
‘4
1990
1904
1997
20 0b
2ee 5
Stationary poird
Stationary area
Hi way notle ....._._.. —___
Non4ligtway mobde ._.___
1560
51.25
8249
24.63
45.53
17.01
46.00
64.24
26.36
45.53
18.14
44.65
51.10
27.22
45.53
188.84
- 19.20
45.71
49.09
- 29.10
. 45.53
20.87
39.24
48.33
29.41
45.53
Total
219.50
189.14
188.63
163.38
-. NO Emissions Inventory Summary
[ Tons psi day)
• 1990 1994 1697 2000 2005
s_ — -
Stationary area
Or Road moøde.
No Røad mobta
101.16
8.37
81.40
21.07
10321
12.54
60.60
21.71
103.47
13.03
59.82
2226
10596
13.72
58.91
22.83
108.87
14.67
59.11
23.74
196.08
196.61 201.41 - 206.39
-------
Federal Register / Vol.. 60. No. 1 F Tuesda .Janunry 3, 1995 / Rult,q nnd Rngulalinns
CO ElassloNs INVENTORY SUMMARY
(Tomper day)
.
1990
Stationery polid ——__‘
Slatiorury area
‘
-
30.6
7.6
452.7
156.3
646.2
On Road mu&iâe —____________
P Roed ui t Ja
Total
..
D. Demonsimi Ion of Maintenance—
Progecfe*tlnvers lories
TntaI V(W and NO, 1 emission. were
prujrdcil from 1900 base year out to
2005, wIth Interim years of 1994. 1997.
and 2000. There projected Inventories
were prepared in acoordance with EPA
guidance. The projections show that
VOC emissions era expected to decrease
36.12 Ions or 16.5% from the level of
the base year Inventory during this time
pozior!. ilie NOx emissions do show a
slight Increase of 14.39 tons or 7.5%
from 199010 2005, but the total
precwsoiu of omne decreese from 411.5
tons to 389.77 tons for a reduction by
21.73 tons or 53%. Duval County
ñ.Ined the NAAQS through. VOC
control strategy.
The Empirical Kinetics Modeling
Approach (EKMA) was used to
demonstrate the Impact of NO
emlsskm in aaes on maximum ozone
formation. The EICMA analysis showed
that the projected future mix of
emissions will not cause a violation of
the NAAQS. EPA EXMA guidance
docun -”s were used in developing
modet ‘its. Th. model was run using
1987 r.v corological condjtfons and
monitored ozone, NO and nonmethane
organic compound (NMOC)
concentration data for July 10. 1987. and
was run In the EKMA calculate mode.
This day had an uL ed ozone
maximum concentratIon of 0.118 parts
per million (ppm). The monitored
NMOC/NO ratio of 4.13 was used us
input. The model was run five Uniss
using the following mix of ssIoos:
(1) 1990 VOC and NO, 1 isicns
(basecase); ‘ .: . .
(2) base case with 7.5% ti
NOx; ‘.
(3) base case with 15% In . d
NQx;
(4)Irese with 30% increased
NOx:arnL
(5) base case wIth 73% Increased
M) 5 and 10% NMOC mdteri$ans). The
4A predicted an maximum of
U 7 ppm ming the 1990 case
— —‘. 1 nr’ikl ‘ — ‘-sCion
. L ,iedic I the
mov’ ” (0. 519 ppmlby 19%.
Tho model output indisaled a
continual qk,ciesse.ln tho maximum
modol.prcdicted ozone with each
increase in NO, 1 emissions over the
1990 base case Inventory (see table).
Additionally, the modeling indicated
that the mix of emissions as indicated
in the 2005 inventory (16% VOC
reductions and 7.5% NO increase over
the 1990 Inventory) produced lower
ozone levels than the base case. Thus,
th. analysis Indicates that, not,
withstanding the projected In in,
N0 emissions, the Jacksonville area
should continue to maintain the
standard throughout the maintenance
Bass case: 0.09744 ppm
Bess case +7.5% PlOx: 0.09624 ppm
Bassems .15% NOR: 009512 ppm
Base case +30% NO,r 009287 ppm
Base care - 18% NMOC + 7.5% NOri
0.09439 ppm
C Verification of Continued Attoinment
Continued attainment of the 0,
NAAQS in the Duval County arka -
depends, In pert, on the State’. efforts
toward tracking indicators of continued
attainment during the maintenance
period. The State has also committed to
submitting periodic Inventories of VOC
and NOx nl 1oas every three years.
Duvel County’s contingency plan is
triggered by two Indicators, a violation
of the 0, NAAQS or a periodic
inventory update that shows emissions
of VOCa have lncre jid by at least five
percent above the 1990 levels.
D. Coitingency Plan
The level of VOC emissions In the
Duval County ares will largely
determine its ability to stay in
compliance with the 03 NAAQS in the
future. Despite the State’s beat efforts to
demonstrate continued compliance with
the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant
concentrations may exceed or violate
the NMQS. Therefore, Florida has
provided contingency measures with a
srhedule for implementation in the
event Ma future 0, air quality problem.
In the case of a violation of the 0,
NAAQS, the plan contains a
contingency to Implement additional
control measures such as reinstatement
of NSR. less volatile or reformulated
gasoline. NO, 1 Reasonable Available
Control Technology (RACfl. Stage U
vapor recovery, expansion of control
strategies to adjacent counties for VOC
and/or NOx and to new control
technique guidelines (CTC) categories
end an enhanced vehicle emissions
inspection program. The plan also
contains a secondary trigger that will
apply where no actual violation of the
NAAQS has occurred. This trigger
oomirs if a periodic invontery update
shows omissions of VO s have
increased by five percent above the V?9fl
levels. On the occurrence of the
secondary trigger, the State will
complete an evaluation within six
months to determine the most cn n-
effective means for lowering VOC
emissions to the 1990 levels. A
complete description of these
contingency measures and their Irigge’s
can be found in the Stales submittal.
EPA finds that the contingency
measures iimvidml In the Slate
aulimittal meet the mqtuin’mnutuls .1
smlims L75A(il) i,r lire CAA.
6. Subsequent Maintenance Plan
.Rev ls lons
In accordance with section l75iMb) of
the CM. the Slate F ias agreed to submit
a revised malntenauc ight years
afler the area Is redesignated to
attainment. Such revised SIP will
provide for maintenance for an
additional ten year ”n
Final Action
In this action. EPA is spprovlng the
Duval County 0, maIntenance plan
because It masts the requirements of
section 175A. EPA I . also approving the
1990 bess year inventory summary. In
addition, the EPA is approving the
request and redesignating the Duval
County area to attainment, because the
State has demonstrated compliance with
the requirements of section 107(dJ(3RE)
for redesignation. The EPA is publishing
this action without prior proposal
because the EPA views this as a
noncontroversial ecu ient and
anticipates no advcr ‘unsenta.
However, in a separ cumunt iii this
Federal Register pU.: ion, the EPA is
proposing to approve we SIP revision
should edverso or critical coñimenta be
filed. This action will be effective March
0.1995 unless, within 30 days of its
publication, adverse OT critical
comments are received. If the EPA
receives such comments, this action will
be withdrawn before the effective date
by publishing a subsequent document
that will withdraw the final action. ‘All
public comments received will then he
addressed In a subsequent final rule
based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not
Institute a . ec ud comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action shouiii u so
at this time. II no such comments
received, the public Is advised U i is
action will be effective March 6.
The O. SIP 1. designed to satisI’ lie
requirements of part D of the CAA and
to provide for attainment and
maintenanro of the 0 NAAQS. This
final redesiguratisin shn ,ld nnt lie
-------
____- Federal Register I Vol . 60, No. I / Tuesday, January 3, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
45
utcrprelod as authorizing the State to
Liable. abler. or rescind any of the VOC
or N0* omission limitations and
restrictions contained in the approved
03 SIP. Changes 1003 SIP VOC
regulations rendering them loss
stringent than those contained in the
EPA approved plan.cannot be made
w boss a revised plan for attainment and
maintenance is submitted to and
approved by EPA. Unauthorized
relaxations, deletions, and changes
could result in both a finding of non.
implementation Isection 173(b) of the
CAM and In a SIP deficiency call made
pursuant to section 1 10(a)(2)fti) of the
CAA.
I Judo, section 307(bXl) of the CAA.
42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)W. petitions for
jtidiual review of this action must be
fikd itt the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by
March 6. 1995. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule for purposes of judicial
review nor does It extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review maybe filed, and shall not
postpone IJr. effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
ral1enged later In proceedings to
rforce Its requirements. (See section
ao7(b)(2 1 of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7607
(bJ(2J.3
Nothing in this action shall be
construed as permitting, allowing, or
establishing a precedent for any future
request for a revision to any SIP. Each
request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately In light of specific
tuchnical, economic, and environmental
factors and In relation to relevant
slatulory and regulatory requirements.
tinder the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
5 U.S.C. Section 600 e( seq.. EPA must
IireNm a regulatory flexibility analysis
u u siisg thu impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entitles. $ U.S.C
sections 603 and 604. AlternatIvely,
EPA may certify Ibat the rule will not
have a significant economic Impact on
a substantial number of small entitles.
Small entities indude small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and
government entitles with jurisdiction
over populatrons of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter!, part D of the CA /I do not
create any new requirements. but
simply approve requirements that the
state is already imposing. Therefore.
bemuse the federal SIP-approval does
not impose any new requirements, I
certify that It does not have a significant
impact on small entitles. Moreover, due
to the nature of the federal-state
relationship under the CAA, pieparatlon
of a regulatory flaidblllty analysis would
constitute federal Inquiry into the
economic reasonableness of state action.
The CA / I forbids EPA to base Its actions
concerning SIP. on iush grounds.
Union Electric Co.v. U.S. E.P.A., 427
U.S. 246,230-00 (S.Q. 1976); 42 U.S.C.
section 74 0(aX2).
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule front the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
der 12291.
List of Sub jeds
40 CFR Port 52
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbon..
Incorporation by reference.
Intareovenrmental relations, and Ozone.
PART 52—(AMENDEDJ
1, The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Auth.rIly ’ 42.U±C. 74 O 1 -?671q.
Subpart K—Florida
2. SectIon 52.520. is amended by
adding paragraph (c3(81J to read as
follows:
• 52.120 Idsedlkatlon of plan.
• * S S S
(c) a a
(81) The maintenance plan for Duval
County submitted by the Florida
Department df Environriental Protection
a ’s June 23,1993, s ct.of the Florida
(I) Incorporation by referer?ce.
(A) Duval Coti1 Ozone Ten Year
). 4 .Iiit anca Plan Including Emissions
Inventory Suiniii.ry and Projections
effective onAugust 23,1994.
(U) Other matedal. None.
• a a a
PART 81 —(AMENDED)
1 The authority d ’ e” for part 81
continues to read as followr
Aetbertty 42 U.S.C 7401-7611.
Subpart C—Section 107 AttaInment
S t ata.
2. In § 81 .310 the s.ttalnment status
table for “FlorJAa-Omise” Is amended
by removing the entire entry for
“Jacksonville Atea Deval County” and
adding anew entry in alphabetical oider
under the heading “Rest of 5 1kb” to
read as follows:
40 CPR Part Ii
Air pollution control, National parks.
and Wilderness areas.
Dei.d Sep a .ihi.r ze, 1594.
Jan L Fr-”1 .th.. ,
Acting Regional Adsrdnlsfrator.
Chapter 1, title 40. Code ojFederui
Regulations, Is amended as follows:
Dssignat i sn
area -.
Date’
C1.u alO
Designated
Type
Date’
Type
.
DIMII Coisey
.,.. .
4
J . ,.w
:i
.
.
.
•
.
.
. .
.
. .
•
.
‘TI date Noventer *5,1990, iaIIess emerets . nolet
-------
view; nor does it extend the
n which a petition for ludiclal
Vu .. .uwy be flied, or postpone the
iluctivenesa of this rule. This action
y not be challenged later in
nceedings to enforce its requirements
section 307(bJ(2fl.
Nothing in this action shall be
.mstrued as permitting, allowing, or
Jablishlng a precedent lot any future
• uquest lot a revision toasty SIP. Each
uquest for revision to the SW shill be
unsidered separately in light of specific
.tchnloei, economIc. and envlrcn . 1 l
idora and in relation to relevant
.latutosy end regulatory requirements.
SIP approvals under sectIon 110 and
.ubchapler I. pail Dot the CAA do not
•.reate any new requirements, but
. mply approve requirements that th.
State Ii already Imposing. Therefore.
because d i. Federal SIP-approval does
not Impose any new requirements. I
ieitify that it does not have a significant
Impact en mesh entities. Moreover, due
to the nature of the Federal-Stats
relationship under the CAA. preparation
of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
conatItut FedesaI Inquiry Into the
economic ,eoeon.bI i& of State
--a-’ - TheCAAfosbIdsEPAfrom
Its actions concerning SIPs en
ounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
- - - 427 U.S. 248. 236-08 (SQ.
1976); 42 U.S.C. section 7410(aK2). Thu
Ohilce of Management and Budget has
exempted this action boss review under
executIve Order 12865.
List of SiJsj..cte 1.40 aR Pasts 33 and
I I
Environmental protection. Air
pollution control, Area designations,
Uydrocaibons. Incorporation by
reference, hitergovesnmental
regulations. National perks, Reporting
and recordkesping. ( ne, Volatile
organic compounds, and Wilderness
areas.
se Feinua y 22,198 5.
1. The authority citation tot pest 32
iuntlnues to read as ksliowai
*athgy 42 U.S.C. 74O1—7571
Ssthpal S$—T
2. SectIon 52.2275 in --- -t.-Ibl
og peragragh kits follower
5 -
- __ atIo Ormis
(e) Approval—The Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission
ITNR ) submitted an ozone
rudesignatlon request and maintenance
plan on July 27, 1994. requestIng that
the Victoria County ozone
nonattainment area be redesignated to
attainment for ozone. Both the
redesignatloit request and maintenance
plan were adopted by ThRCX In
Commission Order No. 94-29 on Jul) ’
27, 1994. The redeslgnatlon request and
malnt tanr. plan meet di.
redeslgnatlon requirements In eedlqn
107(d)(3)(E) oftb. Ad as am wiad in
1990. The redesignatlon meets the
Federal requirements of section
182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act us
revision to di. Texas Ozone State
ImplementatIon Plan for Victoria
County. Th ‘A approved the request
for redesignatlon to attainment with
respect to e for Victoria Cmsn’y cn .
May 8. 1995.
PART S1—(AMINDEDI
1. The authority d -’4” . for pest SI
continues to rued as folIow
A.A..hy 42 U.S.C. 7401-1871e,
2. In SectIon 81.344, th, attainment.
status designation table for usc ” , Is
amended by revising the entry foe
Victoria County und r “Designated
Area” to seed as followai
981.344 Tame.
. . . I
VIt& .M
May I, AIJ1.. ..i1.
1986.
Vb
co
.
.
.
at,.
S
S
S
S
S
. S • • S
IPR I c. 85 . 4347 PIled 3-0-00 ; 6.45en11
‘ e isa muse us
m RP ts88anduI
Approved end Promulgation 0$
Implementation Plans end Designation
edAreem toe Air Quality Planning
Puipoua Stats ol cItlgM
Aomscy United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA).
UemARY: On July 21. 1994 the USEPA
published a proposal to approve the
1990 bass year em 4 ”n inv y.
basic vehicle map w i— .
maintenance (I/M) the
redesignatien to ait ” a id
associated section 1 “ —.--“ ‘
planfortbeozoneP1th sl? “ -
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the
seven-county Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Michigan area us State lnzplementatloui
Plan (SIP) revisions. The 30day
comment period concluded an August
22,1994. A total of 72 ment letters
were received in response to the July 21,
1994 psopoaL 62 favorable. 9 adverse
and lrequeettoextendthecomment
period. i September 8. 1994.
the USEPA pubhiahed a conedlon
docoment end ISday extension oldie
“ “ “ period ass result of the
Inadvertent omission of a number of
Ilimas burn the July 21, 1994 proposaL
The reoimead comment — •‘ •
om du4,d en September23, 1994. An
addItional 25 . wnme g latle were
received In isp’ %e to the September I,
1994. e’f. ” on of public ““ “
period regarding the July 21, 1904
piopoeal approval, 2 favorable, 22 -
adverse and 1 InfcematlonaL This final
rule .immartsss all lnc’vI ,nts and
USEPA’s responses. and ftnallsss the
approval oldie 1990 bee. year nIss1
Inventory, and basic UM, and the
red.slgnatloa to at’ sI”r’t bu
and associated section 175A
malnten’ nr plan forths DelroIt.Ann
_Azborases. -
WECflVI DAT ! : This action will be
effectIve April 6.1995. -
*coonaaa!: Copies of the SIP revisions,.
public c” ts and USEPA’s
rasponeel are available for lnsp .’4” at
the following address: (It Is
. v ms 4I that you telephone
Jaaluelhl. Nwla at (312) 886.4081
before yI.tHn 5 th Region S O co.)
United States Environmental PrM
A cy, Regions. Air and P ’.”on
DIvision, 17 Weet Jyl wi Boulevard,
mi t .
FOR RIRflR IWO MA1I0N CCUR fl
Jerspialin. Nwta, Regulation
Develtipseent S” ’ ’ (AT-18fl. Air
Tozica and Radiation Breach. Afraid
Radistlon DIvision. United Slates
Envir ”-p ”I Preladlon Agency.
Rsglob 3,71 W.d Jasheon Boulevard,
Icago. mboio 60604, Telephone
Number (312) 888-6061.
SW 1NBITART IIFO I*T1CIO
L Back eead Information
The l O9Obaee yeerem lssiou
inventory, basic UM and red dp.don
Ve ..eraI Register / Vol. 60, No . 44 F Tuesday,_March 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
*cmm Final rule.
12459
TEXAS—OZONE
Den-
wa s
— ode
Ii ,-
oneS AdminIatr 4oi (SAL •
40 R pasta 52 and 61 ar, uUir’
as fo liowai
• .
PART 82—IANOEDI
-------
12460 Federal Register F Vol. 60, No.44 I Tuesday, March 7, 199$ F Rules and Regulations
request and maintenance plan discussed
in this rule wets submitted on January
5,1993 (with revisions on November 15,
1993), November 15, 1994 and
November 12. 1994. respectIvely, by the
Michigan Department of Natural
Resourcos (MDNR) for the DatMt.Ann
Arbor moderate ozone nonattainment
area. The Detroit-Ann Arbor area
consists of Uvingaton, Macomb.
Monroe, Oakland, SL Clair, Wssbtenew,
and Wayne counties. On July 21. 1994,
(59 FR 37190) the USEPA published a
proposal to approve the 1990 bess year
emission Inventory, basic UM. and
redesignatlon request and assoirlited
section 175A maintenance plan as
revisions to the Michigan ozone SIP. On
Septemberl. 1994 (59 FR 46479 and
48380). the USEPA published.
c iaUlon notice and 15-day extension
of the comment period as a resuk of the
Inadvertent omission of. number of
lines from Ike July 21. 1994 proposal.
Adverse ----“e ’ts Ivere received
regarding the proposed rule. The final
rd. contained In this Federal lighter
addrsasu the cu” .nts which were
received during the public comment
periods and announces USEPAs final
action regarding the 1990 base year
emission inventory, basic I/M, end
redesignation and section I7SA
maintenance plan for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area. A more detailed discussion
In response to each comment is
contained in the USEPA’. Technical
Support Document (TSI)), dated
February 3, 1995 from Jm ueline NwIa
to the Docket, entitled “Response to
Comments on the July 21. 1994 Proposal
to Approve the 1990 Base Year Emission
Inventory, Basic I/M. and Redesignatlon
to Attainment for Ozone and Section
USA Maintenance Plan for the Detroit-
Ann.A,bse’ Ares.” which Is available
from the RegIon 5 office listed above.
J , P l4 r and USEPA
Rasps.... and Final Rulemaking
Table of Content.
A. 1950 Bess Yesr Emission inventory
L Public r ts and USEPARospoess
II. Final Ru ’ng Action
1. lupactlon sad Maintenance
L Public and USEPA Response
IL Final Ru1— ”I’ Action
CRadesignat lon
L Public C.........te and USEPA Respoom
II. Final Rulemaking Artiest
A. 1990 Bose Year Emission Inventory
L Public Comments and USEPA
Responses
The following £ __ . _ L _
mid responds to the . . . .ent . received
regarding the 1990 bausyear Issics
inventory.
Comment
Two i mmentoni note an army in the
1990 bess year emission inventory
portion of the proposed action. One of
these commentors notes that the total
tons of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) per summer weekday emitted
from non-rued mobile sources is listed
as 531.03 fot this souico category. The
number submitted by MDNR is
1q67.
USEPA Response
The USEPA scknowhulg.. thur error.
The VOC emissions per summer
weekday from the non-rued mobile
source category in the July 21. 1994.
proposal (p. 37192) wIll be changed to
reflect the number submitted by MDNR.
111.07, In addition, the total tone of
VOC per summer weekday In the esme
table will be changed to 971.92.11 ,,
Daily V Emissions table is changed
and appears as lollown
IL Final III..i*frIftg Action
The USEPA approves the iwi
emission inventory SIP submitted to the
USEPA far the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares
as meeting the section 182(aXl)
requirements of the Clean Al , Act (Ad)
far .niI on invmttarlss...
8. InspectIon and j iu 5a
1. Public jUSEPA.
Respt wa
The following armmaiims
end responds to the received
regarding Inspection and Maintenance.
Comment
One —-- ar stmjssts that the
U$E 5 A’s &— -t d.d.Jan should
be explicitly i.4ftL qd upon the
Nqubew.at for the MfrMg. .
visual and-tampering check for .11 cars
newer than 1975 wIth no Medicaid
waiver,
USEPA Response
defer adoption and implasu.ulitlon of
otherwise applicable requiremeete
established In the originally
promulgated IIM rule’. The State won
required to submit and has submitted,
esa nhingsacy m iure within tb.
section 175A maintenance plan a
commitment, legislative authority and
an enforceable schedul, for adoption
and Implementation of. basic JIM
The cent1n y plan Is
daaatbed In detail in a subvequent
USEPA -.ve within this Vidaral
Register.
One commentor aata that the
USEPA delay appruv.i of the’
redsaipatlon request until Michigan’s
Joint Committe. on AdminIstratIve
Rules completes Its review of the IIM
leglal tlon and the USEPA confirns tIn
the essential elements listed atSO FR
‘tlWiuhwa lpi.5 on Its.. . 5 t
DAILY VOC EMissioNs FROM Au. SouRcEs—ToNs/SuPlIER WEEKDAY
Owi. , .a.kh...tl m i s
DS Am er
P o *
Ares smite
I I
a.Js.Ls
I I 252Z
I I
.uuu., I ii4 I I
eateslais I
sm,r I eo’ vs I
W.00 I I
5iu 1 ,.J ..
an .L. ..
i
Totat en*
slain
VI
-I
The Ad — that nonettalnment
areas 4. .IRod moderate adopt and
_______ submit ass SIP revision provisions for
Implementation of. basic JIM program.
See sections 182(aX2RBJ(l) and (bX4).
Since the Detroit-Ann Arbor aria was
_____ cIaveifi.d as inodarata nonattalnment fm
___ ozone, the Ad requires an JiM program
that meets the basic JIM performance
standar The Detroit-Ann Arbor mi
has Imp n ’ted an JIM progrim since
______________ 1910, as required by the pre-1990 Ad.
The erie. therelbie. must provide for
_________ upgrades to the arnent JIM program to
____ th. level ofabssicUMpro sm. Under
- •• . .. , irivIsiomtothenatlonaIUMrul.
imple sab UM 240 ens.. ., . (January 5.1993,80 FR 1735). however,
_ fln __ y — Ata bupr ’ azess that have requested redaaignaticn
minimum, the mefnl.i mu . plan should to attainment. anIare otherwise eligible
Indude the BAR 90 “ 1t ona test with to obtain approval of the request, may
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 80, No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7. 1995 / Rules and Regulations
12461
37193.44 regardIng basic IIM. upon
which redesignatlon approval relies, are
thu in place.
USEPA Response
The USEPA cannot delay approval of
the redesignation. amos MichI8an hu
submitted (he elements required and
neI ry to establish basic l/M as a
contingency measure In the section
l iSA maintenance plan as provided for
by th, revisions to the national TIM rule.
As presented In the July 21, 1994
proposal, the Stale submittal contains
the essential elam.nt .s Hated at 59 FR
37193—04. BasIc l/M, if Iniplemented as
a t.oniingency measure, may be
lisipluitwuled In Wayno. Oakland. and
Macousb counlius and expaudusi to
Washlenaw county.
Comment
( te cemmector Is concernd that
expanding upgraded 2 basic T/M to
Wasluenaw, St. Clair, Uvingston and
Monroe counties Is subject to potential
legislatIve veto after the need fot
i:nnthiguncy measures Is tti ered. The
coinmentor stales that because
Michigan’s legislature can unllslerally
rescind the provisions to extend basic
VM programs to Washtenaw, St. Clair,
Livingston and Monroe countIes (1993
Mich. Pub. Ad 232 S e(2Xc) a (d)),
Mkhigans provisions do not appear to
meet even the relaxed standards
proposed In the June 38,1994 revIsions
to the national UM rule, 59 FR 33237,
as being fully self-ImplementIng end
enforceable under all umstancea.
Therefore, Michigans basic l/M SIP I.
not complete or approvable.
Consequently, the Detroit-Ann Arbor
smeis ot eligible fat redesipatlon.
USEPA Response
Susaions 1M2KcJ end (d) of Michigan’s
Enrolled Hoime BIll 5016 only apply If
lb. redesignatlon request is disapproved
and basic J/M must be implemented in
the entire 7-county Detroit-Ann Arbor
area (Wayne, 0.1 6wid . , pA j ih
‘The Ad 114.11. I ! as
tap ,Ih IJM
mu. Senlea iaziiiiie. I C
iiilmul SIP ,s,hlme to I
wbk. bum bum. _____
punasal isdies iai uttba . wfth
saul1a UIt 4UQi. . ihe wo i ml .
m ,n aa OftaSAd eray n .e Ib.1 was
nqulumd bribe Ad. as -- IsI S ??. et less
. eWes . I stesths spbths la,iI
. 4 .i..ai. ss%N5 U A ’ Ia wbd
— ____
Aa.es - ‘---‘•- ‘ as
L..tsa4 m.wn. abs jn as IbIs
- ik btoetThs
see nm .s . ..
iseY Ad. 1to ibs .. sue
as— -’-1 y e s p , n.t.
su ito buak t IM , 11qiilr d&
Washtenaw, St. Clair, Livingston. and
Monroe counties). The 45-day
notification period In section 8(2)(d) of
Michigan Enrolled House 8tH 5016 Is
only applicable. as described In section
8(1)(c), if the redsslgn.atioa Is not
approved and the State must Implement
basic TIM to meet the section 182(b)
requirements. Clearly, the 45-day
notification period Is not applicable for
ImplementatIon of TIM us coathigency
measure. It is Important to acknowledge
that only notification to the l’gWstuze
Is required., and that no alilrinatlvs
action on the part of the legislature Is
n .wry to allow the program to be
implemented. In addition, States at any
lime am, ebb to amend existing nile.
andlor regulations for any requIred
program is a matter of Stale law. This
ability Is not a reason far disapproval of
any State submittal because such
unilateral State action would tiot affed
the Federal anforcoeblllty of the version
of the State law or regulation the USEPA
had appro4 ed Into the SIP. The IIM
legislation for lb. Detroit-Ann Arbor
area satisfies the requirements of the
revisions to the national T/M rule.
Sections 8 (21(1) and (b) of the
legislation apply If the area Is
redesignated. and basic T/M Is
Implemented us contingency measure
or as a condition for approval of the
redesignation request. In particular,
section 8(2Xa) provides that basic JIM
maybe Implemented as a contingency
measure In Wayne, Oakland and
Macomb county end also eiqmunded to
Washtanaw county, If
Together the basic TIM submittal and
sedesignatlon request and the section
175A maintenance plan for the Detroit-
Ann Arbcç ares (1) provIde for the
adoption of implonusoting regulations
for a basic JIM progrum. meeting the
national basic TIM requirements withoat
further teglslatlan, (2) provIde for the
lmpluwi— tatlon of basic TIM upgrades
as a m.4rlg .nsy measure in the
main’ ”, plan upon rudesignatlon,
(3) contaIn, as a con*”t ”cy meesure
within the malnt n ca plan, a
commitment by the Governor to adopt
regulations to Implement TIM In
response to a specified triggering event,
and (4) contain a w 1tment ( ncl ”dIng
an enforceable ii duio foe adaption
and Impleme ntatIon of a basic JIM
P w.m . as provided In the revisions to
the natlonafllM rule. The sevislons to
the JIM nile do not, however, require
that the basic JIM SIP be fully self.
impl’ttlng. Consequently. contrary
to the c ”— ’toVs statement, the basic
TIM SIP is complete and approvable and
the Detroit-Ann Arbor area Is elIgible for
redesignatlon.
One comnmentor states that the USEPA
cannot rodA1 g! the
- Arbor son ______
T/M SIP on
utlsfy the reu oftba$ A’*
unlawful policy. ii p . 5ti .ler.&.
cemmenlor u ies ibm since the
legislature could at y L1 the
legislative authority. the USEPA should
require the State to submit adopted
regulations with a basic JIM SiP. The
co” ’emstor further argues that Michigan
did not submit a suffidently specific
amid enforceable schedule for adoption
and Implementation of a basic J/M -
program upon a specified triggering
event. The commentqr also notes that If
the Stats has not adopted the
regulations nr uy to Implement the
contingency measure, such measure wifi
not correct any violation promptly as
required by the Act and USEPA
gut
USEPA Response
The “ tor states that the 45-day
notice provided lath, legislation prior
to Implementation of a required JIM
program ensurea that the legislature em
repeal the legislative authority babe is
takes effect. This
interprelatlon of Michigan’s Enrolled
House 81115016 Is i ncorrect. The 45-day
notification period in suction 8(2)(d) of
Michigan Enrolled House Bill SOils,
only applicable under the scenario
described in section 8(2)(c). If the
redesignatlon Is not approved end the
State mud Implement basic JIM to med
the sectIon 182(b) requIrements. Thus.
as dlsc ’ ,d earlIer, the 45-day
notification period Is not applicable for
implementallo of J/M U i contingency.
measure.
The USEPA further responds that -
Michigan has mtasd as pail .f the
lISA malnt,.iw. plan en enkr ie
schedule for adoption and
Impl un’ntstlon of basic JIM ass
ce1%tht 1uy mneesumu. SectIon 6.8.3 at
the State’s submittal thet
adoption and ImpI.l!lq,nf.tko ucheduhe
for contingency measures would be
with thee. specified in the
Ad and any cenuspsmaing riguldiw
end submitted as part of the ‘ i.’ I
urban siruhed modeling UMM) ena
The Wjr t . gr.licn rule provides the
rel. ant adoption and mpI—’- ” t t ”e
schedule.. lithe Governor diceme JIM
to be Implemented as the contingency
“e , under the schedule olth.IIM
redeslgnatlon rule Michigan -
Inemporated by reference, the State
would need to adopt TIM within one
year of the esiggar date. Michigan’s
u ” ’ttal d.flnd lb. trigger date as the
Comment
-------
12482 . Federal Register I Vol. 60 , No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
date that the State certifies to the
USEPA that the sir quality date aro
quality assured, which will be no later
than 30 days after an ambient air quality
violation is monitored. Pursuant to the
l/M radealpatlon nile. the irigge: date
Is the date no later than when the
USEPA notifies the State of a violation.
N longas the trigger dat.u defined by
Michigan ocours prior to the date the
USEPA notifies the State ala violation,.
Michigan’s tlmeframe for ImplementIng
I/Mesa contingency measure Is
consistent with the 1/hf redesignatlon
rule. Because it often takes several
months forth. USEPA to obtain the data
and confirm a violation. Ills unlikely
that thetriggerdateas deflnedby
Michigan will be lets, than that defined
In the Uhf red’ gr’ lIon rule. However,
If the USEPA does notify the State of a
violation prior to the State certifying to
the USEPA that the ambient air quality
dat* assure a violation, then the trigger
date will beth. date of the USEPA
notification to lb. State. consistent with
the 1/hf redesignatlon nile. The basic!!
M program. If selected u a contingency
measure, must iii Implemented within
24 months of the trigger date, or 12
months aftar the adoption of
- Implementing regulations. This
schedule is consistent with lb. I/hf
redesignation rule, which Is the
applicable regulation for purposes of
establishing an adoption and
ImplementatIon schedule. This
schedule Is specific and enforceable
amos It will be incorporated into the SIP
as part of the section liSA maintenance
plan. The sec i ui l7SALd) requirement
For contingency provisions Is that they
must promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS The USEPA believes that th.
schedule provided for ImplementatIon
of a basic Uhf program within the
Detrolt .Ann Arbor area’s sdctlcn liSA
maintenance plan Is sufficient to
address this requirement in light of the
logistica of adopting and Implementing
a basic Uhf program.
The commentor also Iiidim that
the Michigan submittal iiet miIsfy
the USEPA’s roqul ...uiant rsdfled
and enforceable scheduW mIee It
does not Indude a tlm.4E*:tsIsps
necessary to t the required egUIIUOnS
adopted. As din ii.ted above, because
Michigan Incorporated byreference the
timetable of the Uhf redesignatlon rule.
adoption of Uhf regulations Is specified
too wIthInouieysercI Ibetr1gger
dat ,. lb only ether interim step
e _ j , to get the requited regulations
aA ag a4lsthep ropoealofdn*
Afiboogh the Michigan
1 J _ -e..i did not spmify .dat. lot the
proposal, the Stats’s commitment toe
date for promulgation of the final rule
implies that the draft regulations will be
proposed on a date no later than that
ne ry to provide for notice and
comment and a hearing on the draft
regulations. Because Michigan’s
submittal specified a timetable to get the
final regulations adopted, the Michigan
submittal hu met the requirement to
provide a specified and enforceable
schedule.
A commentor also suggested that a
determination that actual emissions
from mobile sources actually eiicoed
those predicted In the emission
Inventories should also be Included as
a trIgg 1 ,rlng event. ThIs ii neither a
re rpi lr mueetoftheActnorofUSEPA
policy, although It has been suggested as
a possible triggering event In guidance.
and States are encouraged to use It.
Co..
One commentor challenges the
.dequ.cy of Michigan’s demonstration
that Its UM program did not contribute
to Southeest Mkblgan’s attainment, and
urged remnaldsratlon of the proposed
. 141 4 of the program after 1995.
USSPA Rse pens.
Michigan did not deim that the
anrent Uhf p..grsm did not contributs
to the trolt .Ann Arbor’s attainment,
nor did It daim credit for the emission -
redactions achieved as a result of the
progress within the attainment
deetcnstratlon. Furthermore, neither lb.
Stats neg the USEPA has proposed or
suemated that the current UM n -
be ImInated after 1995. In fact, the
Stat, must mutinue to implement Ite
urent Vhf program as well as all other
S W . .JiJ sesasuies that wuts
contabmd in the SIP prior to the
submittal of a complete redesignation
request. The September Shapiro’
mw.ndurn reviews sad reinforce.
the US ’A’s policy on SIP relaxations.
pertiarlarly in the contest of
re’Ig lcn. Thg memorandum nate.
that the L A’s general policy Is that
a e may not relax the adopted and
Impissiurted SIP for an arm upon the
ares’s redea lgnatlon to attainment
unlam an appropriate demonstration,.
besed.cm computer modeling, Is
a , .4 by the USEPA. Existing
control strategies mud continue to be
imp1.m ted In order to maintain the
sta d . Although section 175A
recegeizos that SlPmaasuie. maybe
moved to the contingency plan upon
edesignitIan. such a SiP revision may
- 1?. 1553 m.ma,udvm en IIkbisI
H. u fthd SIP Re ufrumsut. f A,
S thntitI inR.d&gna i lonlo
Oman and Ceban “ .--—‘
NA 5es.ra N. . 1 5. lieS.
be approved only if the State can
adequately demonstrate that such action
will not Interfer, with majnf n nr of
the standard. A dem ..st, . .lL. . . fir
area redesignated ts afl 1 _-i.t
ozone would entail iL _ Ii _ l don
attainment modeling 4--- on
with the USEPA’, airrud 1 ’ 1 on
Air Quality Models, shew that
control measure Is not needed to
maintain the ozone NAAQS. Mae, mu
memorandum from Gerald A. Emlson,
April 6, 1987, entitled Ozone
Redesignatian Polky. -
Comment
One conimentor atetes that the
USEPA’s policy of approving a basic 1!
M SIP revision that does not indud,
.dopte4 regulatIons Is unlawfuL
US EPA Response
The USEPA’s specific response to
ibm. comments Is published in the
USEPAs final rulemaking on the
revisions to the national 1/hf rule. See
January 51993.80 FR 1735. In that
rulemaking, the commentor ale.
submitted similar remarks and tire
USEPA’s responses to those comments
appear In the docket for that
rulemaking. It Is ap,.- prlate for the
USEPA torely on the final tIM rule
revisions In taking today’s final action,
and this rulemaking Is net the
appropriate forum In whidi to challenge
th. validity of the t/M rule revisions.
U. Final Rul—afrngAdl o n
The USEPA approves the basic 1/hf
piugreui submitted to the USEPA for the
bstiolt-Ann Arbor area as meeting the
revised national tIM rule (January 5.
1993,80 FR 1733) for areas redesignated
from nonattslnment to attainment.
consequently satisfying the
requirements of section 182(eX2IWXI) of
the Act.
C R.deslgnofic .
L Public Comments and USEPA
The following discussion sumanarisse
and responds to the comments received
regarding the fedeslgnatlon of the
roIt.Ann Arbor ares to attainment for
On. camseentor notes that if an
expeditIous review end approval cf
MDNR’s request had orxmned prior to
the 1994 ozone season, then any i .
violation thoreofte, would have
prompted the Implementation of.
coat innency measure from Ike
maintenance plan to . .. . . . t the air
quality problem.
-------
Federal Regtstar / Vol.60, No. 44 I Tuesday, March 7, 1995/ Rules and RegulatiOnS
12463
t Response
Management and Budget (0MB). The
revisions classified all rodesignation.
except those for total suspended
particulate, as Table 2 actions. These
acI ons require the Regional
Administrator’s decisions and
concurren . but provide a
opportunity for Headquarters review
befome concurrence by the Regional
Admlnistretor. The 40-day Headquarters
review Is tn$en led to fwictlon isa
check for national consistency and hi
USEPA believes that this system
provides adequate assurances of
con .
Act authorizes the USEPA up to
ia months from submittal to act one
State’s request to redesignate. See
S MtII)Il iU7(døJHI)). l lw pr(Mu for
radesignating areas to attainment lea
complex one which Is designed not only
to identify atom which currently have
clean air, but also to assure that clean
slrwil lbema lntalnedlflthefUtUll.
There are many statutory requirements
which mus be satisfied before the
redesignation request con be processed.
including review and approval of ali
revisions to the SIP for programs whoee
deadlines came due prior to submittal of Comment
the redesignatlmt request to the USEPA.
See September r L gd ‘memorandum
and September Shapiro. Before the
USEPA could ftnally redesignate the
ares 10 at’ 4 ”’t. all flIn tnIng items
had to be IInaUy approved. incIudIng
(1) the State regulations for Reasonable _________
Available Control Technology (RACY)
for VOC,’ (2) lb. section 182(0 oxIdes
of nitrogen (NO 5 ) RACY exemption
petition. and 3) revisi” to the national
motor vebids J/M ntIs . The USEPA
could oat redesignate the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area until these actions were
hand. Bensuss all these actions were
heed, the Federal action oath.
nignation con be completed.
- -- .Liermore. if a violation bad ouxurred
during the pendency of the IJSEPA’s
review of the osoq. redesignatlon
request, the USfl’A could not approve ___
the request since the area would not
have remained hi attainment. Ma
consequence. further control meaaures
would have been required under the
Act.
In any case, the commentor’s concern
Is moot. since no violatIons of the ozone
NAAQS oonured during the 1994 ozone
mason.
Comment
One m m tor su ests that
redesignation request. should be Table ___
I dodslons to insure naiIo iI
‘consistency.
(ISEPA Respome
An October 4,1993 , fl itt hdIIkU1
from Michael ILShapiro. AdleR
Assistant Admuinistratur fur Mr and
Badialiots. revised t i n, SIP tables
sssuii lly putiliahud in thu Yede,’al
KrnsJer no january 19. WN9 ( i4 Mt
2214). I1 tI Ifr2& mehini Ilauiiz tulilus
_____________ ( 1l uf
__l .’_,. -•. 1
- —- . _ al’ — - .
• V(ic iscr e,r’ ‘• Ra.
Ib&I 5 giui5 .?u. 7. t I its
l J S .r (3iV liZU ‘ied msxi
On. commestor note. that the -
USEPA’s proposed redeeIgt’ Ion relies
on data from 1993 which was not
included In Michigan’s November12.
1993 request, and was not subject to
public c”a ” Further, there lain
lnconi’ e’ y between the years álboed
by Michigan isa Lisle for redeelgoatI ’
1990-92 and the years selected by the
USEPA as the basis for considering and
actually proposing the redesignatlon
(1991—1993). Therefore, Michigan’s
redeslgnetlon request was not
“complete” on November 12,1993.
USEPA Response
As stated lathe proposed rulemaking,
Michigan submitted ambient data for
1990-1992 In Its November 12,1993
submission, but did not submit 1993
ov ’ ’ data because it was not
completely quality-assured at the time
the request was being developed. Under
the guidanceolthe USEPA. the State
submitted the 3 most recent consecutive
years of complete air monitoring data
(1990-1992). vçfth the understanding
that shortly thereafter, the 1993 amee
seeeo ’ data would be available In A S
for di. USEPA to review. The 1993
ozone data was considered by the
• USEPA and was siablect to public
comment isa result of the July 21, 1994
propord rule k’ng, Regardless of
whIch years of data are used. 1990-1992
or 1901—1993. MIchigan has
demon’tated attainment of the ore—i
NAAQS in the DetroIt-Ann Arbor ares
by providing monitoring date with no
• violations. Completwuns of alP
submittal Is based on the criteria
establisbod In 41) CFR pert 51, appendIx
V. thing thins, the IJ.SEPA found the
Nuvuiiibut U, 111113 eubmnlttal coinpkmle
in a loiter to Michigan dated january 7,
1994. Th. use of 1993 omne season data
that was not completely quality-assured
at the timeoltbe November 12, 1993
submission does not alter the
conclusion that the submission, which
the USEM found complete was based
on 3 consecutive years of air monitoring
data.
One commentator 11h
USEPA’s notice of ps’ --- of
the iidesignatlan isa pu d
haste since ‘the action we.
and ailed togive. ;— frd
pLans for verification d
attainment. The action skips portions
paragraph (b) Demonstration of
MaInt ”c and paragraph (C)
Verification of Continued Attalnni t an
pages 37198—37199. In addition, three
paragraphs on page 37198 duplicate teat
on page 37197.
USSPA Response
The omission of paragraph (B) sad (Cl
and duplicated text is acknowie4’i-
Unfortunately. the Office of Fóderal
Pag$.’.’ . inadvertently excluded a
number of lines from these two ‘ oti ’
of the on. For this the
“‘‘ent period on the July 21, 1994.
rdeslgnatloa was reopened on
September 8, 1994. (59 FR 46479 and
46380) for 15 days In order to provide
the public an opportunity to
appropriately cr-n’i’t on It.
One omunentor requested addItI” 1
time for reviewing and providing
comments on h. proposed
redsslgnatlon due to Insufficient tim. to
commelit on suds a complex ., ipoe” 1
USEPA Response
As dlscuued above, the —“eat
period was extended for the
,sdesignation and section 175*
malntee-’c. plan in order to give the
public sufficient thee to review and to
submit co’’’ents . Th. correction
dnaim ” and of public
comment period ac ’ ’ were published
on September 8,1994. The USEPA dom
not believe that any additional
mi’’ 1 of time is ne - ’y as en
L
One a tor requ .d a flumal
USEPA public heering on Us.
redesignatlon.
USEPA Response
Under the Ad, States can submit
proposed imptamentation plans (end
revisions) lathe USEPA for approval
only after they have afforded interested
parties “uns hLe notice and public
heatlng • .“ See Section 110(aK1)
and (o)(2). The Slate held a public
hearing on the proposed redesignatioa
to attainment for ‘ ‘n . and revislos to
Comment
Comment
-------
12484 Federal Register !Vol. Go, No. 44 1 Tuesday , March 7, 1995 I Rules end Regulations
the Michigan SIP, I.e., maintenance
plan. on October 22.1993. There are no
provisions, however , requiring the
USEPA to hold Its own bearings. The
USEPA Is required top the
opportunity for public mimsnt. The
USEPA announced opportunities on
July 21, 1994 and September 8, 1994 for
the public to submit comments. The
USEPA believes those opportunities
represents more than simple
opportunity for public Input end
comment on this redesignation.
Comment
One commentor states that the air
quality In the area has been poor and
hasgcttenwvors.lñ the past loyears.
Offensive odors use apparent when It is
slightly overcast or during the night
when a local hidnerator Is burning.
US EPA Respo
This redeslgnatfon pertains to soLely.
to ozone, and would not affect offensive
odors from an incinerator, regardless of
whether these odors are evident during
slightly overcast skies or at night.
Redesignatlug the ares to attainment for
ozone would neither solve nor.
• contrfbutetotheprcbLem.The -
Indna..t mud continue to operate
existing control equipment In
• compliance with Its own applicable
permits nile. and regulations. Ambient
monitoring data from 1990 through 1994
demonstrates that the ares is attaining
the ozone NAAQS. This evidence, that
the air quality has impwved at least
since the period 1987—1989, the years of
alrqua lltydata which were used to
design. . the ares nouaif Inment for
Comm
A nJ . , . of cornmentors urge th.
USEPA to reconsider the NAAQS for
çound level edouie . One com nentar
note. that Canada’s w standard’ Is
82 parts per billion (ppb) while the
United States’ ( U.&) 1.135 p . 5 This
disparity in limits .-4Iq p ie be
debated In the U.S. mmi h the
American Lui Aaod jiid others ,
who contend that the !Z tI I Liwui
Its limit toS2 ppb.errhsslth
besed AnCIh mentor
states that the current NAAQS Is
not p.. .t tIve of the public health, end
should be made more stringent to
ply wlih Cm e,sl’.,aI mandate
11 Jiiir wttli an
ak 1 lhg 11 olesfety.’
Th b J L weus
-
____ b lIri. i.L tin Ou ,w bIiWSSII the
m4UJ - E t
USEPA sipoom
The USEPA is currently In the p as
of reevaluating the ozone NAAQS and.
expects to makes final decision In mid-
1997. UntIl any change Is made,
however, the USEPA Is bound to
Implement the provisions of the Ad as
they relate to the current standard,
including those relating to designations
and redesignatlon.
Comment
One menter notes that MDNR has
taken the posilion that the measured
concentration must exceed 125 ppb
b.& , . a legally actionable exceedano,
that contributes toa3 year running
on the number of days with
exceedances Is triggered. Ass result.
MONR has not included as excursions
days with maximum numbers that
actually do exceed the published
sta, :.ard of 012 ppm.
USEPA Response
Published guI I vve (Guideline for the
interpretation of Ozone Air Quality
Standards, January 1Q79. EPA-43W4-
79-4)03), whldi Is part of iho narwie
standard by reference In 40 CFRpart 50 .
appendixiL notes that the stated level
of the sti 1 ndard Is determined by
defining the number of significant
figures to be used in comparison with
the standard. For example, a standard
level of 0.12 ppm means that
measurements are to be rounded to two
decimal places (0.005 rounds up), end
therefdre. 0.125 ppm lathe smallest
three ’decfmal concentration value hi
of the level of the standard.
Therefore, MDNR Is following USEPA
national gial 4 D n ,
Comment
The commentar objects to the
USEPA’s propo.ed disapproval of the
reduelgnatlon request lie monitored
violation of the ozone NAAQS occrus
prior to final USEPA action on the
redeelguatlon. The commentor notes
further that since the ares has machad
attainment of the NAAQS and has
requested redesignatlon, a requ1..uil i .t
to p contingency measures to
co. ..U the problem would be sound
policy In the event of a violation during
1994.
USEPA Response
Section l0i(dK3XE) of the Ad
establishes five criteria which must be
satisfied In order for the USEPA to
redesignate an area from nonattalnmsnt
to atI In.enL One of these criteria is
that the Administrator determIne that
the ares has attained the NAAQS. Sea
section 107(dX3flEXi). This requirement
dearly prohibits the AdmInIstrator from
mdaslgnatlng areas that have not
attained the NAAQS. Ifs violation had
occurred prior to the USEPA’s final
action, the I ioi A -
would ne L hee. a
atIel. .. st and the t w A r. .L1 er*
redesignets the to - L
Fwtherme, only. Real rulemaking
action can J — 0 . . s designation
under 40 CFR pmt SI.
21.1994 proposal. the ama must
continue to meet this criterion until
final rulemaking is published. Ass
• musuh. the USEPA must consider air
quality data that is collected until the
date of final rulemaking and revision of
the area’s nonatlalnmanl status under 40
CFR part 81.
hi addition, the USEPA’s Septerehet
Calc.gnl memorandum, page 5, dates
that Regions should advise States of the
practical planning consequences If the
USEPA disapproves the redeslgnation
request or If the request is invalidated
because of violations recorded during
USEPA’s review. This policy has been
followed In dlsaypwvlng the Richmond,
Virginia redeidgnation, which was
disappruvarl thin In vkdalhma nI lix ,
ozone NAAQS occurring prior to final
udlon on a proposed approval of the
redeeignatlon (May 3. 1994.59 FR
22757).
With respect es requIrement to
Implement contingency measures In the
event of a violation prior to final
approval of a redeslgnatlon. the USDA
notes that the Detroit-Ann Arbor area,
like any other nonattalnment iree, Is
subject to the contingency measure
requirements of section 172(cX9l until
the ares is redesignated to afta lu ... ,rd.
In any case, the conmientor’s concern
Is moot, since no violations of the
NAAQS .wi4 during the 1994 ozone
Several commeutors request t the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area be denied
red.algnallon to attainment until It 15
clearly shown, using 1994 data, that the
ares is in attainment. Other commentors
noted that although the Detroit-Arm
Arbor ares experienced only one
excaadance from 1991 to 1993 or 1990
to 1992. It experienced it lead tine.
— 4 exceedances In 1994 amiss
Cunmentors provided specific
monitored Ow”I values . JJ at
DetioIt.Ann Arbor area monitors during
the 1994 ozone season . The following
aqna cnn’t,.t lons from ruhtAUfl
Arbor area monitors were provIded: 133
ppb at the Algonac monItor, 142 ppb at
the New Haven monItor, 145 ppb at the
Warren monItor. 178 ppb at the Port
Huron monitor and 127 ppb at the Onk
Park monitor. -.
I
-------
- J
Federal Register / Vol. 60, Nc. 44 / Tuesday._March 7,1995 F Rules and Regulations
12465
UWA Response
As discussed above, the USEPA could
not approve the redesignation ifs
violation oczurred during the USEPA’S
review of the request. Consequently.
while the July 21. 1994 actIon proposed
to approve the redeslgnatlon. it also
proposed. in the alternative, to
disapprove the redesignation If
violations of the ozone NA.AQS occur
before the USEPA took final action on
the redoelgnatlon.
TItle 40 CFR part 50.9 establIshes the
o e NAAQS, measured according to
appendiz D. as 0.12 ppm (23$
miangrams per cubIc meter (ug/m3)).
The standard Is atialned when the
.xpuiied number of days per calendar
y i r will, iui.xuiiurn lsuurty avuraiju
osumnnl rations above 0.12 ppm 1233 ugl
- su3) Is equal to or less than 1 an
determined by 40 CFR part 50 appendIx
I I. Further discussion of these
procxdiuea and * i ated examples are
con1 h1ed in th, document Guideline
for interpretation of Ozone Air Quality
Standards, January 1979. EPA-450/4-
79-003. Simply, the number of
e,caedanms at a monitoring sits would
be recorded for seth calender year and
than avenged over the past 3 calendar
years to determine If this avenge Is less
than or equal to 1. The net result Is that
each monitor In an area Is allowed to
record 3.0 expected excoedancas Ins 3
year period. More than 3.0 expected
excee . .i In a 3-year period would
constitute a violation of the ozone
NAAQS. As explained In the July 21,
1994 proposed rulemakIng (59 FR
37190), the Detroit-Ann Arbor area has
attained the axons NAAQS during the
1990-4992 and 1991—1993 periods. Th.
1994 ‘e .on has concluded and
while ther, have been some recorded
onene exonedancos In the Detroit-Arm
Arbor ares, they do not (In
considentlon wIth 1992 and 19 1 data)
constitutes violation of the ‘
standard. Consequently, the Detrolt.Ann
Arbor ares continues to attain the o ”e
standsra at this ftm ThUSEPA has
considered all sir 111y ista collected
prior to final rvL. I1 on the
redesignatmon rrrls !
Comment
Oze cammentor questions whether
ectual ettsIn nt and maintenanne of
the —‘ “.-d wes ec 4 and suggests
that paper demanstretleuis of attainment
and . i i t nse net be given
wcl d in — l Lq whoa
coiqmsstts ’ - 1 edesissairqua4ky
numiaming d elh irnbmlth
d.,r .w.i.. or data thetis
margInally so.
USIPA Response
The USEPA notes that It has not given
“paper” (or more properly, analytical)
demonstrations of attainment more
weight than ambient monitoring data.
As discussed above, the ambient air
quality monitoring data foi the Detroit.
Ann Arbor ares demonstrates
attainment of the ozone NAAQS over
the time periods of 1990-1992.1991—
1993, and 1992—1994. Fwibermoie,
r o t1nued of the ____
NAAQ$ will be determined by
continued ambient monitoring.
Comment -
Oze commentor esierted that the
USEPA cannot redesignate the Detroit.
Ann Arbor area because the USEPA
must determine the relevant applicable
requirements at the Urns of approval of
an area’s redesignation request and the
Stats must tisfy them. According to
the “— ‘“tar, section I7SA(c) otths
Act requires that all requirements of
subpart D remain in form until en eras
is redesignated. The Immentor argued
that the USEPA’. intespretalion of
section 107(dX3)(E), pursuant to which.
the USEPA determines whether an ares
seeking vedesignation has mat tfte Ad
requirements applicable prior to or at
the time of the submla,li ala
redesigaa*lon request, Is Inconsistent
with section 175A(c). Specifically, the
commentor argued that the Act
prohibits the redsslgnatlon of the
Detroit-Ann Arbor ama bemuse the
has not submitted by November 13.
1993, an approvable SIP revision -
providing far 15 percant VOC
reductions, oar satisfied th. basic VM
and Nqw Source Review (NSR)
reqvlr4menta that came due prior to the
e”bmIJ’ on of the g aiim request.
Moreover, the dalmed that
the USEPA’a interpretation encouras
Stains to delay implementation of the
Ad since delay In Implementing
requirements that corns due alter the
pit i1 L 00 of a rednelg,i,*lnn requ
would not affect the approvability of the
requeet.
USEPA Response
The USEPA has lntarp ..t.d t —
107(dfl3ME) to mean that the section 110
and part D provisions that ate requlild
to be fUlly approved In order for a
redesignatlan to be approved are those
which cam. due prior to or at the time
of th, submittal of a complete
redesignatlon request At the some time 1
bowevs,, the USEPA has maintained
that States continu, to be statutorily
obligated to meet any SIP requirements
that come due alter the . n)1n . ..IOn of
the redeslgnation request before the
USEPA takes final action to redesignate
an area. As a consequence, the USEPA
has also followed a policy of inerirg
fin dfo to e la Stats
that bm . 1. _ .Ii. _ I ! ‘..‘—“Ji.tlen
rest foib tommply hs
guhedttal . -q ’d. that due
after the “ ala rr’—” .’. nn
requ See Sw?— - and -
C.lnegnI ’ memorandums, September
Shapiro memorandum, and the
memorandum dated J Inti .y 7.1994,
horn John S. Salts te Raglonal Air
Division Directors, entitled “Procedures
for SIP Elements Due Navernbst 15,
1993.’ The USEPA believes that Its
approach Is both reasonable and
harmonizes the pertinent provisions of
the Act In a workable “er that Is
consistent with the language sad Intent
of the Ad. Moreover, the USEPA
believe. that the interpretation
advocated by the ‘ ‘ or would be
unwmk4,le and make it virtually
Impassible for areas to be reim.lgnired
to attainment.
The pertinent provisions of the Ad
ire as follows. Section 107(dM3)(EXv) of
the Act provides that. sate must have
met “all requirements applicable to the
ares undersection IlOand pert D’ In
order to he redesignated. Furthes more,
section 107(d)(3XEX 1I) provides that the
USEPA must have folly approved the
SIP foe the area seeking redeslgnatioo.
Finally. se’ Ioa 17SA1c3 provides that
the requirements of part D fminaln In
hum and effect for an until such
thneas it is ______
The USEPA eves that It Is bosh
logical and raw ’.bls ta Interpret -
section 107(dJ(3)(EXiI) end (,) so that,
far purposes of the sv h.IIi ala
redeslgnatlon request, the only
requirements that are “bpp l’mhle” and
fotwhlth the SIP muatbe IWly
approved before the U A mq
approve the redesfgnatlon request are
ihoeethatcameduepr lortoorat the
time of the subunIL ala plste
redi _ lg iiHon requeat . ______
The met r— that lie rem hla
to determine the appeseubiluty ala
redseignatlan request on tim basis of
complIance with only Ad requfremente
ap licsbleprlcrtocratthetlmeefthe
iv . ‘oaofth.reques1IsthatboIding
the State toe continuing obligation to
comply with aubesquent requirements
.Ing due after the ‘“oIthe
request for purposes of the
redeelgnatlon would make It Impassible
In many Instances far thIUSEPA to sot
on redesignatlon requeats In aomrdance
with the 18-month dn mandated
7I _ra.1e53 — --bon âa
dti.d S1PA LJmi a
2 v” AfrA D- —
-------
12480 Federal Register! Vol. 60, No. 44 I Tuesday, March 7, 1995! Rules end Regulations
by Congress far such actions In section re iuirementa remains In effect until the
iol(dX3XC). This is because seth Ad USEPa’i taks. final action to redesignate
requirement coming due during the en ares to attainment. Thus. lbs
pendency of the USDA ’s review of. USEPA’S policy is to issue findings of
redesignation request carries with it a failure to submit if a Stats falls to
necessáy implication that the USEPA submit aSIP revision to fulfill such a
must also Fully approve the SIP requirement, thereby triggering a cloth
submluion made to satisfy that that will result in the Imposition of
requirements in order for the area to be mandatory sanctions, under section 179
redesignated. Otherwise, the area would of the Ad. IS months after the Issuance
fail to satisfy the rad 4grtitlon of the finding unless the USEPA
requirement of section 107(dR3)(EXii) to approves the redesignatlon request prior
have a fully..pproved SIP. As Congru. . to the expiration of th. sanctions clock.
limited the USEPA to en il-month Thus, If. State chooses not to submit
period to take final action on complete a complete and approvabie SIP revision
tedesignadon requests, Congress could to comply with a requirement that
not have intended that, for those . comes due after the submission of a “
requests to be approved. Status make redealguatlon request, it runs the rIsk ft
additional SIP submissions that w ild will be sanctioned in the event that the
require the U PA to undertake ac’ n USDA does not approve the
that would ne rily delay actior. on redesignetion request. For example, in
the redulgnatlasr request beyond the 18- the case of the Detioft .Ann Arbor ares.
month time frame. (Tb. delay would on January 21, 1994, the USEPA started
oncur due to the time needed lot the the Il-month sanctions clock for the 15
USDA to take action regarding the parc.. .t reduction plan ,equlre4by
determinations us to whether to find section 162(bMl) to be subrnltte by
those SiP sub’’cos complete and to November 15, 1993 after the State had
appvv or dlsepprove them. Cancels submitted Its complete redesignatlon
aaxwd.d the USEPA up to IS months request for the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares.
from the submission ole SIP revision to by finding the ares’s 15 pa . . .t plan
take such action. S .. section 110(k).) incomplete. lIthe USEPA were not now
Another reason that the USEPA’s approving the redesignatlon request. the
interpretation is reasonable is that th. sanctions clock would continu. to run
fundamental premise for a request to and the Stats would continue to be
• redesignate. nouzattainment ares to subject to the risk that sanctions would
attainment is that the area has attained be imposed. Notably, a Stat, seeking
th. relevant NM Thus, an area for redeslgnation for an ares is in the same
which a uedealgeati on request has been position sat. the initiation of wictlons
submitted should hive already attained dockS for the failure to make a
- the NAAQS sea result of.tlt.. . , submittal as any other State, Thus, If
satisfaction of Ad requirements that . Michigan had not submitted a
cams due prIor to th. submission of tb. r.designatlou request for the Detroit-
request, and it Is reasonabl . to view the Ann Arbor area and nevertheless had
• only requirements applicable for failed to submit a complete 15 pa. ..t
purpems of evaluating the r.de-Ign.tlcn plan by November *5.1993. It would
— request as those that had aheady come also have been subject to a finding .1
due since them requirements were the failure to subunit and the consequent
ones that pwuiisbly led to at’ 1 ’t commencement of a sanctions dock.
of the NAAQS—whldu Is the primary Pc i this reason , the U A dlia ea
purpose of tide I of ibs Ad. To iiqulrs with the comment’s cc tendon that the
that a State continue to ssiid USEPA’s inimpretatlon r.g.rding the
requirements corning4us deitog the requirements applicable for of
pendency of the cia evaluating redesignatlon requests
complete in ord encoureges States to delay
to have the redesi implementation of the Ad. States
would require tim SW th more than seeking redesignatlon for areas ate
was needed to attain the IfMZ . subject to sanctions for failure to . ikmN
The USEPA’a interpretation by no SW revisions in auxordance wIth lb.
means Ihith .5 55 the obligation of Act’s requirements in the same way that
Stats. to comply with requirements net seeking mdeslgnatlon are. To
coming due after the submission of a the extent that the USEPA’s
us r Ian - . Rather, it simply Interpretation reaults in Slates not
tbm eras. y be redesignated adopting measures they might otheuwiss
• t .o..gb the Stat. may not have have hod to. such a result isa
cesapifad w them aquliemonta. As consequence of the only workable
I A i1cym.& cI s ar .un interpretation of the provisions of
- ----— - w the requIrements of section *07 concerning applicable
fon 173A(c), the statutory obligation requirements and that result does not
of the States to fulfill thou. justify rejecting that Interpretation. This
is particularly so since the only aries
that benefit from this interpretation are
those that have attaIned th. ambient air
quality standsids and bee.
demonstreted that they wifi conti to
maintain thu i hi Sb, Istugs.
Thus, the U A L . it may
approve the ioil -Arm Arbor
redesignat ion request odi. IIhstmvflng
the lack of a fully approved 15 percunt
plan. Such action is consistent with the
USEPA’s national policy and is
pennissible under the Ad. (The
colnmentor’s content innq regarding the
liesic t/M p 1n .ini N.SI( nivinw
pruui m are dealt with as pod of the
leaponses to other comments en those
programs elsewhere in this document.)
Ondcommentot stated that the
requuemant of both general and
transportation conformity isaa
itepoftant element of Michigan’s
attainment SIP and that the USEPA’s
notice has not addressed conformity In
the context of the redesignation.
Adverse consequences will stem hem
failure to continue to require conformity
analyses and measures. Another
commentor slates that redesigeatlon
does not excuse the State from
submitting a conformity SIP revision
the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares or from
including a motor vehide emission
L4 6 a 1 for NOn In the ares’s
maintenance plan. The omimentor
further states that the NOx waiver
aveileble under section 182ffl, has no
conIlcuIon with the conformity
requirements far tianspoutatlan plans
and programs contained in section
170(c)(2)(A) awl 176(cX1 BL
USEPA Response
The July 21,1994 pwyO..l (51 FR
37190) did state thet dis November 24,
1993 (39 PR 62188) transpoitsilour and
November 30, 1993 (39 PP. 93214)
general conformity rules require States
to adapt trunspoutadon and general
conformity provisions in th. SI for
ar ies designated nanattalrnn,.t or
subject to a maintenance plan approved
under section 175A of lbs Ad. The
. w u. il fwther explained that.
although conformity Is epplicable In
these areas, since the deedline for
pihaiiftaj had not come due for these
rules at the time Michigan submitted a
r Ignation request. the approval of
the uedeuuigaation is oct conhingent on
thee. submittal, to comply with section
107(dX3j (EXv). The Delroit•Ann Arbor
lies must comply with the section 116
conformity regulations as required by
the conformity n ile, and the Conformity
General Preamble (June 17. 1994.59 FR
-------
Federal Regletir F vni . eo, No. 44 / Tuesday. March 7. 1995 1 Rules and Reótilaüois
12407
31238)’. Ancordlcg to these rules,
conformity appLies to nonattainment
sreu as well as maintenance areas.
Once redesignated. the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area will be a maintenance area
which will be required to conduct
erniselon analyses to determine that the
VOC and PlO x emisetons remain below
the motor vehicle emission hudget
established in the maintenance pun.
Trensposla’Io . and general corJwmnlty
apply to maintenance areas and
therefore, the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares
must comply with these rules. The
Coefonnity General Preamble to lb.
amformity regulations further clarifies
this ianae pertlcularlyss it pertains to
areas requesting and obtaining a section
182(1) P10 1 exemption. According to the
conformity rules and preamble, the
Detroit-Ann Arbor areas conformity i
will be to remain within lb. VOC and
NO 1 budgets established in the section
175A maintenance plan. Michigan has
established a motor vehicle emission
budget br NO x In the areas
maintenance plan.
The “ “ “tor’s suggestion that th.
linn182jj) exemption has no
connection to the conformity
requirements for transportation plans
and programs contained in section
178(cXZUA) and 178(c)(1 1111) was made
In response to the August 10. 1994
proposal to approvó the section 152(0.
NOx exemption fur the Detroit-Ann
Arbor ares. The US PA’s response is,
therefore, articulated in the final
rulemaking approving the section 182(0.
NO 1 exemption petition forth. Detroit.
Ann Arbor ares published elsewhere In
this Fedemi Register.
One ‘ tor states that areas are
‘requesting exemptions from the NO x
control mesnues based on incomplete
modeling studies (L i. Lake Michigan
and Southeast Michigan Ozone Stttdles)
Which do not acourate y predict the
relative contribution of mobil. source
eml i’ bemuse t mobile source
emissions Invent ___ las its
cootributio to - ---M “ uc ’ 1 on .
Furthermore. givssth gacss1alnty of
mobile source NO x rIbuticns to
uzisw arid the Inauxuecy uf mobile
source Inventories, it is inappropriate to
remove from the SIP any NO1 or VOC
conformity analysis.
( ‘SarA —
E 4w km 182(1)
NO — -ispWartis. in.
—‘ — — *X4 112(fl(3) of the
mdtk L Si. 1104.
alv
Act. Michigan submitted such an
exemption request on November 12..
1993 for the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares
based on 3 consecutive years of clean air
quality monitoring data, not on a
modeling study or analysis, In addition.
approval of an exemption based on
monitoring data will be con’Ing.nt on.
the area’s maintenance of th. ozone
NAAQS. Asnoted previously, a section
18210 NO* exemption will not exempt
az. 5 from compll*nc. with the
conformity regulations. The USEPA
refors the ri .imes(oI to the final
nrhi .n Mng approving the suction 182(0
NO 1 .xemption petition for the Detroit-
Ann Arbor area published elsewhere In
this Federal Register.
‘Comment
On. coinmentor notes that there Ian.
re nabla or adequate basis for
aih’n” ’Ing Michigan’s .idstlng NSA
progrem’from the current SIP. Another
commentor states that the USEPA
cannot redesignate the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area because Michigan has not
met the NSA requirements under section
182(bRS).
USEPA Resporme
The USEPA believes that the Detroit-
Ann Arbor area may be redesignated to
attainment notwithstanding the lack of
a fully..pproved NSR program meeting
the requirements of the 1990 Ad
amendments and the of such an
NSR program from the contingency
plan. This view, whiles departur, from
pass policy, has been set forth by the.
USEPA as Its new policy in a
memorandum from Mary Nichols,
‘t Adminlstratar for Mr and
_____ dated ober 14,1994,
entitled Part D New Source Review (part
D NSR) Requirements for Areas
Requesting R.deslgnatiaa to
Attainment.
The USEPA believes that its decision
not to insist one fully-epprover NSR
progress ass prerequisite to
redasignallon is Justifiabl, as an
exercise of the A sncy’s general
authority to establish de . nInh .rtis
exceptions to statutory requirements.
See Alabama ?Inver Co. w.Cretis, 638
P.2d 323,380-81 (D.C. CIt. 1979). Under
Alabama s.w Co.v. ife , the
USEPA baa th. authority to establish de
minimis exception. to atatutoly
requirements whet, the application of
th . statutory requirements would be of
trivial or no value environmentally.
hi thi, context, lb. issue presented is
wk L .t the USEPA has the authority to
establish an exception to the
requirements at section lO7(dX3XE) that
the USEPA have Mly.approved a SIP
meeting all of the requirements
applicable to the area under sectIon 110
and past D of title I ofib. Act. Plainly.
‘the NSRpr.vislmaat”— ii•end
part Daze requk i tbm
submission .f the sset ___
107(dII3UE) would seem to require that
the Stat, have submitted and the
USEPA hive fully.syy.wud a part D
NSR program meeting th. requirements
of the Act before the areas could be
to uttainmeaL ’
UndO, the USEPA’s di sulnimis
authority, however. it may establish an
exception to an otherwise plain
statutory requlr ” if Its fulfillment
• wou ldbeofl lidsoruouevtronmental
value. In this context. it ii Iw wy to
determine what would be achieved by
Insisting that ther. be a fully..pproved
part D NSR program in place prim ’ to the
redesignatton of the DetruLt-Ann Arbor’
area. For the following the
USEPA believes that requiring the
adoption and Mi-approval ala part 0
NSA program prior to r ”en
would not beof4nlflcsr
snvirm ntaI value in this case
Michigan has tLtmn. , ,st.d that
maInt .an& of the — - - NAAQ$ will
occur even if the emission rednctlol
expected to result from th. part 0 NSA
program do not oamr. The
proJectIons made by Mt th1gr to
demonstrate of the
NAAQS considered growth in point
source ‘ 1 ons (along with growth
other source categories) and were
premised on the assumption that the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSI)) program, rather than the part 0
NSouldbsinefhct,durthgth. -
meIn psrioL Under N
significant — emucs
growth would not o MIthIgan
assumed that NSA would not apply after
wi..’gn”lon to afi 1n , and
thanfam. assumed source growth
fedora I —sd on proJected growth In the
economy and in the ares’s population.
(Itshouldbenotedthattbegvowth
factors assumed may be oewesdmates
under PSft which would re uIn source
uwth through the application .1 beet
availabl, control t + ’ques. ) Thus,
contrary to lb. assertion .1 the
commentor MlçItfg.n has dr” -’4reted
that there Is noneed toretain thepart
0 NSA as an operative program in the
SIP during the maintenance period In
order to provide for continued
maintenance of the NAA S. (If this
demonstration had not been made, NSA
would have had to have been retained
in the SIP as an operative program since
it would have been needed to maintain
the o standart)
sT ensdosandCs.wsionIarmMpmi
-------
12488 Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 44 I Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Rules end Regulations
The other purpose that requiring the
full.sppronl of. pert D NSR program
might serve would be to ensure that
NSR would become a contingency
provision In the malntenanou plan
required for these areas by radians
107(dX3XEXIv) and 175A(d). T
provisIons require that, for so area to be
redesignated to attainment, it must
receive full approval of. malntenniue
plan riwiI Inhig TM suth contingency
provisions seth. MmI .ii tratcr deems
iw — to aaio that the State will
promptly w . . J any violation of the
standard which ow.rs alter the
redeslgnatlen of the ar as an -
attainment area. Such provisions shall
Includes requirement that the Stat, will
Implement all mmares with reaped to
the control of the sir pollutant
which wem contained in the
SIP for the area before mdeslgnatlon of
the area as an a’° ’ t area.” Based
on this kngnig., it is apparent that
whether an ap NSR prc mn
must be hid as a contingency -
provision depends on whether It I . a
“measure” for th. control of Ut.
pertimad air poUutents.
As the A noted In the proposal
regarding this , ed .tgra.Hon request. the
term “measure” Is not defined in
sedlon I7SAld) and Congress utilized
that term differently In different-
provisions of the Ad with respect to the
PSD and NS* permitting proerams. For
example, in sedI 11O(a)(2gA),
Congiem required that SIPs to Include
“.nlormsbi. imlsslon limitations and
other control measures, miens. or
technlqom • as may be neusmaly or.
appropriate to meet the applicebLe
requirements of the Ad.” In section
1IO(aX2XC), Congress required that SIP.
i ndude’s 1 ,.zetop rov ld.fcrth.
of the meavnw deemibed
In subpemgmph (A), and regulation of
the modlfica’ou aid construction of
any UaoaF , within the areas
wvvrvdby —tea nsc- ito
beter
I
to mci
haveb -
SIPs bc_. dash measures an....
preumMi dIom review under pests C
1 D IPSD or NSR). Unisas “mauwis”
s to ---w et tha i
r — ” . L. _ i1 . parts C
aidD, the re enue to pseomenucticu
In — ‘tic ” 1l aft2J(C)
, —-thesd mu ,,
T In 1i l(2) (A) aid (0 . It
is epperait t C mu dI.11 _ gur.1 ,d
-view. On the other hand, in other
irsIslons of the Act, such as section
.81, Congress appeared to include PSD
within the scope of the term
“measures.”
The USSI A believes that the fact that
Congress used the undefined term
“measure” differently in different
itina of the Ad Is germane. This
Indlostas that the term Is susceptible to
marethanonein t lonandthat
the USDA has the saetlon to
Interpret It In a reasonable manner In
the “ “‘i— ’ of section lisA. In.mauch
as Congress Itself has used the term In
a — - “ that excluded PSD and NSR
from Its .pe , the USEPA believes It Is
reasonable to Interpret “measure,” as
used In sictlco 175A(d) , not to Include
NSR. That this is a reasonable
InterpretatIon Is further supported
the fact that PSD, a p .m that Is
corollary of part D NSR for attainment
areas, goes Into effect In lieu of part D
NSL’Thl. distinguishes NSR frvm
other required programs under the Act,
inch as ln pectlon end maintenance and
MCI’ programs, which have no
corollary for attainment areas.
M..... ... , the USEPA believes that
those other required programs are
clearly within the scope of the term
“ measure.”°
The USEPA’s logic In treating pert 0
NSR In this s.arn r does not mean that
other applicabl. part D requirements,
1 U.& A i fi l’lte the NSR sad
P sss sq.kslsa but ms ’ the Ibsy ne lbs
t ypeaI .e .m .t%. _____
to nd -Jgr-d to
ltow —w s.s. psulitttr . ... p
t. .J.ltuiy
LL...JI... . tochdt. pIscor radhe mautsadq.
as ma net asnftnulnS to men lb.
KA .ftsr , ,A.4 5 .—ilo Io i ltalnmsnt. 4O JI
5 — L 5O etRuI.) s 4G t
1 1. 1 55 1 W puu mawid .ppIy Th.
bJL. theE. asyssas tint I. àslpistsd w
. e ttoimn.nt undw s . ImiO7,he
. ,aI.....a ,lshtima o(th. NAA . ibis.
, .JUa.I deed be L.L 1 . ..L.d as
mi . .hOA abets VOC-’-’-
G det h s11 fists. s.d is ssmh the
1:2 in ,. 5 . . Ollehe 24. ISSS
- ion N .y Niebob sntlthd PntD
tNw5.s.as list... ust 0 NSR R .q,L. ...J. be
i _ —“ — toAltatoumal.
•1t. U . S. IPA sue ness this In lbs ins at lb.
is is. iii , ......Il. . to tensil beuu.I sdhe
, 4wishe modmistle.. toned b,
lbs nito le lbs Ju..I - nonitstomat isis. she.
IL... _ L Is. tesuPae.c= ’lid with the 1.Isto
tae rgle . to aMP’... . pumitale iJ mane
be .sd ua the P . .,. _ . m l . . lbs
1LJ ma —‘ - the lbs l. ,.J
Sent b sw . .modffl.d,owc.wlflne
malt we sistehe .1 lbs NAA( . Mlddn’s Rats
703. wh I. t attb. np. IS 5IVs. th.
lnetsIkdse.lusst Aselisbi. nt,ol Tsth.aI
r dlis . sishe Issailan stall sin sad
dI O.d to tin nat.. Is .ddltlaa.
5 1rl ’s 5.1.20?. ale. sppios.d lath. SIP,
rsq .lruds.Is) olsny psanli so Install llnpm.tlcuv
dIM M..Sps.uet will lntarls,s web seslamset
— stth.NAAq3.
induding those that hove been
previously met and previously relied
upon In demonstrating attainment.
could be eHnehi.iwd - - en . ...J,. .
demonstrating that -: - Id
has demonstrated that — - --an
would be protected with PSI) In e ct.
rather than part 0 P451. T . the
USEPA is not permftthig pert D1I to
be removed without a demonstration
that maintenance of the standard will be
achieved. Moreover, the USEPA has not
amended Its policy with respect to the
conversion of other SIP elements to
contingency provisions. which Is that
they may be converted to contingency
provisions only upon a showing that
maintenance wilibe achieved without
them being In effect. Finally, as noted
above, thCuSEPA b 7 ellev,s that the NM
requl ..nieot differs from other
requirements. and does net believe that
the rationale for the NM em p1lon
extends to other required programs.
As the USEPA has recently changed
its policy, the position taken In this
action I. consistent with the USEPA’s
cunent natlonel policy. That policy
permits redesignation to proceed
without otherwise required NSR
p . grsms having been fully 5 ptU $d
and converted to contingency
-provisions provided that the area
demonstrates, as has been don. In this
case, that maintenance will be achieved
with the application of P50 rather than
partDNS l t. -
Comm -
One comnientor au99usts that
USEPA’. rulemaking is an effort to
permit Michigan to avoid Including the
15 p . . . .t Rate .of-Progrses (ROP)
measures, requited of moderate
nonattalnment areas In the SIP. ifs
essefttlal to have elements of the 15
pw... .t ROP plan available as
contingency measure In the attainment
plan. It Isnotclearthat
rwIs .frlieg procedure will allow that to
happen. -
USKPA R.sporm. -
As explained above, under the
USEPA’s interpretation ohectlon 107.
an ares need not meet all section lie
and part 0 requIrements that -
applicable after the submittal of i
complete redesignatlon Isqt .ad In av
to have the request aprvr.d. Therefore,
the 15 p.. .t RCX’ plan. which was not
due to he eubmittod until Novemlss. 15,
1993, after the aubmnisslon of the
redesignatlon request. Is not required to
be fully approved Into the SIP before
redesiguating the ares to attainment.
Similarly the section liSA contlag .. .cy
plan need not Include all measures that
-1
I
-------
Federal Register / VoL 60, No. 44 / Tuesday, Match 7, 1995 I Rules and RegulatIons 13459
would hive been Included in the 15
penant plan since those measures were
nd required to be laduded ha the SIP
prior to redesignatlon. Furthermore.
some elements of the Incomplete 15
percent ROP plan that Michigan did
submit for the Detroit.Ann Arbor area
are included In the maintenance plan
and are available as contingency
measures In th. maintenance plan.
These elements Include basic JIM, Stage
I expansion.” and Stage U vapor
recovery. The USEPA believes that the
menu of contingency measures is
adequate and that additional
contingency measures are not necessary.
As for the commentors effort to
ascribe subjective motivations to she
USEPA in acting on this redesignatlon.
the IJSEPA believes such contentions
are simply Irrelevant.
Comment
One cc ’ ”Iar states that there can
be no redesigr*tion until Michigan
submits a complete and approveble 15
pea nI ROP plan. The coinmentor
alleges that since Michigan’s application
was not complete on November 12,
1993. all moderate area provisions
Including the 15 percent plan must be
La place to ancomplish the
rudesignation. The commentor notes
that Stags II vapor recovery and n
upgraded 1dM program should be in
Michigan’s SIP to assure continued
“ .“ of the NAAQS.
USDA Response
Alter the USDA’ . review, on January
21. 1994. the rsd.slgnation request was
found complete on the basis of lb.
compI ’ miterla codified in 40 R
pail 51, appendIx V.A. explained
above, the November 12. 1993 request
was based on three complete years of
clean data, and the consideratIon .1
sa’ 1 quent air quality data doss opt
all., the conclusion that that request
was complete. Thus, ieVainbUr 12,
1993 radeslguatlou , ivet Is complete
and. in acomdanco the U S DA’s
need not be submitted or approved prior
toap of the rsdaslgn.tlon.
With r p to the commentor’s
assertions regarding the need far Stage
U vapor recovery and an upgraded JIM
program to assure maintenance, the
USDA es - the Slat. baa
paneWedanadequated’-’ rat1on
that will or even Id the
of t egr.me. The State’s
esaimiom .r-j-- ‘ esdedying the
maintenance demonstration are
dIscussed In the proposal at 59 FR
37197. and the commentor has provided
no evidence that those projections are
erroneous. Furthermore, the USEPA
notes that Stage II vapor recovery and an
upgraded l/M program were not
implemented In the ares In the period
of attainment and therefore, did not
contribute to attainment of the ozone
NAAQS. Stags II vapor recovery and
basic I/M, however, are control
ures Included as contingincy
measures within the ma1nt ”r plan.
Thus, Stage Hand basic Ift.tmay be
Implemented In the event a violation of
the ozone NAAQS oncaus during the
maintenance period. The basic J/M
program included In the contingency
plan would upgrade and expand the
current JIM program being implemented
In the Detroit area. As the Uetrolt .Ann
Arbor area has demonstrated attainment
and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS
without implementation of St U and
an upgraded J/M program those
measures may be made part of the
contingency plan without
implementation until such time ass
violation of the ozone NAAQS warrants
their implementatIon. The State,
however, must continue toimplssnent
all programs currently in place in the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area In hi& 1 lb.
. v4 4ng J/M program.
comment
Si,sral onmmentoi s suggested that
meteorological conditions obierved In
) AI.lilgrn and wets not
d wludvs to ozone formation, flees
meteorological conditions, coupled with
a eonu aJ reduction of e” t ’ t ons In
Detroit-Ann Arbor ems remiltiag fin..
an ‘ u1Ic downturn, resulted In the
I 4nm q claimed by the Detroit-Ann
Arbor ims. The lois belie,..
that she attalmuent claimed by MI 44n
Is not based on iee& reductions of
precursor geses (NO* and VO
USDA Response
Section lO7(dX3XE)(UI) requires tbatj
for the USEPA to approve a
rs4a lgraaIon, It must determine that
the Improvement In sir quality is dna to
psrmanent md enforcesbl redu’elonn
In ‘ ‘ans. The Sep..nh. C L .g il
memorandum, at pegs 4, clarifies this
reqidrement by stating that
1aItt I.m resulting from temporary
reductions In emission rates (e.g..
reduced production or shutdown duto
temporary adverse economic
rnn&tloiis) or unusually fovorabi.
meteorology would not qualify as an air
quality lmprovemsnt due to permanent
and enforceable emission reductions.”
As discussed in the July 21. 1994
Federal Register notice, the Stat, of
M1 thigi” has demonstrated that
gurmanent and enforceable ‘
redidb are r.spons h he the — -
Improv 11 If In air nlIly . This
demonstration was aomznpNel.d
through an lmal. of the w5l
(from the year that was used to
determine the design value for
designation and classification) of VOC
and NOx achIeved through Federal
measures such as the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and
fuel volatility rules Implemented from
1988—1993, as suggested by tha
September Calcagnl memorandum. The
total reductions achieved from 1988 to
1993 were 226 tons of VOC and 45 tons
of NO,, per day. These n lieion
reductions were primarily the resuh of
the FMV( and RVP reductions front
11.0 pounds per square bath (pal) in
1988, to 9.5 In 1990 and finally, to 9.0
In 1993. The Slat. only 4 1m 4 audit
for — “ t ..lon reductions achieved ua
result of Implementation of these
federally enforceable control msenuee.
These emission reductions . 4 Iu . l by
Michigan re conservative since they do
not ancount for nl ø redumions
resulting from other control measures
and programs irnpl iwtad during this
time period such as the aurreal J/M
p . gram and VOC RACI’. The State,
therefore, adequately demonstrated that
theimprovsment lnalrqua llty lsdueto
permanent and sa rceebIs
reductions of 228 tons VOC and 41 tom
ofNOxperdayuareeultof
imple.. .i H g the federally suhe le
FMV and RVP “ o-
With rasped to lb. liars olwnpsu.Hy
f. ..bhe msteo ,ology, the — ‘sntors
have not supplied and the USDA I not
swam of data demonstrating that the
maieorologlcal en.lilIdons in the D.lrJ$-
Ann Arbor ares in 1990 and ib”.qu
years were unusually fevorable with
reaped to the Impact on’
formation. The USDA the
average m..ti vologfeaI parameters of
ma dmum monthly temperatures,
uuulthly pledpitatlcn. and days with
temperatures great than SO digress
F.brenheIt forth, periods of April
through September. 1991 through 1993.
with the yssr (1963—1990) aver for
them poromfers. The 1991—1993
av he these parameters agreed
with those for the 9.ysat averages with
only minor differences. fissed on
averaged parameters, It can be
concluded that the 1991-1903 period
was typically conducive to ozone
formation. Further, the USDA notes
that the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares has been
in attainment for three c’ ’taallve
three-year periods (1990—1992, 1991—
-------
12470 Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 44 I Tuesday, March 7, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
1993, and 1992-1994), and that this,
along with the foot that real emission
reductions have oxUrTed. Indicates that
attainment Is not duo to unusually
favorable. tempor.rj meteorological
conditions.
Comment
A few communion noted that ‘Ozone
Actloni” days were declared on selected
bad meteorology days, with extensive
media publicity asking th. public to
rethuce activities having the potential to
emit orone precursors. It is entirely
possible that tim voluntary reduction
program bad an effect In thesummerof
1994 to reduce potential osene
excursions. The existimie of the
voluntary pio am should be considered
In evaluating the r ” r 1994 data. In
addition, one w.- .’ dated that this
Is an attempt to dusty Industry’s -
responsibility to reduce emissions by
shilling th . burden onto print.
households though thee. “Ozone
Actionl” days
USEPA Response
Attainment bee be.. demonstrated for
1990-1992. arid 1991—1993. and an
,ttab eflt level of emissions id..”I fled
at which time no such voluntary
program wee being Implemented in ths
Detzcll .Ann Arbor ares. Michigan has
also duinonstiuted through nI ao
projections that the precursor emissions
will remain below th. attainment year
levels thorough the year 2005 without
acoounting far any emission reductions.
that mey have ismrlt.d from
Implementat Ion of a vohuitaiy
With respect to soy poasthl. Impact of
a voluntary emission reduction p 5 ..iu
on 1994 the USDA notes
that the commentor has not provided
and the USWA hesnorbesis for
attempting to a the Impact clench
program on emission and monitored sir
quality Levels. Thu., the USEPA beasts
bests for any determination reesrdl
the impact of Ut. program, and dues not
believ, that speonlatlon rigsrdI ach
impectsprov idesabss lsfor-
dlpprovlng the ____
Cnmmen (
One . r .MenLor 1 ai that .‘: ? _
control programs mandated by the Ad
cannot be converted to cenfli -cy
measures, that lb. Ad does act
suthorisu conversion of required
L reduction .o to
ncy measures end that sedlort
1PSA( imp oses a man I.Iory duty on
— that is redesignitud to continue
ihe—.L i omtrol programs the ares
L, t4 priorro r’ed’sa’gnalton. The
s . th fuitbor elaborates by dating
that ‘the SW impIein aflon
requirement Is Included in the section
discussing contingency provisions
because contingency provisions
automatically become effective If an
ares fails to Implement the applicable
SIP requirements. lncluaion of the
provision In section 175A(d) does not
by any stretch of statutory interpretatIon
suthoitse converting a control measure
that must bscompllsd with now os
contingency measure that only need he
complied with at some liter date. if
ever.” The commontor also contended
that allowinS the conversion of
mandatory u itzuI prcgranmto
contingency measures I . bed policy
since iii. public will suffer harmful
exposne during th. time necessary to
impl n.n* the program after the event
triggering the ‘nt1siguncy measures
acorns. According to the coormentor,
the delay would be execeibsted due to
the USDA’s failure to require adopted
regulations he the progrsms.
USEPA Response
The Act contains many requirements
that States adopt certain measures
specifically for ncnattainment areas.
These requirements do not by their own.
terms continue to apply to an area after
It has been redeeig ted to attainrient.
Morswvsr. nothing in section 175A Itself
suggests that thee. requirements mud
continue to ho metin redesignated
areas. Section 175A(d) Is spedflndly
and clearly applicable to contingency
provisions end their inclusion ins
section 175R maintenance plan. Section
I7SA(d) establishes that SIP revisions
submitted under lISA must contain
contingency provisions, as maybe
nw wiy , to assure that the State wi
promptly c . any violation of the
- .-- PAAQS that occurs after
________to attainment ftIbrthsr
— that th se contingency
provisiem Indude a requirement for the
&ate to imp’ ” .’* all measures wIth
reapect toth. ,u1 of ceone that were
in -the aemttalnmunt SIP before the ares
was da1guat.d . This provision dearly
. iL. . . dritu that section 175A(d)
vn’ phtes that there may be fully
adopted but unimplemented contr 1
mesmu eslnt l mSWpr lcrto
whetgna1ii i that will be shifted Into
the maintenance plan as contingency
measures. Nothing In section 175A
suemats that the measures that maybe
shElled Into the contingency plan do not
lnct’ ie programs mandated by the Ad
wh . re area wee designated
no” -• ‘tinment. As section 175A(a)
ieq’ :res adoption and Implementation
of measures to ensure maintenance, It
indicates that measures may not tie
converted to contingency provisions
unlese the State demonstrates that the
standard will be maintained In the
abasncaof the implementation of such
measures.
The USSI’A disagrees with .
commentors assertion that lii p ry
regarding the conversion of
control p . ms mandated by the Ad
to contingency meeres is bad r 1 i
due to delays that ‘ zM
Programs required to be adopted and
submitted to the USEPA prior to the
submiturionof a nideslgnat lon request
will already have bunt, ndnptnd and may
.be Implemented with minimal delay In
the event contingency measures are
trI sred. Such measures satisfy the
requirement of section 17 5A(d) that the
contingency provisions “promptly
any violation of the standard
which occuip after redeslgnatlon.”
With ru yact to the cemmentor’s
specific assertions that the USEPA
should require upgrades to basic JIM
and NSR p.gtams to be fully adopted
by the State and approved by the
USEPA prior to redeelgustlon. the
USEPA notes first that It does act
lnt.,. ..t the Ad to require Michigan to
adopt the JIM upgrades fully now If it
otherwise qualifies for redeslgnallon to
attainment. Rather, as evidenced in the
USEPA’s final IIM rule revisions,
desa’ibed above and in the proposal,
Michigan is required only to adopt the
upgrades as a contingency measure in
order to meet the requirements far basic
JIM in section 182(ak2XBJ(l) and (bX41.
MichIgan has done that. Under its
submittal, Michigan must implement
basic I /Mis months from th.dat.tim
Governor decides to Implement the
program as a contingency measure and
Mlcnigen’s contingency plan contains
other control measures which would
result in ussr term -nlwitm iL. ,
that will be more effective towards
u1ng a violation of the NAAQS
than a NSR program, such as Stage I or
SSfl vapor -
The ‘tor also suggests that
since the cement o.une NAAQS Is ad
suMd’tly protective of public he.Ith
the USEPA should not be caiounad
with over wMIJ . In response , as
previously discussed, the USEPA Is
airruirtly reviewing the ozone NAA .
Unlem and until the NAAQS Is revisad.
the USEPA Is to make judgsmusntaon
the basis of the currant NU(* p4.,
• determine whether a maintenance plan
assures malntenancs of the LrITTIIst
omne NAAQS.
Comment
On. corn tnentnr noted that Stage U
vapor reco .ery was expected t Owuni
brat least 22.5 tons pusday (lID) or
17 parc ent of the 15 percent POP plan.
that mobile aourcas account for 50
-------
Federal Register/Vol 60, No. 44 I Tuesday, March 7. 1995 I Rules and Regulations 12471
pdta l of sir toxic emissions, and that
refueling sutwtobl lea is the molt
significant source otbennene exposure
for the average person. As proposed, the
redesignation would finally eliminate
Stags II vapor recovery from the SIP. An
improved UM program was expected to
aixount for reductions of 61.6 TPD or
nearly half of the 15 percent flOP. The
commsntar adds that these 13 peromit
ROP memures may be contingency
measures in the maintenance plan,
iethá than immediately required at any
point In the future. Nevertheless. any
such transfer of a maintenance meuure
In the SIP tea contingency measure, to
be required only U certain triggering
events aa &trud, must be accompanied
by. dr” ’etlon that the SIP
measures are no longer necessary for
maintenance. Any propc ed transfer
aid d m rstloa of Justification of the
transfer must be subJect to public notice
and compleni. as required by the Act.
USEPA Response
Air toxic e.nhI*Ions or benzan.
exposure am not relevant to this
ruhmskhuig since It pertains to an ozone
red ’.dgr*$i n. Moreover, this
milesignatlon In no way exempts the
ares from the air toxice requirements of
sectIon 112 or ether provisions of the
Since the area rem able to
deniosistzete siiaintwlasice through an
uuiin,iuus 1 i,ujuctiu ,i aiwlysis sIwwiaig
that future VOC and NOx emissions will
remain below th. attainment year level
of wv i ons lihe level of emissions
sufficient to attain the NAAQSL the
USEPA concludes that currently
required end future mandated control
programs (e.g.. FMV(P) are sufficient to
provide for attainment and maintenance
uf tim NAAQ& I lowuvur. contingency
umanares in the maintenance plan ate.
required in accordance with section
175Md). The maintonarce plan for abs
Detroit-Ann Arbor area contains
contingency measures which would be
implemented when tr sd by a
violation of the MII4IMQS . USDA
guid i .r. allows the flt 1 ” of SIP
messurea which cams ep4w to
r .I iiiIttal of a coesp11 . signatIon
request to the mains,.ienan plan an
contingency measures if the ares
demonstrates at 1n .v i without
impl .a’1 l I n of these measures and
therefore, are unn ry for
1 s has adequately
at maintenance wilt
mx eathe a aithe
L 1 r ’ 4 14 he —“ma.dted
byths- ——PIItp.th.
— tt ‘ ‘ was
LI bp & entice andcomment
during Michigan’s public comment
period andbearlng. as well asth.
LISEPA’. comment period, as required
by the Act.
Comment
One commentor notes that to be
effective at restoring air quality when a
posa-redesignation violation ccaus,
contingency measures must Include
measures in the IS percent ROP plan. In
elsboisslng, the nmentor notes that a
contingency plan which lacks a program
for.nh .t , rad I/M,StagsUend
conformity is an empty box with no
benefits. The precedent of
“grsndparentlng” in moderate areas by
allowing redesignatlon without
requiring Inclusion of the attainment
plan’s 15 percent plan as a contingency
measure in the mainteno ’w plan is a
dangerous precedent for Regfon.5 to set.
It has the potential to result in the
gutting of the Act nationwide by a
seemingly Innocuous rulemaking at the
Regional level.
it is unclear that the veriftontlon and
tracking measures described at 56 FR
37199 (July 21. 1994) will ever ectually
trtjger th . requirement to impl.o.ent
the contingency plan.
USEPA Response
The contingency plan contains, as
contingency meesures, all of the
unimplemented SIP control measures
that were requited prior to submittal of
the corn plate rodesignation request.
Indudlug basic I/M, Slag. U. Stags I
expansion, and NO 5 RACF. As noted In
the proposal. Stage U lane longer a
required measure due to the USEPA’s
promulgation of on-board vapor
recovery requirements. In addition, the
Stats has ;lso Included 7.8 RVP’ and
Intensified degjeaslng for degressing
operations’ 3 as contingency measures.
The USEPA does not believ, that this
contingency plan ii an “empty box with
no benefits” Instead that the
contingency measures In th, plan would
provide very real benefits In terms of
potentIal emission reductions that the
USEPA believes are adequate to deal
with potential future violations. The
ares Is not required to Include .11
measures from 11115 percent plan in Its
contInger cy plan since the 15 p .nn. .I
plan was not an applicable requirement
at the lime the State submitted a
complets redesignation request.
‘ 3 Lowur aw to t.5 pit envaely hi
ar ameilninicy mamma liii . Sits usImli. aisi
ik. ILS 1A 0mb. main ainkan aii(cxeac)dih.
shit the Isma 5VP vsqiii,nmit Is
. th.u toschlua. ibm amos NAM$.
‘ Iitamtflsd RACT in ç—”
en auioszly .psdU.d Is Mistipa ash. Iii. Sit,
Stisedsie.
Inadditlon, Regions Is not setting a
precedent of “grsndparentlng” of the 15
peromt ROP re thmaeat an
____ In the
mat.I t e plea. Ths ----
with national policy that bm
bean established med bm bms
shove. See S.p1mnk fr.r’ and
Sentambor Sbqiiro ‘ —
*agazdlng tiansportstlon conformity.
once redesignated. the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area will be. malaI iait n ares
and, therefore, required to conduct
emission analyses to determine whather
the VOC and NO 5 emissions xsn i
below the motor vehicle emission
budgat established In the maintenance
plan. The July 21. 1994 proposal (59 FR
37190) does addima conformity with
respect to the redesignadon on p. 3796.
The proposal further discusses that.
although conformIty Is applicable In
these areas, since the deadline for
submittal had not come due far these
rules, th. approval of the redeslgnatlon
Is not contingent on these submittals to
comply with section 107(dX3XE)(v).
However, transportation sad general
conformity apply to main areas
end therefore, the Detroit-Ann Arbor
area must comply with these rubs once
redesignated to The June 17,
1994 Cn”formlty General Preamble (59
FR 31238) to th. conformity regulations
further den lea this issue. A rding to
the conformity rules and preamble, the
Detroit-Ann Arbor ares’s conformity test
will be to remain within the VOC and
NO 5 budgets established in the emlion
175A m 1nt .m.w plea.
The July 21, 1994 notIce doss describe
a tracking plan for updating the
‘ Ion Inventory. As d” ”—’I . the
rsdsulgnatton request i m .iM Michigan
to conduct periodic inventories every 3
years, provides e schedule these
submittals, and lIsts the types of fedora
used In projecting the’
Inventories, The Stat. notes that lithe
fectore change mthsm niIslty the State
would reprolect emissions forth.
maintenance period to determine
whether apparent Increases in 11 ons
.redu.toáangssh i . .Lvllt1os
techniques or actual amI ons ,
Although the.. periodic r” on
inventories am not a mi 1 to
til r lmplmnentMtma of omlingosry
measures, If the periodic inv .iMries
. w sed th. attainment level f ”
In the maIn’ ” plea the USEPA
may Issues SIP cell to the ares under
section ii0(k)(5) on th, basis that the
State made Inedequateessuaptians In
proJmmtlng the inventory used to
demonstrate , nsIn m .iw. In this event,
the USEPA may require the Stat. to
correct the projection inventory and. If
1 ”u—am propose and
-------
12472 Federal RegIster / Vol. 60, No . 44/ Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Rules and Rngulatkwis
ultimately Implement maintenance
is ore(s) to tower the smisslona tea
hvól .1 or below the att*inment year
level. Since USDA policy only suggests
that level of emissions be Included us
triggering mechanism or method of
monitoring the area emissions, State.
are provided the flexibility not to
lucludesuch a triggering mechanism.
The Dottoit-Ann Arbor ares’s
contingency plan contains one trigger, a
monitored air quality violation of the
. .inna NAAQS, as defined in 40 G ’R
lion 50.9. The trigger date will be the
date that the State cajutiflea to the
USEPA that the ai , quality data sre
quallty .aeewed. soda. Later than 30
days after an ambient air quality
violation is monitcied. Once the trigger
is confirmed, the State will implement
one or mere aptirotirlals contingency
measuree based ens technical analysis
using a UAM analysis. The Governor
will select the mmtlnpncy measures
within 6 months of the trigger. The
control measures which may be used as
contingency measures within the
maintenance plan are VM upgrades.
NOx RACF, Siegel expansion, Stage U,
RVP redudlon to 7.6 psI and intensified
RACE for degreasing operations. As
explained in the proposal . the USEPA
believes that these measures are
adequate to restore sir quality in the
event of a post.rsdaslgnstion violation.
Comment
— The commentor notes that the Detroit-
Ann Arbor area is the fastest growing
business ores in Michigan. and that “if
regulations am not implemented now. it
will take yeers for companies to comply
with new regulations added later. laid
Local Indu stry should have to
Implement coamonsense. cost-
effective, pollutloui.contiul measures to
protect the people In be ama.
USEPA Respszme
Thir area is currently Implementing
awnerous emission control measures
and will continue to do on even after
redeslgnatlon to attainment for . -n-
While the ares may be gruwlog,Ibe
State has considered the limped. of
growth not just in mobile w s
also industrial sources of *‘ia
precursors in Its maintenance Øn. The
Slate has adequately shown that
permanent and enforceable controls will
continue to mae than offset the Impact
of any auth growth through the
L-’----’ — its eroisdions
• - that em will ds
— the pedaL In th.
at . .enia psu.’4 5 ,-4ed and
to ruii.J$ violation ottbe
section
A sslL an plan specifies
control mee- -es which would be
Implement. contingency measures
in acoordagr. vith the schedules
specified in ,July 21. 1994 and this
final rule.
Comment
One commentor notes that the
maintenance plan and contingency
measures are not likely to protect
maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone.
because the tlmellne for implementing
corrective measures is too protracted.
providing too little protection, too late.
USEPA Response
For clarification, the contingency
measures are intended to provide low
maintenance by addressing a violation
of the mene NAAQS maintenance
mesmme serve to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS. The
contingency measure hnphanentatlorr
schedules were derived from the Act
and applicable State and Federal .-
regulations. As explained In the
proposal and this final action, the
schedule established for the
implementatIon of contingency
measures provides for the
Implementation of such measures as
soon as wIthin one year of a violation.
Alan, as explained in the proposaL the
USEPA believes that this schedule
satisfies the ditesion of section 175A
regarding the need for contingency
measures top ptIy correct violations
of the standard oncurring during the
maintenance period.
One cummentor alleges that the
maintenance demonstration relies on
fleet turnover with new can required to
hflve on-board canisters and perhaps
enhanced fuel efficiency to create
reductions of VOC emissions sufficient
to compensate for the steady growth of
VMT”and keep Southeast Michigan In
atI*lnhi t. With an aciaji time for
fleet turnover of 10 to 15 years, those
measures will have little effect on
maintenance of attainment In the near
ter
USEPA R.spoime-
The State is nut relying on on-board
canisters In itsem lss lon projections
through the maintenance period. The
malntssmara demonsiretlon through
amimlon projections must demonstrate
that the emissions will net exceed the
attaInment year ventory. See General
Prsambte(Apr ll . 1992 .57FR13498)
and September’ -agni memorandum.
Michigan has der 3nstratad that, by
“VVT laths . ... .J .. . etsIhstm,ets%iby
vuI dnoli 1instyp.. psisiubly toeth Ileb
. 1mb. h*ve, spusue.
considering the effects of permanent
and enforceable control programs (not
including the on-board vapor recovery
nile), as well as. growth in the ares
(Including VhfI gueul$.
year 2005 emIssions ___ -
the attainment See 19
FR 37190, tableson p. Jh.S)1- —
the Act nor USDA - ,-.L
or sugg sLs that the Std. LL
emission reductions during the
maIntenance period. The USEPA
reviewed the projection Inventory
methodologies and found them to be
appropriate. Furthermore,
transportation conformity provides
another emission management
meulanism. The transportation
conformity rules (November 24, i9 ,
58 PR 62188) and General Preamble
Urine 17.1194,59 FR 31238) apply to
nonattalomint and maintenance arson
The General preamble clarifie, that
conformity analyses must demonstrate
that VOC and NO,, emissions will
remain wllhin the motor vehicle
omission budget as approved ins
section 175A maintenance plan.
Comment
One t ”entor states that an . , iO*
precursor, NO*. can scavenge “ ‘ -
For this reason, NO,, controls can
actually increase ozon . levels in
metropolitan areas while beneficially
affecting downwind areas. The lack of
NO, controls in the Matropoiltan
Detroit area would help In attaining the
120 ppbonene standard but this
approach would have no net benefit
downwind (southwestern Ontario). The -
coinmentor concludes that both NO,
and VOC must be controlled. Anothev
coinmentor notes that them Is too
- information about the hiternctlouu
b.twuuu VOC and NO,, to justil r
granting an exemption from NO,,
controls.
UWA Response
• Section 182(fKl)(A) of the Ad allows
the Mministrator to exempt an ama
outside an w i transport region fruu
the seit lon 182(0 M l , n ipilromenia. if
the USIPA deloruilners that Maddiilonal
reductions of lNO ,l would not-
contribute to sttalnmenr of the
NMQS In the relevont area. It I , clear
that if an area has demonstrated
attainment of the ozone NAAC wIth 3
ponsecotive complete years of air
quality monitoring data, additional NO,
reductions would not contribute to
attainment. since the ares has already
attained. Therefore, a State may submit
-- a petition for a sectIon 1820) ammptlon
based on air quality monitoring data
showing attainmeni of the ozone
NAAQS. The USEPAs approval of such
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 44/ Tuesday, March 7, 1995/ Rules and Regulations
12471
an exemption Is granted on a contingent
basis, I.e., the exemption would only be
valid as long as attainment of the ozone
NAAQS continues. If prior to final
action to redesignate the sins to
attainment the USEPA det.rmines that a
violation of the NAAQS arzuned, the
section 182 ( I) exemption would no
longer apply, as of the date of such a
deteaninatico. See December 1993
guidance document Guideline for
erudnIng Lb. Applicability of NO.
Requirements under SectIon 18210, and
th. May 27. 1994 memorandum from
Johe Salts, Section 182(0 NO.
Exemptions—RevIsed Process end
Criteria. In addition, the May 27. 1994
SeAt. memorandum, page In.?, states
that while NO. reductions in areas that
i q”.st and are granted. section 182(0
exemption may not contribute to
attainment, they may contribute to
maintenance and must be addressed In
the Inaililenuoce plan requirud for
veduslgnatlon. The Detroit-Ann Arbor
area submitted a section 182 (I) NO.
‘ nsuipticn en November 12, 1994 based
on 3 consecutIve years of monitoring
data dsmons ziting att nment of the
NMQ& The Detzoit•Ann Arbor
ares sebselued the appropriate NO.
dc icti nimtIon In their redesignation
malnt.nancs p 1 an. By doing so, the
Slate has demonstrated a commitment
to control NO. if It is deemed neci ary
to maintain the ozone standard. The
USEPA epproved the section 182(0 NO.
exemptIon petition for the Detroit ’Ann
Arborarea Ins final USEPA action
puh1( hd elsewhere In this Federal
Register.___
With lI5pIct toth.aspects of the
casements relating to the effects of NO.
controls or the lock of NO. controls on
£IJ1$ air in Canada, the USEPA refers
the reader to th, responses to Lb.
forth below.
In addition, the redeslgnatlon request
establishes VOC end NO. emissi,
budg .’. sethUsidaga t Ioo levels
‘ 4 ” t . to attain tbsg NAAQS.
lie, Sislu has aim dpgeqnstrslod
lhsouijr emission Iess that the
area’s wuissions wUJ ala below the
attainment ln** sy through Lb.
year 2005. , the State has
demonstrated that NO. levels will not
d current levels through the
‘—‘“ period.
In respoum to the commenlots note
tbmthemlsismlktls Information about
1L VOC and P1O
ntiygoniIn szemption from
? * .. _ .k the tWA refer, the
—— NO .IV(X Study
by WA on July 31.1993.
C egu — tbm USEPA
d..Mo. a as personal petitions for NO.
exemptions under section 182(fl(3) be
trfggeted by publication of this 1853
repoil. Consequently, the USEPA
believes that this provides evidence that
Congress appears to have believed Lb.
results of the 185B study would supply
sufficient information for the Agency to
grant section 182(I) exemptions. The
USEPA refers the commeator to the
final rulemaking approving the section
182(0 NO. exemption petition or the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area published
elsewhere in this Federal Ragister.
Nonetheless, as demonstrated by the
* ni ioa projections for the 10-year
maintenance plan submitted by
Michigan, continuing reductions in NO.
emissions are expected (primarily from
mobile murom as a result of FMV(Y).
Also, additional NO. emI
reductions are expected from
implementation of the NO. controls
required by title IV of the Act.
Designation status of an ares is
irrelevant in the applicability of title IV
requlrem.nts consequently, subject
sources in the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares
will be required to comply with these
requirements.
Comment
On. commentornotas that the Ion
of proposed rodsaignation isa product
of undue haste and that the final
decision on redeelguation should await
data from Canada’s study of ozone
levels at Its receptors which ire down-
wind of Southeast MithIgin A number
of other commentate suggested that the
U$EPA respond to concerns expressed
by Ontario and Canada prior to utaWng
any decision. Another commentor
suggests that the USEPA obtain and
ambient ozone levels prior to
ploceedfng with the redeslgna*Io..
US EP A )tsspons.
The USEPA has received ‘ ts
and information from a number of
Canadian Interests. All ‘ n” ts from
commentate hi Canada have been
considered as the USD’A road. a final
decision on4hla actIon, and are
addressed within this final rulemaking.
As explained below, the USEPA does
not believ, that these warrant
a deferral of final action on this
—
C -
One cosementor status that between
80 percent-b percant of toxic air
pollutants In Windsor’s ambIent air are
transported from the City of Detroit and
other U.S. areas northwest of Windsor.
Another commentor suggests that the
technology needed to reduce ozone
closely parallels the technology needed
to abate toxic air pollutants In the
region. By designating the ares as
attainment, the region will no longer be
retiulted to Include ozone reduction
tec)uiology in Lb. Slat. of___________
SW under the Ad. Thfeomld ai1min *a
bather chno’4 he - that
would not only iedsei -- heals big
aIsocenibutetaths’ — oIt c
air pollutIon. S the Covurammis of
the United S’ N sod In their
RefOrence to the International Joint
Commission (IIC), have .mphesi’.d that
the IJC addriss the Impacts of toxic air
pollution problems In the region, the IJC
cannot support any move that would
result in less stringent controls which
have direct Impact an minimization of
ozone levels and reduction of toxic -
‘ e”monl smI Imi.. Consequently, the
commentor strongly disagree. with the
proposed USEPA redeelgnstlon and
recommends against It. The tar
believes that the control requirements of
the Act for this area should be
Implemented.
USEPA Response
This ruiindgitmtlon Is for - - Toxic
air poll”.”. are net relevant to the
Ismae of whether an ares should be
rudsslgnated du. to lts .”-’--. ’ of the
em’aNAM . Separate from this
resheigu .Hon. the Stat. Is required to
meet other requirements of the Ad
specifically to control air toidce
ons.Theo .elgu.den
would not exempt the area from
Implementing sectIon 112 of the Ad.
which Is Intand.d to address Lb. omitiol
of hazardous air pollutants. Rules
promulgated purmlantto ssctI n 112 are
applicable to sources regardless of an
ares’s ttainment Iti.
In addition, sources of oew’*
precursors in the Detroit-Ama Arbor area
must continue to lmp’n” all control
equipment and/er nrseswusla
accordance with applicable Vuiss, -
regulations and permits. Consequently.
the redesigeados would not result In
less stringent mmtrols than are currently
being ImpI w ’ .d In the Detrolt•Mn
Arbor area.
Comm
On. conunurdor notes that
and Ontario are assembling data from
r.naift.ii monitoring ‘ ‘t which are
directly relevant to the decision to
whether the Detroit-Ann Arbor area Is
Iiwiuutly meeting the prusalbsd Ad
requirements with r.i.pCt to ‘ - The
comI e 1tor states that this InformatIon
and other points will be provided to the
Department of State on October 17.
1994. (On ober 17, 1994 a document
entitled Canada/Ontario Technical
Component of the Canadian r meot
on the Michigan/Ann Arbor .
Redesignatlon Request was r’ 1 ”ued.
‘I
2..
-------
4
12474 FedersI Ragister IVoL 60 , No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
This document was prepared by
Environment Canada arid the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment and
Energy). The commento? expects that
this information would be considered In
any final decision. A copy of the
September 23, 1994 letter from the IJC
to War n Christopher, Secretary of
Slate, was attached. Another commentor
claims thai the Canadians In Southern
Ontario ate affected by some of the
worst smog episode. In Canada. Many
commentors state that much, If not all.
of the ground level a’i n . In Southern
and Southeastern Ontario isa result of
trenaboundary movemàt of ozone and
NO from the U.S. toCanada. Mlrhlgiii
Is a signiflant scorns of the ozone and
NO* coming horn the U.S. A number of
commentors provided monitoring data
from monitors locoted In SouthiUsst5rn
Ontario and the Detroit-Ann Arbor erep
sod asmit that high ozone levels
reumied In the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares
irssposd directly with high ozone
levels which Ontario’s ozone
standard. Some commeutors noted that
high level. of w ia In Ontario may be
the couse of Iausaasd respiratory
.JiJ,..a . Another .mentor noted
that. vicent study In southern Ontario
indinste. that hospital aInth ions for
respiratory problems has lnaeued due
to ozone and acidic air pollution. This
situation Is omuilng at ozone levels
well below the 125 ppb averaged over
one hour. Another counmentor su ests
that being another u .,vvi.Ign nation and
not a neighboring Stat.. Canada Is
denied t.ctloz available to
downwind States adversely affected by
emissions horn upwind neighbor.
within the U.S Another conunantor
notee the 4 nagfItg effect of ozone on
— ompa.
USEPA &sporti . -
The USDA has considered the
October 17, 1994 eubmllial referred to
and .11 other information , 1dsdby
the Canadian Government u. oth
- commentors on thee. Issues..: -
Th,f o11owIng provides a . .l . of
the USEPA’s review of the 0,
1994 docom submiUed
Environment Can—op and th6 IstarIu’
Ministry olth. Environment d
Energy. The umd w& 1 1. UflO $
oth skm e e omna monitoring
data. IL....... , the monitoring
datow.s tnhuiIeq iste far the USEPA to
Nisthera violation of the U.S.
- NAA( med In r a .ia
r __ -‘5 , on N& n! _ 1,3 and 24.
D—ter 14 and 19,1994 the
l A-tJ 1 --d durifying information
- the Ontario Mbtfstry of the
Environment and Energy on the oann
monitoring data submitted.
In reviewing the Canadien ozone
monitoring data. the USEPA examined
each 3-year Interval from i.eo through
1994 as well as associated wind
patterns. Based on a review of the
Canadian report and the clarifying
information, the monitoring data
demonstrate. that there has not been a
violation of the U.S. ozone NAAQS at
the Windsor lUniveralty or South),
Sarnia, Merlin, Mandaumin, London,
Longwoods, or Parkhlll mcnitors.for the
timeframe 1990-1992,1991—1993, or
1992—1994. In fact. th. only monitors
that have recorded violations of the U.S
ozone NMQS are the Grand Bend
monitor and Tiverton monitor, which
are located morethan 9OmIles and 140
miles away from the Detroit-Ann Arbor
ares, respectively. The Grand Bend
monitor rec ,idad violations of the U.S.
ozone NAAC during the Limefrsme
1990-1992 with a number of expected
exceedancos of 1.67 and during 1991*
1993 of 2.0. However, for the 1992_1p94
period, there was no violation of the
U.S. ozone NAAQS with a number of
expected exceedancas at 0.33. The
Tivurton monitor recorded violations of
the U.S. ozone NAAQS during the
tlmefrsmes1990—1992 and 1991—1993
with a number of expected exciedanne
of 2.0. However, during the 1992-1994
period, there was no violation of the
U.S. ozone NAAQ&”
In addition, the modeling submitted
on ober 17,1994 i. limited and
Insufftden for purposes of Im iicatIng
the Detroit-Ann Armor area as me couse
of elevated ozone levels in Ontario t
The gr’ nd level wind trajectorIes
, the October 11, 1994
ndlcote that winds Into
‘flvasto -d the Windsor ares p .s .
throvib s aumber of urb nlnad areas In
both the U.S and Canada (lb. Windsor
urh Inad area). The USEPA also notes
that math 1 .ncentrstIon may be
attilbuluble to or &,M.. d by ozone
p, naiIIons generated wIthln
t 1naiftna border, , since Windsor Itself
ni l. Oe ’ 1?, liii s IaI aId
I4ti, LLIim metid thi tin ThwI.
.—..JJme -- Ilel. The
_ .a v usd tin um . ......JJ en
Awl $4. tee. st t s PM. IL- . . . . . head ..
J.Jf ,tu,LL L _
L L j shin k. .. . . . . . . .t sad inagy, thti isa..
“ ‘ tin
. .,J.r.. ..J LI..L..... luluininiw ..di .....L.)e.
Ap I 31 tees Lm.... . . thu bawi Sass PM
ass PM and to tess PM.
the d es in ins , . wes lauuiWeud by the
e.I. rlarseys(th, a .:- - and bag,.
Aenietbs’. .-’ .- _-1 wu ,sthetb.
— puemulun. The ADOMGESIMA mode haul
a US A i.Id&In. midut s,Ilgsd Ia ihsC.kWIe.
an A k Quality Moduh. Irsuhuad it, P uury iee3).
Fwthwmsdut J . ...uadm , ti
oumpsullu.iviIantloa i ine A ptdutia.
lean urban area with an estimated
metropolitan population greeter than
223000. Thus, the extent of any
contrIbution from the De -A Aiho,
er ie to monitored -— In
Ontarle ommat be . Li __ L I with any
degree of cirtainty es bmisof the
Information preaunily seid l, to
USEPA. The data p , vlJ.d In
October 17, 1994 submittal are
Inadequate to provide a beak for
determining the extent to which
emissions from Michigan. and more
specIfIcally, the Detroit-Ann Arbor area,
are contributing to ambient ozone level.
In Ontario. As a consequence. the
USDA does not believe that the
presently available information provides
any basis for affecting its decision
regarding Ijie redesignadoui of the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area.
The USEPA would like to mole that
the governments of ihe United State.
and Canada are In the proc .. . of
developing a joint study of the
transbotutdary e phenomena under
the U.S-Canada Air Quality Agreement
It Is envisioned that this regional anas
study will provide the scientifIc
Information nac —.ry to undetitand
what contributes to ozone levels In the
region, as well as. what control
messures would contribute to
reductions In e levels. Should this
or other studies provide a sumdena
eclentific basis for taking action In the
futurea the USEPA will decide whet Is
an appropriate course of action. The
USEPA may take appropriate action
notwIthstandIng the rede.Ignst lon of the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area. Therefore, the
USEPA does not believe that the
contentions regarding trenthuundsry
Impsd corvently provide a basis for
delaying action on this rsJ. eIgnalIan or
disapproving the redeelgnatlan. This is
perticularly true since approval of the
redurlgnatlon is not expsa4 to resuk
In in maims, In ozone precureo
.nisaIons and Is not expeclad to
adversely affect air quality In Cana
facts decrea. . In both VOC and NOx
emiaeiana from the Detroit-Ann Arbor
ares isexpacled overthe 10 year
maintenance period. See 59 FR 37190,
July 21,1994. ftsbouldaleobeaoted
that r.deslgoatlon does not allow States
to autarnatldlly remove control
1 . ima wblth have contributed to
ares’s attainment of a U.S. NAAQS là
any pollutant As discuseed
the USEPA .i 4 al policy that a
Slate may not relax the adopted and
Implemented SIP loran ares upon the
ares’s redesignatlon to attainment
unless an appropriate demonstratIon “
“Sash J. . .. .. ..J . . iI. , . ane thaw ibis ._
wilt ne 6I . w h
-------
Federal Register F Vol. 60 , No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 1995 / Rules and RegWatIons
12475
— on computer modalln& Is
Ipproved by the USEPA. In thu case, no
irevtously implemented control
strategies are being relaxed as pert of
this redesignatlon.
The heefth effects of addic air
pollution are not relevant to this ozone
redesignation. However, the LJSEPA Is
aware of the study referenced by the
nummentor and Is considering this
• study in ib. pru . a of reevaluating th,
ozone NAAQ&
Further, apart from title I
requirements related to the cessation of
the l druIl-Ann Arbor area’s statuses an
ozone nonaita nmenl area, the area Is
and will continue to be requited to
satisfy all Act requirements. Other
trel program. required by the Act
will be impl.menled In the area.
regardless of th, ozono designation.
such as title IV NO control.. section
112 toxIc controls and on-board vapor
recovery requirements.
• ‘ “ tor note. that recent
Information Indicates that significantly
high readings hay, been recorded
In lb. Town of KInwdlne this summer.
lCInca,din. Is halfway up the eastern
shorelins of Lake Huron. and therefore.
be air quality in Klncardln. Is. for the
lost pail, a result of emissions from
Middgsn. Tb. coanmenlor requests that
the USEPA reconsider the redesignatlon
of lb. ares because It will have drastic
•ff h, on the
eastern shors.
USEPA Rcs *rns
Kiiumdiue Is inure than 1(10 itillus
northeast of the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares,
the subM of the redesignatlon to
atta 1 ” ”nt for ozone. r equently,
attributing elevated ozone levels in
Kincardine to the Dstrolt Ana Arbor
ares would be. complex task. It cannot
be conclusively stated that emissions
emanating from the Detroit-Ann Azbq,
area ate, iir the most pitt, ” responsible
for elev.ted ozone .Aw I. tIons
recorded at a monitor m than 100
miles away. As demonstr ed by lbs
wind trajectories prov1de by ( nd as
part of lbs Ottobsr 17. 1 Iiubmittal.
It can be seen that air pamela travel
through several U.S. and I 4 Ian
urbaa1 d areas. Again. It is noted that
the 135. sad C.na4 a are cooperatively
developing a regional study to
investigate the transh 1 ary
-st N5 sad we.W i.ull
I ki--’ sa a b , Quality
C 4*.
.—a-—1- —.
I in s Puicy.
Comment
One commentor states that the
truisboundary ozone issue points to the
need to manage air quality In a regional
context and notes that In their meeting
of July 25, 1994 In Washington. Carol
Browner. Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection
Agency, and Sheila Copps. Deputy
Prime Minister, Minister of the
Eovlionnient, Canada, agreed to
coop.t . in regional man.gsment of lbs
transhoundary ozone problem. The
comnientor suggests that the Great Lika
region provides an ideal opportunity to
advance this coacepL
USEPA R.spozis.
Subsequent to tire BrewnerlCcpps
meeting, the U.S. and Canadian
Governments have met to A1ac . . and
develop a regional pilot program to
address any potential regional
tr.pshouadary ozone issue. This new
regional pilot effort is being developed
ass priority under the U.S ” ” Air
Quality Agreement.
Comment
On. mentor states that the
Southeast Michigan Coundi of
Governments has disc .aed lb.
redesignation at past meetings of he
Windsor Air Quality ra nimIttee, at
which local committee member.
pointed out their ri nt g to no avaiL
All information availabl, suggests that
the request for redesignatlon Is without
scientific merit at present. and is
promnatweat beat.
USIPA flespon..
Am blent ut monitoring data In lb.
Detroit-Ann Arbor ares dem.nstratss
that the are, is attaining the
NAAQS. Inuaddition, the Slate has met
all applicabl, requirements undue
sectIon 107 of the Act. As previously
dt .... ..qj lb. U.S. and r i 1
cooperatively developing a regional
ozone study to Investigate the
transbounáxy pbr ’om’. .
Cont i nent
One cemmsmtor notes that the March
1991 formal agreement (lb. Mardi 13,
1991 U.&.t na l Air Quality
Agreement) between th. U.S. and
celled for etherpartlsstotaks
steps to avoid or.mltlgat. the pátuntlal
risk pond by specific aclans . On this
bests, It Is requested that the USDA
reconsider the consequences of
approving this request for souIk sat
M lgsn. Another r.brs to
the Mardi 13.196% AIr Quality
Agreem’t between ra and the
U.S. with respect to the effort of the two
countries to address trensboundary air
pollution through TM doopentlve and
coordinated action.” Afleging that
ground level ozone production in lb.
DeUolt-Ann Arbor area by Its mo sat
the U.S..( .naaIa border has a
significant Impoct on sw I ,a production
and ienerol air quality In lbs Wi ’Ia —
Soutliwesteni Ontado region cIf na
the commentar that
the Depazlmsnt of Stats dime em to
provide the Canadian Government with
formal advance notice of the intention
of the USEPA to act an an issue which
would haves major Impact on
traniboundary air pollution.
USEPA Respons.
Paragraph lot Attic), V of the Mardi
13,1991 U.S .1’ na Air Quality
Agreement states that “Each Party shall,
• as appropriate and as required by Its
laws, regulations and polides, . u
those proposed aa iona . activities and
projects within th. area under Its
jurisdiction that, it carried out, would
be likely to cause significant
transbowutaiy air pollution. Including
consideration of appropriat, mitigation
measures.” Paragraph 2. spedfi.s that
parties shall notify each other of actions
under paragraph 1. Since the action to
redesignate the Detzoit.Ann Arbor urea
to attainment does not result in a
relaxation of existing control
requirements or an lnaease In aware
precarsar ‘ 1 ons, the USC’A does
not bell.v, that formal o5iAawtb . was
nor that this action poses a
potential risk. is well aware of
ibis redesignatico at this time. However,
in the future, the U.S. Intends to notify
Caned , of ‘ c tt n’ia similar to this action
as early as possible regardles, of
whither notifIcation Is required uw
the U.&-Canads Alt Quality Agresm .
In addition, the U.S. will work with
ran.i4 to address troposphusic In
th.cniitavt of the Air Quality
Apsement.ps previously Ai _ iw4
Comm
A .iinh of ccmmssitors befisee that
the air quality In the Detroit-Ann Arbor
ares has not improved but dst.tor.t.d
in recent years. Pm ” developments
hav been detrimental to air quality.
sudias the aparatic ut of a trash
Indnentor which emits al meche Into
the sir around the dodi . perticularty en
wn” ” 1 ’ when bt ,dit. ,u , ass “e4 .
Insteed ofrecycling, the Oty of Detroit
din ’ - ’ , to pollute southesat ) it 4iig ,
and Ontarios air. Multitudes .1
Industrial plants are located cut ths
Detroit River whose smok.s a cast
gray bass over everything, even cut
sunny days. On. commentcr Hats a
number of local facilitlee which it
claims causes visible ni ons and
-------
12471 !t er11 Register! Vol. 60. No. 44! Tuesday. March 7. 1995 / Rules and Regiihutlons
oftsnslvs odors. Another “wn ’ entor
status that Wayne county ranked 11 In
amount of hazardous ehnlC.1 5 ,elau.d
through air emissions (as well SI In
“suspected” carcinogens). and wan
fearful for her health and future because
of current air quality. Another
commenlar claimed breathing problems
caused by outdoor air. Wayne County
was accused of posing numerous
pulmonary health rt a for residents.
lmp .. este In air quality are
n 4 vy Iqe the re.l4lsit& safety and
USDA Response
The July 21, 1964 Fedeml lagister
notice , rupo.u to rqdeslgnal. the
Detioit.Ann Arbor area to attainment
solely for The Detroit .Ann Arbor
redusignation requed satisfies the
section 107(dX3)(E) requirements.
Among the.. requIrements I. that the
ares demo n strat. attainment of the
— - NMQS See section
- 1O7(dX3J(EXI). The Dulwlt .A n Arbor
ares has d.mi rstud throug 3
wnw Ivs years of complete air
quality data, that the ares has attained
the NAAQSI The ems Is and will
continue to be required to satisfy all Ad
requirements pertaining to the .““ ‘on
of hazardous air pollutants. Further,
. ‘4.thtg facilities mud continua to
• opirals exI ’ng sir pollution control
equipment In accordance with
appllcthle rules, regulations and
pmniita . and sources that are
problematic In terms of posing.
td to area residents may be
referred to the State and local
envIronmental snfo. uent staff for
investIgatIon. Retaining the ares’s
current noa.ttalnment designation for
o”we would not affect visible emissions
and/or offensiv, odors born the misting
Indnsrator. In addition, certain sew
rul andiegulatlons will still apply to
area sources even If the ares Is
redesignated to attainment for oe for
example,Mmdrnwn Achievable ntrol
Tuthnolonv end additional
under se oa 112 ( aIr taui fihj Ad.
Wltb reipocltotbs — .
cont.nUonth.tlm 11 . .. T é
quality are ns y for 1i
safety and health, It shoul F
r p1z.d that section ios.f Ad
— that the NAAQ which mud
bebseed on established 1t ls and
allow an ada 9 .st . margin of safety.
the kh . Unless and
wilD liii . .soL.J , the ow” . -
NA putherni standard
-
- L bs&v. that
desigur”thig the ares to atf.L nt
would exempt the area from stricter
clean air regulations. They believe that
the USDA should require local
Industry to implement commOn-sense,
cost.effectlve pollution control
measures, more stringent automobile
emission testing (current testing Is not
effective), and service stations to Install
antipollution devices on gasoline
pumps (Stage I I ). The USDA should
encourega that measures be taken to
ensure that no pollution problems occur
Inthefutugs.
USDA Response
Radesignatlng th. ares to attainment
for osuno does not the Stats
from 1mpImn .tIng ures na nwry
for attainment. Further, ddltlcnal
regulations such ass basic I/M program.
Stage ft vapor or Stags I
expansion are leceaporaind Into the
ares’s maintenance plan as 000tiDgaucy
measures. The contingency measures
selected by the State Will be
implemented ifs vjoIsH Is
Co”ent
One cammsntor . .saata the USDA
torequ lre ,andtomak.public ,an
independent, third party, statistical
verlflcatlon of air quality and related
environmental health data to supporter
dispute e4 I i made by local
businesses, a senator and a governor. If
moultorlng In the southwest sectien of
Detroit Is ongoing, then there would be
that tougher standards are
USDA R.sponm
lb Stats has established air
monitoring networks, sampling and
analysis procedures as well as quality
assurance end control procedures that
satisfy USDA guidelines. The State will
w .4laUS to op.rsl . its monitoring
network aiter redesignatlon. Third pajty
statistical verlftc.tlon of air quality data
Is not required by the guidelines
pt rp of this
One cosemsutor stated that the
USDA should not redesignate the
Detroit-Ann Arbor area because It le
llkslythattheareaw ll lsoonhavetobe
redss lgnatad bath to nonanainment.
The c’usmentor also provided various
Information related toinasaslng VOC
emissions and petroleum usa
USDA Response
The USDA believes that Michigan
has shown that the Detroit-Ann Arbor
mashes attained and can continue to
maintain the NAAQS for ozons. In the
event that a violation of the ozone
NAAQS does occur In the future,
however, the maIntenance plan
provides forth. Iipl—-- ’ond
Stat.’, contingency
section 175A to i w.J —v
violatloea of the NAA by
the Act.
W lthveganItotIw ... -
contentions concerning V ‘ 1 om
and petroleum usage, the USEPA notes
that in Ita showing of maintena.ce over
a lOyesrperiod , the State has
technically esen ed not only the
Impacts of reductions due to control
program., but also In ..au due to
growth in all potential sourcea of
emissions. These potential sources
Include petroleum usage In the mobile
source and Industrial source sactors.
The Statôas shorn In these
eameats that reductIons Ii
emissions over the maintenance period
will more then offset any in eeaes In
emissions of VOC, The USDA’s
decisions mud be based solely on
whether Michigan’s submission
adequately .d&essss the statutory
req dnments applicable to
sudseignatlon. The USDA ha.
determined that It doss md Is thus
approving the redesigoatlon requed.
Again , In th. event that violations of the
,=-.i, . NAAQS occur, Michigan mud
promptly Implement Iti canthigancy
measures such that the ozone NAAQS Is
once again attained and maintained.
IL Final Rulemaking Action
The USDA approves the
redsalgeatlon of the DetroIt-Ann Arbor,
Michigan ozone ares to attainment and
the audio. ’ l isA maintenance plan as a
revision to the Michigan SIP. The Stat.
of MIchigan has satisfied all of the
requirements of the Ad. The
• USDA has also approved the section
1 12( 1) PR) 5 exemption for the Detroit.
Ann Arbor area In an action published
elsewhere In this Federal Register
• which exempts the area from she sedI us
152(0 NO 5 roquimmenis As.
curi quuuce of this adion. the USFPA
also stops the sanctions clocks that bad
bee . started as aresialt of th. findings
mad. an January 21, 1994, regardIng the
lnainipIetan of the 15 p.. .t P
plan and the section 172(cK9)
contingency plan for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor area and on May11, 1994,
regarding th. basic t/M plan for the a
Thisaction has beset classified ass
Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the p 1 a .J . ’ .is -
published In the Federal Register on
january19, 1989(54 FR 2214—2225). —
revised by an October 4.1993,.
memorandum from Michael a Shapiro,
Acting — ant Administrator he Air
-------
Federal Re isler F Vol. 60. No. 44 F Tuesday. March 7, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
12477
and Radiation. The 0MB hu exempted
this regulatory action from Executive
Order 12868 review.
Nothing in this action should be
construed as permitting or allowing or
eslablishing a precedent for any future
request for revision to any SIP. Each
request for revision to any SIP shall be
mosidered separately in light of specific
echolcel. economic, and environmental
hctors and in relation to relevant
itatutaly and regulatory requirements.
Under the Ragulatos , Flexibility Ad.
S U.S.C. 600 et seq.. USEPA must
prepares regulatory flexibility analysis
isassing the impact of any proposed or
ftn.l rul. on small entities. S U.S.C 603
sod 604. Alternatively. USEPA may
mrtlfythattherulew lUnothaves
.lgnlftosnt economic Impact on a
Ij) s.IIR ta1 number of small entitles.
Small entitles loclude small buslnq .
umali nat-for-profit enterprises. and
government entities with Jurisdiction
over populations of less than 50,000.
The SIP approvals under section 100
sad suI 1 4 p t . rL part D .of the Act do
eat aset. any new requIrements, but
simply a prove requirements that the
State is y Imposing. Therefore.
ressuss the Federal SIP-spproval does
at hupess any new requirements. I
certify that It dose not have a significant
Impact on small entitles affected.
Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-Slate relationship under the
Ad. preparation ota regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal Inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of Slate action. The Ad
forbids USEPA to base Its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union El.cthc Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S.
248.238-u (1976).
Under section 307(bXI) of the Ad.
petitions for IudicIaI review of this
action must be flied In the United States
Court of Appeals fur the appropriate.
cemilt by NayS, 1995. FIlings petltlo*
fur rr derat1on by the Ai InL.hater
aithis final rule does sat a ct the
finality of ibis rule for the puspsmm of
jutIkisl review nut dues M s ’uu 1 the
turns within which a pei’il s fur pMlII 4 4
review may be filed, arid shalinot
postpone the sifediveneas of inch rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See Sec’i ’
307(bK2 IL
- Air
J J1._L .4 aoacuJ
matter. Reporting and recordkeeplng
requirements. Volatile organic
compounds.
CFII Port 81
EnvIronmental protection. Air
pollution controL Carbon monoxide.
Hydrocarbons, National parks. Nitrogen
oxides, Osone, Volatile organic
compounds. Wilderness areas.
Desed Fdeusiy 8. ieee.
Norman I. Nisdogsng.
Acting RagIaneIAdmSn fre&or.
Orsp terL tItle 40 of theC odsof
Federal R guIaIL1M is . ,wdAd as
follows:
PART 52—(AMENDIDJ
1Ths authority citation for part 52
centinues to read es follows:
Aetbadlyr 42 U.&C 7401-7671q.
2. Sedion 52.1170 1 5 amended by
adding paragraphs (c) (101) and (102) to
reed as rollows:
• 2.1 170 I .nUIcsUo’i c i pten.
• S S S • •
(c ) ’
(101) On November15, 1993. the
Slate of Michigan submitted as a
revision to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan for ‘ . a State
Implementation Plan for a motor vehicle
insp 1Ion end ma ntuaiw . program for
the Detroit-Ann Arbor ares. Michigan
submitted House Bill No. 5016. sIgned
by Governor John Eaglet on November
13. 1993.
(I) incorporat Ion by refureecs.
(A) State of Michigan House BIll No.
5016 signed by the Govemgr and
effective on November13, 1993.
(102) On NovismIll 12,1993. the
State of Michigan su ”Itted as a
revision to the Mi’ 4 ’iga Stat.
hapIr” ’tatIon Plan o’ ’e a State
[ inplementation Plan Iota section 175A
maintenance plan for the Detroit-Ann
Arbor ann as part of Michigan’s request
to redesignat, the area from moderate
nona*s.Inment to attainment for ‘ ‘ -
Elements of the section 17$A
maintwui plan include a buss year
(1993 IsInmd year) emission
inventory forNO and VOC..
demonstration of maIn’”’i’ of the
ozone NAAQS with projected emission
Inventories (induding Interim years) to
the yeas 2005 for N0 and VOC, a plan
to verify continued attainment, a
contingency plan, and en obligation to
submit a subsequent maintenance plan
revision in 8 yearsas required by the
Clean Air Act. l I thearea records a
violation of the nsnn NAAQ (which
must be confirmed by the Slate),
Michigan will Impl . t on or mere
appropriate caating ’ y msasw.(s)
which are con M , d in the w4ig _ . y
plan. ApwopI 4 at of • a thug
meemire will be determined byes - - -
ahuhed modeling analysis. The
Governor or Us designee will select the
contingency meesure(s) to be
hnpleuiented based on the analysis and
the MDNR’s recommendation. The
menu of contingency measures Includes
basic motor vehicle Inspection and
maintenance program upgrades, Stage I
vapor recovery expansion. Stags U vapor
NCâby , Intensified RACT for
degreasbig oper-•_tIoira. NO* ‘ 4.
RVP redu ’a to 7.8 psi. Mith(g.,i
submitted legislation or ntis. for basic
1/hi in House Bill No 5016. sIgned by
Governor John Englur on November13,
1903; Stage land S ta gsliin Bill
728 sIgaedbyGovernorJohn nnJaron.
November 13,1993; and RVP reduction
to l.8 pal inHouse Bill 4895 s lgnedby
Governor John Engler on November 13,
1993.
(ii Incorporation by . J ,ranos .
(A) State of Michigan House Bill No.
5016 signed by theCoventorand
effective on November 13.1993.
(B) State of M’ 4i’g” Senate Bill 720
signed by the Governor and effective on
November 13,1003.
(C) Stats of Michigan Hersa Bill No.
4895 sIgned by the Covenror and
effective on November13, 1993.
2. Section 52.1174 is “n’ d by
adding paragraphs (h) and (13 to reed es
follows:
•99. 1 174 C i. *55599: 4 .
• S S S S
or) Approval—Os Jsnns’y 8.10 13th.
Michigan Department of Natural
Resources submitted a revision to the
Slate ImpI n %IStiawI Plan (or the
1990 bess year . “ inventory. The
inventory was submitted by the Stats of
Michigan to satisfy Federal
requirements under 1 Il1S2(aX1) of
the Clean Air Ad as amended Ia 1900,
isa revision to the ozone State
Implera.ntatlon Plan fur the Detroit.
Ann Arbor ssodmte e
nmott mIt ares. This arm t.&4u
Uvlng sloe, Mc b . Monies, Oakland .
SL Clair, Wa.hh sw. and Wayne
(I) Approval—On November 12. 1993.
the Michigan Department of Natural
Resourma submitted a lequed to
redesignate the Detroit-Ann Arbor
(consisting of Uvlngston. Msrn.uh ,
Monroe, Oekland, Si. Clair, Washtenaw,
and Wayne counties) ozone
nonattainment area to attainment for
ozone. As part of the redesigiratlon
request, the Stat. submitted.
,e)elluuor, Motor 5 ituA7r pollution.
Nitrogen o’i1’ ’ .. t a na , Particulate
S
-------
12478 Federal Register / Vol . 80, No. 44 / Tuesday. March 7 . 1995 / Rules and Regulations
maintesance plan as iequi- ‘y 173A
onAfrAct,assin .edin
1990. Elements ofthssscti 75*
maintenance plan include isse year
(1993 attainment year) emis.icn
inventory For NO and VOC. a
demonstration of maintenance of the
ozone NAAQS with protected emission
inventories (including interim years) to
the year 2005 for NOz and VOC,a plan
to verify continued attainments
contingency plan, ind ia obligation to
submit, subsequent maintenance plan
revision in 8 years en required by the
Clean All Ad. lithe area mui ds a
violation of the ozone NAAQS (which
must be confirmed by the State),
Michigan will implement one or more
appropriate contingency measure(s)
which en contained in the contingency
plan. Appropriateness of a contingency
measure will be determined by an urban
sir,hed modeling analysis. The
Governor or his designee will select the
contingency measure(s) to be
implemented besed on the analysis and
the MDNR’s recommendation. The
menu of contingency measure. includes
basic motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program upgrades . Stage I
vapor recovery expansion. Stage I I vapor
intensified RACT for
degisasing operations. NOx RACr. and
RVP reduction to 7.8 psI. The
radulgnatlon request and maintenance
plan meet.the redesignatlon
requirement. in sections 107(d)I3XE)
and 175* of the Act en amended In
1990, respectively. Tl e redesignetion.
meets the Federal requirements of
section 1821.1(1) of the Clean Air Act m
a revision to the Michigan Ozone Stat.
Implementation Plan for the above
mentioned counties.
PART 81—(AMENDEDJ
1. The authority citation for rent ni
continues to read en FollowL
Aatb.diy . 42 U.S.C 7401-TSTIq .
2. In 81.323 the ozone tablet.
amended by revising the entry for the
DetroltAnn Arbor area for ozone to read
as follow,:
•t Michigan.
• a a a
.
.
- em
o &
c1 n
0 ti,
Oats’
Type
Date’
Type
a
S
S
S
S
De m aber em
LMi,.& a Coiaity
Ma ,. . .nde ud
Memos Cosa*y
OJJ .J Cw y
sLc cw y
-
A vI 6, 1995 —
A9II8 1995 —
Apr96, 1996 —
ApiS I,1996_
Apr98, 1995_
AiIJh ..vld
AtIS IlIflIJI
MIüi . ,.i4
AU..L..at
AII.&....t*
.
Wa.tes,a. Cairn
Wayne COII1
• •
S
ApiS S,1996_
Apis 6,1996_
AtI.hunw*
AL uuu*
S
S
S
ic a*isr 15, 1890, trAse u8iari.4a. nat.d.
a a a • a
(FR Dec. 96—9441 flIed 3-1-43 ; 5:45 ne )
sees • r
- 4ocpRpsrt7o
; P 1IM-1)
- Clean Air Act Flnst hlllbe Approvi of
Opsisteig Pennito Program; Iflnols
*amic Env1II IIIR I,! Pveta JIan
A 8 incy (EPA).
AGDOIL Final 1UIeeI UVVIIL
WNM Y The Wk sdgaIIng
interim approval of the
Permits Program submitted by U
for the purpose of plyIng with
Fedevstrequlnmeuts formi az’omvthle
Stat. program to issue opezaun pur ifts
to all ma)or etatlowy sources. and to
ontein other
FI I DATI March 7, 1995.
*00a6335* Copies .1 the State’s
ath , ta1 and other supporting
information used in developing the final
I fh $ p. V%l iie available r
inspection during no in.l business
how, it the following location: United
States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5.77 West Jackson
Boulevard. AR—1eJ, Chicago, illinois
P06 PIMt 5 R PONMTION COISTACT1
Jennifer Buracky, 77 West Jeci’ ’n
Boulevard, Permit. and Grants Section
AR—18J. Chicago, illInois 60604,1312)
888—3104.
SUP flARY FC A
L Background and Purpose
A. Irtfrodudloa
ml. V of the 1990 Clean Air Ad
Amendments (sections 501-507 of the
Clean Air Ad (“the AdD. and
Implementing regulations at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (GB) Part 70
require that Stiles develop and submit
operating permits programs to EPA by
November 15. 1993. and that EPA act to
epproveor disapprove each program
within I year after receiving the
submittaL T .a EPA. 1 .u m review
cauis pursuant to section 502 of the
Ad and the part 70 reguLations, which
together outline atteria for approval or
disapproval. Where a
substantially, but not Eriiy. mesh the
requirement. of part 70. EPA may grant
the program interim approval fore
period of up to a years. If EPA has not
folly approved a p by 2 years
after the November15, 1993 date, si by
the eiid of an Interim IImsh
establish and implsinent a Federal
1 ” ptembsr 30.1904, EPA
proposed interim approve) of the
operating permits program for fitneSs.
See 39 FR 49882. The EPA received.
public comment on the p ,oml , and
compiled a Technical Support
Document (TSD) which descrIbes lb.
operating permitS program in WDU*V1
detail In this notice EPA ii taking final
action to promulgate Interim approval of
the operating purmits pIllwsm w
Illinois.
IL Fl .l Adlen and Impllcathuia
A. A ii’- ire of Slot. Sishmienkin
The r. A received comments from s
total of our organizations. The EPA ’.
response to these comments Is
summarized in this section. Comments
-------
ço
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
MAY 10 1995 AIR QUAUIY PLANNING
AND STANDARDS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment DemonstIation,
and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone Nationa ient A uality Standard
FROM: John S. Seitz 4 Directo
Office of Air Quality P i an an ds (MD—b)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and. Toxics
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division 1
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region V1
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
I. Policy
This memorandum set:; forth EPA’S interpretation of certain
requirements of subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean Mr
Act as they relate to ozone nonáttainment areas that are meeting
the ozone NAAQS. Specifically, it addresses whether such areas
must submit SIP revisions concerning reasonable further progress
and attainment demonstrat:ions. The requirements at issue include
the 15 percent plan and attainment demonstration requirements of
section 182 (b) (1) for moderate and above ozone nonattainment
areas and the attainment demonstration and post—1996 RIP
requirements of section 182(c) (2) for serious and above ozone
nonattairunent areas. Related requirements include the moderate
ozone nonattaininent requirements of section 172(c) (9) concerning
contingency measures, the serious ozone nonattainnient area
requirements of section 182(c) (9) concerning contingency
measures, section 182 (C) (5) concerning transportation control
measures and section 182(g) concerning milestones. They also
include the elements of the severe and extreme ozone
nonattaininent area requirements of section 182(d) (1) (A)
concerning vehicle miles traveled that are related to RFP
requirements.
-------
2’
For the reasons described below, EPA believes that it is
reasonable to interpret these provisions so as not to require
areas that are meeting the ozone standard to make the SIP
submissions to EPA described in the provisions as long as the
areas continue to meet the standard. ‘If such an area were to -
monitor a violation of the standard prior to being redesignated
to attainment, however, the area would have to address the
pertinent requirements and submit the SIP revisions described in
those provisions to EPA.
This inemorandum’also describes the process by which EPA will
determine that an area is attaining the ozone standard and need
not make these SIP submissions.
II. Interpretation and Legal Rationale
The EPA., believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions
regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with related
requirements, so as not to require SIP submissions if an ozone
nonattaininent area subject to those requirements is in fact
attaining the.ozone.standard (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS is
demonstrated with 3 consecutive years of complete, quality-
assured air quality mor)itoring data). The EPA has previously
interpreted the general provisions ‘of subpart 1 of part D of
title I (sections 171 and 172) so as’ not to require the
submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP, attainment
demonstrations, or contingency measures, and EPA believes it is
appropriate to interpret the ozone—specific provisions of subpart
2 in the same manner.
First, with respect to RFP, section 171(1) states thai, for
purposes of part D of title I, RFP “means such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are.
required by this part or may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.” Thus, whether dealing
with the general RFP requirement of section 172 (C) (2), or the
more specific RFP requirements of subpart 2 for classified ozone
nonattainment areas (the ].5 percent plan requirement of section
182(b) (1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section
182(c) (2)),’ the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by
the applicable attainment date. If an area has in fact attained
the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will ‘have
‘EPA notes that paragraph (1), of subsection 182(b) is
entitled “PLAN PROVISIONS FOR REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS” and
that subparagraph (B) of-paragraph 182(c) (2) is entitled
“REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION,” thereby making it
clear that both the 15 percent plan requiren ent of section
182(b) (1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section
182(c) (2) are specific varieties of RFP requirements.
-------
3
already been fulfilled and EPA does not believe that the area
need submit revisions providing for,the further emission
reductions described in the RFP provisions of section 182(b) (1)
and 182(c) (2) (B) and (C).
The EPA notes that it took this view with respect to the
general RFP requirement of section 172 (C) (2) in the General
Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air Act
inendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)), and it is now
extending that interpretation to the specific provisions of
subpart 2. In the General Preamble, EPA stated, in the context
of a discussion of the requirements applicab] .e to the evaluation
of requests to redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment,
that the “requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a
request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the
air quality data for the area must show that the area has already
attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards
attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point” (57 FR
13564).?
Second, with respect to the attainment demonstration
r quirements of section 182(b) (1) and l82 c)(2), an analogous
rationale leads to the, same restilt. Section 182 (b) (1) requires
that the plan provide for “such specific annual reductions in
emissions . . . as necessary to attain the primary NAAQS by the
attainment date applicable under this Act.” Section 182 (C) (2) (A)
simply requires a “demonstration that the plan, as revised, will
provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.” As with the RFP requirements, if an area has
in fact monitored attainment of the standard, EPA believes there
is no need for an area to make a further submission containing
additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also
consistent with the interpretation of the section 172(c)
requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble to title I,
as EPA stated there that no other measures to provide for
attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to
attainment since “attainment will have been reached” (57 FR
13564; see also September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum).
Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these
attainment demonstration .ind RFP requirements, and similar
reasoning applies, to them. The first of these additional
2 See also “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,” from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, to Regional Air Division Directors,
September 4, 1992, at page 6 (stating that the “requirements for
reasonable further progress . . . will not apply for
redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not
attaining, the standard”) (hereinafter referred to as “September
1992 Calcagni memorandum”).
-------
4
requirements are the contingency measure requirements of section.
172(c) (9) and section 182(c)(9). The EPA has previously
interpreted the contingency measure requirement of section
172(c) (9) as no longer being applicable once an area has attained
the standard since those “contingency measures are directed at
ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date” (57 FR 13564;
. September. 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum). Similarly, as
the section 182 (C) (9) contingency measures are linked with the
RFP requirements of section 182(b) (1) and 182(c) (2), the
requirement of section 182(c) (9) no longer applies once an area
has attained the standard.
Other requirements related to the attainment demonstration
and RFP provisions include: (1) the section 182 Cc) (5)
requirement regarding the submission of a demonstration as to
whether various parameters related to transportation “are
consistent with those used for the area’s demonstration of
attainment”; (2) the section 182(g) requirements concerning
milestones that are based on the section 182(b) (1) and
182(c) (2) (B) and (C) submissions; and (3) the elements of the
section 182 (d) (1) (A) requirement for SIP revisions identifying
and adopting transportation control strategies tO achieve
reductions in motor vehicle emissions that relate to the RFP
requirements of section 182(b) (1) (A) and ]82(c)(2)(B). Inasmuch
as each of these requirements is linked with the attainment
demonstration or RFP requirements of section .182 (b) (1) or
182(c) (2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit
the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not
‘ submit the related SIP revision either.
The EPA emphasizes that this interpretation does not xtend
to requirements of subpart 2 that are not linked by the language
of the Act with the attainment demonstration and RFP
requirements. For example, this interpretation does not apply to
requirements such as VOC RACT requirements, for which, in
contrast to NOx RACT requirements.under section 182(f), the Act
does not establish a mechanism to grant exemptions if an area has
attained the standard, or to the requirements to submit SIP
revisions providing for basic or enhanced I/M programs.
The EPA also emphasizes that the lack of a, requirement to
submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment
demonstration, and other related requirements exists only for as
long as a nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of
the standard. If such an area experiences a violation of the
NAAQS, the basis for the requirements not being applicable would
no longer exist. Therefore, the area would again be subject to a
requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and
would need to address those requirements. Thus, a determination
that an area need ’not submit one of the SIP submittals amounts to
no more than a suspension of the requirement for so long as the
area continues to attain the standard. If EPA ultimately
-------
5
redesignates the area to attainment, then the area will be
entirely relieved of the ;e requirements to the extent the
maintenance plan for the area does not rely on them.
Also, EPA notes that: in the case of a multistate
nonattairunent area, the entire multistate nonattaizunent area must
have monitoring data demonstrating attainment for the SIP - -.
submission requirements t:o be suspended. Thus, the requirements
applicable to one part of such an area may not be suspended on
the basis of a determination only that that part of the -
nonattaimnent area is monitoring attainment. The EPA’S Regional
Offices should coordinate these determinations for any multistate
nonattaininent areas that involve more than one Region.
III. Process -
The EPA-Regi nal Offices will conduct individual rulemakings
concerning areas that have 3 consecutive. years of clean air
quality monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the ozone
standard to make binding determinations that the areas have
attained the standard and need not make whichever of the SIP
revisions discussed above are pertinent . Since EPA has the
relevant air quality data in its possession, no submission from a
State would be required to initiate this process. However, a
State would be free to submit a petition to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office to notify the office that it believes that a
ertain nonattainment area is eligible for these determinations
n the basis of monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
As noted above 1 these determinations would be conting t on
the existence of monitoring data for the areas that continue to
demonstrate attainment. If EPA subsequently determines that an
area has violated the standard, the basis for the determination
that the area need not make the pertinent SIP revisions would no
longer exist. The EPA would notify the State of that
determination and would also provide notice to the public in the
Federal Register . Such a determination would mean that the area
i zould thereafter have to address the pertinent SIP requirements
within a reasonable amount of time, which EPA would establish
taking into account the individual circumstances surrounding the
particular SIP submissions at issue.
The State must continue to operate an appropriate air
quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to
verify the attainment status of the area. The air quality data
relied upon for the above determinations must be consistent with
40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and
recorded in EPA’S Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).
Determinations made b ’ EPA in accordance with this
interpretation .would not shield an area from EPA action to
require emission reductions from sources in the area where there
-------
6
is evidence, such as photochemical grid modeling, showing that
emissions from sources in the area contribute significantly to
nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, other
nonattainment are s. The EPA has authority under the Act
(section 110 (a) (2) (D) In the case of areas in other States and
section 110(a) (2) (A) in the case of intzastate areas) to require
emissions reductions if necessary and appropriate to deal with
transport situations.
IV. Consequences for Redesignations. Sanctions, and Conformity
Determinations made by EPA that an area has attained the
NAAQS and need not make one or more of the SIP submissions
discussed above is not equivalent to the redesignation of the
area to attainment. Attainment of the standard is only one of
the criteria set forth in section 107(d) (3) (E) that must be
satisfied for an area to be redesignated to attainment. To be
redesignated, the State must submit and receive full approval of
a redesignation request for the area that satisfies all of the
crite ria of that section, including the requirement of a
demonstration that the improvement in the area’s air quality is -
due to permanent and enforceable reductions, and the requirements
that the area have a fully-approved SIP which meets all of the
applicable requirements under section 110 and part D, and a
fully—approved maintenance plan.
If an area for which the determination pf attainment is made
has submitted or subsequently submits a redesignation- request,
the SIP submissions discussed in this memorandum would not be
required for the area’s redesignation request to be approved
since they would no longer be considered applicable requirements
under section 107(d)(3)(E). If the area violates the standard
prior to final action on the redesignation request, however, not
only would the requirements again become applicable, but the
redesignation request could not be approved because the area
would no longer meet the criterion of having attained the
standard.
As a consequence of a determination that an area has
monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard,
thereby removing, at least temporarily, the pertinent SIP
submittal requirements discussed above, any sanction clock that
had been started as a consequence of the failure to make such a
submission, the Incompleteness of such a submission, or the
disapproval of such a submission, would be stopped since the
deficiency that had led to the st rting of the clock would no
longer exist.
The issuance of a determination pursuant to this policy will
have no immediate impact on the way conformity is demonstrated.
Areas will continue to demonstrate conformity using the build/no—
build test and less-than-1990 test (section 51.436-51.446 of the
-------
7
conformity rule), and the 15 percent SIP if one has been
submitted (and attainment/RFP SIP, if one with a budget has been
submitted).
Since areas that are the subject of determinations pursuant
to this policy will not be required to submit RPP or attainment
demonstration SIP’S, those areas will not generally be in the
control strategy period for confçrmity purposes (i.e., have a
control strategy SIP ‘approved and build/no-build test no longer
required) for so long as the area does not violate the standard.
Those areas will not generally have approved budgets until a
maintenance plan is approved as part of the approval of a
redesignatjon request, so the build/no-build test and less—than—
1990 test—-in addition to any applicable submitted budgets—-will
be required until then. (A maintenance plan budget does not
apply for conformity purposes until the maintenance plan has been
approved, except as provided by section 51.448(i) of the
conformity rule (which applies to areas that are required to
submit a 15 percent SIP but submit amaintenance plan instead).)
If an area receiving a determination pursuant to this policy
had previously submitted a 15 percent or attainment SIP, it may
choose to withdraw the. submitted SIP through the submission of a
letter from the Governor or his or her designee in order to
eliminate the applicability of its motor vehicle emission budget
for conformity purposes. This is because that area would not be
subject to the 15 percent and attainment demonstration
requirements of section 182(b)(l) for so long as the area
continues to attain the standard. If the submitted SIP is not
withdrawn, the budget in that submission will continue to pply
for conformity purposes. If the submitted 15 percent or - ‘
attainment SIP is withdrawn, only the build/no—build and less-
than-1990 tests would apply until a maintenance plan is approved.
However, areas that are already demonstrating conformity to
a submitted maintenance plan pursuant to section 51.448(i) may
continue to do so, or may elect to withdraw the applicability of
the submitted maintenance plan budget for conformity purposes
until the maintenance plan is approved. The applicability may be
withdrawn through the subcnission of a letter from the Governor or
his or her designee. If the applicability of the submitted
maintenance plan budget is withdrawn for conformity purposes, the
build/no—build and less-than-1990 tests will apply until the
maintenance plan is approved.
For areas which receive a de,termination pursuant to this
policy and whose conformity status has lapsed due to a failure to
submit a 15 percent SIP or to the submission of an incomplete 15
percent SIP without a protective finding, the lapse imposed by
section 51.448(b) and (c) (1) (ii) will be removed. However, the
conformity status of the plan and TIP cannot be restored if
-------
8
conformity has lapsed for any other reason (e.g., failure to
redetermine conformity by a certain date).
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me o r
Sally Shaver. The. contact: persons for this policy are Carla
Oldham at (919) 541-3347 and Kathryn Sargeant at (313) 668—4441
for transportation conformity requirements.
cc: Rob Brenner
Alan Eckert
Tom Helms
Phil Lorang
Rich Ossias
Margo Oge
Joe Paisie
John Seitz
• Sally Shav r
Lydia Wegman
Dick Wilson
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 3 / Thursday, January 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations
1735
IFR Doc. 95—224 Filed 1—4—95; 8:45 am) SUMMARY: Today’s action revises the
siumo cora sooo-a-i-c motor vehicle Inspection/Maintenance
Program Recuirements final rule
promulgateJ on November 5, 1992. EPA
Department of the Army proposed these revisions on June 28.
1994, allowing stakeholders ample
32 CFR Parts 536 and 537 opportunity for review and comment,
and is taking final action on the
The Army Claims System revisions to include additions and
AGENCY: Department of the’Army. DOD. modifications, regarding State
ACTION: Final rule. Implementation Plan submissions for
States with nonattainment areas that are
SUMMARY: This document withdraws the in a position to redesignate to
amendments to32 CFR Parts 536 and attainment. The revisions specify SIP
537, The Army Claims System; requirements only for areas that are
published In the Federal Register subject to the basic Inspection!
Monday. December 12, 1994 (59 FR Maintenance program requirement and
64016) end reinstates Parts 536 and 537 that otherwise qualify for redesignatlon
as published in the Code of Federal from nonattainment to attainment for
Regulations revised as of July 1, 1994. the carbon monoxide or ozone national
Reasons for this rescission are ambient air quality standards. This rule
dianges to legal references and other allows such areas to defer adoption and
editorial changes. Publication of the implementation of some of the
December 12, 1994 document as a Final otherwise applicable requirements
Rule was premature. This document established in the original promulgation
will not be resubmitted as a Final Rule of the Inspection/Maintenance rule, his
until such time as all legal reviews have an appropriate time to take this action
been completed and has been since the rule applies only to areas that
authenticated at the Army Secretariat by virtue of their air quality
.• ,. -. . .. classification are required to implement
EFFECTIVEDAtE December 12 1994. , ,,.;: -a basic JIM program end that submit,
and otherwise qualify for, a
ADDRESSES: D I orM.S. ’Army Claims’,. redesignation request.
Service, Building 4411. Llewellyn Ave.,
ATI’N: LTC Michael Millard, Fort EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of
Meaae. Maryland 20755—5360, . -. this rule is Januaiy 5,1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CoNTACT’. - ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this
rulemaking ore contained In Public
Lit Michael Millard, (303) 677—7009, Dockt No. A—93—21, The docket Is
Ext. 202 or the undersigned at (703). located at the Air Docket, room M—1500
325-6277.
- (LE—131J, Waterside Mall SW.;
ICSIUISth LI Denton, . v ’- .. ’ • c’ - Washington, DC 20840. The Docket may
AimyF.derelfleglsferUaison Officer. be Inspected from 8am. to 4:30 p.m. on
Accordingly, the amendmonts to 32 weekdays. A reasonable fee may be
CFR parts 536 and 537 published charged for coping’docket material.
December 12, 1994, at 59 FR 64016, are FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
withdrawn and the text 0132 CFR parts Eugene J. Tierney, Office of Mobile
536 and 537 as published in the Code Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel
of Federal Regulations revised as of July Emissions Laboratory. 2565 Plymouth
1, 1994. is reinstated. Road. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105.
IFR Doc. 95—183 Filed 1—4—95: 8:45 am) (313) 665-4456.
LUNO COVE 3?I0-08-M SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
__________________________________ l07(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended In 1990 (the Act), states that an
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 11188 CLIfl be redesignated to attainment
AGENCY if the following conditions are met: EPA
has determined that the National
40 CFR Part 51 ambient air quality standards have been
attained; EPA has fully approved the
(F 6132 ’7j applicable implementation plan under
RIN 2060-AE2I section 110(k); EPA has d termined that
the improvement in air quality is due to
InspectienI bintenance Program permanent and enforceable reductions
Requh-einetts--Provlslons for in emissions due to the Implementation
Redes lgnalion plan and other permanent and
AGBIC1 Environmental Protection enforceable reductions; the State has
Agency. met all applicable requirements of
ACTION: Final rule. section 110 and part D; and. EPA has
fully approved a maintenance plan for
the area under section 175A of the Act.
Section 175A in turn requires stales that
submit a redesignatlon request to submit
a plan, and any additional measures if
necessary, for maintenance of the air
quality standard, for at least a 10 year
period following EPA’s final approval of
the redesignation. It also requires the
plan to include contingency provisions
to ensure prompt correction of any
violation of the standard which occurs
after redesignation. The contingeney.
measures must Include a provision
requiring the state to implement
measures which were contained in the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) piior to
redesignation as an attainment area.
Today’s action revises subpart S of
part 51 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (subpart S) to address
Inspection/Maintenance (T/M) program
requirements for areas subject to the
Act’s basic JIM requirements and iliiii
otherwise would qualify for and
ultimately obtain approval by EPA of
redesignation requests to attainment.
This final rule adds a new paragraph to
the regulation pertaining to State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions
for areas required to implement a basic
tIM program that are submitting and
otherwise qualify for approval of a
redesignation request. Areas subject to
basic J/M fall into several categories.
There are basic areas that will be
submitting redesignation requests that
do not currently have J/M programs, or
have either a basic program
implemented pursuant to the 1977
amendments to the Act or a basic
program required lobe upgraded to
meet the requirements of EPA’s T/M
regulations. For purposes of !oday’s
final rulemaking, EPA is using the word
“upgraded” to refer to a basic tIM
program that meets all the basic. JIM
program requirements of the J/M rule.
subpartS, part 51. title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations In ndditio,i t’
pre-1990 Clean Air Art IIM prograuul
policy. ‘l’his rule applies 01113’ tO ar ”ns
that by virtue of their air qualiiv
classification are required to im ilu uiuu.iiI
a basic J/M program, and tl at sul,mil.
and otherwise qualify for a
redesignation request.Pursuani to
sections 182(a)(2)(B)(i) and 182(b)(4) of
the Act, basic l/M areas must submit a
SIP revision that includes any
“provisions necessary to priwicli : br .u
vehicle inspection and maintenanre
program” of no less stringency than
either the program that was In the Sit’
at the time of passage of the Act or the
minimum basic program requireninnis.
whichever is more stringent. For
purposes of this final rule EPA
interprets the statutory language of
I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 3 / Thursday, January 5. 19fl5 I Rules and Regulations
section 182(a)(2)(B)(i) and section
182(h)(4)as provi(hng a degree of
flexibility compared with the statutory
language In section l02(c)(3J, which
requires enhanced JIM areas to submit
eSIP revision “to provide for an
enhanced program”. For areas that
otherwise qualify for redesignation to
attainment end ultimately obtain EPA
approval to be redesignated. EPA is
today amending Subpart S to allow such
areas to be redesignated if they submit
a SIP that contains.the following four
elements: (i)’togal authority for a basic
l/Mprcgiam (or an enhanced program,
as defined in this final rule, if the state
chooses to opt up), meeting all of the
requirements of Subpart S such that
Implementing regulations can be
adopted without further legislation; (2)
a request to place the l/M plan or
upgrades, as defined in this rule, (as
applicable) In the contingency measures
portion of the maintenance plan upon
redcsignation as described in the fourth
element below; (3) a contingency
measure to go into effect as soon as a
- triggering event occurs, consisting of a
commitment by the Governor or the
Governor’s designee to adopt
regulations to implement the llM
program in response to the specified
triggering event; and (4) a commitment
that Includes an enforceable schedule
for adopting end Implementing the J/M
program, including appropriate
milestones, In the event the contingency
measure Is triggered (milestones shall be
tinfined by states In terms of months
since the triggering event). EPA believes
hint for areas that otherwise qualify for
rcdcsignatlon a SIP meeting these four
rrquizements would satisfy the
obligation to submit “provisions to
provide” for a satisfactory JIM progrtun,
os required by the statute.
With these amend’ments the
determination of whether a state fulfills
the basic IIM SIP requirenients will
depend, for the purposes of
redesignation approval only, on whether
the state meets the four requirements
listed above. EPA believes that it is.
permissible to Interpret the basic JIM
requirement to provide this flexibility
and that it should apply only for the
limited purposo of considering a
rettesignation request to attainment.
Summary of Comments
EPA iv ,xhi4 cusranents from the
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) opposing the proposal to
mdrsigrsale an area as in attainment
when suds an man has not yet
submitted regrr?atiens for a basic TIM
prowam. NRDC argues that the phrase
“any provisions necessary” phi inly
encompasses any anopted regulations
needed to implement the program.
NRDC argues that EPA ignores the
impact of the word “ally” and ch iu,s
that ongres .s used this terut to require
that the State submit “all” that is
necessary to put a basic l/M prograni in
place. NRDC further argues that without
adopted regulations a is incomplete
an(l cannot be approved.
EPA disagrees with NRDC’s
comments. The plain language of the
statute requires that each SIP Includo
“any provisions necessary to provide
for” the required JIM program. his
EI’A’s view that what Is “necessory’ to
provide for the required J/M program
depends on the area in question. For
areas which have attained the ambient
standard with the benefit of only the
current program, or no program at all.
EPA does not believe it is “necessary”
to revise or adopt new regulations and
undertake other significant planning
efforts which are not essentlpl fur clean
cir, and which would not be
Implemented after redesignation
occuiied because they are not
“necessary” for maintenance. For such
areas that would otherwise be eligible
for rottesignation to attnlnmrnit. EPA
believes that a contingency plan that
includes already enacted legislative,
authorIty and provides for adoption of
an J/M program on an expeditious
schedule if the area develops a problem
Is the only set of provisions necessary
to provide for an 1/M program.
Although for most purposes EPA will
continue to Interpret “provisions
necessary to provide for” a basic TIM
program to require full adoption and
expeditious fmplementatiQn of such a
program it is appropriate, based on the
flexible language provided in section
182(a)(2)(flui) and 182(b)(4) as
compared with section 1U2(c)(3), to
revise the SIP revision requirements
applicable to basic TIM areas that
otherwise qualify For, and ultimately
receive, rodesignation.
Contrary to NRDC’s assertions, a SIP
resiim applicable to basic TIM areas
that otherwise que lily for, and
ultimately receive, redesigntition woul(l
meet the minimum completeness
criteria without adopted regulations.
EPA promulgated criteria setting loilli
the inliiiinum criteria itorescary for niiv
subniittal to be consklered cornpleto. 40
CFR part 51, appendix V. I lowever, Ul’A
recognizes that not all of the listed
criteria are necessarily applirable to all
of the various types of submissions
which require a r.ornpktrnnss
ikternsiiiation. Accordingly, 1 1’A
interprets the completeness criteria to
ripply only those criteria that are
relevant to the particular types of
.suhiiiissinns. i
‘r un (tmii )lcIe, 0 plnii 5%ll)lliiS iiuIl
typically lutist supply the elmnr’nts
necessary to comply with the pr.wsion
of the CAA, including, among other
things, specific enforceable measures.
40 CFR pert 51, appendix V. section
2.1(d). As discussed earlier, however.
EPA believes that it may provide that
adopted regulations are not necessary to
meet (ho statutory requirements of
sections 182(a)(2)(B)(i) and 182(b)(4) of
the C/tA. EPA interprets these sections
to provide that In some circumstances
areas should be allowed to submit plans
which lack specific enforceable
measures, as long as the SIP includes
provisions necessary (ci provide For the
re4uired program. It makes little sense
for Congress to provide such flex ihility
under these sections, only to require
that such submissIons be summarily
rejected on the grounds of
incompleteness. A reasonable reading of
the statute would give effect to both
provisions by permitting areas that
otimrwisn qualiFy for, and iiltitiiale.lv
receive, rodnsigiiuitkni to havo their
rinlu’siguuut inn tequiests deterituii,i’d
“cottipirte” If tIn, siiiniiissiuii cuntuti its
“lo%’kimls imcossnr ’ to provide for”
the TIM rogrnhII. ‘Thus, as long as cuiclu
an area submits a SIP hint contnitis the
four elements discussed in this title.
EPA will (leem that submission
“complete” only for the purposes ci
determining whether on area seeking
retlnsignnt icm has met the basic T/M
requiri ’mcnts.
NRDC also coitsinnuted that Cuugres:
did trot intend the phrase ‘any
provisions necessary’ to lustily lI inn”
comuiitinnnt to adopt T/M regulations :il
sonic later date. NRDC cites Nat ,,,uI
Resources Defense Con ricil v.
Enti: onnivu,:rd Prote’clion Agency, 22
F.3d 1125 (JJ.C. Cir. 1994) (“NIlIR ,v.
EPA”) for Eu thier su1)pcurt of their
argument.
As discus cd in the proposal, in
NPDCv. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (11. C. (ir
1994) the D. C. Court of Appea’s unTil
that EPA did not have authority to
construe section llo(k)(i) to authnri e
con(iltiiinnl approval of an I/M
coimniltal ,SIP that contains no sp’s lilt.
aol istru u it lye tiirn’n ires. A pi u’tni ce of tIn’
ui’.e is I lint 1IM Ii ’ at ihiuu i,,sii ii is a it:
rt’quuired to hia e fully ado 1 ,tu’d mli’s. I ii
r ,iii i’m in enk,rjo ,I I’,; Ir.:lI t’ .1
I I SC 51 ia(su)tu) 1r’ro7ona flflflfl ltfljlm)Nlt
,rr ale, an .vcnni ,le of a riqiulied ‘tibiutitiot ( I , ,, ti,
d l,iiii liii , ‘‘.1(1,1 n”tu’r ,iIitI 5 nil c i tI ,.
•iiuijit.i. iu ’ rrjl ,ijn A , jut, , ii cii’
cu,,,s Iun un ml i ii liii are not in i i , ,, fq,i u’i u,i
u sum’ e,uu inn! do net jnc liudp nthr’ ir, ti,uir.’I
llu’i,i ldu’ I jflru! in II,s rnmj’lctcuii ”. ‘ rut.u iii
cc Nuiiccinui Ijmj c ci Spat u,i”Itr ,,iIc. 40(111 ‘ u I
• CI’di ,n’i 2 P (.1). I J
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 60, No. 3 I Thursday, January 5, 1995 I Rules and Regulations 1737
today’s rule, EPA continues to Interpret section 172(c)(9) requires that Paperwork Reduction Act
section 162 as generally requiring IIM contingency measures for Today’s rule places no Information
programs to have fully adopted rules. nonatleinment plans “take effect in any i:ollcrtion or record-keeping b urihii nn
However. EPA here is reinterpreting (he such case without further action by the respondents. Therefore, an information
relevant statutory sections to permit an State or the Administrator.” Since 175A ,collection request has not been prepared
exception to this general requirement contains no such requirement that the bnd submitted to the Office of
for areas otherwise qualifying for contingency measures take effect Klanagciticnt m md Budget COMB) iumlrr
redesignation to attainment. Based on without further action, it is clear that the Paperwork Reduction Art I P.S C
this interpretation, the SIPs for states Congress did not intend to require 3 )1 rt srq.
that otherwise qualify for redosignation contingency measures under section
may receive full approval, not 175A to contain fully adopted programs. Judicial Review
conditional approval under section If an area did not require adoption or Under section 307(l,)(i) ci the A I.
ll0(K)(4).Il they contain legislative implementation elan tIM program in I PA finds Punt these reguintinuc an’
authority for, end a commitment to order to otherwise qualify to be national applicability. Acv:nrilingk.
adopt, an t/M ro ram In their redesignated to attainment, EPA judicial review of this action Is available
contingency p an. Thus, the court’s believes it would be a wasteful exercise only by the filing of a petition for relew
holding in NRDC v. EPA is not a id Impbse needless costs to force states in the t)nite.d States Court of A ppenlc
1m pcated here. logo through full adoption of for the District olCohuinhia within ckt
ithout these amendments, states regulations only to have.these ilays of puuh lii:ation of this ndkm in ilu’
that ale being redesignated to
attainment would have to adopt a lull I! regulatIons used as a contingency Federal Regkter.
M program for the purpose of obtaining measure once the redosignation is Administrative Designation and
ful approval of their SIPs as meeting all approved. Regulatory Analysis
In today’s action, it should be Under Executive Order 12866. (iM li
applicable SIP requirements, which is a understood that, pursuant to ection 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agr ’nrv
prerequisite for approval of a
redesignation request. Once 175A(c). while EPA considers the must determine whether the regulau’rv
redesignated, these areas could redesignatlon request, the state shall be acticrn Is “significant” and therpiore
discontinue Implementation of this required to continue to meet all the subject to 0MB review end the
program (assuming It was not needed Iquirements of this subpart. This requirements of the Executive Order.
for maintenance of the ozone or CO includes the submission of another SIP The Order defines “significant
standard) as long as it was converted to revision meeting the existing regulatory action” as one that Is hikel
a contingency measure meeting all the requirements for fully adopted rules and to result in a rule that may:
requirements of EPA redesignation the specific Implementation deadline
po.icy. Section 175A(d) provides that applicable lathe area as required under (1) Have an annual effect on the
each plan revision contain contingency 40 CFR 51.372 of the JIM rule. If the economy of $100 million or more or
provisions necessary to assure that the state does not comply with these adversely affect in a material way tlu
economy, a sector of the economy. -
State will promptly correct any - requirements It shall be subject to productivity, competition, jobs. ii.
violation of the standard which occurs sanctions pursuant to section 179. envIronment, public health or safeti. or
after the redesignation of the area to Beduse the possibility for sanctions State, local, or tribal governments ui
attainment. These provisions must exists, states which do not have a solid communities
include a rem uirexnent that the state will basis for approval of the redesignation (2) Create a serious inconsistency nr
implement a 1 measures which were request and maintenance plan shall otlmrwlse interfere with an action i:mken
contained in the SIP for the area before proceed to fully prepare and plan to or planned by another agency:
redesignatlon. There are four possible implement a basic tIM program that (3) Materially alter the budgetary
scenarios under which an area can meets all the requirements of subpart S impact of entitlement, grants, user fees.
submit a redesignadori request: (1) The SIP revision must demonstrate or loan programs or the rights and
Areas without operating IIM programs; that the performance standard in either obligations of recipients thereof; or
(2) areas with operating I/Mprograms 40 CFR 53.351 or 40 CFR 51.352 will be - (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
that continue operation without
upgrades; (3) areas with operating l/M met using an evaluation date (rounded arising out of legal mandates, the
to the nearest January for carbon President’s priorities, or the principles
programs; and (4) areas with operating nionoxide and July for hydrocarbons) set forth in the Executive Order.
[ FM programs that are discontinued. A
letailed explanation of each scenario is seven yew-s after the trigger date. It has been determined that this rule
Ln the proposal. Emission standards for vehicles subject is not a significant regulatory action
NRDC commented that the CAA does to an 1M240 test may be phased in under the terms of Executive Order
sot authorize conversion of I/M during the program but full standards 12866 and is, therefore exempt from
programs to contingency measures and must be In effect for at least one 0MB review. This rule would only
[ hat section 175A Imposes a mandatory.., complete test cycle before the end of the relieve states of some regulatory
luty on an area that Is redesignated to five year perIod. All other requirements requirements, not add costs or otherwise
rxntlnue the emission control programs - shall take effect withIn 24 months of the adversely affect the economy.
the area adopted prior to redesignatlon. trigger date. Furthermore, a state may Pursuant to section 605(bf of the
NRDC further argued that failure to not discontinue Implementation of an 1/ Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
adopt slaUa s will result In more sb ,’ M program until the redeslgnatlon 605(b), the Administrator certifies that
pollution. ..S .:;,. . ... - . request and malntenaqce plan (that does this rule will not have a significant
EPA dlsagre&Sectlon 175Arequires not rely on reductions from tIM) are - economic impact one substantial
that the state “puaupdy” Cwi t any finally approved. if the iedesignatlon number of small entities and, therolcue
violation of the standard, but does not request Is approved, any sanctions not subject lathe requirement of a
mandate that the contingency measures already Imposed, or any sanctions clock . Regulatory Impact Analysis. A smal!
)e fully adopted programs. In contrast, already triggered, would be terminated, entity may include a small governmt...u
-------
I.
1730 1 ederal Register / Vol. 60, No. 3 1 Thursday. January 5, 1995 I Rules and Regulations
entity or jurisdiction. A small
government jurisdiction is defined as
“governments of cities, counties, towns.
,ownships,’vIllages. school districts, or
spccinl districts, with a population of
less than 50,000.” This certification is
based on the fact that the IIM areas
impacted by the rule do not meet the
definition of a small government
jurisdiction, that is. “governments of
citics, counties, towns, townships.
villages, school districts, or special
iliatricts, with a population of loss than
50.000.” -
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Air pollution control. Carbon monoxide,
intergovernmental relations. Lead,
Motor vehide pollution. Nitrogen oxide.
Ozone.i’articulate matter. Reporting
and recordkeoping requirements. Sulfur
Oxides. Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 23, 1991.
Carol M. Browner.
Adn,inislrtrtor.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble part 51 of title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended to
read as follows:
PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR
PREPARATIOIi, ADOPTION, AND
SUBMI1TAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS
L The authority citation for part 51 is
revised as follows:
Autborfty 42 U.s. C. 7401(5)12). 7475(e).
7 502(e) and (b). 7503. 9601(8)11) and 7602.
2. Section 51.372 is amended by
adding new paragraphs (c), (d) and (e)
to read as follows:
51.372 State ImplementatIon plan
submIssions.
• • * *
(c) Redesignalion requests. Any
nonattainment area that EPA determines
would otherwise qualify for
- n’dosignation from nonattainment to
— attainment shall receive full approval of
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal under sections 182(a)(2)(B) or
l02(b)(4) if the submittal contains the
fOllowIng elements:
(1) Legal authority to implement a
basic l/M program (or enhanced if the
state chooses to opt up) as required by
this subpart. The legislative authority
far an UM program shall allow the
adoption of implementing regulations
without requiring further legislation.
(21 A request to pLace the JIM plan (if
no UM program is currently in place or
if an (FM program has been terminated,)
or the l/M upgrade (if the existing l/M
program Is to continue without being
upgraded) into the contingency
measures portion of the maintenance
plan upon redesignation.
(3) A contingency measure consisting
of a commitment by the Governor or the
* Governor’s designee to adopt
regulations to implement the required I!
M program in response to a specified
triggering event. Such contingency
measures must be Implemented on the
trigger date, which Is a date determined
by the Stato to be no later than the date
EPA notifies the state that it is in
violation of tho ozone or carbon
monoxide standard.
(4) A commitment that induclns an
enforceable schedule for adoption and
Implementation of the i/M program. and
appropriate milestones, including the
items in paragraphs (a)(l)(ii) through
(a)(l)(vii) of this section. In addition, the
schedule shall Include the date for
submission of a SiP meeting all of the
requirements of this subpart. bxcluding
schedule requirements. Schedule
milestones shall be listed in months
from the trigger date, and shall comply
with the requirements of paragraph (e)
of this section. SiP submission shall
occur no more than 12 months alter the
trigger date as specified by the State.
(d) Basic areas continuing operation
of IFM programs as part of their
maintenance plan without implemented
upgrades shall be assumed to be 80% as
effective as an Implemented. upgraded
version of the same IIM program design.
unless a state can demonstrate using
operating information that the t/M
program Is more effective than the 80%
level.
(e) SIP submittals to correct
violations. SIP submissions required.
pursuant to a violation of the ambient
ozone or CO standard (as discussed in
§ 5 1.372(c)) shall address all of the
requirements of this subpart. The SIP
shall demonstrate that performance
standards in either § 51.351 or § 51.352
shall be met using an evaluation date
(rounded to the nearest January [ or
carbon monoxide and July for
hydrocarbons) seven years after the
trigger dale. Emission standards for
vehicles subject to au 1M240 test may be
phased in during the program but full
standards must be in effect for at least
one complete test cycle before the end
of the 5-year period. All other
requirements shall take effect within 24
months of the trigger date. 1’lio phase-
in ellowaguc.es of § 51.373(L) of this
subpart shall riot apply.
(FR D cc. 95—254 Filed 1—4—95:8.45 aml
m ILLInG coor 55 50-40-F
40 CFR Part 52
(PA32—1 -6966; FRL—5126- -1)
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth ci Pennsylvania Small
Business Assistance Program
AGENCY: Envitonuuiental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTiON: rinal rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a Stale
lmpleiuieiitntion Plan (SIP) revision
stubnnlted by the Commonwealth ol
Pennsylvania. This revision establishes
a Small Ihucinc’ss Stationary ouine
Terhniuil and vimm,ai’idsui
Cnmpliazu.e Assistance I’iograuuu
(PR(X ’RAM). This SIP revision was
sttl4nittcd by the State to satisfy the
Fcdcrol mandate of the Clean Air Act
(“the CM” or “the Act”) which lists
specific pregratui (:rfteria to etusure thiul
small businesses have access to the
technical assistance and regulatory
inlormplion necessary to comply with
the CAA. The Intended effect or this
action is to approve this SIP revision.
This action is being taken under srctinn
110 of the CAA.
DATES: This action will become eIlu’clhr
March 6. 1995. unless edverse
comments received on or in fore
February 6, 1995, that adverse or cuilfrn
comments vilI be submitted. If the
effective dateis delayed. timely notire
will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADCRESSES comments may be mnnilcd to
Thomas j. Mastany. Director. Air.
Radiation, and Toxics Division (3A’lOl)).
IJ.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building.
PhiI delphia. Pennsylvania 191(11.
Copies of the documents relevant to this
action a i’e bvailable for public
inspection during normal business
hours at the Air. Radiation, and Toxirs
Division. U.S. En ,ironmentah Prntcctioii
Agency. Region HI. 841 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
19107; Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources Bureau of Air
Quality Control. P.O. Box 6468. 409
Market Street. harrisburg. i’ennsylvauin
17105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Makeba Morris. (215) 597—2923.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
I em pleiuucuut ut ion of time rov nuic of
ilic CAA. will require regulation of
ninny small imuuciui ssc’s SI) that dens I 1UIV
utlain and nimntuuin the nationnl
nmnimient air quality Stafl(lRTdS (NAAQ
and reduce the eunission of air toxirs.
-------
Q. RVP, Oxy & Misc. Fuels
-------
Q. Reid VaDor Pressure (RVP). OxycTenated Fuels, and
Miscellaneous Fuels
Q.l. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts Ozone Attainment Plan; Control of Gasoline
Volatility (Proposed Rule) 54 FR 7794 (Feb. 23, 1989)
Q.2. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision
to the State of New Jersey Implementation Plan for Ozone
(Proposed Rule) 54 FR 12654 (Mar. 28, 1989)
Q.3. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision
to the State of New York Implementation Plan for Ozone (Proposed
Rule) 54 FR 12656 (Mar. 28, 1989)
Q.4. Connecticut and Rhode Island Ozone Attainment Plans; Control
of Gasoline Volatility (Final Rule) 54 FR 23650 (June 2, 1989)
Q.5. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision
to the State of New Jersey Implementation Plan for Ozone (Final
Rule) 54 FR 25572 (June 16, 1989)
Q.6. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revision
to the State of New York Implementation Plan for Ozone (Final
Rule) 54 FR 26030 (June 21, 1989)
Q.7. Advisory Committee on reformulated Gasoline, Antiduniping and
Oxygenated Gasoline - - Agreement in Principle
Q.8. Section 211(m) SIP Revisions’ Potential Requirement that
Gasoline Sold or Dispensed Outside the State’s Borders be
Oxygenated - - Dec. 16, 1991 memo from Jonathan Martel
Q.9. Oxygenated Gasoline Implementation Guidelines -- July 27,
1992
Q.10. Notice of Final Oxygenated Fuels Labelling Regulations
Under Section 211(m) of the Clean Air Act as Amended, 57 FR 47769
(Oct. 20, 1992)
Q.11. Memorandum from Region IV on Lowering Gasoline RVP
Standards below 7.8 psi -- July 30, 1993 memo from Michael
Horowitz
Q.12. Requirements for Reduced RVP in State Maintenance Plans
- - Nov. 8, 1993 memo from Michael Horowitz
Q.13. Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Substitution of the
California Low Emission Vehicle Program for the Clean Fuel Fleet
Program (Opt Out), 60 FR 6027 (Feb. 1, 1995)
-------
Q.14. Potential Request from Colorado for Permanent Change in
Denver’s Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Standard - - Apr. 4, 1995 memo
from David Cole
Q.15. Establishment of Control Periods under Section 211(m)
of the Clean Air Act as Amended (undated)
Q.16. Guidelines for Oxygenated Gasoline Credit under Section
211(m) of the Clean Air Act as Amended (undated)
-------
Fédè e1 RegIster 7 Var 54. Nd 35 Tb Wa . , F b y 23, ‘t9 9 / Wó poie.,j Rulea
ZO. In I Z1.4271 parapphs (a) and (b) somewhat shorter than that stated In
revued to reed as zelIows I Z1.4200(g) of this pen while req Wring medical sr d dental reetdencje fld
f 214273 Trade tec:ugcil—ldgtt an ovcrall love! a! educe Uoeal pursuit osteopathic internships and reeider je,
that approz.znatcs the level required by as provided i.e I Z1.4270 (c) of this pen z
(a) Siiopixroctfcepredomjnatg& - cowsee offered one standard quarter- they are ac eclited and approved in
Except as provided In 21.4270(a), cr semstar buIe.: ° ‘ °! wth I 2L4 S(a) of this
foo otes i.e and 7 of this part. ode hodty 38 U.S.C. 1788(b); Pob. L. 9947$)
teicaicourses which Include iltop (3) ‘• . , (Mthort $8 U.S .C. i7! (b) Pub. L oa-aie )
practice as an Inte al part of the ... . .(UI):Consldertng the ndard class : . .‘. .
course, will be nieaz xred ans bails 01: . sessions to be the sates as credit hoors (PR $7$Z PlJ.d - -ev 45 an).
clock hem’s of attendance per .week. ,:.-‘. for the pm’pou of u..(ng the table In r . :
This Includes such courses. mder the. ddtefiij . -
ztzperv l s lonof&couegeort e.. *
Where credit Ii a - j ENVIRONMENTAl. P#tOTECTION
(Aotho3U.SC.37ua(a)i7 iu(. Pgb. . ... . ,.,,. . .
- (b) Thez ’ sbcgtozclasv$,om -‘
. hom’s .TheVAtreat, - - .. .
and7afthspanstecbnlcilco rseIn ‘ Pt PdeetlftheTe1Iát: ;Mhuset ;•
!egulerly,clwduledste P Iai CoflWoI.(
fnsfructlonconsfltgtqi more thai 50 . -s ‘ iesalonper eqatealent
P ent uf the required hours per week, week, the VA wlfl’ese .
wifl be eüured on the basis of clock. valent thdlt I r V uOfl:.
hams of neF onalaaets1 L : ..
includes sic theciterta of I 214270(c) of - . Le .
o university , the criterIa of footnote S of that .‘ ‘to . .
* - F. es
NI .. . .• ..
-thu .
‘thIVA
‘accordix
,: . . . •(fl(21 0 s.evuoL .
- 4 - reasonawe furmer progress tOwa .
- , -.- —. . - ... .. I • ? • • . lM 1S L .1._J .
I ’ . . J . ..:. . ii iia i ji weceOng. au w’ss: ‘.
U.. -. qxpeA4tlou4yu practIcable.. rhd-
.‘ .. • .......... . ia.. under the Clean Air Act- . • .. .
td) ( ‘ s Or mare. ‘bai’sa Comments must be recifved en
1n1214270(C)Of .. Ma r 1999 .
5 h a lrtT Comments may be mailed
t of aiQWI 0Ofl*lieuav i • , • __
contaIned . , wuii r. 1llW, MIrVvLOr . ‘SI . . ..
I 5WU38 5 fr ” 1 ’ 5 U 109 •. )4 goment Division. Room 2311., J .’
Iinotmeasuredana’ FBBoston.MA(rzso ’.
wifl 15 51 5fl S Copies of the ttd A s r
- ‘ ivalustico are abeilable far public....’.
I . .. inspection during normal busthàshour..
of ac I. . ;• , . . .... . - • at. the ivt,onmentaI Protection iency.
wtthou i ore’ , ‘‘ ‘ “ ! b I j, . ‘ - i Roo j, pj(y4 .J iIds ’.s. o’ •
üalgned bya school when the cause. (AnthcØ $8 U .&Ci7U8(b )i Peh L a9475) Baeton , .MA and the DIvision
acofth.foflowtng .“. : AfrQuali Con olMaauachuestts.. j’
:. (lli)TheVAwfllusethelutelhaizru .:r DepartmentofEnvlrunin .ntalQaality
m C cacen ksufflc1wt r.. camputed tn paragraph (1)(IXI) of ihls” . . ig1needng. On! Winter St et.! 8tl1 .
: , secttoutodate nsthtrak ngtime .‘. Floor,Bston ,MAO21OI.
• .. •. . ., .. •.... .:. , . .. . , . based upon th. measurement criteria pca cuamen uáoJlraAltofs CONTACr.
• ... . . . . .. found hi * AVO(c) of thfsp .. . . Peter Rqerty (617) 565-3224 . F1 835-
(I) The VA will determine frl . lng CMthorl n 38 U.S.C 17e8M Pub. L. w arS). . .. .
. for those week..by using the table. • in I 2L4V5 f 8 1 k W’L mITARY PiPU AY,Qor On Jui3’
I I21.4c}ofthIs$riwithout : . I. .
adjustment when the published 1 j. . (‘ j -..... .. . . from the Commissioner of •
scm’edltlng standards of the ‘ameditig f*UflI pV 5C9 1 ,.b’. , 5, . . Massachusetts Department of.
ency that acciedlt the obaree or the - m.siutit “ Environmental Quality Engineering
aUonal Institution off ering the’ (a) Me or! and o!enWJ rosidenolqs (DEQE) that would add anew section to
us permit a class seu1c which I. and ockopathlchiinniahtpe . . egulation sio QIR 7 2(12). lit, new
-------
g.,c€ raqw , that no p.r,or shall saIl (1) if EPA h. t j . Sec on fl1(c)(4 )( c the A
or supply z so I e frmn a bu.fc pkntor on Ita propoe RVP reg’Jlac1 so that aett .L ’ g forth the C tan 3
term mel havtit,ga Reid Vapor Ptessu there sr fed p gmp of state which an cc uo to federal
Weate Than 9.0 pounds pe’ aq ore Inch . preem tfo of state regJ j
(psi) frorn May I through Septe be, IS (2) If EPA has takes and occur, ltajes
bginntrjg i and on th8 each there La federal ec Eãther A Stale mi —
Year thartaft . Th rev 1on also UZ a cøuid occt w•lthIn the a o( no(oe t cl,
reiises reg Jatj 320 CMR 7LXI to add frame a tic , for a1 EPA appr v’aI CCD CIor probjbiu rnp,c
defi ifie for “bo& planta and of thi, SiP f add v La a ot vth ,
g’so1fáe , . 8ect1 2 12 cK4)fA) of the Act b awtor vehlcta . if an appLica 0
ke y - “Rofd Vapor . ...: dnsai btr,g fe,k j etzthorfty, mPIR 1 Q@ PZ n h State da t.
• ‘ ‘.• • statfl . . .•, - . . ,. . . .4 .c . sectio n hOse pteWdt.. The ____
4 t
.8SCk ____
Co ., , —. • __• —.y — a.
...• ___ ‘WseC .
n — • . .____ — . —
the eatiansi owi . s ad v____
I; 1 ra
a4th ::
• a
f actct
-
aCe the c e1
- It doeinot t tnf .
_________ • •
3 am•I qu. &sg.
-------
FEB 28 ‘89 13:e4 FF RTP-RQMD
—
6 .•. Federal / ü N i5T/ Thursday. Fébkuar 23 1989 1 Proposed ziles .
•rss mdca
line. Rm nin louei era emlssloiii sh tjaU will ill cxist ncceuiLa lnj thee
the 8 solLne tank and fuel Byste of other easure. .
that occur while a ca Is beuxg dnven achieve attainment. Even If EPA does. A Is proposing to appro, this.
end which result from en overload of the promulgate an RVP re iilaUoa.rsqu1rthg revision to the MSSSachusetts Ozone
Po!avscon ’o 1 system or escape . oont ’oI to 10.5 psi In 1989, the State .. Stats Implementation Plan to contiul
‘ “i ., . . . :‘ regulation will s t ill provide add tIonaI S ’!° ‘ “ the .
i av e u&S LI -. 1 eductjon , No otiicr easurca a ai understandIng that the state will rivise
. r easona e - - for Implementation j I the test method sect o of tb regulation
I r could provide su cIent I pilor to flnal Agency ctlau. EPAT also
nt pivpeslngto make a finding that thLe s
: . I revision meets th qutrementi of
at
snd
Invc
edIn
findings. fle-i RIP
£MUUthllIlttI hasi
-. redsctiai lofVOCaL
basis ñãdzI.980
• BàèdonEPA’s
‘ I
—e.. .
“ auMuAav This documeàt prqpae that
a tolerance e established fotresideat
: of the fw gtcfd imIn”
the ehortfa lLArO soøab le-. - cthy1phoiphoJ1z oronther w,. ; :
level of ItM euhanomzeüt codid rodu&. stat* must revfsâthe test methoa agricultural commodity gIna The
.n additional sesisslon reduction. ‘ section La curS the prubism with proposed regulation to establish a
-------
12654
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 58 / Tuesday. March 28, 1989 / Proposed Rules
/ ‘ 1
ari’,i without e’Iimin.itii g the
acccimmodative SIP For the area
Proposed Rulemaking Action
I’SEPA proposes to approve the ACS
for Admiral fur the above cited reasons.
but to remove the accommodative SIP
for Knox County for the duration of the
variance. Public comment is solicited on
the proposed SIP revision and on
USEPA’s proposed approval of it.
Comments received by the date
indicated above will be considered in
the development of USEPA’s final
rulemaking action.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
Administrator has certified that SIP
approvals do not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. (See 46 FR
8709).
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Carbon
monoxide. Environmental Protection.
Hydrocarbons. Incorporation by
“iference, Intergovernmental relations,
rone.
Authority: 42 U S.C. 7401-7642
Dated: June 30, 1987.
vdlda s V. Adamkuz,
RegionolAdministrziior.
Editorial note: This document was received
at the Office of the Federal Register on March
23, 1989.
IFR Doc. 89—7316 Filed 3—27—89; 8.45 aml
BILUNG COCE 6560-50-U
40 CFR Part 52
IReglon II Docket No. 94; FR-3543—91
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Revision to the
State of NewJersey Implementation
Plan for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today announcing that
it is proposing to approve a request by
New Jersey to revise its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for
attainment of the ozone standard.This
revision will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds from
line by reducing the Reid Vapor
;ure (RVP) of gasoline. The
ded effect of this action is to make
- . .. inable further progress towards
atiainment of the ozone standard as
expeditiously as practicable as rt quirt’d
under the Clean Air Act.
DATE: Comments must be received by
April 27, 1989.
ADDRESSE8. All comments should be
addressed to: Mr. William J Muszynski.
P.E.. Acting Regional Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region II Office. 26 Federal Plaza. New
York. New York 10278.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the following addresses for
inspection during normal business
hours:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region II Office. Air Program Branch.
26 Federal Plaza. Room 1005. New
York. New York 10278
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Division of
Environmental Quality Bureau of Air
Pollution Control 401 East State
Street, Trenton. New Jersey 08625.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT’.
Mr. Raymond Werner. Acting Chief. Air
Programs Branch. Environmental
Protection Agency, 28 Federal Plaza.
Room 1005, New York. New York 10278.’
(212) 264—2517.
SUPPlEMENTARY INFORMATION On
February 3.1989, EPA received a SIP
revision from the Commissioner of the
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) that
would add a new Subchapter 25 to
Chapter 27. Title 7 of the New Jersey
Administrative Code. Subchapter 25.
entitled “Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution by Vehicular Fuels.” prohibits
persons from selling or supplying
gasoline from a bulk plant or terminal
having a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
greater than 9.0 pounds per square inch
(psi) from May I through September 15
beginning in 1989 and continuing each
year thereafter.
Background
On November 12. 1987, the
Commissioners of the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding expressing their
intention to reduce the RVP of gasoline
to 10.0 psi starting in the summer of 1988
and to 9.0 ps I in the summer of 1989 and
continuing every ozone season
thereafter. Many states, including New
Jersey. experienced delays in adopting
necessary regulations and did not
reduce RVP to 10.0 psi in the summer of
1988. New Jersey is. therefore, limiting
RVP to 9.0 psi from May 1 to September
15 starting in 1989, and continuing each
year thereafter. New Jersey adopted its
RVP regulation on January 27, 1989 and
submitted it to EPA as a SIP revision on
the same date.
EPA published a notice of final
rulemaking on March 22. 1989 (54 FR
11868) which also requires the control of
RVP The EPA rule calls for the control
of the volatility of gasoline nationally.
The rule requires that in the Northeast,
the standard will be 10.5 psi beginning
in 1989. The Federal standard will be
enforced each year beginning June 1 (for
retail users and other end users of
gasoline) or May I (for all other points
in the distribution system) except in
1989 when enforcement will begin 100
days and 70 days (respectively) after the
publication date of the final rule.
Enforcement ends at all points in the
system on September 16 of each year
The EPA regulation would normally
preempt the state provision under
section 211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act
(the Act). However, section 211(c)(4)(C)
of the Act provides for approval of state
control of fuel or fuel additives if the
control is part of the SIP and is
necessary to achieve the primary or
secondary national ambient-air quality
standard (NAAQS) for which the plan is
in effect.
Criteria for Approval
Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the Act, in
describing Federal preemption authority,
states: ‘ Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (B) or (C), no State (or
political subdivision thereofl may
prescribe or attempt to enforce, for the
purposes of motor vehicle emission
control, any control or prohibition
respecting use of a fuel or fuel additive
in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine—(i) if the Administrator has
found that no control or prohibition
under paragraph (I) is necessary and
has published his finding in the Federal
Register, or (ii) if the Administrator has
prescribed under paragraph (1) a control
prohibition applicable to such fuel or
fuel additive, unless [ the) State
prohibition or control is identical to the
prohibition or control prescribed by the
Administrator.”
Thus in light of the new Federal
volatility rule, the state control would
normally be preempted.
However, even though preemption has
occurred, EPA may still approve certain
state provision for limits on RVP of fuel
where a finding under section 211(c)(4)
is made which would authorize EPA
approval and, thus, eliminate the
preemption problem. As set forth below.
section 211 (c)(4)(C) authorizes EPA to
approve into the SIP a state.adopted
fuel control measure that has otherwise
been preempted by EPA action if EPA
finds that the state control “is necessary
to achieve” the standard that the SIP
implements.
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No.58 / Tuesday. March 28. 1989 I Proposed Rules
12655
Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act, in
setting forth the circumstances under
which an exception to Federdl
preemption of state regulation may
occur. states: ‘A State may prescribe
and enforce, for purposes of motor
vehicle emission control, a control or
prohibition respecting the use of a fuel
or fuel additive in a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle engine if an applicable
implementation plan for such State
under section 110 so provides. The
administrator may approve such
provision in an implementation plan, or
promulgate an implementation plan
containing such a provision, only if he
finds that the State control or
prohibition is necessary to achieve the
national primary or secondary ambient
air quality standard which the plan
implements.”
In the Federal Register discussion of
EPA’s approval of a state oxygenated
fuels program in the Maricopa County,
Arizona SIP. EPA interpreted this
language as requiring the Agency to find
that a fuel control requirement was
essential to achieve timely attainment of
the primary standard for carbon
monoxide. EPA said further that a fuel
control measure may be “necessary” for
timely attainment if no other measures
that would bring about timely
attainment exist, or if such other
measures exist and are technically
possible to implement, but are
unreasonable or impracticable.
Otherwise, no fuel control would ever
be “necessary.” since for any area there
is at least one measure—namely,
required shutdowns and prohibitions on
driving—that would result in timely
attainment of the NAAQS. It is doubtful
that Congress would have intended to
bar EPA from ,pproving State fuel
controls into a SIP based on the
availability of soch drastic alternatives.’
Evaluation of How the New Jersey
Revision Satisfies the “Necessary”
Criterion
In its 1982 SIP. New Jersey estimated
that emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC8) would need to be
reduced by 59 percent from 1980 levels
in order to attain the ozone standard in
the New Jersey portion of the New
Jersey/New York/Connecticut Air
Quality Control Region (AQCR) by 1987.
This percent reduction was estimated to
be equivalent to 252,800 tons per year
(tpy) of VOCs. EPA has reviewed the
progress the State has made in
achieving these emission reductions and
determined’that the State has only
achieved a 39.8 percent reduction from
‘Federal Register Augusi I. 1988. 53 FR 30220.
30228
1980 levels: a reduction of 82,330 tpy
identified in the SIP as necessary to
attain the standard has yet to be
achieved. The reasons for these
shortfalls are varied and include
increased RVP in gasoline. inability to
implement certain measures, higher than
anticipated growth in vehicle miles
traveled, less than anticipated
effectiveness of the inspection and
maintenance program, and the finding
that some of the measures the State
committed to in 1982 are not reasonably
available.
The New Jersey submittal concludes
that by lowering RVP to 9.0 psi, VOC
emission reductions of approximately
24.000 tpy would be obtained statewide,
with 13,400 tpy of the reduction
occurring in the New Jersey/New York/
Connecticut AQCR. The quantity of this
reduction was derived using the AP-42
emission factors for storage and transfer
of gasoline and from the EPA MOBILE3
emission factor model for motor vehicle
emissions. This estimate may understate
the actual reductions resulting from RVP
controls because it does not include the
emissions reductions that would result
from decreased running losses
associated with lower volatility
gasoline. Running losses are emissions
from the gasoline tank and fuel system
that occur while a car is being driven
and which overload the evaporative
control system or escape through the
filler cap. This 24.000 tpy reduction
represents nearly 8 percent of the State’s
total annual VOC inventory and 19
percent of the ozone season VOC
inventory. On a worst case basis,
considering hot weather (95 degrees
Fahrenheit) and longer trip lengths, the
reduction in VOC emissions provided by
RVP control could be as high as 63
percent.
Using information available in the
New Jersey SIP and Reasonable Further
Progress Report for 1987. along with
supplemental information submitted by
the State, EPA determined that New
Jersey has only achieved a 39.8 percent
reduction from 1980 levels in the New
Jersey/New York/Connecticut AQCR.
This translates to at least a 31.9 percent
reduction from the 1987 inventory. It is
also Important to recognize that the 59
percent emission reduction that guided
New Jersey’s selection of control
measures has proven to be too low.
EPA’s experience with Regional Oxidant
Model runs for the Northeast indicates
that a VOC emission reduction on the
order of at least 75 percent from 1980
levels is needed for attainment of the
ozone standard. Under this scenario, the
emission reductions needed for
attainment of the ozone standard
translate to at least a 588 percent
reduction from the 1987 invei tory. or
68.556 tpy in addition to the 252.800 tpy
that has been identified in the Sip
The VOC strategies identified by the
State as having the greatest potential for
significant future VOC reductions that
have not been implemented are:
Measwe
Reduc
Percent
Reduong RVP from 11 5 tO
90 ._ ._......
Arcflitectwal Coating. ... ..
Lower Exclusion Rates ....
Barge/Tanker Loading.... ....
Additional Consumer/Corn’
meccial Solvent COntrOl
Automobile Refinishing
t /M Enhancements.. .... ... .._..
Total ...
13,400
9,650
20.100
3.900
6.030
3.020
10,800
66,700
52
‘37
75.
‘1 5
‘23
‘12
4 1
258
The potential combined reductions
from other categories suggested by EPA
for examination by other NESCALJM
states. If found practicable. may provide
an additional 0.6 percent emission.
reduction. This would yield a total
reduction of 26.4 percent if all were 100
percent effective. There would still be at
least a 5.5 percent VOC emission
reduction shortfalL
By reducing RVP to 9.0 psi instead of
10.5 psi, New Jersey wuld be able to
obtain’additlonal reductions of
approximately 5.896 tpy. Therefore, even
with EPA’s RVP regulation requiring
control to 10.5 psi in 1989, the State
regulation will still have a significant
impact. It will provide, approximately,
an additional 2.3 percent reduction per
year beyond the EPA reduction.
Thus, New Jersey’s RVP program
appears to meet the appropriate test of
being “necessary” to achieve attainment
of the ozone standard. The fact that the
State RVP regulation might not by itself
fill the remaining shortfall and hence by
itself achieve the standard does not
mean the rule would not be “necessary”
to achieve the standard within the
meaning of section 211(c)(4)(C). EPA
believes that If Congress had intended
EPA to approve a state fuel-content rule
only if it were necessary and sufficient
to achieve the standard, then it would
‘Many solvents and coatings cannot be fully re-
formulated or replaced and, because they we area
soisca enessions, cannot be effectively captured
and controlled. Based upon New Jersey’s expen’
once, only 20 percent of these emissions reductions
may be acfiievatile m the foreseeable Mite. Howev-
er, this table assumes 100 percent effectiveness
based upon the State’s esbmate. There edl be en
additional 14,960 ry VOC emissions reduction
shortfall for these meentes based upon a 20 per-
cent off octiveness essiarçflon.
to delays caused by a safety study being
conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard. it wilt be at
least two years before any emission reductions can
be obtained throu i itwi measte.
-------
12656
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 58 I Tuesday. March 28. 1989 / Proposed Rules
have used that language in section
211(c)(4)(C). EPA believes that the
“necessary to achieve” standard must
be interpreted to apply to measures
which are needed to reduce ambient
levels (thus bringing the area closer to
achieving the NAAQS) when no other
reasonable measures are available to
achieve this reduction. A contrary
application of “necessary to achieve” in
this situation would mean that measures
which result in significantly improved
air quality are nonetheless unacceptable
(even though no other reasonable
measures are available) merely because
they are insufficIent to themselves
provide the reductions necessary to
achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
Enforceability
In EPA ’s review for the enforceability
of the New Jersey revision a problem
with the test methods section was
revealed. The State requires that testing
shall be conducted in accordance with
the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTh4) method D—323. While
method D—323 may represent the current
ASTM dasignatlon of the approved test
method for determining fuel volatility
and, as such. Is the industry standard.
EPA has adopted a final volatility rule
which Includes a teat method based
upon an ASTM proposed modification to
method 0—323 known as Annex 2.The
State has committed to revise this
section In order to resolve this issue.
EPA Is proposing to approve the State’s
RVP controls with the understanding
that the State must revise the test
methods section to indude the EPA
recognized methods.
EPA Is confident that the State will
pursue this course of action because the
State has included method D—323 in its
regulation already. Moreover, the State
interprets this portion of the regulation
to mea that additions to method 0-323.
such as Annex 2. will be incorporated
into New lersey’s enforcement
procedures upon finalization by ASTM.
Conclusion
EPA is proposing to approve this
revision to the New Jersey Ozone State
Implementation Plan to control gasoline
volatility with the understanding that
the State will revise the test method
section of the regulation. EPA is also
proposing to make a finding that this SIP
revision meets the requirements of
section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act for an
exception to federal preemption. This
rmding is required since EPA has
finalized national volatility standards.
gPA Is soliciting public comments on
its proposed action. Comments will be
considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to the
address noted at the beginning of
todays notice.
This notice is issued as required by
section 110 of the Clean Air Act as
amended. The Administrator’s decision
regarding the approval of this plan
revision is based on its meeting the
requirements of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act, and 40 CFR Part 51.
Under 6 US.C. section 005(b).! certify
that this SIP revision will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of .mall entities.
(See 48 FR 8709)
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Hydrocarbons.
Ozone.
AuthosItT 42 U.8.C. 7481-1642.
Date March 24.1989.
William J. Mussynsid,
Acth igflegJonalAdminis tr eeor.
[ FR Don. 89-7317 FIled 3-V-aR 8.45 am)
00CC MNIOW
40 CFR Part 52
(Region U Dodist No.93; FRL-3543-$l
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Ptans Revision to the
State of New York Implementat Ion
Plan for Ozone
AGENCY’. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIOM Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today announcing that
it is proposing to approve a request by
New York to revise Its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for
attajiunent of the ozone standard. This
revision will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds from
gasoline by reducing the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP] of gasoline. The
intended effect of this action Is to make
reasonable further progress towards
attainment of the ozone standard as
expeditiously as practicable as required
under the Clean Air Act.
DATE Comments must be received by
April 27, 1989.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be
addressed to: Mr. William J. MuszynskL
P.E.. Acting Regional Administrator.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 11 Office. 28 Federal Plaza. New
York. New York 10278.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the following addresses los
inspection during normal business
hours:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region II Office. Air Programs Branch, -.
26 Federal Plaza. Room 1005. New
York. New York 10278.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Divisi
of Air Resources. 50 Wolf Road.
Albany. New York 12233.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTAC?
Mr. Raymond Werner. Acting Chief. Air
Programs Branch. Environmental
Protection Agency. 28 Federal Plaza.
Room 1005. New York. New York 10278,
(212) 284—2517.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT1O On
February 6.1989. the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) received a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
from the Commissioner of the New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) that would add
a new regulation. Subpart 225-3. to Title
8 of the Official Compilation of Codes.
Rules and Regulations of the State of
New York. This regulation, entitled
Tuel Composition and Use—Volatile
Motor Puels, prohibits any person from
selling or supplying from a bulk plant or
terminal. 8asoHne having a Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVPJ greater than 9.0 pounds
per square inch (psi) from Mayl throug
September15 beginning in 1989 and
continuing each year thereafter.
Background
On November 12, 1987, the
CommissIoners of the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding expressing their
intention to reduce the RVP of gasoline
to 10.0 psi starting in the summer of 19&
and to 9.0 psi In the summer of 1989 and
continuing every ozone season
thereafter. Many states. including New
York. experienced delays in adopting
necessary regulations and did not
reduce RVP to 10.0 psi in the summer of
1988. New York is. therefore. Limiting
RVP (09.0 5l from May 1 to September
15 starting in 1989. and continuing each
year thereafter. New York adopted its
RVP regulation on December 5. 1988 ant
submitted it to EPA as a SIP revision on
January 31. 1989.
EPA published a notice of final
rulemaking on March 22. 1989 (54 FR
11888) which also requires the control ol
RVP. The EPA rule calls for the control
of the volatility of gasoline nationally.
The rule requires that in the Northeast,
the standard will be 10.5 psi beginning
in 1989. The Federal standard wiU be
-------
12656
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 58 I Tuesday. March 28 , 1989 I Proposed Rules
have used that language in section
211(c)(4)(C). EPA believes that the
“necessary to achiev&’ standard must
be interpreted to apply to measures
which are needed to reduce ambient
levels (thus bringing the area closer to
achieving the NAAQS) when no other
reasonable measures are available to
achieve this reduction. A contrary
application of “necessary to achieve” in
this situation would mean that measures
which result in significantly improved
air quality are nonetheless unacceptable
(even though no other reasonable
measures are available) merely because
they are insufficient to themselves
provide the reductions necessary to
achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
Enforceability
In EPA’s review for the enforceability
of the New Jersey revision a problem
with the test methods section was
revealed. The State requires that testing
shall be conducted in accordance with
the American Society for Testing and
Materials (AS11 ,1) method D -323. While
method D-323 may represent the current
ASTM designation of the approved test
method for determining fuel volatility
and, as such, is the industry standard.
EPA has adopted a final volatility rule
which includes a teat method based
upon an ASTM proposed modification to
method D—323 known as Annex 2. The
State has committed to revise this
section in order to resolve this issue.
EPA is proposing to approve the State’s
RVP controls with the understanding
that the State must revise the test
methods section to include the EPA
recognized methods.
EPA is confident that the Slate will
pursue this course of action because the
State has included method D—323 in its
regulation already. Moreover, the State
interprets this portion of the regulation
to mean that additions to method D—323,
such as Annex 2, will be incorporated
into New Jersey’s enforcement
procedures upon finalization by ASTM.
Conclusion
EPA is proposing to approve this
revision to the New jersey Ozone State
Implementation Plan to control gasoline
volatility with the understanding that
the State will revise the test method
section of the regulation. EPA is also
proposing to make a finding that this SIP
revision meets the requirements of
section 211(c)(4flCJ of the Act for an
exception to federal preemption. This
finding is required since EPA has
finalized national volatility standards.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
its pro posed action. Comments will be
considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to the
address noted at the beginning of
today’s notice.
This notice is issued as required by
section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. The Adnunistralor’s decision
regarding the approval of this plan
revision is based on its meeting the
requirements of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act, and 40 CFR Part Si.
Under 5 US.C. section 605(b).! certify
that this SIP revision will riot have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
(See 46 FR 8709)
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Hydrocarbons.
Ozone.
Authosfty 42 U.S.C 7401-1642.
Deta March 24.1989.
William J. Mussynaki,
AclingRglonoiAdminisWjtor.
(FR Doc. 89-7317 Filed 3-27-aR 8.45 am)
LW COOC WO4G
40 CFR Pert 52
(Region N Docket No.93; F L-364541
Approval and Promulgation of
ImplementatIon Ptans Revision to the
State of New York Implementation
Plan forOzone
ACENCY. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTIOa Proposed rule.
SUMMaRY ’. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today announcing that
it is proposing to approve a request by
New York to revije Its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for
attainment of the ozone standard. This
revision will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds from
gasoline by reducing the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) of gasoline. The
intended effect of this action is to make
reasonable further progress towards
attainment of the ozone standard as
expeditiously as practicable as required
under the Clean Air Act.
DATL Comments must be received by
April 27, 1989.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be
addressed to: Mr. William J. Muszynski.
P.E., Acting Regional Administrator.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II Office. 28 Federal Plaza. New
York, New York 10278.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the following addresses for
inspection during normal business
hours:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region U Office. Air Programs Branch,
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1005, New
York. New York 10278.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Division
of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road,
Albany. New York 12233.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACP.
Mr. Raymond Werner. Acting Chief. Air
Programs Branch. Environmental
Protection Agency. 26 Federal Plaza,
Room 1005. New York. New York 10278,
(212) 264—2517.
SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORMATiO?C On
February 8, 1989, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) received a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
from the Commissioner of the New York
State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) that would addS
a new regulation, Subpart 225—3, to Title
6 of the Official Compilation of Codes.
Rules and Regulations of the State of
New York. This regulation, entitled
“Fuel Composition and Use—Volatile
Motor Fuels,” prohibits any person from
selling or supplying from a bulk plant or
terminal, gasoline having a Reid Vapor
Pressure’ (RVP) greater than 9.0 pounds
per square inch (psi) from May I through
September 15 begInning In 1989 and
continuing each year thereafter.
Background
On November 12, 1987, the
Commissioners of the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding expressing their
intention’to reduce the RYP of gasoline
to 10.0 psi starting in the summer of 1988
and to 9.0 psi In the summer of 1989 and
continuing every ozone season
thereafter. Many states, including New
York, experienced delays in adopting
necessary regulations and did not
reduce RVP to 10.0 psi in the summer of
1988. New York is, therefore, limiting
RVP to 9.0 psi from May l to September
15 starting in 1989, and continuing each
year thereafter. New York adopted its
RVP regulation on December 5. 1988 and
submitted it to EPA as a SIP revision on
January 31. 1989.
EPA published a notice of final
rulemaking on March 22,1989(54 FR
11868) which also requires the control o
RVP. The EPA rule calls for the control
of the volatility of gasoline nationally.
The rule requires that in the Northeast,
the standard will be 10.5 psi beginning
in 1989, The Federal stand:ird will be
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 58 / Tuesday. March 28, 1989 / Proposed Rules
12657
enforced each year beginning June 1 (for
retail users and other end users of
gasoline) or May I (for all other points
in the distribution system) except in
1989 when enforcement will begin 100
days and 70 days (respectively) after the
publication date of the final rule.
Enforcement ends at all poinis in the
system on September 10 of each year.
The EPA regulation would normally
preempt the state provision under
section 211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act
(the Act). However, section 211(c)(4)(C)
of the Act provides for approval of state
control of fuel or fuel additives if the
control is part of the SIP and is
necessary to achieve the primary or
secondary national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for which the plan is
in effect.
Criteria for Approval
Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the Act, in
describing Federal preemption authority.
states: “Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (B) or (C), no State (or
political subdivision thereof) may
prescribe or attempt to enforce, for the
purposes of motor vehicle emission
control, any control or prohibition
respecting use of a fuel or fuel additive
In a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine-.—(i) if the Administrator has
found that no control or prohibition
under paragraph (1) is necessary and -
has published his finding in the Federal
Register, or (ii) if the Administrator has
prescribed under paragraph (1) a control
prohibition applicable to such fuel or
fuel additive, unless (the) State
prohibition or control is identical to the
prohibition or control prescribed by the
Administrator.’
Thus in light of the new Federal
volatility rule, the state control would
normally be preempted.
However, evefi where preemption has
occurred. EPA may still approve certain
state provisions for limits on RVP of fuel
where a finding under section
211(c)(4)(C) is made which would
authorize EPA approval and, thus.
eliminate the preemption problem. As
set forth below. section 211(c)(4)(C)
authorizes EPA to approve into the SIP a
- state-adopted fuel control measure that
has otherwise been preempted by EPA
action if EPA finds that the state control.
“is necessary to achieve” the standard
for which the SIP is in effect.
Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act, in
setting forth the cucumstances under
which an exception to Federal
preemption of state regulation may
occur, states: ‘A State may prescribe
and enforce, for purposes of motor
vehicle emission control, a control or
prohibition respecting the use of a fuel
or fuel additive in a motor vehicle or
motor vehicle engine if an applicable
implementation plan for such State
under section 110 so provides. The
Administrator may approve such
provision in an implementation plan, or
promulgate an implementation plan
containing such a provision, only if he
finds that the State control or
prohibition is necessary to achieve the
national primary or secondary ambient
air quality standard which the plan
implements.”
In the Federal Register discussion of
EPA’s approval of a state oxygenated
fuels program in the Maricopa County.
Arizona SIP, EPA Interpreted this
language as requiring the Agency to find
that a fuel control requirement was
essential to achieve timely attainment of
the primary standard for carbon
monoxide. EPA said further that a fuel
control measure may be “necessary” for
timely attainment if no other measures
that would bring about timely
attainment exist, or if such other
measures exist and are technically
possible to implement, but are
unreasonable or impracticable.
Otherwise, no fuel control would ever
be “necessary,” since for any area there
is at least one measure—namely,
required shutdowns and prohibitions on
driving—that would result in timely
attainment of the NAAQS. It is doubtful
that Congress would have intended to
bar EPA from approving State fuel
controls into a SIP based on the
availability of such drastic alternatives.i
Evaluation of How the New York
Revision Satisfies the “Necessary”
Criterion
New York City Metropolitan Area
In its 1984 New York City
metropolitan area (NYCMA) SIP. the
State estimated that it would need to
reduce volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions by 59 percent over
1982 levels in order to meet the ozone
standard by 1987. This.transla tea to a
199,678 ton per year (tpy) reduction in
VOC emissions. EPA has evaluated the
State’s progress in obtaining these
reductions and determined that the
State has only achieved a 38.1 percent
reduction from 1982 levels; a reduction
of 70,938 tpy identified in the SIP as
necessary to attain the standard has yet
to be achieved. The reasons for this
shortfall are varied and include lack of
(or inadequate) implementation of
certain measures, less than anticipated
effectiveness of certain measures,
growth in vehicle miles traveled and the
unanticipated growth in emissions due
I Federal Re ialer Augusi 10. 1988. 53 FR 30220.
30228
to increases in gasoline RVP in recent
years.
As an example of the effect of one of
these reasons for the shortfall, in its
1984 SIP for the NYCMA, the State
committed to study the feasibility of
reducing VOC emissions from
architectural coatings, consumer/
commercial solvent use and automobile
refinishing. These three control
measures were identified as
extraordinary control measures that
were beyond reasonably available
control technology (RACT) and, as such,
were not reasonably available. In
addition to the State’s commitment to
study these three source categories, the
State originally estimated that these
controls would reduce VOC emissions
by 29,800 tpy. The results of the State’s
current study suggest that the
extraordinary controls would not be 100
percent effective because these are area
sources, and therefore would not yield
the reductions originally anticipated.
The State estimates that the reductions
attributable to the three extraordinary
measures would be as low as 4,300 tpy.
To make up for the emission reduction
shortfall, the State developed and
adopted a regulation that would reduce
the volatility of gasoline sold in the
State during theozone season. The New
York submittal and related documents
contain the State’s analysis of the
emission reductions that the
extraordinary measures would achieve
and the remaining shortfall. That
analysis concludes that the New York
RVP regulation would reduce VOC
emissions by an estimated 9,000 tpy in
the NYCMA. This estimate may
understate the actual reductions
because it does not include the
emissions reductions that would result
from decreased running losses
associated with lower volatility
gasoline. Running losses are emissions
from the gasoline tank and fuel system
that occur while a car is being driven
and which overload the evaporative
control system or escape through the
filler cap. New York has estimated that
the RVP regulation would reduce
emissions by 19.000 tpy if running losses
are taken into account.
Using information available in the
New York SIP and Reasonable Further
Progress Report for 1986. along with
supplemental information submitted by
the State, EPA determined that New
York has only achieved a 36.1 percent
reduction from 1982 levels in the
NYCMA. This translates to at least a
33.8 percent reduction from the 1987
inventory. It is also important to
recognize that the 59 percent emission
reduction that guided New York’s
-------
[ 2658
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 58 I Tuesday. March 28. 1989 I Proposed Rules
ielection of control measures has
)TOvCn to be too low EPA’s experience
‘ith Reg oo al Oxidant Model runs for
he Northeast LndIcMtcd that a VOC
inission reduction on the order of at
east 75 percent from 1982 levels is
eeded for attainment of the ozone
;tandard. Under this scenario, the
mission reductions needed for
ittainment of the zone standard
Lranslate to at least a 59.7 percent
eduction from the 1987 inventory, or
i4,149 tpy in addition to the 199.676 tpy
hat has been identified In the SIP.
The VOC strategies that are not yet
mplemented which have the greatest
potential for significant future VOC
reductions are:
Ueasure
Percen of
1987
Iwentoly
Reduce RVP from 11.5
1 090_._ —.-
9.004
4.3
Architectural Coaeng
I
Coviinerosl Auto
Refinshng
(coln ed) --
4,300
2.1
ACT for Small
Sotj s......... .._.. .....
3,978
1.9
‘arc Dry CIa mars...,..
Tot - ..
3,947
1.9
2l,
102
The potential combined reductions
rrom other categories suggested by EPA
ror examination by other NESCAUM
states, if found practicable. may provide
an additional 1.5 percent emission
reduction. This would yield a total
reduction of 11.7 percent if all were 100
percent effective. There would still be at
least a 22.1 percent VOC emission
reduction shortfall. In order to make up
for this remaining shortfall, the Stale is
considering additional changes to its
motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program along with other
measures as part of the Post-1987 Ozone
SIP planning process. A reasonable level
of l/M program changes would result in
less than a 5,000 tpy reduction in
emissions. Thus, even in such
reasonable lIM enhancements are
implemented, a shortfall will still exist
necessitating the implementation of
other measures to achieve attainment.
By reducing RVP to 9.0 psi instead of
10.5 psi, New York would be able to
obtain additional reductions of
approximately 3.800 tpy. Therefore. even
with EPA’s RVP regulation reguiring
control to 10.5 psi in 1989, the Slate
regulation will still have a significant
impact. It will provide, approximately,
an additional 1.8 percent reduction per
year beyond the EPA reduction:
Thus, New York’s RVP program
appears to meet the appropriate test of
being “necessary” to achieve attainment
of the ozone standard. The fact t iat the
State RVP regulation might not by itself
fill the remaming shortfall and hence by
itself achieve the standard does not
mean the rule would not be ‘necessary”
to achieve the standard within the
meaning of section 211 [ cJ(4)(C). EPA
believes that if Congress had intended
EPA to approve a state fuel-content rule
only if it were necessary and sufficient
to achieve the standard, then it would
have used that lang ’u ge In section
211(c)(4)(C). EPA believes that the
“necessary to achieve” standard must
be interpreted to apply to measures
which are needed to reduce ambient
levels (thus bringing the area closer to
achieving the NAAQS) when no other
reasonable measures are available to
achieve this reduction. A contrary
application of “necessary to achieve” in
this situation would mean that measures
which result in signiflnsntly improved
air quality are nonetheless unacceptable
(even though no other reasonable
measures are available) merely because
they ar insufficient in themselves to
provide the reductions necessary to
achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
It must be noted that the State’s
submittal indiceted that the regulation
was intended “as a replacement volatile
organic compound coofrol measure for a
portion of three existing SIP
commitnieot to coutrof VOC through
measures that have been categorized as
extraordinary, and as a package that
improves the ground level ozone
situation on Its own merits.” EPA is not
at this time determining that this
measure replaces the three
extraordinary measures which are part
of the 1984 SIP for the NYCMA. EPA will
evaluate the State’s submittal of
regulations Implementing these
measures which was received on
December 5. 1988 and take action in a
separate Federal Register notice. EPA is
proposing action today with the
knowledge that New York’s
overwhelming intention in seeking EPA
approval of this SIP revision. is to
continue to make progress toward
attaining the ambient air quality
standard for ozone through the
implementation of RVP controls.
Finally, EPA notes that its 211
(c)(4)(C) covers not only the designated
NYCMA asmattainment area, but also
Orange and Putnam Counties. In its June
0,1988 proposal concerning
nonattalnment designations pursuant to
the Mitchell-Conte Amendment (53 FR
20722 , EPA proposed to include Orange
and Putnam Counties within the
NYCMA nonattainment area because of
their contribution to ozone formation in
that area. For the same reason, F.P, also
indicated in letters dated May 26, 1988
to New York State that both counties
must be included in P0 51.1987 SEP
planning for the NYCMA. See also. 52
FR 45044 (November 24. 1987).
Therefore, EPA today concludes that
implementation of the RVP rule in
Orange and Putnam Counties is
necessary to achieve the ozone standard
in the NYCMA.
Upstate Nonattoinrnenz Areas
During the summers of 1987 and 1988.
air monitoring data revealed numerous
exceedances of the ozone NAAQS
indicating actual nonattainment of the
standard in Jefferson. Erie. Niagara.
Dutchess, Essex, Albany, Schenectedy,
Rensselaer. Saratoga. and Washington
Counties., New York has submitted
information indicating that the RVP
program Is necessary to achieve
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable in these upstate areas. This
information reveals that no other
measures could be Implemented rapidly
enough to provide any significant
emission reductions by the summer of
1989, and available measures which
would produce emission reductions of
similar magnitude to the RVP program
could not be In place for several years.
The upstate areas already have In place
reasonably available control technology
(RACY) for stationary sources
consistent with EPA’s Group I and
Group U Control Technique Guidelines
(CTGs) as a result of previous
nonanainment designations. New York
could impose RACY on Group Ill CFG
sources, institute a vehicle inspection
and maintenance program, require Stage
II vapor controls, and other
extraodinary controls such as regulating
consumer solvents. However, New York
has indicated that none of these
measures could be In place before 1992
and most would take significantly longer
to produce emission reductions similar
to that of the RVP program.
The State has estimated that
reductions in upstate areas from the
RVP program are expected to be in the
range of 28,500 tpy. Although New York
is not yet in a position to make a
demonstration of attainment for these
areas, pending the development of
inventories and the use of computer
modeling, New York currently believes
that the RVP program alone may be
sufficient to provide for attainment of
the ozone NAAQS in the upstate
nonattainment areas. New York
therefore concludes that implementation
of the RVP program now is necessary to
achieve the standard as expeditiously as
practicable in these areas.
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54. No. 58 / Tuesday. March 28. 1989 / Proposed Rules
12659
In light of the State’s submitted
analysts and the fact that New York
does not currently have a nonattainment
demonstration for the upstate
nonattainmcnt counties listed above.
EPA cannot now conclude that the RVP
program is not necessary to achieve the
standard as expeditiously as practicable
in those areas. 3 hoW EPA Is in a
position to conclude that the program is
definitely not necessasy. the Agency
believes *t is appropriate to make a
finding under section 21i(cj(4)(C with
respect to the RVP program in the
upstate nonattainment areas. EPA
therefore proposes today to make such a
finding. Further, it appears that since the
upstate nonattainxnent areas are located
geographically all over the State. New
York logistically had to make the RVP
rule apply on a statewide basis in order
to ensure compliance in the
nonattainment areas without producing
supply and distribution problems. Given
New York’s need to apply the RVP
program statewide. EPA finds that
application ci the program throughout
the State is neceasazy to achieve the
ozone standard as expeditiously as
practicable in all of the u ntate and
downstate nanattainment areas.
EPA acknowl 4ges that the te dinica1
data to support its 2111cli4](C) Finding
for the upstate areas are not extensive
given the late date at which the upstate
conattainment problem became
apparent. EPA therefore specifically
requests comment on the propriety of Its
211(cfl4)(C) finding for the upstate
nonattainment areas.
Enforceability
In EPA’. review of the enforceability
of the New York revision, a problem
with the test methods section was
revealed. The State requires that fuel
sampling and testing shall be “by
methods acceptable to the
Comnsissioner” EPA has adopted a final
volatility rule which contains the
American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) method D-4057 for
bottle sampling, the method contained in
‘the California Administrative Code Title
13, R.2261 for nozzle sampling arid
ASTh4 “dry” method D-4814. Annex 2
(formerly known as P—176) or the Herzog
“dry” method as a test method. The
State has committed to revise this
section in order to resolve this issue.
EPA is proposing to approve the State’s
Althou 8 h A indicated in Its national RVP
ruIemek.n that control 1090 PSI would not be
practicable for intplemsntation befo,e 1992
nationwide Mardi 32,1969 (54 FR 1196a . EPA muSt
condude. based upon the record underlying New
York’. actual adoption of a 90 pSI RVP program in
1969. that such a program is currently pracl cabIe in
New York,
RVP controls with the understanding
that the State must revise the test
methods section to include the EPA
recognized methods.
Conclusion
EPA Is proposing to approve this
revision to the New York State
Implementation Plan for ozone to
control gasoline volat Uty with the
understanding that the State will revise
the test method sectign of the regulation.
EPA 1. also proposing to make a finding
that this SIP revision meets the
requirements of section 211(cX4XC) of
the Act for an exception to Federal
preemption.
EPA is soliciting public comments on
its proposed ection. Comments will be
considered before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by
submitting written comments to the
address noted at the beginning of•
today’s notice,
This notIce IS Issued as required by
section 110 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended. The Administrator’s decision
regarding the approval of this plan
revision is based on its meeting the
requirements of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act, and 40CM Part 51.
Under 5 USC 6050,1.1 certify that
this SIP revision will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
(See 46 FR 8709)
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of sectfbn 3 of Executive
Order 12291,
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Past 52
Air pollution control. Hydrocarbons.
Ozone,
Authorlty 42 IL9.C. 7401-7642..
Date: Febniaiy 2(11*
WillIam J. Muixyniki.
Actuig RegionoiAdm!ni,trv or.
(FR Doe. 59-7318 FIled 3-27--89. 845 am)
mwim e
40 CFR Part 52
(FRL-3544-51
Approval and Promulgation of
implementation Plans; Ohio
AGENCY U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA).
ACTtO Withdrawal of proposed rule .
SUMMAaY: The USEPA is today
withdrawing its November 23.1988,
‘proposed rulemaking notice (53 FR
47549) which proposed to approve a
revision to the ozone portion of the Ohio
Stale Implementation Plan (SIP) for
Mansfield Products Company in
Mansfield, Ohio.
On February 23. 1989, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency
requested that LYSEPA withdraw the
pending SEP revision for a large
appliance coating line (K0051 at the
Mansfield Products Company plant in
Mansfield. Ohle The noncomplying
coating line at the Mansfield Plant has
since been shutdown,
DATE: Withdrawal of this rulemaking is
effective as of March 28, 1989.
FOR RJR’THER INFORMATION CONTACT ’
Maggie Greene. Air and Radiation
Branch (5AR—26). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 230 South
Dearborn Street. Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886-6041.
Authodty 42 U.S.C 7401-7642,
Dated March* 1200.
Frank M. Covinglos.
AcAng Regional tails! Wzcht,
[ FR Dec. 89-7339 Piled 3-V-89 Si4 5 am)
BIWNO COOS S =
(FRL-3544—IJ
40 CFR Part 360
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Polkullon Contingency Plan National
Priorities List Update
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACT1O Notice of Intent to Delete the
Cecil Lindsey site from the National
Priorities List: Request for Comments .
SUMMARY’. The Environmental Protectio
Agency (EPA) Region 6 announces its
intent to delete the Cecil Lindsey she
from the National Priorities List (f WL)
and requests public commall on this
action, This site is located northeast of
Newport In lacksouville County,
Arkansas. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B to the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). which EPA
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensalicm. and Liability
Act (CERCLA}, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Ant (SARA) of 1900.
EPA and the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Enelogy
(ADPC&E) have delanninad that all
appropriate CERCLA sespense actions
have been mzplevienied and that no
additional cleanup activities are
appropriate. In addition. EPA and the
State have detetmined that the remedidl
activities conducted at the site to date
-------
9g 50
any vegetation. histonc feature or bridge
a bu t i en t.
Becky Nortoc DuLJop.
Assis ran: Sec.erary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks
Date Aprd 24. 1S89.
[ FR Doe.. 89-13061 Filed 8—1-89 . 845 amj
s J _ p ,G 000C 3 1-1 - i
ENVIRONMENTAL Pt OTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
(FHL—3571-2 1
Connecticut and Rhode Island Ozone
Attainment Ptana Con ol of Gasoline
Volatility
ao c ’r Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACT1OIC Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Connecticut
and the State of Rhode Island. These
revisions will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds from
gasoline by limiting the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) of gasoline sold between
June 30 and September15 in 1989 and
between May 1 and September 15 of
each year thereafter to 9 pounds per
square inch. EPA is also finding that the
Connecticut and Rhode Island RVP
regulations are ‘necessary to achieve”
the national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for ozone and are
therefore excepted from preemption
under section 211 of the Clean Air Act.
The Intended effect of this action Is to
make necessary progress towards
attainment of the ozone standard as
expeditiously as practicable as required
under the Clean Air Act
£FFECTTV! DATE June 34 1989.
AnceEss Es: Copies of the submittal are
available for public inspection at U.S.
EPA. Room 2311. JFK Federal Building.
Boston, MA 02203: the Connecticut
Department of Environmental
Protection. State Office Building. 165
Capitol Ave.. Hartford, CT 06115: and
the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management, 291
Promenade SL Providence, RI 02908-
5767.
R RMThER PerO A11ON CONTACfl
Peter X. Hagerty. (617) 665—3224: (FTS)
835-3224 or Jennifer York, (617)585-.
32 ) 835-3220.
flUPcLEMEKTARY NW0aMATIOse
lntre . uction
This Federal iaglster notice describe.
D’A’s decision to approve revisions to
both the Connecticut and Rhode Isiand
SIPs which limit the volatility of
gasoline from June 30 to September 15 in
1989 and from May ito September 15
every year thereafter. Since the
Connecticut and Rhode Island
regulations are very suzular and the
public comments received in response to
EPA s Notices of Proposed Rulemaking
were nearly identical, the two revisions
will be discussed together in this notice.
Any difference, between the slates in
the regulations. public comments or EPA
responses will be clearly identified.
The remainder of this preamble is
divided into four sections. The first
provides the background for this action,
with respect to both chronology and the
.broad issues Involved. The second
section presents today’, action and
EPA’s rationale. The third section
summarizes the comments received on
the proposed action and EPA.
responses to them. The final section
discusses Rhode Island. revision to the
test methods section of the regulations
to cure a deficiency identified and
discussed in EPA. proposed rulemaking
notice.
Background
On November 12. 1987, the
Commissioners of the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCALIM) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding expressing their
Intention to reduce the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) of gasoline to 10 pounds
per square Inch (psi) starting In the
summerof l988andto9puHnthe -
summer of 1989 and continuing every
ozone season thereafter. Since there
were delays In adopting necessary
regulations, the 1968 Limit of 10 psI was
eIImin ted, and Connecticut and Rhode
Island passed regulations limiting the
RVP of gasoline toO psi from May 1 to
September 15 starting In 1989 and
continuing each year thereafter. On
November10, 1988, Rhode Island
submitted a SW revision to EPA for
approval to implement this provision.
Connecticut submitted Iti SIP revision
on’ anuary 30, 1989.
On March 15, 1989, EPA published
Federal Register notices proposing
approval of the Connecticut and Rhode
I.Ia, ,A SD’ revisIons (54 FR 11016 and
11018). EPA also proposed to find that
these revisions were “necessary” to
sthleve the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for ozone within
the meaning of section 211(c)(4)(C) of
the Clean Afr Act (the Act), in the event
that EPA subsequently took final action
on federal RVP regulations.
Section m(cX4XAJ of the Act states
that a state may cot, for purposes of
motor vehicle ainI tco . controL
Rules and Regulations
prescribe or attempt to enforce any
control or prohibition re8pecti use of a
fuel or fuel additive in a motor vehicle
engine— ”(i) if the Adminjsti .ator has
found that no control or prohjbitio
under paragraph (1) is necessary and
has published his finding in the Federal
Register, or (ii) if the Adiriinistjator has
prescribed under Para aph (1) a control
prohibition applicable to such fuel or
fuel additive, unless (the] state
prohibition or control is Identical to the
prohibition or control prescribed by the
A ,iminiatrator.” At the time of EPA’a
proposal on the Connecticut and Rhode
Island revisions, EPA had proposed, but
not taken final action, on federal RVP
control regulations.
On March22. 1989 EPA published a
Federal Register notice (54 FR 11888)
taking final action on national regulation
of RVP. to take effect this summer. The
maximum allowed summertime RVP in
Connecticut and Rhode Island under the
federal regulation is 10.5 psi. Under
section 211(c)(4)(A) of the Act. EPA s
final action preempted inconsistent state
control of RVP for the purpose of motor
vehicle emission controL except In
California. In Its final action, EPA noted
that states could be exempted from
preemption only If EPA finds It is
“necessary” to achieve the NAAQS as
provided in section 211(c)(4)(C) of the
Act. EPA made specific note of the
conditions for EPA approval of state
RVP regulations.
Description of Today’s Action
EPA today approves revisions to the
Connecticut and Rhode Island SIPs
which limit gasoline volatility to 9 psi
between June 30 and September15 In
1989 and between May I and September
15 In each year thereafter. The
Connecticut and Rhode Island programs
Include authority for the state to issue
waivers to Individual suppliers if
necessary to avoid supply dislocations.
EPAIs approving the programs as a
whole, including any waivers the states
might Issue under this authority. This
aspect of EPA’s approval L discussed In
full under section 9 of the next portion of
this notice describing EPA’s response to
EPA Is also ezpllddy finding that the
Connecticut and Rhode Island revisions
are ‘necessary to achieve” the NAAQS
within the meaning of section
211(cX4)(C) of the Act. This means that
the Connecticut end Rhode Island RVP
regulations are not preempted by the
federal RVP regulations promulgated on
aich25,i9e9
EPA’. rationale for thi, action and Its
effective date are presented below. In
this context many Issues raised by
Federal Registi’ I Vol. 54. No. 105 I Friday. June 2. 1980 /
-------
commenters on the proposal will be
addressed. The remauuflg comments
will be discussed in the next portion of
this notice.
In approving the Connecticut and
Rhode Island RVP SIP revisions. EPA
must consider reqw.rement.s miposed b)i
two thiferent sections of the Clean Air
Act. As with all SIP revisions. section
110 provides the requirements for
approval into the SIP. In this case. since
EPA has promulgated Federal RVP
regulations. section Z11(c )(4)(A)
preempts inconsistent state control.
However. section 211(c)(4)(C) provides
that the Administrator may except a
state RVP control program from
preemption if he finds it is “necessary”
to achieve the NAAQS. Thus, the
Connecticut and Rhode Island revisions
must satisfy both section 110 and
section 211 requirements to gain
approval.
EPA has concluded the the
Connecticut and Rhode Island RVP
regulations are “necessary” to achieve
the ozone NAAQS. In reaching this
conclusion EPA baa followed the test
first articulated in approving the
Maricopa Country Arizona SIP (53 FR
17413 (May 18. 1988) and 53 FR 30228
(August 10. 1988)) and later presented in
the proposed approval of the
Connecticut and Rhode Island revisions.
EPA stated that IL after accounting for
the possible reductions from all other
reasonable control measures.
Connecticut and Rhode Island could
demonstrate that RVP controls are still
required to achieve the standard, then
RVP controls are necessary within the
meaning of section 211 (c)(4) (C). EPA will
not interpret that provision to require a
state to impose more drastic measures
such as driving prohibitions or source
shutdowns before It can adopt Its own
fuel control program.
As discussed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking, the record indicates that
Connecticut needs VOC emission
reductions on the order of at least 37%
from 1987 inventory levels to acheive
the standard. Connecticut reviewed
approximately 15 measures suggested
by EPA as reasonable in addition to
RVP control 109 psi and found that they
could together potentially achieve a 24%
reduction from 1987 levels.
ihancements to the state’s vehicle
inspection and maintenance filM)
program could produce an addItional 2%
reduction. Similarly. the record indicates
that Rhode bland needs VOC
redudons -n the order ,f itt I est 28%
from ls Z 3 i wentory levels o achieve
the at d d. Rhode Island evtewed
c.ther reasonable measures In addition
to RVP control, including an enhanced
state vehicle 1/M program. and found
that they could together potentially
achieve a 10% reduction from 1986
levels.
As Indicated in both the Connecticut
and Rhode Island proposals, while
EPA’s regulation of gasoline to 105 psi
reduces the emission reduction
attributable to the state regulation. it
does not affect the bottom line—a
shortfall will still e,ast. EPA’s technical
review of the data presented in the
states’ submissions and by the
commenters affirms the conclusion that
a shortfall will exist even with the
Implementation of all other reasonable
state and federal measures.
A continues to believe that the fact
that the state RVP regulation might not
by itself fill the shortfall and hence by
itself achieve the standard does not
mean the rule is not “necessary to
achieve” the NAAQS. It is simple logic
that “necessary” is not the same as
“sufficient” EPA believes that the
“necessary to achieve” standard must
be interpreted to apply to measures
which are needed to reduce ambient
levels when no other measures that EPA
or the state has found reaaonnble are
available to achieve this reduction.
Beyond such Identified “reasonable”
measures, EPA need look at other
measures before RVP control, only If it
has clear evidence that RVP control
would have greater adverse Impacts
than those alternatives. EPA has no
such evidence here. Therefore, EPA can
defer to Connecticut’s and Rhode
Island’s apparent views that RVP
control Is the next less costly (or Is Itself
a reasonable) measure. Thus, EPA
concludes that the Connecticut and
Rhode Island RVP regulations are
“necessary” to achieve the NAAQS.
Smv i ry of Pablic Comments and
EPA’s Responses
The major issues discussed in the
comments arm (1) Wbai constitutes a
finding of “necessary to achieve” the
standard under section 211(c)(4)(C); (2)
whether there has been an adequate
technical demonstration that controlling
RVP to9 psi Is “necessary” (i.e. whether
the threshold for exemption from
preemption hu been ossed); (3) the
scope of EPA’s discretion autnnIn a
fliuIh g that state RVPcontzvls are
necessary to achieve the standard; (4)
what effect the 9RVPIImIt in
Connecticut and Rhode Island will have
on the cost and supply of gasoline In
those states and the Northeast
eneral)y (5) drtveabthty and safety
ooncernm (0) whether there is an ozone
pilblem In Connecticut and Rhode
Island; (7) whether the states have
adequate enforcement pro uma: (8)
• stiles arid Regulations
whether the states provided “reasona ’-
opportunity’ for public COmJ,. ent: (9)
what exemptions or waivers from the
state regulations should be allowed (i
the appropriate tiiD.lrzg for maJ .g the
state regulation effective: and (11)
whether EPA should withdraw or
repropose these actions Or reopen the
public comment period in light of EPA’s
recent promulgation of federal RVP
regulations and other alleged
deficiencies in EPA’s proposed actions
Each issue is explored in detail below.
i. What Constitutes a Finding of
“Necessary To Achieve” the Standard
Under Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean
Air Act?
a. Making the “Necessary” Finding
Without a Demonstration of Attainment
Comments, One group of comments
questioned EPA’s ability to make a
finding that the Connecticut and Rhode
Island RVP regulations are necessary to
attain the ozone standard without going
through the complete planning involved
in approving a state’s response to EPA s
finding that the cunent SIP is
substantially inadequate to achieve the
standard (the “SIP call”). Several
comments stated that EPA cannot
approve these states’ RVP regulations as
SIP revisions without finding that the
SIPs as a whole achieve attainment of
the NAAQS for ozone. Related
comments questioned EPA’s ability to
determine whether these states’ RVP
controls are necessary without a new
updated inventory of VOC sources
which EPA will require from the states
with ozone nonattainnient areas as part
of their response to the SIP calls.
Finally, one comment asked how much
time EPA will give states to achieve the
ozone standard and how EPA can
determine what Is necessary to achieve
the atandard without knowing when the
states must achieve attainment
Response. Through its SIP c lls. EPA
has imposed on states like Connecticut
and Rhode Island an obligation to revise
their ozone SIPs and demonstrate
attainment of the standard. The thrust of
these comments Is that EPA cannot
snake a finding of necessity without the
states’ first having gone through the new
planning process and developing a new
demonstration of altainment EPA does
not Interpret section 211(cX4)(C) to
require • complete demonstration of
attainment In order to approve a
measure which will contribute to
attainment
Forcing a state to demonstrate
attainment before allowing tt to adopt
stricter fuel controls would yield
perverse results Areas with the worst
ozone nonattalnnient problems, which
Federal Regisle ’ ‘ Vol 54, No. 1t35 I Friday. June 2. 1989
-------
23652
Federal Regie 11 r I Vol. 54, No. 105 I Ftidsy. June 2, 1988 1 Rules and ReguIatio
have the most difficulty assembling a
demonst tjon of attainment. would be
disabled for perhaps several years from
adopting dearly necessary RVP controls
9tr Cter than the national controls. One
comment noted that Connecticut and
Rhode Island so far have not been able
to identify any combination of control
measures which would bring the states
into attainment. because the size of the
VOC emission reduction necessary to do
so issa large. It is predsely In areas Uke
Connecticut and Rhode Island, with
especially difficult nonattalnment
problems where the expeditious
implementation of new controls. and
hence the Sndlng of necessity endea
section 211(c)(4)(C). is moat appropriate.
Beyond that. It Is reasonable for EPA
to use the best Information it now has
available to determine whether these
states’ RVP programs will be necessary
to achieve the standard without bavtog
to wait for Connecticut and Rhode
Island to complete their planning
response to the SIP call. Including their
updated Inventories. As explained
below, the VOC inventory and reduction
figures Connecticut and Rhode Island
submitted to EPA were based on
reasonably reliable models EPA has
used In the past. Such figures are always
capable of refinement, but In the
Agency’s judgment the expenditure of
time required to do so is not worth the
marginally Improved accuracy. See
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power V.
N.R.D.C. 435 U.S 519,554-555(1978).
EPA has not yet set a date certain by
which Connecticut and Rhode Island
must attain the ozone standard.
Congress may address the widespread
none Itaininent problem In the
amendments to the Act now being
considered. In the meantime EPA has
also proposed Its own policy for how to
deal with SIP plnrmfng for
nonattainment areas in the post-1987
period. 52 FR 45104 (November 24. 1987).
The air quality analyse. Connecticut
and Rhode Island submitted made It
clear that RVP control beyond the
federal requirements will be necessary
to any i*Itainment plan, whether the
att InmPnt date that Congress or EPA
selects Is Lmmlnent or long-term.
Moreover, there I. widespread
agreement among EPA and the states In
the Northeast that ma;or VOC
reductions, probably exceeding the 28 to
37% estinutled by EPA In this case, will
!r raq’t’ ei to get close to attaining the
ak’d.NothingLnthealr
- . the summer of 1985,
• . ecome available in quality-
• .m since publication of the
proposal, indicate. that the reduction
requirement projected by the
Connecticut and Rhode Island analyses
OVerstate the reduction cecessay to
achieve the standard. Beyond that, the
history of ozone planning over the last
decade makes it clear that reduc&aa —
targets are seldom overesbmaied.
Furthermore, EPA. approval of this
proposal now is c ’ten* with section
11O(aX2XA) of the Act which require.
attainment “as expeditiously as
practicable.” InImWetlng ectioe
211(cfl4XC) to require a complete
attainment d.n iitr .tlon before EPA
can approre (and a state can hziplement)
a fuel cugirul that the state has
determined tobe practicable and that
would adva the attainment date
would effectively put section
211(cX4) (C) In confect with section
11O(a)(ZXA). ft Is docbtful that Congress
Intended EPA to choose an
Interpretation that would create such a
øonfl Icf
b. The Standard EPA Has Applied to
Determine Whether Fuel Controls Are
Necessary Compared with Other
Controls
Comments. Several commentera
maintained that EPA had not adequately
analyzed whether there are other
control strategies reasonably available
which Connecticut and Rhode TiI n
should implement before resorting to
RVP controls Inconsistent with the
federal regulation. EPA will address
• these efimments In section 2d below.
Other com r1t . cone ,n d the st nA rd
that EPA should use to determine
whether RVP con vls are necessary
compared to other controls. Finally. one
com suggested that EPA’. approach
to comparing ItDrrtati Ie control
strategies Is so vague that it Is
necessarily arbitrary.
Response. In the proposals for this
action. EPA used the approach it firsi
announced when approving the
Maz400pe County Arizona SIP (53 FR
17413 (May18 19e8) 53 PR 3
(August18 1988)) to determine whether
RYP controls beyond the federal
program are necessary to attain the
ozone standard In Connecticut and
Rhode Island. Under that approach. if
after accounting for the possible
reductions from .11 other reasonable
control measures, the states could
demonstrate that RVP controls are still
required to achieve the standard, then
RVP controls are necessary within the
meaning of section 211(c)(4)(C). For the
reasons stated In the Arizona action and
the Connecticut and Rhode Island
proposals. EPA wilt not Interpret section
211(c)(4)(C) to require a state to Impose
more drastic measures such as driving
prohibitions or source shutdowns before
it can adopt its own fuel contrnj
program.
One cfl1 MPJit K1g$uted that EPA
could clarify the method by whith t
det rmini whither fuel CoOfrola a
necessary by ranking all possible
control measures according to their coat
per ton of VOC reduced each year, and
approving additional fuel controls only
when the state has first exhausted all
controls which coet less per ton than
fuel controls. EPA and the states have
not developed coat figures for all the
altmnative controls which the agencies
considered before resorting to state fuel
controls. Connecticut and Rhode IsLand
have, however, demonstrated to EPA
that implementing all the control
measures which EPA now believes to be
reasonably available to them for VOc
control (induding measures that the
states have already adopted and are
now beginning to implement) would not
achieve compliance with the ozone
standard. The roster of control measures
Connecticut and Rhode Island examined
generally corresponds to the list of
controls EPA has Identified for states to
implement In response to the ozone SIP
calls, and represents EPA’s best
judgment as to the controls which could
now be reuonably Implemented. See
EPA’s proposed post-1987 ozone policy,
52 FR 45104. AppendIx C (November 24,
1987). After exkmtnlng all controls EPA
has determined to be reasonable, a state
is free to make Its own determination as
to what control measures should next be
employed.
Moreover nothing in the language or
purposes of section rn(c)(4)LC) suggests
that EPA must buttress this judgment as
to reasonable controls. a judgment
which is based on the states’ thoughtful
analyses and EPA’s expertise regarding
alternative measures, witha rigorous
cost-effectiveness analysis, in any
event, the shortfall In available emission
redactions from reasonable measures is
so substantial that it Is highly unlikely
that a rigorous cost-effectiveness
comparison would show that there are
enough measures wboie cost-per-ton-
reduced Is below that of RVP controls to
make such controls unnecessary.
One comment maintained that EPA’s
method for detezii Inh g what Is
necessary Is too vague because it would
allow EPA to approve state fuel controls
“simply because alternative measures
an, more inconvenient, unpopular, or
costly” As discussed In section 2d
below, EPA examined reasonable
alternative controls which Connecticut
and Rhode Island could implement and
determined that they would not achieve
enough reductions to achieve the
standard. EPA also has determined that
-------
Federal Regis Vol.
54. No. 105 I Friday. june 2. 19
Rules and Regulatlor s
2365J
remaining controls such as gas rationing.
driving reductions, and source
shutdowns are so drastic that a state
may resort to fuel controls first. This
judgment concerrung what is too drastic
is a complicated policy determination
requir ng the Administrator to weigh
precisely those factors which the
coxnmentor would exclude from his
consideration—whether the remaining
alternatives are costly or unpopular. in
Amoco Oil Co. v. Environmental
Protection Agency. 501 F2d 722, 740—741
(D.C. Cit. 1974) the court distinguished
between the factual foundation which
EPA must provide in its adminiitrative
decisions and policy judgments which
are an integral part of the findings
Congress requires the Administrator to
make under the Act
Where by n a.st. the regulations turn on
choices of policy, on an assessment of risks,
or on predictions dealing with matters on the
&ontiers of edentific knowledge. we will
demand adequate reasons and explanations.
but not “findings” of the sort familiar from
the world of adjudication.
Id. at 741. EPA’s and the states’ analyses
of reasonably available controls Is
based on a factual record supported by
the best analytical tools the agencies
had available to them at the time. EPA s
judgment that state fuel regulation Is a
less drastic course than gas rationing
and other unpopular controls so far not
implemented in any SIP Is clearly a
matter on the frontier of air pollution
control pl imIn . and therefore cannot
(and need not) be supported by the same
technical record as. for example. EPA’s
determination that Cocnectimit needs at
least 37 percent reduction from Its 1987
Inventory or Rhode Island needs at least
828 percent reduction from its 1988
inventory to attain the standard.
2. Have ConnecticuL Rhode Island and
EPA Made an Adequate Technical
Demonstration That Controlling RVP to
Opsi is ‘Wecasawy” to Attain the
NA A QS?
a. Adequacy of Emission Inventory.
Comments. Three petroleum industry
commenters argued that the emission
inventories used In the technical
demonstration are Inadequate. They
pointed out that EPA has already
requested that Connecticut and Rhode
Island prepare a new inventory as part
of their response to the SIP call.
Therefore it is argued that the states’s
rehance on the old inventories is
inappropriate.
Respon e. As described In EPA’s
Technic& Support Document.(TSD) for
each proposal, the emissicn ii: lee
used by Connecthut and Rhode ‘sle.nd
and reviewed by EPA are basqd on
-EPA’s “Compilation of Air Potlutant
Emission Factors.” known by its
document number “AP—12.” This
document and its updates are EPA’s
longstanding guidance for determining
emissions for inventory purposes and
has served as the basis for ozone SIP
inventories since the mid—1970s. Mobile
source emissions were estimated using
the then current version of EPA’s mobile
source emissions model. MOBILE3.
consistent with standard EPA guidance.
While EPA has called for many states.
Including Connecticut and Rhode Island,
to update their inventories for post—1987
SIP pl nnlng purposes, the Agency has
continued to use eidsting inventories in
evaluating current control proposals.
EPA expects the new Connecticut and
Rhode Island inventories, not due until
late 1989, to show higher emissions than
the current Inventory since they are
expected to include more sources and
Improved quality assurance. Thus. if the
current inventories are lacking. they
understate current emissions and err
such that the likely percentage reduction
needed to attain the standard Is also
understated.
As stated in the proposals for this
action. EPA believes that If there Is an
error in quantifying the emission
reductions resulting from control to 9
psi. those reductions are understated. If
the newly released mobile source
emission model. MOBILE4. which
Includes the effects of running losses.
were used. one would expect the
reduction In tons of VOCs to Increase
significantly. Furthermore. contrary to
the commenters’ belief, the estimated
emission reductions are based on
reductions achieved during only the four
and one-half months each year the
regulations are effective. This approach
may understate the reduction since 9psI
fuel may be in the distribution system up
to two additional months on each end of
the regulatory season.
Also contrary jo the c nm.nters’
nliiim EPA’s ‘iSDu do contain an
estimate of the emission reduction
achieved by going from EPA’s 10.5 psi
limit to the states 9 psI limit. EPA
estimated a 4% reduction from the 1987
inventory In Cononclicut end a 1.2%
reduction from the 1986 inventory In
Rhode Island. This estimate does
account for nonlinearity In emission
reductions with decreasing RVP limits.
b. App pr4ateness of the MOdeling
Demonstration
Comments. While some coinmenters
agreed that modeLing was necessary to
‘.‘aluatc the air quality benefit of the
RVP scdurction. the? objected to EPA’s
a.gio al Oxidant Model
/ ¼i commenters also raised
conceeus about the appropriate
hydrocarbon-to-nItrogen-oxIdes (NO 1 )
ratios to be used in such modeling. t
third modeling issue Concerns the si
and EPA ’s inability to associate a
quantified increment of improved ai. —
quality with the control of Rvp to 9 psL
Response. The claim that the ROM
does not provide the spatial resolution
needed for accurate prediction
individual urban areas loses sight of the
fact that we are evaluating statewide
pro s. The Urban Airshed Model
suggested by the commenters is
appropriate for large urban areas but
would have to be stretched to its limit to
cover all of Connecticut. Given Rhode
Island’s small size, Airshed could be
used for evaluating the Rhode Island
program. However, having decided that
the ROM is an appropriate tool to use iii
evaluating the Massachusetts program,
consistency also favored its used in
evaluating the programs in the
neighboring states. Finally, the ROM is
much better equipped to evaluate the
longer range transport of ozone which
plagues the Northeast. Caught between,
the two available model scales, It is
EPA’s technical Judgment that the ROM
Is an appropriate tool to use In
evaluating future reductions needed for
Connecticut and Rhode Island.
EPA understands the concern that
past strategies have focused almost
exclusively on controlling VOC lnstt
of NOr As Indicated in EPA’. post-Il
ozone strategy, future control scenarios
are likely to Include NO 1 . However. It Is
highly unlikely that NO 1 control alone
will suffice. The best technical
information available to EPA at this
time concerning the Northeast ozone
problem points to the need for
substantial VOC reductions and at least
modest NO 1 reductions in the future to
attain the ozone standard.
The last modeling issue concerned the
states’ and EPA’s inability to associate a
quantified increment of improved air
quality with the control of RVP to 9 psi.
While such a modeling exercise would
be Ideal, It Is unlikely that one would
have much confidence In the outcome of
such a sensitivity test. The atmosphere’s
response to emission reductions of
ozone precursors Is highly nonlinear
such that small increments of reduction
may show little or no effect on their
own. However, when the reductions
front the states’ many strategies are
aggregated, the total impact becomes
quantifiable. Thus, even though
Connecticut, Rhode Island and EPA
cannot pinpoint where the air quality
will improve by what amount on what
day, we are confident that there will be,
a net improveinen In ozone levels if
Connecticut and Rhode Island were to
-------
23654
Federal R.gia / Vol. 64. No 105 / FrIday. JUne 2. 1989 I Rules and Regniations
decruasu V uioas by 4% and 2.2%
respectively.
C. Wbeth the Connecticut and
Rhode Island RVP Pro ams Will Help
Attain the Ozone Standard at All
Coinmeni& API daimed that analyses
by bdth Connecn it and Rhode ! *1nnd
su$gest that the state would virtually
be in attainment except for the transport
of ozone and its precursors from other
areas and that, because of the transport
problem. VOC redue icna from sources
In the eta tea will have little or no effect
on ozone attainment there. Under these
circumstances, API claimed that EPA
cannot reasonably conclude that
Connecticut or Rhode Island’s program
Is necessary, or even helpful, to
attainment of the ozone stpndArd In that
state.
Response. APr. conoern Is flawed
because it acknowledges transport into
the state but Ignores transport out. It
may be true that measures taken In
Connecticut or Rhode Wand will have
little measurable Impact within that
state’s borders. This Ia la ely because
these states are comparatively
EPA has, however consistently
designed nonattainment urea ozone SIP.
to account for the impact an upwind
area has on ozone levels In downwind
arees. See Clean Afr Act section
11O(a)(2)(E), 42 U.S.C section
7410(a)(2)(E). Courts have upheld EPA’ .
Interpretation on the nonattainment area
controls In Pert D of the Act to allow the
Inclusion of upwind areas which
contribute to osone violations
downwind. See State of Ohio versus
Ruckelshous. 776 F.Zd 1333(6th dr.
1985). cart den. sub. corn. Ohio verses
Thomas. 106 S.Ct 2889(1988), and cases
cited therein at 1340. In fact, many
states in the Northeest designed their
1982 ozone plans based on design values
in neighboring states. On most high
ozone days in the Northeast,
Connecticuts emissions
photocheindafly react into ozone
somewhere over Massachusetts or
Rhode Island. Slniilaily. Rhode Island’s
emissions me cccthbeting to unhealthy
ozone levels In Massachusetts or
southern New Hamephire. This moss-
boundary transport I . precisely why
EPA has turned to regional scale models
to evaluate the need [ or control
rneaawes.
d. Consideration of Other Alternatives
CommonL ommenters ex r ,.ed
concern that’ Cobáe ’ci t. Rh Island
and EPA e 1 ll5 d” con’v - th r
significant al:rxnctt int :
that could lead o ut : msut q
reIssed er & ’goriea i i?’
çendlx C of EPA ’s proposed post.
ozone policy including statiansay
source conc’oh and transportation
control measure,.
Response. EPA believes that rn clez3t
aitsenanves wme considered. In the
Connecticut submission EPA fo d
consideration of the emission reduction
potential of 13 different point and area
sawne categories. Some of these
categories correspond to those
su98elted by EPA in its proposed post-
1987 ozone policy. Not surprisingly,
some of the ource categories are not
relevant because there are no major
sources in those categories In
Connecticut Connecticut alee Included
mee . e not on EPA’s recommended
list In most of the relevant categories
the potential reductions are a very small
portion (less than 1%) of the existing
inventory.
API noted that some of the categories
recommended by EPA were not
evaluated by Conhecticut but are part of
the state’s emission tnvuntoiy. They
particularly note the dry cleaning and
wood furniture coating categories. EPA
notes that these categories account far
0.2% and 0 .1% respectively, of the
Connecticut Inventory. API further
nominated degreaslag and
pharmaceutical manufacturing for
consideration. Totally ellmIn ting
emissions In both these categories,
which Is obviously unachievable, would
yield a 3.5% emissIon reduction.
However, accommodating all of API’s
recommendations would produce Icu
than an additional 4% still far short of
the 11% shortfall indenifled in the
proposal. See Adeb u4ui to Teehnl I
Support Document dated May 5 . 1988.
In the Rhoda TaI . , l ni..i,m EPA
found consideration of four major
control measures in addition to RVP
control. As diw’ reed in the proposal,
Rhoda [ sIg 4 anticipates thai e h n d
plus basic I/M. Stage IL architectural
coatings and coni r solvent controls
could reduce emissions by about 7.5%.
EPA has inii d Rhode Island’s 1952
SIP and believe, that further reductions,
not .4nc i ,nented In Its RVP SIP
submission, could be achieved. The..
reductions would corn. from lowming
the source size ontoE in categories
currently regulated by Rhode Wand (eg.
paper and fabric coating, graphic arts
and other surface coating) and
regulating other categories not carrently
covered (e.g. adhesive.. miscellaneous
metal ai. iting. automobIle ithhIiig
and :‘ ck saphalt). U Rhoda T I nd
... -‘,!;‘, a it uf these
- . .. . . mates that a 6%
venkc... .. c.a i 96 inventory levels
could be reallz.d. See Addendum to
Technical Support Document dated May
5 1989.
EPA’. review indicate. that the
measure. Identified In the post. g
policy and SU eeted by some
coenters are not likely to produce
reductioi in Rhode Island
we found in neighboring
Connecticut or Massachusetts, the
best case this might reech 4% of the
current Inventory. Thus ft Is possible
that Rhode Island could achieve up to a
10% reduction in emissions beyond that
discuesed In the NPR. This additional
20%, whIle helpful In moving toward
attainment, fails far short of filling the
18% shortfall described above. See
Addendum to Technicai Support
Document dated May 5. 1969.
With respect to transportation control
measures, the commentors failed to take
account of the fact that the existing
Connecticut SIP already contains some
of the measures suggested by EPA In its
proposed post-1987 ozone strategy. The
existing SIP (40 CFR 52.370 (c)(32])
Includes Incentives for reduction in
single-passenger commuter vehicle use
throt gh carpooling. vanpoollag
brokerage, extensive fringe park-and.
ride facilities, express bus programs,
and one of the few Indirect source
review programs in the country (44) Q ’R
52.370 (c)(6) and (c)(9fl.
Rhode Island has not Implemented the
same kinds of transportation control
measures already in place in
Massachusetts and Connecticut. Based
on EPA’s experience with the
Massachusetts and Connecticut
programs, however, we expect that
Rhode Island might be able to achieve
an addItional 2% reductioa by adopting
similar strategies. However, this
additional reduction would still not
eftTnln te the estimated shortfall.
While EPA recognizes that other
transportation measures may be needed
Ia’Connecticut and Rhode Island, the
remainder are dlmcult to quantily, yield
small reductions individually, and, as
evidenced by the public reaction to the
EPA-promulgated Implementation plans
tsirting such measures In the 19705
(see H.R. Rep. No. 9S- 4. 95 Cong. 1st
Sees., reprinted in 4 Legislative History
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977, at V’48-65 (1978fl, generally can be
expected to have more significant
adverse . ecti on the public as a whole
than RVPcocbols would. To be sure. If
there were sufficient evidence for EPA
to conclude that the states’ RVP controls
would result In significantly more severe
impacts than other measures that
neither EPA nor the states have yet
Identified a, “reasonable” for the state
to Implement, then it might well be
appropriate for the Agency to account
for the emission reductions that those
-------
other easi z wo d achieve before
detsr’l1L j , the shortfall agamat whiCh
to }il4ge the RVP con train. The Agency
does not believe, however, that the
states’ gyp controls, given the lead-tune
provided by todays approval, would
produce sigmficarnjy more severe
effects than such alternatives (e.g., than
a trip reduction ot ’dinai ce of the type
that Ari.zona found reuonable for
application in Phoenix and Tucson).
In sum. Connecticut, Rhode f*t nA and
EPA have indeed exRminPd a broad
range of potential emission reduction
strategies and have still identified a
significant shortfall in the level of
emission reductions likely to be needed
to achieve the ozone standard.
3. WhaS is the Sc.,pe of EPA’s ietlen
Assuming a Finding That Stage 11 VP
CanfmL Aje h mavy To Achieve the
Standard?
a. Permissible Bases for EPA ’s
Decision to App State RYP Cco olu
Comments. Several c.mmenta
asserted that even where EPA has
determined that state fuel controls are
necessary to achieve the standard, EPA
may neverthelese ±sapprove those
controls If EPA de( rodnes that the
economic or fuel ‘lppll Impacts of the
state’s regulation aie wueasonable.
These commenter s v ted that EPA
may give significant ononideration to
costs because section 2flfr)(4)(C)
provides that the A&inietiatcr “may”
approve a SIP revision imposing state
fuel controls once he makes the finding
of neceaufty. Coa er,ely, other
commenters memtajj,ed that EPA may
‘ lot cflsapprove the Connecticut and
Rhode island SIP r visloog based on
econcanc grounds, once EPA has made
the findIng of necesafty.
Response. EPA believes that it most
consider cast to came limited extent
whenem the A&vinfatra,o, decides
whether to make a findIng ander , e t 4 on
Zfl(c)(4XC) theta fuel Is
“necessary” for attehimerit As
discussed above, to deter e whether
state fuel controls are necessary, EPA
m look first at whether other
measures that it deterri in.... are
reasonable ‘and. perhaps, other
measures the state has adopted) will by
themselves achieve timely ali I a t .
Arguably, an ahernative ‘ ur is
“reasonabis” only if Ito effects me is is
drastic than the effects of the fuel
cenfrols. Clearty the cast d supply
Impact of the stale fuel con ols will be
a facto, is any acvh o4 ’.
EPA -
“may” f.
Admj , j. ,
dlUppz . ‘
minds- ehe,
that state End c o1 ma sary to
achieve the standard. S on
Z11(GX4IIC) mist be read in the context
if the preempuim cieand in section
211(c) (4XA) , w prohibits states from
adopting Ineaneialent fuel control, in
their SIPs, ormnyw else. fcrw
pollution con L parpos s. hi the face of
this bitiozi, the pole effect of the
“may” in sectius 21.1 cX4)(C) is to
authorize A ’ taJsti tnr to ov e
a provision (section 2fl(c)(4XA)) that
would .therwise bar him from
approving the SIP teTi. , n . The of
“may” in section 211(c)(4)(C) does not
eliminate the L 50 that section
13O(aJ(3)(A) places cc the Administrator
to approve the SIP revision, provided it
meets the ‘eq zementa of section
11 eX2). See fl jn,. Natural
Raroo,om Defense C jf. c, 421
U.S IO ,ne(1w5). Sectiun fl a](2)
aqulies the A isuaIystm. to a 1 ,nv,ea
SIP revisson If. ong other thinga , ft
may be e .eaTy to Insure a’ ainm
and maintenance of the standard.
Section 13O(.)(2 B), EPA may not
consideg the connie act of.
necessary SIP revision under section
flO(aX2 under that provision. in is for
the state I. de & . what economic
costs are appropalate to adsieve the
standards, Un /ce, Electrj Co. v. EPA.
427 U.S 248 250 -25 1(1975). Beyond
that, It would be incoagruono for
C egs tove EPA more dIeQtho to
reject a SIP revision for ressons
unrelated to the al of achieving the
st* .4 d as qaickly as possible
precisely where EPA ha. determined
that a SIP avision Is necessary to
achieve the stazuda,d. Therefore, once
EPA makes the thng that state fuel
controls aie necessary to achieve the
standard, • thud1 which includes a
determinetig,, that such fuel controin are
more reasonable than other available
measure,, EPA may not reject a states
SIP proposal simply for economic
masons,
One omumenler cited Aktor Vehicle
Manufoct& ri , i V. EPA.. 7
P.2d 300, 310400 (D.C. Cir. 1185), for the
preposition that th , ae of “may mode,
section 21i the sion to the
of the Mmiuimtor, in
MYMA the t ean EPA’ .
deciaio* so grant a leni,m’ r action
I1(f)(4) if the as of fuel
additives ta.tis1hy to
ns fr. —- The comi
not ___
a _ m , . ,LI a
•3tIea 5p fhi - in
so a SIP sev
‘ p a state f.I hearing at
‘ uIes and Regu]atjo 08
reqtm’ements Qns ll e) (2) an
(3J(A).
b. Intent of Federal Ppti , Uiid
section 211
Comirients. Several comine LflSi 5ted
that EPA should disappro, the
Connecticut and Rhode Island Rvp
controls because Con ess Intended to
avoid a patchwork of different Ste te fuel
controls in favor of a uniformly
regulated national market for fuels.
These commenter, expressed co era
that the exception In section
to the rule of preemption under section
fl1(c)(4) (AJ would eventually swallow
the rule. Several c cnta urged EPA
not to act inconsistently with its
decision not to limit gasoline to 9 psi in
1 in the federal RVP control program,
On the other band, several commerns
urged EPA to support the regional
approach to RVP control that the
P CAL34 states are endatal g. One
tn entar pointed out that where
Congre.. ha. not acted to address the
oos noon 1w Il* p blem.
reson Wet 5th tea do au they
Can to
Response, It is dear that section
211(c)(4)(A) Indicate, that Ca ’ess
to maintain a natiouajly
regulated market fcrf ”-’a, it is equally
dear that section fl1(CX4XCJ indice tee
Congress that there will be
states where the afr qvabty problem is
so us,eri that the interest in a
nationally regulated market must bow to
the need for at ItSanaj state control. on
fuel con EPA bern not been able to
find any legislative history which
Wumin”te, with any detail beyond the
language c i the Ant bow EPA should
sink, this be , . -
Is reasonable t infer that Cangreb,
was a that the air quality needs of
partlcde, states inight meate vary ng
fuel content requirements, and that
C o i g s ted that rink in favor of
protecting the public health. Several
commenlom cited Coip . v. Cay af
New York. 548 F.Zd 1068 (2d Ci i. 1977).
es precedent that a uniformly regulated
fuel market is the ex iuhng purpose
behind section Zi1(cX4). in Ezxon the
court, however, was not faced with a
claim fur an exception to preemption
under section Zfl(cX4J(C), and
apedfleafly left It to EPA to determine
whether such an exception is
appropri ate:
eior
fu mpr 5 , 5 preenptloa of local
regtdatjoa c i moiar vehicle fiapl oily when
mdi ieguladao Lou peovi 4a t :‘ ye
topIuwaut, n plan appra ‘ by the
who be, .fie on ’ lpetm to
sad m
Federal Re ster I No. 105 I Friday, Jiuio 2, 1910
-------
23656
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 105 / Friday. June 2. 1989 / Rules and Reg Jation
Id. at 1096. Once EPA has made a
finding of necessity under section
211(c)(4)(C), it is reasonable for EPA to
interpret the Act to piace paramount
importance on protecting public health
and achieving the standard.
EPA believes that the ml industry’s
concern that the exception will swallow
the rule Is overstated. As described
above. EPA will approve inconsistent
state fuel controls only where the state
can demonstrate that exhausting all
other reasonable alternatives will not
achieve the standard. tnlçjng costs into
account in determining reasonableness.
This demonstration Is not a trivial
hurdle, and It is highly unlikely that
every state with an ozone
nonattainment area could make such a
showing. Furthermore, a state Is unlikely
to burden its citizens with the
potentially higher cost of lower RVP fuel
unless the air quality needs are
compelling. Finally, regional initiatives
such as NESCALJM’s help avoid a wide
variety of state controls. In this case, the
Connecticut and Rhode Island programs
are virtually identical to the
Massachusetts program end thus
provide consistent supply requirements
over a group of contiguous states.
EPA also believes that its decision not
to Impose a limit of 9 psI by 1989 In
EPA’. RVP control program does not
preclude EPA from approving the
Connecticut and Rhode Island SIP
proposals. When developing its federal
RVP control program. EPA imposed
controls across the nation, and had to
determine the level of RVP control
which supply sources for the entire
continental United States could
reasonably meet. Further, although EPA
was able to make this determination as
to particular regions within the country.
EPA did not intend to account for the
particular air quality needs of each
state.
4. What Effect W1IIthe9RVP Limit in
Connecticut and Rhode Island Have on
the Cost and Supply of Casoline?
Comments. Several of the oil company
coinmenters. (API. BP. Mobil) stated that
If the 9 psi standard took effect In 1989
the distribution system would be
strained and that there could be some
significant supply dislocation and cost.
increases. Several other commenters
were worried about possible supply
problems. Several stated that even if
refiners had capacity to produce 9po1
gasoline, there would be logistical
problems such as the need for additional
tankage for storage associated with its
distribution. Also, one commenter stated
it It could not ensure that Imports at 9
would be available. Most of the oil
npany commenters (API. Mobil. Sun)
stated that there wilj be some need for
capital improvements at refineries to
meet the 9 psi standard. Several (API.
Mobil), stated that there will likely be a
cost impact to the Connecticut and
Rhode Island standard and other
commenters stated that they were
worried about the Increased cost. API
stated that the estimates of Increased
cost do not reflect the extra cost
increase that could accompany a
significant supply disthbution.
Proponent. cited two studie. as
support for the position that supply is
not a problem.
Response. The potential supply
problems arise out of two factors. First.
decreasing the volatility of gasoline
requires increased refinery capacity. It
Is certain that Implementation of 9 psi
volatility In the NESCAUM states will
create a refining capacity reduction in
the amount of gasoline capable of being
produced at each refinery. This Is true of
both domestic and foreign suppliers.
Second. the problem may be further
exacerbated by the expected increased
demand in gasoline In the summer
months.
Various studies have been conducted
to determine how much refining
capacity wifi be lost from
Implementation of 9 psi volatility in the
NESCAUM states, how much demand
for gasoline Is likely to Increase in the
summer of 1989, and what effect these
factors will have on gasoline supply
capabilities. The two studies done for
NESCAUM and the one done for EPA
are Inconclusive. There appear to be
numerous factors which make precise
prediction of these effects impossible.
However, under the EPA Study (Sobotka
study), estimates indicate that the
volatility standard may be feasible
without serious supply problems.
The Sobotka study cites the
Department of Ener v (DOE) as
predicting that demand for gasoline
should increase only In the range of 1 to
t5 percent this summer. This estimate is
also supported by other studies,
including one reported at a National
Petroleum Refiners Association
conference. The study also estimates
that approximately a 5 percent refining
capacity shortfall will occur at domestic
refineries because of the NESCAUM
volatlllty, g ilations. The study
estim qs * WjJb a 12 percent
increase le emand for gasoline tnthe
summer J.& refineries would be able to
make up :or a 5 percent domestic
shortfall.. anda 10 percent Import
shortfalf llpu Qnaluctlon of new
facilities or Installation of additional
equipment. Although various factors
make it Impassible to accurately predict
the refining shortfall of L iported
gasoline, there is no strong evidence
indicating that it will exceed 10 percert.
Thus. the Sobotka study suggests that t
is likely that the resulting re ery
capacity shortfalls from a 9 psi standard
in 1989 should not result in supply
shortfalls.
In the unlikely event of unforeseen
supply disruptions. Connecticut and
Rhode Island have each assured EPA
that they have the authority to take
immediate steps to provide needed
waivers or exceptions to the program.
The States have committed to carefully
monitor the supply situation this year
and take appropriate action, as may be
necessary, to ensure that supply
problems do not occur as a result of its
state RVP control program. See also the
response to section 9 later in this notice
for more discussion of state waiver, or
exceptions.
5 What Effect Will 9 R VP Gasoline
Have on Driveability in Cold Weather
and on Vehicle Safety?
Comments. Cominenters representing
petroleum interest. expressed concern
that the 9 RVP fuel could cause hard
starting, hesitation, and stalling in the
early spring and late fall. Gasoline will
have to enter the distribution system in
March and will not be out until October
in order to comply with the regulation.
Temperatures can be at or near freeting
during this time of year. One comnienter
stated that cars that are poorly tuned
and have weak batteries are more
susceptible to low RVP fuel problems.
They also stated that California should
not be used for comparison because
they have a shorter supply time since its
fuel comes from refineries within the
state.
Other commenters supported the use
of 9 RVP fuel, claiming that driveability
is not a problem because the weather in
nothern California Is similar to the
weather In New PiaglAnd . They also
referred to the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association statement on
the New Jersey RVP regulations. dated
August 18b 1989, which stated that 9 RVP
fuel would cause no driveability
problems. Another comnienter
representing a group of automobile
manufacturers Indicated there should be
no adverse effect from th. use of 9 RVP
fueL
Two commenters stated that although
fuel used now Is safe because the
vapor. are too rich In hydrocarbons to
be Ignited, the reduction to 9 RVP fuel
will make the vapors potentially
explosive below 15 degrees Fahrenheit
Mother cornmenter’s report showed
that reduction of RVP to 9 reduced fire.
-------
and prob oI qverpreuixration.
vapor lock, fuel spurung. and fuel
foaming.
Rerponse. We believe that the nature
of the gasoline disthbutlon System
makes it very unlikely that 9 RVP fuel
will be available to conawners in March
or early April. even if the blending-down
process by that tune has begun to
reduce RVP. Continued availability of
low-RVP fuel ii even eu hkely by late
October because the blending-up
process will occur rapidly at the close of
the conhol period. Nevertheless, the
experience of California, which ha.
reqmed 9 RVP fuel for many years.
appear, to demonstrate that widespread
diiveability’ or fuel safety problems will
not occur in New England. We know of
no evidence of sxtensive problems In
California, despite significant operation
at cool temperatures and high
elevations.
As further evidence of this concision,
one can compare the true vapor pressure
rrvpj experienced in fuel tanks at
different times during the year. For
example, when corrected for elevation,
gasoline in Riflingis , Montana at its
January 1988 average RVP of 13.6 psI
and at the historic low January
temperature of —30 degrees Fahrenheit
would result in a true vapor pressure of
1.0 psi. For Boston, the analogous RVP
and temperature of 10.0 pal and —12
degrees would also result in a TVP of 1.0
psi. In con ast.&5 pal fuel at an
analogous Boston April temperature of
18 degrees would result In a TVP of 1.8
psI, 80 percent higher than the winter
figure. While similar analyses are not
available for Hartford and Providence,
winter RVP and temperature hi these
cities are very similar to Boston and It Is
reasonable to expect to find similar
results. We coridude from this that If
low volatility fuel were to reach
consumers during very law tempui- thr
weather, any degradation in thiveabilfty
or fuel safety would be no greater (and
would likely be less) than that
experienced darbie the winter.
Conversely, low voletility fuel should
Improve vehicle driveability in very hat
weather by reducing the occurr ce of
such conditions as vapor lock and fuel
foam g.
Lie There ReoJJya Severe Ozc’ .
Problem in Connecticut eird Rhode
friand or the Northeast?
i and 1868 which show a worvefl.i.ng
of the ne problem swce i 6 They
noted that 1988 was one of the wo ’st
onone , e ns on record laces the
Northeast.
Response. EPA is firmly convinced
that there is a serious ozone problem in
the Northeast. EPA’. conviction was
evidenced by last year’s SIP c cl i to
Connecticut. Rhode Island and mOst
other Northeast states. This SEP call was
based on 1985-1987 ozone m taing
data which ranked southern New
England among the worst ozone
nonattainment areas in the country.
EPA ’. ccn’era is further balghtened by
the 1988 oncme season. The omue
standard was exceeded more frequently,
at more sites, end at higher levels in
1988 than in 1987. La fact, as one
noted, a 198$ EPA Rogion I
study comparing peblic health risk from
environmental peoblems In New
Wiigl nd ranked ne in the highest risk
category (“Unfinial d New
EngJiti & A Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems”, December
1988).
7. Hove Connecticut tmd Rhode Island
Demonstmted That They Have
Adeqaot.Lufarcem eat P ogruras as
Required by S ioe 110 of the Clean
AirAa?
Rules and Regulations 23657
concern for the national RVP pregr -r ,
which allows for three dif ere i RVP
fuels. depending on defined g c ’apl,
areas. Opporturu hes to blend th ’e
djffering RVP gasoline en route to the
retailer to yield a flOnComplyi ,g fuel
would e ist EPA concluded in its
naoonai rulemaking that testrig at all
points in the distribution system would
provide the ‘best safeguard” ag st
Or 1 u gasoline
and would result hi the greatest
likelihood” of àchievthg iroiin e tal
results. However, EPA did not conclude
that Its program represented a mlniman
standard or that anything short of this
anfu , .e?z] nt scheme would be
Inadequate wider section flO(a) 2).
EPA does not believe that the
Connecticut and Rhode Island
enforcement programs muet mirror the
federal First. If the states
successfully ensure that all the gasoline
hi bulk planta and t rntht ls within the
state are below 9 psI, the opportunities
for RVP nJ gin ’ m,nt within the state
will be . Retail distributors would
have to Duck higkD RVP gasoline into
Connecticut and Rhode Island and
splash blend the gesoline to accomplish
this, an nnhlIc ’ ly scanario Second. retail
outlets In Connecticut and Rhode island
will be subleca to EPA’s national
enforcement program. If gasoline that
does act comply with the states’ V psi
limit Is found at retailers In th. state by
EPA, we will surely share such evidence
with the Thus, while the EPA and
Connecticut and Rhode Island RVP
enforcement programs do not match,
they do have significant overlap,
provide for some Inspection of retailers.
and contain sn clent flexibility to
adequately provide anlolusment of the
regatioa.
EPA the dL,i j with APi’s view
thatanabsenneolrscotdke eping
provisions fatally flaws the states’
While EPA’s
general enforcement galdance for all
— rnDfldQ rocordkeepuig
provisions. EPA is not rigidly bowid by
sea giddance. It Is pertienlerty true In
this com where EPA’s awn RVP
anlwnessana puogrom does not req*e
recordkeepix*g. As API noted. EPA
dimwit s issue Is the TSD for the
C cnt p. .jnaiI and ‘n ’ d
that It was not ‘ tic.
Massisvw. EPA notes that in the
ar sf sm1or enI
through Delayed Compliance Orders
!DCC * wuI . have bald that EPA may
‘i . ’ - ‘ indpsst.&schoIceef
‘-‘ t me ’ 3 w so as the
- - Z.. iIaarmaonsblec ne.
- . ‘ -. ICc .p v. U P.A., 800
1 u L 1 $-1O05 (7th Or. 99S0)
Federal Ragistr ‘ Vol. 54. No. 1L I Friday. June 2. 190 ’
Commen . API correctly noted that
section 110 of the Act reqalres that the
state provide a program for enforcement
of the emission limitations as well as
aeceesery assurances that It has
adequate to Implement the
plan. API noted that Cesmecticat and
Rhode Island Intend to enforce their
problems through sampling at terminals.
bu& plants end other primary
dlatr%utieu pointo bet not at retailers.
API pointed eat that EPA’. RVP
enforcement these
polite and eisa reesthe, all the way to
retailers, and cIa ed that this
establishes. mialmam standard for
effective . ,J. of RVP ts that
Cowiecilcet and Rhode Island fd to
meet API further vad that the
states’ regulation. do not s.thfy EPA’.
guidelines fee ,. .s abthty and legal
seffiuleney bsnsuae they Dy
contain u RVP eep4ng
__ re ulrs enta for J gasoline
. fadId ..
Rsspmme. EPA does not ee with
APT. ees EPA.
Comments. A amaber of isóishy de- -1 - — . I. u d RYP anLi 1 .—t
commenimi. in - rgaig EPA to puvgrmn down in rota level r ects
disapprove the SIP revision, v nd ____ that lan ” ‘Q be the
that the etr Is really becoming dower oppor Ity in inms - ‘J ’ . . 1
and cleaner over e es that the ‘ - ga.o e thot he. thi. . i’ 3
ozone standard Is bong met - than ‘ P.:
99% of the year. Enetronmesital gr qia -‘ ‘gandtaa with -s 1 r
countered these eIsMi ’ . with dote from- ‘ ‘ ° ‘ •
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 105 / Frtday, June 2. 1989 I Rules and Reguiationa
appealed. Bethiehem Steel v. Go .’ such.
726 F.2d 350 (7th Cit. 1984). rob. den.. en
banc. vacated on reh.. 732 F.2.d 97 (7th
Cu. 1984), withdrawn and appealed. 742
F.2d 1028 (7th Cu. 1984).
Furthermore, even if Connecticute
and Rhode Island ’s enforcement
scheme. were Inadequate to support a
finding, ultimately, that the elate’s
eventually complete ozone SIP update
meets all of the requirements in section
110(a)(Z). EPA could still approve the
rule under section i1O(a)(3). That is
because. even with an inadequate
enforcement program. the rule would
still strengthen the pie-existing SIP and
hence, under the rationale in Michigan
v. Thonios e05 F.2d 176.188(8th Cir.
1988). be approvable for that limited
purpose.
Hove Connecticut and Rhode Island
Satisfied the Act’s Public Notice and
Hearing Requirements?
Comments. API claimed that EPA
failed to address the question of
whether the Connecticut and Rhode
Island SIP revisions were adopted after
“reasonable notice and public hearing.”
While acknowledging that public
hearings were held, they alleged that the
decision to limit RVP to9 psi was
actually made by NESCAUM some time
before public hearings on the
Connecticut and Rhode Island RVP
regulations, and that therefore any
hearings nominally provided are
substantively inadequate. On the other
band. NESCATJM commented that ozone
pollution problems, especially in the
Northwest. are dearly regional
problems and must therefore be dealt
with through conei.tent regulations.
API also questioned whether notice
and hearing was provided on the SIP
revision or just a state regulation. They
believe it was unclear from the public
notices and materials available before
the hearings that the RVP rule ,was
actually intended to be submitted as a
revision to the SIP.
Response. As to the first claim. EPA’.
Federal Register notice actually
provides the dates of the hearings and
the TSD contains an itemization of the
dates the public notices were published.
including an identification of the
newspaper the notice was published in.
Although there Is no summary statement
that the public participation
requirements for hearing and notice
were met, the record does speak to that
effect.
EPA finds APr. concerns that the
‘,ublic hearing. were largely
ieaningless and thus not “reasonable”
o be misplaced. API infers that
onnecticut. Rhode Island and the other
.IESCAUM states had predetermined
the outcome of the hearings before and
without regard to the hearings held in
those states. EPA is not at all convinced
that the process was predetermined. If
API were aggrieved on this matter, we
would have expected it to challenge the
state.’ proceedings under state law, as
API has in fact done in New York.
However, no party challenged
Connecticut’s or Rhode Island’s
proceedings. Lnduding APL who was a
participant
EPA acknowledges that Connecticut
and Rhode Island did initiate
rulem Irtng on RVP control pursuant to
an agreement on RVP control with the
other northeast states. However. having
initiated the rulen king on that basis,
the state then proceeded to promulgate
the regulations through Its full
atbiiintatrative process. giving adequate
notice and opportunity for public
hearing on the proposed regulations.
As a policy matter EPA agrees that
the ozone problem In the Northeast Is a
problem of regional magnitude and has
held several meetings with top EPA and
State environmental officials in EPA
Regions L II . and III to determine what
concerted efforts the states could take
on their own to deal with issues of
regional. but not necessarily national.
scope. Therefore EPA believe, that It is
appropriate for the northeastern states
to regulate ozone precursors in a
consistent fashion. However, each state
must provide for adequate public
participation in the promulgation of
individual regulations. Including
assessing and responding to all
submitted comments. as Connecticut
and Rhode Island have done In
connection with their RVP regulations.
As discussed more fully below, EPA
reviewed the states’ public participation
procedures and determined that the
states provided adequate opportunity
for public input In connection with
development of the RVP rule..
API argued specifically that the states’
bearing procedures were not adequate
to comply with section 110 of the Act or
EPA’s hearing regulation. of 40 CFR
section 51.102. The operative language in
both the statute and the regulation Is
“reasonable notice and public bearing.”
APIasserts that Connecticut and Rhode
Island héd predetermined Its final
decision on RVP regulation and thus the
hearing provided was not reasonable.
However. EP(’. Mterprets the language
of both the st . • . and i ie lmple aenting
reguIa ”z ‘ t ‘a
provide. irst. .na . ‘otlc’ uf
public heartn . .J secciw . a public
hearing. EPA does not believe that the
law requires the Agency to review the
hearing record and determine whether
the heaxing provided was itseIf
“reasonable.’
EPA’s interpretation of the hearing
requirement is clearly reflected in the
reg’ik .ns at 40 CFR 51.102. The
regulations go into substantial detail on
the manner in which states must provide
notice of a hearing in order for that
notice to be considered reasonable, See
40 CF 51.102(d) ’, see also 40 CFR
51.102(g)(2). However, the regulations
make absolutely no mention of specifIc
requirements for conduct of public
hearings. The state need only certify
that it in fact held a public hearing,
which Connecticut and Rhode Island
clearly did, and need not provide any
detailed information on the conduct of
the hearing,
mis is appropriate because the
reasonableness of public notice can be
assessed objectively by reviewing the
amount and variety of notice methods
used. Assessing the reesonableness of a
bearing on the other hand would be a
highly subjective determination done
retrospectively that wculd unnecessarily
infringe on the state’s discretion In
conducting its hearings. Of course, if
EPA receIved concrete evidence that the
hearing did not provide adequate
opportunity for public partIcipation. It
could find that the hearing did not meet
the intent of EPA’s regulation. EPA has,
however, received no such evidence.
API further claimed that a state must
specifically identify a proposed
regulation as a future SIP revision prior
to scheduling a public hearing on the
regulation. However, neither the statute
nor EPA’s regulations contain any such
explicit requirement. The purpose of a
public hearing is to receive public input
on the substance of proposed
regulations, not on whether the state
may or may not submit the regulations
as a SIP revision. For years EPA has
approved SIP revisions with no analysis
of whether the state had publicly
announced its intent to eventually
submit a proposed regulation as a SIP
revision at the state public hearing
stage.
Generally it should be totally
Irrelevant to public commentera whether
a regulation with which they will be
required to comply as a matter of state
law might also become an aspect of
federal law. At the time Connecticut and
Rhode Island held their public hearings
on the RVP rules, prior to federal
preemption, commenters should
similarly have had no concern as to
whether the proposed state rules would
eventually become federal law as well.
Only where a state regulation would
otherwise be preempted by existing
federal law and therefore unenforceable
-------
vould the public have a need to laiow
hat the state intended to seek federal
ipprova] of the regulation for purposes
if preemption waiver in preparing
omments at the state hearing level.
[ his was not the case at the time of the
itate hearing on the Connecticut and
thode Island RVP riijes. Moreover.
pven EPAs then outstanding proposal
a regulate RVP and thus preenipt state
WP regulation, it should have been
ipparecit to commentera at the time of
the public bearing that Connecticut and
Rhode Island would submit the nile as a
SIP revision to Insure enforceability in
the event of EPA final RVP regulation
and pieemption.
R Should Waivers or Exemptions from
the State Regulations be Gr intad to
upp!iers Who Cannot Provide 9 RVP
gasoline?
Comments. Two commenters (BP Oil
and Sun) expressed concern with
potential inequities resulting from
supplier-specific requests for waivers.
rhey indicated that the use of supplier-
specific waiver provisions could
diminish the calculated benefits of the
rule by allowing higher RVP gasoline
Into the system, and financially
disadvantage those companies which
are able to comply. They also expressed
roncern that the use of waivers and
exemptions introduces uncertainties
about whether the volatility regulations
will be applied fairly and equitably to
all gasoline suppliers, because the
Connecticut and Rhode Island
regulations do not Include explicit
provisions for the states to follow in
considering applications for waivers or
exemptions from individual suppliers.
The commentate concluded that if
waivers or exemptions are to be used.
they must apply to all suppliers and
significant penalties should be attached.
In addition, one cdmnienter noted that
EPA has to consider how it will respond
to supplier-specific waiver requests: and
EPA “is urged to adopt a policy on
waivers which Is consistent with Its own
RVP regulatory program?’
Response. EPA Is aware that -
Connecticut and Rhode Island Intend to
grant waivers to individual suppliers if
necessary to avoid serious supply
dislocations during the Initial stages of
their RVP programs. Although EPA did
not focus on this aspect of the program
in its notice of proposed rulemaldng,
commenters were also aware of the
states’ Intentions and the issue was hilly
aired in the public comments. EPA Is
approving the Connecticut and Rhode
Island RVP programs whole, which
includes the ability of the atates to issue
waivers as appropriate. EPA Is in
essence pro-approving any waivers that
Connecticut or Rhode Island might erant
as part of the overall RVP program being
approved into the Connecticut and
Rhode Island SIPs today. Connecticut
and Rhode Island will not be required to
submit each waiver to EPA as a SIP
revision before it may take effect.
EPA is currently able to pie-approve
any waivers that Connecticut or Rhode
Island may grant because the RVP
program is a dia etionary program that
the states’ have submitted to generate
additional emission reductions and
move the state closer to attainment of
the ozone NAAQS. EPA Is not pro-
approving waiver. from a federally
required program or a program to which
EPA has already assigned specific
emission reduction credits as part of an
overall attainment demonstration. EPA
could not pre-approve waivers In such
situations because they would constitute
SIP relaxations. Here, whatever
emission reductions Connecticut and
Rhode Island obtain from the RVP
program. even after any waivers have
been granted, will tighten the existing
SIP and improve air quality.
EPA notes that its pie-approval of any
waivers Connecticut or Rhode Island
may grant under the RVP program
differs dramatically from approval of a
generic permitting program such as a
new source review or bubble program.
In those cases, EPA authorizes states to
approve relaxations of S W requirements
provided that the state follows approved
procedures calculated to Insure that all
such waivers are accounted for in the
SIP attainment demonstration and are
issued using replicable evaluation
techniques. Here, since EPA Is not
cui ently relying on the Connecticut and
Rhode Island RVP programs for any
defined emission reduction credit
toward an approved attainment
demonstration. EPA need not now
analyze the criteria by which
Connecticut or Rhode Island will issue
any waivers. Connecticut and Rhode
Island are free 16 Issue waivers on the
basis of their own state criteria
consistent with any requirements of
their state ath, 1ni.trafive procedures
acts.
When Connecticut and Rhode Island
do submit their completed post-1987
attainment demonstration. EPA will
assign specific emission reduction
eredits to the RVP programs, taking
account of any supplier-specific waivers.
th, states may have Issued by that time.
Once EPA has approved the
Connecticut’s and Rhode Island post-
1987 SIPs. ft will take whatever
rulemaking action is necessary to ensure
that any further waivers under the RVP
program, which at that point would be
considered SIP relaxations, would be
submitted to EPA for approval u
individual SIP reviaIa ss.
Finally, EPA notes that any suppliers
Rules arid Regulation 3 23659
who receive waivers from CorIflectjcL ,.
or Rhode Island must still comply w
the federal RVP limit of 10.5 psi.
10 How Soon After the Dote of Fin_.
Appm vol of the Connecticut and Rhode
Island Revisions Should the R VP
Regulations Be Mode Effective?
Comments. Many commenters were
concerned with the timing of EPA’s final
action. Those favoring EPA approval of
the SIP revision generally favored EPA
acting quickly to make the regulations
effective by their May I starting date or
as close to that as possible. These
commentere note that the Colonial
Pipeline, which supplies 20% of the
Northeast’s gasoline, has been shipping
9 RVP fuel to the Northeast since March
1.1989. They also pointed out that those
suppliers who have made a good faith
effort to comply with the May 1st date
would be at a competitive disadvantage
relative to those with cheaper, higher
volatility gasoline if the date is
extended.
Those opposing EPA approval of the
SIP revision generally asked that if we
did approve It we must provide the
petroleum Industry with realistic and
sufficient lead-time to enable 9 psi
gasoline to be distributed throughout the
distribution system. These conimenter’ —
dted EPA’. allowing 70 and 100 days
the recently promulgated national
regulations to become effective at the
terminal and retail level respectively as
precedent for such a decision. A third
path, suggested by API. would be for
EPA to make It. final approval
conditional on the state’s deferral of the
compliance date for It. regulation.
Response. The timing issue Is one of
the most difficult ones posed by this
action. Since EPA has had control of the
tfn ing of the final federal RVP action,
the decision on the Massachusetts RVP
SIP, and the decision on the Connecticut
and Rhode Island RVP revisions, it Is
important that we ensure that both the
federal and state programs start with a
maximum likelihood of success and a
mfrthnum possibility of supply
disruption.
EPA must consider several issues in
deciding when to make the rule
effective. The first Issue Is when the
industry was put on notice that It would
have to supply 9psi gasoline to
Connecticut and Rhode Island. As the -
state.’ rules were passed in 1988. the
industry was on notice since then of the
states’ Intention to control V IP to9 psi.
Howqyqçt sq Connecticut and Rhode
-Island rule3 ,i’vere preempted on March
22,1989 by ia prorai.dgatlon if the
fsder vqI( t1 ty ree drements.
Mothez&luue to consider Is the lead
time that would be necessary to enabk
O pal gasolin, to get through the
Federal Regist / Vol. 54. No. 105 I Friday. June 2. 19F
-------
distribution system. The record
indicates that the ijidujtiy thought that
it would take from 80 to 70 days to
achieve compliance at the terminals in
Connecticut and Rhode Is i 1. The
record also inthcetes that t. lc !r.
Pipeline, which supplies at least O% of
the gasoline Lii the Northea . t. has been
shipping 9psi guaoline sInce March 1.
1989.
The final Issue involves the air quality
consequence, of delaying the effective
date. EPA should not delay action on a
SIP revision In much a manner as would
thwart the states’ Intent In requesting
the SIP revision. Connecticut’s and
Rhode Island’s subinluions of the RVP
SIP revision last winter were clearly
aimed at getting their regulatory
programs in place for the 1989 orone
season. Thu. it is Important to have the
effective date as early as possible in
order to maximize the air quality
benefit, of the programs In i9 .
In deciding to make this action
effective on June 30, 1989, EPA has
attempted to balance these competing
interests. EPA believes that this
effective date will both ffflnhvnf.e
possible difficulties the Indus y might
encounter with a shorter lead-time and
provide citizens in the Northeast as
much relief as is practical during most of
the 1989 ozone season. Although some
suppliers may have a good faith effort to
comply with the May 1 effective data
specified In the Connecticut and Rhode
Island proposals, they were under no
obligation to do so once EPA preempted
the states’ requirement by promulgating
Federal RVP controls on March 22, 1989.
The Agency cannot, therefore, select an
earlier effective date for all suppliers
based on the voluntary action of a few.
especially conaid thig that the time
between the March 22 federal
rulemxidng and todays publication Is
critical to the refiner/supplier pIsm r g
and ünplewentatloe process regarding
fuel delivery for the coming mlmmø, .
However, because refiners have already
begun to prepare for the sale of 9 RVP
fuel as a result of EPA’s approval of the
Massachusetts RVP SIP (published on
May 4. 1989 54 FR 19173J, and In light of
the fact that the three states share zany
links in the gasoline disthbution
network, the Agency does not believe
that an additional 60 to 70 days lead -
time I. warranted. This starting dat. in
Connecticult and Rhode Island mirrors
the starting date of the Massachusetts
program.
ii. Should EPA Reopen the Comment
Period or Withdryjw and Repropose This
SIP Revision in Light of EPA , 7naI
Act/un on the Nat/one! R VP Regret ‘a
and Other Alleged Defects rn th. Math
Proposo!s
Como,enta. EPA received divergent
cornmeri , on the apprpyiiate prcoeu
for and timing of a final action on the
C3nnectjcut and Rhode Island SIP
r vt i’ s. Rhode Island argued that EPA
I Lake final action r.s soon as
possible. On the other hand, the
Amcr can Petroleum Institute (API) felt
that because of “erous allegedly
unresolved issues raised In their
substantive comments EPA should at a
minim, ,, , , repropose action an the
revision to deal with these issues before
proceeding to final action.
Re ponse. EPA conclude. that given
its interpretation of the relevant law and
the seasonal nature of the Connecticut
and Rhode EalRnd revisions, the Agency
should proceed expeditiously to final
action based on the record currently
before it. EPA Is impersnaded by API’.
claim that circumstances have so
changed since the )ropoaed approvals of
the Connecticut and Rhode Island
revisions that we should reopen the
comment period or withdraw and
repropose this action. EPA’s proposed
Federal Register notices for the
Connecticut and Rhode Island RVP
programs explicitly discussed the
possibility that EPA would take final
action on the national RVP program
prior to final action on the state
programs. EPA dearly presented the
path EPA proposed to follow and the
conclusion, we proposed to reach In the
event that the Federal RVP regulations
were finally promulgated. Furthermore,
in the final Federal Register notice on
the national RVP program, EPA exp-
licitly discussed consideration of
different state RVP control programs.
In this case EPA cendudes that It Is
not necessauy to issue a reproposai prior
to taking final action. EPA believes that
It has adequately responded to all of the
substantive comments raised by
commenters In the substantive
discussions presented above. Obviously.
additional analysis on audi technical
Issues could alway, be conducted,
However, adnsinlstrative agendes
generally have the dlsmetlon to
determine when Issues have been aired
sufficiently and to close the record and
proceed to final action , consistent of
course with the need to act in a
reasoned, non-athtteary fashion.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Powerv.
N.AD.C.. 435 US, 51 554 -655(1978).
Further. EPA should not delay action
on a S W revision in such a , np,rn. , that
would thwart the state’s intent in
requesting the SIP revision. In this case,
Connecticut and Rhode Island have
su nitted a seasonal requirement that
since currently preempted must be
approved In a tlmsiy fashion In order to
effectuate the states’ intent that the
regulations provide emission reductions
benefits to the upcoming asim
/ Rules and RegWati
season. Therefore, EPA shcuj j zna.
bes* efforts to act on the iflfoflflatlon
ava Jab1e to it now to the extant that i ii,
adequate or else the agency would
thwart the states’ Intent with regard to
the 1989 ozone se asoo. Since EPA has
concluded that the exi ,ti re i
sufficient, EPA can prcoeed to fluial
action at this time based on that reco
In EPA’. proposal on the Rhode Islawj
SIP revision we indicated that there was
a problem m l ii the test method sacti
of Regulation Number ii. The zeguiatjo
allowed alternative test method, “
approved by the Director.” EPA stated
that such method, must also be
approved by EPA or else the altennativ
methods must be elinijoatet EPA’s
proposal was made with the
understanding that this defect would be
cured prior to final EPA action.
On April 24. 1989 Rhode island
submitted Its revision to Regulation
Number 11. The revision adds the words
“and EPA” to the end of the relevant
sentence. It also changes the specific
designation (D323-82J of the ASThI test
method for the determination of RVP to
a more general designation (D323). This
gives the state the flexibility to use the
1982 version of the test or the 1958
version. Both version, will result In
accurate measurements of the RVP of
gasoline. EPA find, that its prior
concern, were addressed In exactly the
manner EPA had suggested at proposal
and that the test methods section Is
approvable as revised since It is now
fully enforceable.
EPA Is approving this revision to the
Connecticut and Rhode Island Ozone
State Implementation Plans to control
gasoline volatility. Including any
waivers Connecticut and Rhode Island
may grant under the program. EPA has
also made the finding that the
Cnrn srth ut and Rhode Island SIP
revisions meet the requirements of
section 211(c)(4)(CJ of Lhp Act for an
exception to federal preemption.
The Administrator has determined
that there Is good cause, Within the
maanung of 5 U.S.C. section 553(dX3), to
make this action effective less than 30
days after publication. The Industry has
been on notice sjpcs the Ad tii1 trator
appry,ed tLe Mas.” ‘ ‘ . - lIP (54
FR ?i.? ,.” ’’
Act. ..,, . . .eovo
In ai ‘ akr ,. ,
extent necessary to provide w
attainment Making this action effective
on the same date as the Massachusetts
RVP rule provide, the Industry with a
uniform effective date for two
con eogs states that both have rule,
limiting RVP to to pet.
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No , 106/ Friday, Jun. 2. 19
-------
Fedira] Regist’
Vol. 54. No. 105 1 Friday. June 2. 198’
Rules and Regulations
23661
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act.
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be flied in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
cucuit by (60 days from date of
publication). This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see 307(b)(2)).
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Hydrocarbons.
Ozone. Incorporation by reference.
Ns Incorporation by reference of the
State implamentation Plans for the State of
Coanecticut and the State of Rhode Island
wu approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on July 1. 1982
Authority. 42 U.S.C 7401-7842
EPA Ii today approving the
Connecticut and Rhode Island SIP
revisions pertpining to their state
gasoline volatility programs.
Date: May 10.1989.
William K. Reilly.
Admà !st rotor.
For the reasons set forth In the
preamble. Part 52 of Chapter 1. Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52—(AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
Aathclty 42 USC. 7401-7642
2. Section 52.370 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(50) to read as
follows:
f 52.310 ldanuflcailon 01 pfan
• • S S
(c)
(50) Revisions to federally approved
section 22a—174—20(aJ of the Regulations
of Connecticut State Agencies.
submitted on January 27. 1989 by the
Department of Environmental
Protection, limiting the volatility of
gasoline from May I through September
18 beginning 1989 and continuing every
year thereafter. Including any waivers to
such limitations that Connecticut may
grant In 1989. the control period will
begin en June 30.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Amendments to subsection 22a-
174 —20 (a) of the Regulations of
Connecticut State Agencies, entitled
“Storage of ‘volatile organic compounds’
and restrictions for the Reid Vapor
Pressure of gasoline.” effective in the
State of Connecticut on December 30,
1988.
Subpart 00—Rhode Island
S. Section 52.2070 Is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(33) to read as
follows:
* 52.2010 dinaflcsoon of plan.
• • • S S
(c)
(33) Revisions to federally approved
Air Pollution Control Regulation
Number 11 submitted on November 7.
1988 and April 24.1989 by the Rhode
Island Department of Environmental
Management. i .miting the volatility of
gasoline from May I through September
15. beginning 1989 and continuing every
year thereafter.including any waivers to
such limits Rhode Island may grant. in
1989, the control period will begin on
June 30.
(1] Incorporation by reference.
(A) Amendments to Rhode Island Air
Pollution Control Regulation No. 11,
effective July 5, 1979, entitled,
“Petroleum Uqulds Marketing and
Storage,” sections 11.7.1 flIed with the
Secretary of State of Rhode Island on
August 11. 1988 and effective in the
State of Rhode Island on August 31.
1988.
(B) Amendments to Rhode Island Air
Pollution Control Regulation No. 11.
effectIve July 5.1979. entitled.
“Petroleum Liquids Marketing and
Storage.” amendmends to section 11.72
filed with the Secretary of State of
Rhode Island on April 27,1989, and
effective In the State of Rhode Island on
May 17, 1989.
f52 I (Amand.
4. The table in 52.2081 is amended
by adding a new entry to “No. 11” to
read as follows
Taai.a 52.2081.—EPA APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS
Slate
Oteoon
TiSiI
$ic ea
Date Sii Usd by te
Slate A omd by
L 7Q
C......zWtfrteppro sd seceons
•
S •
.
S
S S
No.11
‘‘‘
.‘ S..
555
555
551
11107108., 04124108 2.
lose.
84
(c$(33)
rutes I 84 tan en la08y et seo e from Jima
30teSspL15 ,1S89,endMsy1 SepLi5. i
‘ ir* yssa g 5.i.sIL.._ s
.
I I
S
S
S S
IFR D cc. 89-12984 Filed 0-1-89 8:45 amI
, ‘
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 22
( C.n.,.J Docket No. SS—3 5$; FCC 89—1411
dment of Sections of P.,t 22 of
the Commission’s Rules as They Apply
to Applications To Serve Rural Service
Areas
£ y Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTIOSC Final rule; petition for
reconslderafion clarification.
et ’inr . In this Fourth Order on
Reconsideration. (Reconsideration
Order), the FCC considered the Petition
for Reconsideration filed by the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry
Association (CflA) of the Fourth Report
and Order in Docket 85 -388. In the
Fourth Report and Order, the FCC had
amended 22.917 of Its rules by
adopting financial requirements for non.
wireline cellular applicants for Rural
ServIce Areas (RSAs). CTIA contended
that these requirements did not achieve
the Commission’s goal of limiting
applicants to those who sincerely
Intended to provide cellular service. The
effect of the FCC’s action in the
Reconsideration Order is to deny
CFIA’. petition and reaffirm its findings
and rule amendments in the Fourth
Report and Order. The FCC also made
minor nan4ubstantive amendments to
I 22.917(a)(3) and * 22.917 (e) to darify
references to ether parts of I 22.917.
Ct1V! DAYC May 22,1989.
*ooessm Federal Communications
Comml.eica, w19 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
a n mea *,iou coInacT
David H. SiebL Mobile Services
-------
25572
Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 115 / Friday. June 1(3, 1089 / Rules and Regulations
The State may offer any
na Lion that ii considers helpful to
rpartment’s consideration of the
mutter of sanchnns. including, but not
limiLed in, lc iqintive actions, budgetary
ruiisidci c ions, judicial actions, past
and current operat:onal enforcement
programs, as well as proposals for
specific new programs.
(e) On the basis of the information
provided by the State and other
ii iormation in the possession of the
Department, the Secretary will issue a
final decision, in writing, regarding the
State’s compliance and, if applicable,
the amoirnt and liming of any reduction
of apportionments A copy of that
decision will be transmitted promptly to
the State.
IFR Doc. 09—14232 Filed 0—15—89. 845 aml
BILLING CODE 49i0-22-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[ FAL—3601—2 1
Approval and Promulgation of
nentatlon Plans; Revision to the
f New Jersey Implementation
r Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of New Jersey.
This revision will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds from
gasoline by limiting the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) of gasoline sold between
June 30 and September15 in 1989 and
between May 1 and September 15 of
each year thereafter to 9 pounds per
square inch. EPA is also finding that the
New Jersey RVP regulations are
“necessary to achieve” the national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for ozone and are therefore excepted
from preemption under section 211 of
(he Clean Air Act. The intended effect of
this action is to make necessary
progress towards attainment of th
ozone standard as expeditiously as
practicable as required under the Clean
Air Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be
effective June 30, 1989. The
Administrator has determined that there
cause, within the meaning of 5
553(d)(3), to make this action
e less than 30 days after
The industry has been on
notice since the Administrator approved
the Massachusetts RVP SIP (54 FR
19173: May 4. 1909) that the
Administrator was inclined to approve
inconsistent stale RVP rules to the
extent necessary to provide for
attainment. Making this action effective
on the same date as the Massachusetts,
Connecticut and Rhode Island RVP rules
provides the industry with a uniform
effective date for all the state rules
limiting RVP to 9.0 psi in the northeast,
In addition, postponing the effective
date beyond June 30 would undermine
the State’s ability to achieve l.he
reductions in 1989 summer ozone
concentrations for which the RVP
program was intended.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State
submittal are available at the following
addresses for inspection during normal
bu8iness hours:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,
28 Federal Plaza, Room 1005. New
York, New York 10278,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Public Information Reference Unit. 401
M Street SW.. Washington, DC 20460.
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of
Environmental Quality. Bureau of Air
Pollution Control, 401 East State
Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION’CONTAC’T
Mr. William S. Baker. Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency. 26 Federal Plaza,
Room 1005, New York, New York 10278,
(212) 264—2517.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
This notice describes EPA’s decision
to approve revisions to the New jersey
SIP which limit the volatility of gasoline
from June 30 to September15 in 1989
and from May 1 to September 15 every
year thereafter. The remainder of this
preamble is divided into four sections.
The first provides the background for
this action, with respect to both
chronology and the broad issues
involved. The second section presents
today’s action and EPA’s rationale. The
third section summarizes the comments
received on the proposed action and
SPA’s responses to them. The final
section discusses the enforceability of
New Jersey’s regulation with regard to
the test methods as discussed in EPA’s
proposed rulemaking notice.
Background
On November 12, 1987. the
Commissioners of the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding expressing their
intention to reduce the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) of gasoline tolD pounds
per square inch (psi) starting in the
summer of 1988 and to 9 psi in the
summer of 1989 and continuing every
ozone season thereafter. Since there
wore delays in adopting necessary
regulations. the 1988 limit of 10 psi was
eliminated and New Jersey passed a
regulation limiting the RVP of gasoline
to 9 psi from May Ito September15
starting in 1989 and continuing each
year thereafter. On January 27. 1989,
New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to
EPA for approval to implement this
provision.
On March 22, 1989. EPA published a
notice (54 FR 11868) taking final action
on national regulation of RVP, to take
effect this summer. The maximum
allowed summertime RVP in New Jersey
under the federal regulation Is 10.5 psi.
Under section 211(c)(4)(A) of the Clean
Air Act (the Act). EPA’s final action
preempted inconsistent state control of
RVP. except in California. In its final
action, EPA noted that states could be
exempted from preemption only if EPA
finds it is “necessary” to achieve the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) as provided in section
211(c)(4)(C) of the Act. Section
211(c)(4J(C) of the Act states: “A State
may prescribe and enforce, for purposes
of motor vehicle emission control, a
control or prohibition respecting the use
of a fuel or fuel additive in a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine If an
applicable implementation plan for such
State under Section 110 so provides. ‘Ihe
Administrator may approve such
provision in an implementation plan, or
promulgate an implementation plan
containing such a provision, only if he
finds that the State control or
prohibition is necessary to achieve the
national primary or secondary ambient
air quality standard which the plan
implements.” In its March 22, 1989
no lice, EPA made specific note of the
NESCAUM states’ initiatives and the’
conditions for EPA approval of state
RVP regulations.
On March 28, 1989. EPA published a
notice (54 FR 12654) proposing approval
of the New Jersey SIP revlèion. EPA also
proposed to find that these revisions
were “necessary” to achieve the
NAAQS for ozone within the meaning of
section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act and, thus,
meet the requirements for an exception
to federal preemption.
Description of Today’s Action
EPA today ajproves re daI’or s’to ’the
New Jersey SIP which limits gasoline -
volatility to9 psi between June 30 and
September15 in 1989 and between May
-------
Federal Registei ,‘ Vol. 54, No. 115 I Friday, June 16, 1969 / Rules and Regulations
25573
I ind September15 ii. each year
thereafter. The New Jersey program
includes authority for the State to issue
waivers to individual suppliers if
necessary to avoid supply dislocations
is approving the progr iin as a
whole, including any waivers the State
might issue under this authority. This
aspect of EPA’s approval is discussed in
full under section 9 of the next portion of
this notice describing EPA’s response to
comments.
EPA is also explicitly finding that the
New Jersey revisions are “necessary to
achieve” the NAAQS within the
meaning of section 211(c)(4)(C) of the
Act. This means that New Jersey’s RVP
regulations are not preempted by the
federal RVP regulations promulgated on
March 22. 1989.
EPA’s rationale for this action and its
effective date are presented below. In
this context many issues raised by
commenters on the proposal will be
addressed. The remaining comments
will be discussed in the next portion of
this notice.
In approving the New Jersey RVP SIP
revisions. EPA must consider
requirements imposed by two different
sections of the Clean Air Act. As with
all SIP revisions, Section 110 provides
the requirements for approval into the
SIP. In this case, since EPA has
promulgated federal RVP regulations.
section 211(c)(4)(A) preempts
inconsistent state control. However,
section 211(c)(4)(Cj provides that the
Administrator may except a state RVP
control program from preemption if he
finds it is “necessary” to achieve the
NAAQS. Thus, the New Jersey revisions
must satisfy both section 110 and
section 211 requirements to gain
approval.
EPA has concluded that the New
Jersey RVP regulation are “necessary”
to achieve the ozone NAAQS. In
reaching this conclusion EPA has
followed the test first articulated in
approving the Maricopa County.
Arizona SIP (53 FR 17413 (May 18. 1988)
and 53 FR 30228 (August 10, 1908)) and
later presented in the prapo’scd approval
of the New Jersey revisions. EPA stated
that if, after accounting for the possible
reductions from all other reasonably
available control measures, New Jersey
could demonstrate that RVP controls are
still required to achieve the standard,
then RVP controls are necessary within
the meaning of section 211(c)(4)(CJ. EPA
will not Interpret that provision to
require a state to impose more drastic
measures such as driving prohibitions or
source shutdowns before it can adopt its
.own fuel control program.
As discussed In the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR). the record indicaLes
that New jersey needs volatile organic
conipound (VOC) emission reductions
oi-i the order of at least 31 9 percent from
1907 inventory levels to achieve li e
standard The State reviewed
approximately 22 measures suggested
by EPA as reasonable in addition to
RVP control to 9 psi and found they
could together potentially achieve a 26.4
percent reduction from 1987 levels. As
indicated at proposal, while EPA’s
regulation of gasoline to 10 5 psi reduces
the emission reduction attributable to
the State regulation, it does not affect
the bottom line—a shortfall will still
exist. EPA’s technical review of the data
presented in the State submission and
by the commenters affirms the
conclusion that a shortfall will exist
even with all reasonable State and
federal measures.
EPA continues to believe that the fact
that the State RVP regulation might not
by itself fill the shortfall and hence by
itself achieve the standard does not
mean the rule is not “necessary to
achieve” the NAAQS. It is simple logic
that “necessary” is not the same as
“sufficient.” EPA believes that the
“necessary to achieve” standard must
be interpreted to apply to measures
which are needed to reduce ambient
levels when no other measures that EPA
or the State has found reasonable are
available to achieve this reduction.
fleyond such identified “reasonable”
measures. EPA need look at other
measures before RVP control, only if it
has clear evidence that RVP control
would have greater adverse impacts
than those alternatives. EPA has no
such evidence here. Therefore, EPA can
defer to New Jersey’s apparent view
that RVP control is the next less costly
(or is itself a reasonable) measure. Thus,
EPA concludes that New Jersey’s RVP
regulations are “necessary” to achieve
the NAAQS.
Summary of Public Comments and
EPA’s Responses
The major Issues discussed in the
comments are: (1) What constitutes a
finding of “necessary to achieve” the
standard under section 211(c)(4)(C); (2)
whether there has been an adeqtiate
technical demonstration that controlling
RVP to 9 psi is “necessary” (I.e. whether
the threshold for exemption from
preemption has been crossed); (3) the
scope of EPA’s discretIon assuming a
finding that State RVP controls are
necessary to achieve the standard; (4)
what effect the 9 RVP limit in New
Jersey will have on the cost and supply
of gasoline in the State and the
Northeast; (5) driveability and safety
concerns; (6) whether there Is an ozone
problem in New Jersey: (7) whether the
State has an adequate enforcement
program or sufficient resources to
iinpLemeqi the State regulations. (6)
whether the State provided “reasonable
opportunity” for public comment, (9)
what exemptions or waivers from the
State regulations should be allowed, (10)
the appropriate timing For making the
Slate regulation effective; and (11)
vhcthier EPA should withdraw or
repropose this action or reopen the
public comment period in light of EPA’s
recent promulgation of federal RVP
regulations and other alleged
deficiencies in EPA’s proposed action.
Each issue is explored in detail below.
I What constitutes a finding of
“necessary to achieve” (he standard
under section 217(c)(4)(C) of the Act?
a. Making the “Necessary” Finding
Without a Demonstration of Attainment
Comments: One group of comments
questioned EPA’s ability to make a
finding that New Jersey’s RVP regulation
is necessary to attain the ozone
standard without goingihrough the
complete planning process involved in
approving a state’s response to EPA’s
finding that the current SIP is
substantially inadequate to achieve the
stajidard (the “SIP call”). Several
comments stated that EPA cannot
approve New Jersey’s RVP regulation as
a SIP revision without finding that the
SIP as a whole achieves attainment of
the NAAQS for ozone. Related
comments questioned EPA’s ability to
determine whether New Jersey’s RVP
controls are necessary without a new
updated inventory of VOC sources
which EPA will require from the stales
with ozone nonattainment areas as part
of their response to the SIP calls.
Response: Through its SIP calls. EPA
has imposed on states like New Jersey
an obligation to revise their ozone SIPs
and demonstrate attainment of the
standard. The thrust of these comments
is that EPA cannot make a finding of
necessity without the states’ first having
gone through the new planning process
and developing a new demonstration of
attainment. EPA does not interpret
section 211(c)(4)(C) to require a
complete demonstration of attainment in
order to approve a measure which will
contribute to attainment.
Forcing a state to demonstrate
attainment before allowing it to adopt
stricter fuel controls would yield
perverse results. Areas with the worst
ozone nonattainment problems, which
have the most difficulty assembling a
demonstration of attainment, would be
disabled for perhaps several years from
adopting clearly necessary controls
-------
25574
Federal Register / Vol 54, No. 115 / Friday, lune 16. 198 J / Rules and Regulations
hich were stricter than the national
VP on trots Several commenters noted
ii New Jersey so far has nor been able
to identify any combination of control
rw, si;rrs which would bring the State
into attainment. It is precisely in areas
like New Jersey. with an especially
dilficult nonattainment problem, where
the expeditious implementation of new
r.uiitrolq, and hence the finding of
necessity under section 211(c)(4)(CJ. is
most appropriate.
Beyond that, it is reasonable for EPA
to use the best information it now has
available to determine whether New
Jerseys RVP program will be necessary
to achieve the standard without having
to wait for New Jersey to complete its
planning response to the SIP call,
including its updated inventory. As
explained below, the VOC inventory
and reduction figures New Jersey
submitted to EPA were based on
reasonably reliable models EPA has
used in the past. Such figures are always
capable of refinement, but in the
Agency’s judgment the expenditure of
time required to do so is not worth the
marginally improved accuracy. See
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power v. -
Al R.D.C.I 435 U.S. 519, 554—555 (1978).
PA has not yet set a date certain by
ich New Jersey must attain the ozone
ndard. Congress may address the
widespread nonattainment problem In
the amendments to the Act now being
considered. In the meantime EPA has
also proposed its own policy for how to
deal with SIP planning for
nonattainment areas in the post—1987
period (52 FR 45104, November 24,1987).
l’he air quality analysis New Jersey
submitted made it clear that RVP
control beyond the federal requirements
will be necessary to any attainment
plan, whether the attainment date that
Congress or EPA selects is imminent or
long-term. Moreover, there is
widespread agreement among EPA and
the states in thc Northeast that major
VOC reductions, probably exceeding the
31.9 percent estimated by EPA in this
case, will be required to get close to
attaining the ozone standard. Nothing in
the air quality data from the summer of -
1908. which have become available in
quality-assured form since publication
of the proposal, indicates that the
reduction requirement projected by the
New jersey analysis overstates the
reduction necessary to achieve the
standard. Beyond that, the history of
ozone planning over the last decade
es it clear that reduction targets are
pm overestimated.
Irthermore, EPA’s approval of this
- - sian now is consistent with section’
110(o)(2)(Ajof the Act, which requires
atta’rnment “as expeditiously as
practicable “ Interpreting Section
211(c)(4)(C) to require a complete
attainment demonstration before EPA
can approve (and a state can implement)
a fuel control that the sta c has
determined to be practicable and that
would advance the attainment date
would effectively put section
211(c)(4)(C) in conflict with section
110(aJ(2)(A). It is doubtful that Congress
intended EPA to choose an
interpretation that would create such a
conflict.
b.The Standard EPA has Applied to
Determine Whether F sel Controls are
Necessary Compared With Other
Controls
Commenis: Several commenters
maintained that EPA had not adequately
analyzed whether there are other
control strategies reasonably available
which New Jersey should implement
before resorting to RVP controls
inconsistent with the federal regulation.
EPA wilt address these comments in
section 2c below. Other comments
concerned the standard that EPA should
use to determine whether RVP controls
are necessary compared to other
controls.
Response: In the proposal for this
action. EPA used the approach it Cirst
announced when approving the
Maricopa County Arizona SIP (53 FR
17413 (May 18. 1908); 53 FR 30228
(August 10, 1988)) to determine whether
RVP controls beyond the federal
program are necessary to attain the
ozone standard in New Jersey. Under
that approach, If after accounting for the
possible reductions from all other
reasonable control measures. New
Jersey could demonstrate that RVP
controls are still required to achieve the
standard, then RVP controls are
necessary within the meaning of section
211(c)(4 )(C). For the reasons stated in
the Arizona action and the New Jersey
proposal, EPA will not interpret section
211(c)(4)(C) to require a state to impose
more drastic. measures such as driving
prohibitions or source shutdowns before
it can adopt its own fuel control
program.
New Jersey has demonstrated to EPA
“that implementing all the control
measures which EPA now believes to be
reasonably available to New Jersey for
VOC control (including measures that
the Stale has already adopted and is.
now beginning to implementJ would not
achieve compliance with the ozone
standard. The roster of control measures.
New jersey examined corresponds to
the list of controls EPA has identified car
states to implement in response to the
ozone SIP catls, arid represents EPA’s
best judgment as to the controls which
could now be reasonably implemented
Sec EPA’s proposed post-1987 ozone
policy (52 FR 45104, appendix C,
November 24, 1987). Alter escamining all
controls EPA has determined to be
reasonable, a state is free to make its
own determination as to what control
measures should next be employed.
One comment maintained that EPA s
method for determining what is
necessary is too vague because it would
allow EPA to approve state fuel controls
‘simply because alternative measures
are more inconvenient, unpopular, or
costly.” As discussed in section 2c
below, EPA examined reasonable
alternative controls which New Jersey
could implement and determined they
would not achieve enough reduction to
achieve the standard. EPA also has
determined Ihat ,remaining controls such
as gas rationing, driving reductions, and
source shutdowns are so drastic that Ihe
State may resort to fuel controls first.
This judgment concerning what is too
drastic is a complicated policy
determination requiring the
Administrator to weigh precisely those
factors which the commenter would
exclude from his consideration—
whether the remaining alternatives are
costly or unpopu1ar InAszwco Oil Co v.
Envirorunentof Protection Agency. 501
F.2d 722.740-741. the court distinguished’
between the factual foundation which
EPA must provide in Its administrative
decisions arid po’icy judgments which
are an integral part of the findings
Congress requires the Administrator to
make under’ the Act
Where by contrast, the regulations tarn on
choices of policy, on an assessmen 5 of riskq,
or on predictions dealing with matters an the
frontiers of scientific knowledge. we will
demand adequate reasons and explanations.
but not “findings” of the sort familiar from
the world or udjudlcatipn...,.
Id, a4 741. EPA’s and Net, Jersey’s
analysis of reasonably available
controLa is based or a factual record
supported by the best analytical tools
the agencies had evairable to them at
the time. EPA’s fudgm ut that Slate fuel
regulation is a less drastlo course than
gas rationing and other unpopular
controls so far not implemented in any
SIP is clearly a matter on the frontier of
air pollution control planning. and
therefore cannot (and need not), be
supported by the same technical record
as, for example, EPA a . determination
that New jersey needs at lassie 31.9
percent reduction from its 198
inventory to attain the standard.
ft
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 115 I Friday, June 16, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
25575
2. 1 love New Jersey and EPA made on
adequate technical demonstration that
controllln8 RVP to 9psi is ‘necessary”
to attain the NAAQS?
a. Adequacy of Emission Inventory
Comments: Several petroleum
industry commenters argued that the
emission inventory used in the technical
demonstration is inadequate. They
pointed out that EPA has already
requested that New Jersey prepare a
new Inventory as part of its response to
the SIP call. Therefore it is argued that
New Jersey’s reliance on the old
Inventory is inappropriate.
Response: As described in EPA’s
Technical Support Document (TSD), the
emission inventory used by New Jersey
and reviewed by .EPA is based on EPA ’s
“Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors.” known by its document
number “AP—42.” This document and its
updates are EPA’s longstanding
guidance for determining emissions for
inventory purposes and has served as
the basis for ozone SIP inventories since
the mid-1970s. Mobile source emissions
were estimated using the then current
version of EPA’s mobile source
emissions model, MOBILE3, consistent
with standard EPA guidance. While EPA
has called for many states, Including
New Jersey, to update their inventories
for post-1987 SIP planning purposes, the
Agency has continued to use existing
inventories in evaluating current control
proposals. EPA expects the New Jersey
inventory, not due until late 1909, to
show higher emissions than the current
inventory since it is expected to include
more sources and improved quality
assurance. Thus, if the current inventory
is lacking, it understates current
emissions and errs such that the likely
percentage reduction needed to attain
the standard is also understated.
As stated in the NPR. EPA believes
that if there is an error In quantifying the
emission reductions resulting from
control to 9 psi, those reductions are
understated. If the newly released
mobile source emission model,
MOBILE4, which includes the effects of
running losses, were used, one would
expect the reduction in tons of VOCs to
increase significantly. Furthermore,
contrary to the cornmenters’ belief, the
estimated emission reduction is based
on reductions achieved during only the
four and one-half months each year the
regulation is effective. This approach
may understate the reduction since 9 psi
fuel may be in the distribution system up
to two additional months on each eid of
the regulatory season.
Also, contrary to the commenters’
claims, EPA’s TSD does contain an
estimate of the emission reduction
achieved by going from EPA’s 10.5 psi
limit to New Jerseys 9 psi limit. EPA
estimated a 2.3 percent reduction from
the 1987 inventory. This estimate does
account for nonlinearity in emission
reductions with decreasing RVP limits.
b. Appropriateness of the Modeling
Demonstration
Comments: While some commenters
agreed that modeling was necessary to
evaluate the air quality benefit of the
RVP reduction, they objected to EPA ’s
reliance on the Regional Oxidant Model
(ROM). The conimenters also raised
concerns about the appropriate
hydrocarbon to nitrogen-oxides (NOx)
ratios to be used in such modeling. A
third modeling issue concerns New
Jersey’s and EPA’s inability to associate
a quantified increment of improved air
quality with the control of RVP to 9 psi.
Response: The claim that the ROM
does not provide the spatial resolution
needed for accurate prediction in
individual urban areas loses sight of the
fact that we are evaluating a statewide
program. The Urban Airshed Model
suggested by the commentera is
appropriate for large urban areas but
would have to be run over at leasL two
different geographic domains to cover
the entire state. Caught between the two
available model scales, it Is EPA’s
technical judgment that the ROM is an
appropriate tool to use in evaluating
future reductions needed for New
Jersey.
EPA understands the concern that
past atralcgies have focused almost
exclusively on controlling VOCa instead
of NO 1 . As Indicated In EPA’s proposed
post-1987 ozone strategy, future control
scenarios are likely to include NO 1 .
However, it Is highly unlikely that NO 1
control alone will suffice. The best
technical Information available to EPA
at this time concerning the Northeast
ozone problem paints to the need for
substantial VOC reductions and at least
modest NO. reductions in the future to
attain the ozone standard.
The last modeling issue concerned
New Jersey’s and EPA’s inability to
associate a quantified increment of
improved air quality with the control of
RVP to 9 psI. While such a modeling
exercise would be ideal, it is unlikely
that one would have much confidence in
the outcome of such a sensitivity test,
The atmosphere’s response to emission
reductions of ozone precursors Is highly
nonlinear such that small increments of
reduction may show little or no effect on
tl)eir own. However, when the
reductions from the State’s many
strategies are aggregated, the total
impact becomes quantifiable. Thus, even
though New Jersey and EPA cannot
pinpoint where the air quality will
improve by what amount on what day,
we are confident that there will be a net
improvement in ozone levels if New
Jersey were to decrease VOC emiss on
by 2.3 percent.
c. Consideration of Other Alternatives
Comments: Commenters expressed
concern that New Jersey and EPA have
failed to consider other significant
N. alternative control measures that could
lead to attainment, including Stage II
vapor recovery systems, controls on
municipal landfills, source categories
that are listed in EPA’s proposed post-
1987 strategy and a host of
transportation control measures (TCMs).
Other comments inquired as to how
New Jersey and EPA arrived at the
reductions for the control strategies that
were presented in the•NPR and TSD.
Response: EPA believes that sufficient
alternatives were considered. EPA and
the State have considered the emission
reduction potential of 22 different point
and area source categories
corresponding to most of those
suggested by EPA in its proposed post-
1987 ozone policy (52 FR 45104,
appendix C, November 24, 1987). Not
surprisingly, some of the source
categories are not applicable (as noted
In the TSD) because there are no major
sources In those categories in New
Jersey or because the State has already
adopted controls for those categories.
As noted in the NPR. most of the
relevant categories have potential
reductions that are very small and.
when combined, total less than 0.6
percent of the 1987 inventory. While, us
one commenter noted, some of EPA’s
proposed post-1987 categories were not
evaluated by the State (such as traffic
maintenance paint), based on EPA’s
experience with these categories in
other states, it is anticipated the
contribution from them would be
significantly less than one percent. As
mentioned in the NPR, other strategies
previously identified by the State as
having the greatest potential for
significant future VOC reductions that
have not been fully implemented would
produce emission reductions on the
order of 25.8 percent, for a combined
total reduction of 26.4 percent in
conjunction with the minor categories
mentioned above. This would 8tlll leave
a shortfall of 5.5 percent.
Two comznenters noted that the
proposal did not account for the
emissions reductions from Stage II vapoi
recovery systems or from controls on
emissions from municipal landfills. New
Jersey adopted Stage 11 controls on
-------
25576
Federal Register / Vol. 5.4, No. 115 / Friday. June 16. 1989 / Rules and Regulations
br iary 22. 1 O8 and controls on
fliSlI(lfls horn municipal landfills on
June L 1987 Since both regulations hive
been submitted to EPA as SIP revision
rcque ts and are currently being
implemented by the Stale, the shortfall
discussed in the NPR was calculated
above and beyond the reductions
attributable to these controls.
It is true that New Jersey has not
implemented the types of TCMs
suggested by EPA in its proposed post.
19137 ozone strategy. However, based on
IPAs experience with the
implementation of these measures in
other areas, we expect that New Jersey
ould only achieve an additional 2.0
percent reduction by adopting similar
s rategies. New Jersey would still have
an estimated shortfall of approximately
3 5 percent.
While EPA recognizes that other
TCMs may be needed in New Jersey, the
remainder are difficult to quantify, yield
small reductions individually, and, as
rvidenced by the public reaction to the
EPA.promulgated Implementation plans
containing such measures in the 1970’s
(see H.R. Rep. No. 95—294, 95 Cong. 1st
g ,, 55 ,, reprinted in 4 Legislative History
the Clean Air Act Amendments of
at 2748—55 (1978)). generally can be
pected to have more significant
adverse effects on the public as a whole
than RVP controls would. To be sure, if
there were sufficient evidence for EPA
to conclude that the state’s RVP controls
would result in significantly more severe
impacts than other measures that
neither EPA nor the state has yet
identified as “reasonable” for the state
to implement, then it might well be
appropriate for the Agency to account
for the emission reductions that those
other measures would achieve before
determining the shortfall against which
to judge the RVP controls. The Agency
‘does not believe, however, that the
State’s RVP control would produce
significantly more severe effects than
such alternatives (e.g. than a trip
reduction ordinance of the type that
Arizona found reasonable for
application in Phoenix and Tucson).
The shortfall demonstration presented
in EPA’s NPR and TSD was the outcome
of a comprehensive review of the air
quality and State Implementation Plans
for the ozone end carbon monoxide
nonattainment areas of New York and
New Jersey which was performed by the
Air and Waste Management Division of
Region II. This review, entitled “An
luation of the Programs to Attain the
ne and Carbon Monoxide Standards
.Jew Jersey and New York,”
examined air quality data for the per4od
1981 through 1900, modeling studies, and
SIP commitments to determine air
quality trends and predict (he ability of
each state to attain the standards.
In sum, New Jersey and EPA have
indeed examined a broad range of
potential emission reduction strategies
and have still identified a significant
shortfall in the level of emission
reductions likely to be needed to
achieve the ozone standard.
3. What is the scope of EPA ‘s discretion
assuming a finding that State fl VP
controls are necessary to achieve the
standard?
a. Permissible Bases for EPA’s Decision
To Approve State RVP Controls
CommenLs: Several commenters
asserted that even where EPA has
determined that state fuel controls are
necessary to achieve the standard. EPA
may nevertheless disapprove those
controls if EPA determines that the
economic or fuel supply impacts of the
slate’s regulation are unreasonable.
These commenters suggested that EPA
may give significant consideration to
costs because section 211(c)(4)(C)
provides that the Administrator “may”
approve a SIP revision Imposing state
fuel controls once he makes the Iinthng
of necessity. Conversely, other
commenters maintained that EPA may
not disapprove the New Jersey SIP
revision based on economic grounds.
once EPA has made the finding of
necessity.
Response: EPA believes that it must
consider cost to some limited extent
whenever the Administrator decides
whether to make a finding under section
211(cl(4)(C) that a fuel measure is
“necessary” for attainment. As
discussed above, to determine whether
state fuel controls are necessary, EPA
must look first at whether other
measures that it determines are
reasonable (and, perhaps, other
measures the sLate has adopted) will by
themselves achieve timely attainment,
Arguably, an alternative measure is
“reasonable” only if its effects are less
drastic than the effects of the fuel
controls. Clearly the cost and supply
impact of the state fuel controls will be
“ h factor in any such judgment.
EPA does not interpret the use of
“may” In section 211(c)(4)(C) to give the
Administrator unfettered discretion to
disapprove the SIP revision on economic
grounds once he has made the finding
that state fuel controls are necessary to
achieve the standard. Section
Z11(c)(4)(C) must be read in the context
of the preemption created in section
211(c)(4)(A), which prohibits states from
odopting inconsistent fuel controls in
their SIPs, or anywhere else, for air
pollution control purposes. In the face of
this prohibition, the sole effect of the
‘may” in section 211(c)(4)(C) is to
authorize the Administrator to overcome
a provision (section 211(cJ(4)(AJJ that
would otherwise bar him from
approving the SIP revision. The use of
“may” in section 211 (c)(4)(C) does not
eliminate the obligation that section
110(a)(3flA) places on the Administrator
to approve the SIP revision, provided t
meets the requirements of section
11O(a)(2). See Train v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421
U.S. 60, 98 (1975). Section 110(a)(2)
requires the Administrator to approve a
SiP revision if, among other things. it
may be necessary to insure attainment
and maintenance of the standard.
Section 110(a)(2J(B). EPA may not
consider the economic impact of a
necessary SiP revision under section
110(a)(2): under that provision, it Is for
the state to determine what economic
costs are appropriate to achieve the
standards. Union Electric Co. v. EPA.,
427 U.S. 248,256-258(1976 ) . Beyond
that, it would be incongruous for
Congress to give EPA more discretion to
reject a SIP revision for reasons
unrelated to the goat of achieving the
standard as quickly as possible
precisely where EPA has determined
that a SIP revision Is necessary to
achieve the standard. Therefore, once
EPA makes the finding that state fuel
controls are necessary to achieve the
standard, a finding which Includes a
determination that such fuel controls are
more reasonable than other available
measures, EPA may not reject a state’s
SIP proposal simply for economic
reasons.
One comineater cited Motor Vehicle
Man ufoct urere Association v. E.P.A.. 768
F.2d 385. 389—390 (D.C. Clr. 1985). for the
proposition that the use of ‘may” under
section 211 commits the decision Co the
discretion of the Administrator. In
MVMA the court was examining EPA’s
decision to grant a waiver under section
211(fl(4) of the Act for the use of fuel
additives not substantially similar to
those in the fuel EPA uses to certify the
omissions from automobiles. The court
was not examining section 211(c)(4)(C).
which cUows EPA. upon making a
particular finding not mentioned in
section 211(f)(4). to act on a SEP revision
submitted by a state after full hearing at
the state level and subject to the
requirements of sections 110 (a}(2J and
(3J(A ).
b. Intent of Federal Preemption Under
Sec tioni 211
Comments: Several commenters
insisted that EPA should disapprove
-------
25577
Federal Register I Vol. 54 , No, 115 / Friday, June 16, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
New Jersey’s RVP controls because
Congress intended to avoid a patchwork
of different state fuel controls in favor of
a uniformly regulated national rndrkct
for fuels. These commenters expressed
concern that the exception in section
211(c)(4)(C) to the rule of preemption
under section 211(d114)(A) would
eventually swallow the rule. Several
comments urged EPA not to act
inconsistently with its decision not to
limit gasoline to9 psi in 1989 in the
federal RVP control program.
On the other hand, several comments
were aimed at urging EPA to support the
regional approach to RVP control that
the NESCAUM states are undertaking
One commenter pointed out that where
Congress has not acted to address the
ozone nonattainment problem, it is
reasonable to let the states do all they
can to attain.
Response: It Is clear that section
211(c)(4)(A) indicates that Congress
desired’to maintain a nationally
regulated market for fuels. It is equally
clear that section 211(c)(4)(C) indicates
Congress recognized that there will be
states where theair quality problem Is
so severe that the interest in a
natIonally regulated market must bow to
the need for. additional.state controls on
fuel content. EPA has.not.been able to
find any legislative history which
illuminates with any detail beyond the
language of the-Act how EPA should
strike this balance.
It is reasonable to infer that Congress
was aware that the air quality needs of
particular states might create varying
fuel content requirements, and that
Congress accepted that risk in favor of
protecting the public health. Several
commenters cited Exxon Corp. v. City of
New York, 548 F.2d 1088 (2d Cir. 1977),
as precedent that a uniformly regulated
fuel market is the overriding purpose
behind section. 21l(c)(4). In Exxon the
court, however, was not faced’ with a
claim for an exception to preemption
under section 211(c)(4)(C), and
specifically left it to EPA to determine
whether such an exception is
appropriate:
The Act sensibly provides for an exceplion
from its comprehensive preemption of local
regulation of motor vehicle fuels only when
such regulation Is a provisIon in a state
Implementation plan approved by the
Administrator who has the competence to
make the needed professional engineering
and energy conservation decisions.
Id. at 1096. Once EPA has made a
finding of necessity under section
211(c)(4)(C), It is reasonable for EPA to
Interpret the Act to place paramount
Importance on protecting public health
and achieving the standard.
EPA believes that the oil industry’s
concern that the exception will swallow
the rule is overstated. As described
above, EPA will approve inconsistent
state fuel controls only where the state
can demonstrate that exhausting all
other reasonable alternatives will not
achieve the standard, taking costs into
account in determining reasonableness.
This demonstration is not a trivial
hurdle, and it is highly unlikely that
every state with an ozone
nonattainment area could make such a
showing. Furthermore, a state is unlikely
to burden itB citizens with the
potentially higher cost of lower RVP fuel
unless the air quality needs are
compelling. Finally, regional initiatives
such as NESCAUM’s help avoid a wide
variety of state controls. In this case, the
New Jersey RVP program i& virtually
identical to the RVP programs already
approved for Massachusetts, Rhode
Island,. and Connecticut,.and, thus,
provides supply requirements consistent
with other Northeast states.
EPA also believes that its decision not
to impose a limit of 9 psi by 1909 in
EPA’s RVP control prc gram does not
preclude EPA from approving New
Jersey’s SIP revision. When developing
its federal RVP control’program, EPA
imposed.controls across. the’nation, and
had to determine the.leveLofRVP
control which supply sources for the
entire continental United States could
reasonably meet. Further, although EPA
was able to make this determination as
to particular regions within the country,
EPA. did not intend to account for the
particular air quality needs of each
state.
4. What effect will the 9 R VP limit in
New Jersey have on the cost and supply
of gasoline?
Comments: Several commenters
stated that New Jersey’s regulation
would strain the distribution system and
could cause some significant supply
dislocation and cost increases. Several
stated that even if refiners had the
capacity to produce 9 psi gasoline, there
would be logistical problems requiring
the need for additional storage tanks for
the gasoline-and excess butane. Other
comments suggested that foreign
imports-at 9 psi might not be available.
Most of the oil company commenters
stated that there will be some need for
capital improvements.at refineries to
meet the 9 psi standard. Several
commenters stated that there will likely
be a cost impact to the New Jersey
standard and other commeniers stated
that they were concerned about the
increased cost. One other comment
stated that the estimates of increased
cost do not reflect the extra cost
mcrease that could accompany a
s gni1icant supply disruption.
Proponents cited two studies as
support for the position that supply is
not a problem
Response The potential supply
problems arise out of two factors. First.
decreasing the volatility of gasoline
requires increased refinery capacity. It
is certain that implementation of 9 psi
volatility in the NESCAUM states will
ercate a refining capacity reduction in
the amount of gasoline capable of being
produced at each refinery. This is true of
both domestic and foreign suppliers.
Second. the problem may be further
exacerbated by the expected increased
demand [ or gasoline in the summer
months.
Various studies have been conducted
to determine how much refining
capacity will be lost from
implementation of 9 psi volatility in (he
NESCAUM states, how much demand
for gasoline is likely to increase in the
summer of 1989, and what effect these
factors will have on gasoline supply
capabilities. The two studies done for
NESCAUM and the one done for EPA
are inconclusive. There appear to be
numerous factors which make precise
prediction’ of ihese’effects impossible.
However, under the’EPA study (Sobotka
study), estimates indicate that the
volatility standardemay be feasible
without serious supply problems.
The Sobotka study cites the
Department of Energy (DOE) as
predicting that demand for gasoline
should increase only in the range of I to
1.5 percent this summer. This estimate is
also supported by other studies
including one reported at a National
Petroleum Refiners Association
conference. The study also estimates
that approximately a five percent
refining capacity shortlall will occur at
domestic refineries because of the
volatility regulations in the Northeast
states. The study estimates that with a
1.2 percent increase in demand for
gasoline in the summer. US. refineries
would be able to make up for a five
percent domestic’ hortfall, and a ten
percent import shortfall, without
construction of new facilities or
installation of additional equipment.
Although various factors make it
impossible to accurately predict the
refining shortfall of imported gasoline,
there is no strong evidence indicating
that it will exceed ten percent. Thus, the
Sobotka study suggests that it is likely
that the resulting refinery capacity
shortfalls from a 9 psi standard in 1989
should not result in supply shortfalls.
In the unlikely event of unforeseen
supply disruptions. the State of New
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54. No 115/ Friday, June 16, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
2 57B
y has assured EPA that they hate
uthority to take immediate steps to
ide needed waivers or exceptions to
the program. The State has committed to
carefully monitor Ihc suppl situation
this ye.ir and take appiopriate action, as
may be liccessary, to ensure that supply
problems do not occur as a result of its
State RVP control program. See also the
response to section 9 later in this notice
for more discussion of State waivers or
exceptions.
5. What effect will 9 R VP gasoline hove
on driveobility in cold weather and on
vehicle safut;’?
Co,zinients: Several comrnenlers
expressed concern that the 9 RVP fuel
would cause hard starting. hesitation.
and stalling in automobiles during the
early spring and late fall. They stated
that gasoline will have to enter the
distribution system in March and will
not be out until October in order to
comply with the regulation. Other
comments, including several from
automobile manufacturers, indicated
that there should be no adverse effect
from the use of 9 RVP fuel.
Response: We believe that the nature
of the gasoline distribution system
kes it very unlikely that 9 RVP fuel
be available to consumers in March
arly April. even if the blending-down
process by that time has begun to
reduce RVP. Continued availability of
low-RVP fuel is even less likely by late
October because the blending-up
process will occur rapidly at the close of
the control period. Nevertheless, the
experience of California. which has
required 9 RVP fuel for many years.
appears to demonstrate that widespread
driveabilily or fuel safety problems will
not occur in the Northeast. We know of
no evidence of extensive problems in
California. despite significant operation
at cool temperatures and high
elevations. -
As further evidence of this conclusion,
t,ne can compare the true vapor pressure
ITVP) experienced in fuel tanks at
different times during the year. For
exa nple, when corrected for elevation,
gasoline in Billings, Montana at its
January 1986 average RVP of 13.6 psi
and at the historic low January
temperature of —30 degrees Fahrenheit
would result in a true vapor pressure of
1.0 psi. Similarly, for New Jersey. the
analogous RVP and temperature of 10.0
psi RVP arid —12 degrees F. would also
result in a TVP 011.0 In contrast, 8.5
_nsi RVP fuel at an analogous New Jersey
pperature of 18 degrees F. would
ult in a TVP of 1.8 psi, 80 percent
her than the winter figure. We
conclude from this that if low-volatility
fuel were to reach consumers during
\ ery low temperature weather, any
degradation in driveability would be no
greater (and would likely be less) than
that experienced currently during the
winter
Conversely, low-volatility fuel should
improve vehicle driveability in very hot
weather by reducing the occurrence of
such conditions as vapor lock and fuel
foaming.
6. Is there really a severe ozone problem
in New/ersey or the Northeast?
Comments: A number of industry
commenters, in urging EPA to
disapprove the SIP revision, claimed
that the air is really becoming cleaner
and cleaner over time and that the
ozone standard is being met more than
99% of the year. Environmental groups
countered these claims with data from
1987 and 1980 which show a worsening
of the ozone problem since 1980. They
noted that 1988 was one of the worst
ozone seasons on record across the
Northeast.
Response: EPA is firmly convinced
thai there is a erious ozone problem in
the Northeast. EPA’s conviction was
evidenced by last year’s SIP calls to
New Jersey and most other Northeast
states. This SIP call was based on 1985—
1987 ozone monitoring data which
ranked New Jersey among the worst
ozone nonaltainment areas in the
country. EPA’s concern is further
heightened by the 1988 ozone season.
The ozone standard was exceeded more
frequently, at more sites, and at higher
levels in 1988 than in 1987.
7. Has New Jersey demonstrated that it
has on adequate enforcement program
or adequate resources to implement the
R VP regulation, as required by section
7 10 of the Act?
Comments: One commenter
questioned whether New Jersey has
developed an adequate program for
enforcement of the regulation. Another
commenter noted that New Jersey is the
only NESCAUM state that would
enforce its regulation at the retail level.
‘Response: EPA does not agree with
the commenters’ enforcement concerns.
‘ ‘he state’s decision to extend its RVP
enforcement program down to the retail
level reflects a concern that there may
be the opportunity to increase the RVP
of gasoline that has already left the
refinery or bulk terminal by blending the
gasoline with a higher RVP fuel before it
reaches the retailer. This is a reasonable
concern for the state since it is bordered
by two states (Delaware and
Pennsylvania) which will have different
RVP fuel requirements. Opportunities to
blend the differing RVP gasoline en
route to the retailer to yield a
noncomplying fuel would exist. In fact,
EPA concluded in its national
rulemaking that testing at all points in
the distribution system would provide
the “best safeguard” against distribution
of noncompliant gasoline and would
result in the “greatest likelihood” of
achieving environmental results.
Further, in comments submitted on
EPA’s proposed approvals of the
Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode
Island 9 RVP regulations (none of which
enforce at the retail level), several
petroleum industry commenters argued
that an enforcement program that
reaches the retail level is a minimum
standard for the effective enforcement
of RVP limits. EPA does not believe that
the sLate’s regulation will have a
significant economic effect on retailers
since they will not be required to test
each shipment of gasoline received.
Under the state’s regulation, retailers
are required only to keep complete and
accurate records of all gasoline
shipments, which is not an undue
‘burden.
New Jersey has stated that it has
adequate resources to conduct an
enforcement program in support of the
rule. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has
developed an enforcement protocol
which includes a prescribed schedule of
announced and unannounced
inspections. EPA must note that in the
comparable arena of enforcement
through Delayed Compliance Orders
(DCOs), courts have held that EPA may
nof second guess the state’s choice of
enforcement mechanisms ãø long as the
chosen system is a reasonable one,
Bethlehem Steel Corp. V. U.S. E.P.A., 638
F.2d 994, 1005—1006 (7th Cir. 1980);
appealed, Bethlehem Steel v. Corsuch,
726 F.2d 358 (7th Cir. 1984), reh. den., en
banc, vacated on reh., 732 F.Zd 97 (7th
Cir. 1984). withdrawn and appealed, 742
F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984).
Furthermore, even if New Jersey’s
enforcement scheme was Inadequate to
support a finding, ultimately, that the
state’s eventually complete ozone SIP
update meets all of the requirements in
section 110(a)(2). EPA could still
approve the rule under section 110(a)(3).
That is because, even with an
inadequate enforcement program, the
rule would still eLrengthen the pre-
existing SIP and hence, under the
rationale in Michigan v. Thomas, 805
F.2d 176, 180 (0th Cir. 1986), be
approvable for that limited purpose.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54 . No. 115 / Friday, June 10, 1989 I Rules and Regulations
25579
8 Has New/ersey Satisfied the Acts
Public Notice and Hearing
flequireiiiciits 2
Conunc ts Several comments
received questioned whether the New
Jersey SIP revision was adopted alter
“reasonable notice and public hearing.”
While acknowledging that public
hearings were held, they alleged that the
decision to limit RVP to 9 psi was
actually made by NESCAUM some time
before public hearings on the New
Jersey RVP regulation, and that
therefore any hearing nominally
provided was substantively inadequate.
On the other hand, NESCAUM
commented that o7one pollution
problems, especially in the Northeast,
are clearly regional problems and must
therefore be dealt with through
Consistent regulations.
Other comments questioned whether
notice and hearing was provided on the
SIP revision or just a State regulation.
They believe it was unclear from the
public notices and materials available
before the hearing that the RVP rule was
actually intended to be submitted as a
revision to the SIP.
Response: As to the first claim, EPA’s
TSD provides the date that the public
notice was published and contains an
itemization of the public hearing dates.
Although there is no summary statement
that the public participation
requirements for hearing and notice
were met, the record does speak to that
effect.
EPA finds concerns that the public
hearings were largely meaningless and
thus riot “reasonable” to be misplaced.
It is inferred that New Jersey and the
other NESCAUM states had
predetermined the outcome of the
hearings before and without regard to
the hearings held in those states. EPA is
not at all convinced that the process
was predetermined. If the’commenters
were aggrieved on this matter we would
have expected them to challenge the
state’s proceedings under state law, as
API has done in New York. However, no
party challenged New Jersey’s
proceedings.
EPA acknowledges that New Jersey
did initiate rulemaking on RVP control
pursuant to an agreement on RVP
control with the other Northeast states.
However, having initiated the
rulemaking on that basis, the state then
proceeded to promulgate the regulations
through its full administrative process.
giving adequate notice and opportunity
for public hearing on the proposed
regulations.
As a policy matter EPA agrees that
the ozone problem in the Northeast is a
problem of regional magnitude and’has
held several meetings with top EPA and
state environmental officials in EPA
Regions I. II, and III to determine what
concerted elforts the states could take
on their own to deal with issues of
regional. but not necessarily national,
scope. Therefore EPA believes that it is
appropriate for the northeastern states
to regulate ozone precursors in a
consistent fashion. However, each state
must provide for adequate public
participation in the promulgation of
individual regulations. including
assessing and responding to all
submitted comments, as New Jersey has
done in connection with its RVP
regulations. As discussed more fully
below. EPA reviewed the state’s public
participation procedures and
determined that the state provided
adequate opportunity for public input in
connection with development of the
RVP rules.
A commenter argued specifically that
the’state’s hearing procedures were not
adequate to comply with section 110 of
the Act or EPA’s hearing regulations at
40 CFR section 51.102. The operative’
language in both the statute and the
regulationis “reasonable notice and
public hearing.” The commenter
asserted that New Jersey predetermined
its final decision on RVP regulation and
thus the hearing provided was not
reasonable.
However. EPA interprets the language
of both the statute and the implementing
regulations as requiring the state to
provide, first, reasonable notice of a
public hearing, and second, a public
hearing. EPA does not believe that the
law requires the Agency to review the
hearing record and determine whether
the hearing provided was itself
“reasonable.”
EPA’s interpretation of the hearing
requirement is clearly reflected in the
regulations at 40 CFR 51.102. The
regulations go into substantial detail on
the manner in which states must provide’
notice of a hearing in order for that
notice to be considered reasonable. See
40 CFR 51.102(d); see also 40 CFR
51.102(g)(2). However, the regulations
make absolutely no mention of specific
requirements for conduct of public
hearings. The state need only certify
that it in fact held a public hearing.
which New Jersey clearly did. and need
not provide any detailed information on
the conduct of the hearing.
This is appropriate because the
reasonableness of public notice can be
assessed objectively by reviewing the
amount’ and variety of notice methods
used. Assessing the reasonableness of a
hearing on the other hand would be a
highly subjective determination done
retrospectively that would unnecessarily
infringe ci the state’s discretion in
conduct its hearings. Of course, if
EPA rece ‘.‘cd concrete evidence that the
hearing c d not provide adequate
opportu’’ y for public participation, it
could fir.d that the hearing did not meet
the inter.: of EPA’s regulation. EPA has,
however, received no such evidence.
The commenters further claimed that
a state must specifically identify a
proposed regulation as a future SIP
revision prior to scheduling a public
Nhearing on the regulation. However,
neither t ’e statute nor EPA’s regulations
contain any such explicit requirement.
The purpose of a public hearing is to
receive public input on the substance of
proposed regulations, not on whether
the state may or may not submit the
reguldtions as a SIP revision. For years
EPA has approved SIP revisions with no
analysis of whether the state had
publicly announced its intent to
eventually submit a proposed regulation
as a SIP revision at the state public
hearing stage.
Generally it should be totally
irrelevant to public commenters whether
a regulation with which they will be
required to comply as a matter of state
law might also become an aspect of
federal law. At the time New Jersey held
its public hearings on the RVP rules,
prior to federal preemption, commenters
should similarly have had no concern as
to whether the proposed State rule
would eventually become federal law as
well. Only where a state regulation
would otherwise be preempted by
existing federal law and therefore
unenforceable would the public have a
need to know that the state intended to
seek federal approval of the regulation
for purposes of preemption waiver in
preparing comments at the stite hearing
level. This was not the case at the time
of the state hearing on the New Jersey
RVP rule. Moreover, given EPA’s then
outstanding proposal to regulate RVP
and thus preempt state RVP regulation.
it should have been apparent to
commenters at the time of the public
hearing that New Jersey would submit
the rule as a SIP revision to insure
enforceability in the event of EPA final
RVP regulation and preemption.
9. Should Waivers or Exemptions From
the State Regulations be Granted to
Suppliers who Cannot Provide 9 fl VP
Gasoline?
Comments: Commentera expressed
concern with potential inequities
resulting from supplier-specific requests
for waivers. They stated that the use of
supplier-specific waiver provisions
could diminish the calculated benefits of
the rule by allowing higher RVP gasoline
-------
25580
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 115 / Friday , June 16, 1989 I Rules and_Regulations
o the system, and financially
auvantage those companies which
able to comply. They also expressed
.u1cern th it the use of waivers and
e\emptions introduces uncertainties
abaut whether the volatility regulations
viil be applwd fairly and equitably to
,iII gasoline suppliers.
The commenters concluded that if
waivers or exemptions are to be used,
they must apply to all suppliers and
sigrificant penalties should be attached.
In addition, one commenter noted that
EPA has to consider how it will respond
to supplier-specific waiver requests; arid
EPA ‘is urged to adopt a policy on
waivers which is consistent with its own
RVP regulatory program.”
Re ponsc. EPA is aware that New
jersey intends to grant waivers to
individual suppliers if necessary to
avoid serious supply dislocations during
the initial stages of its RVP program.
Although EPA did not focus on this
aspect of the program in its NPR,
commenters were also aware of the
State’s intentions and the issue was
fully aired in the public comments. EPA
is approving the New Jersey RVP
program as a whole, which includes the
ability of the state to issue waivers as
ropriate. EPA is in essence pre-
roving any waivers that New Jersey
ht grant as part of the overall RVP
program being approved into the New
Jersey SiP today. New Jersey will not be
required to submit each waiver to EPA
as a SIP revision before’it may take
effect.
EPA is currently able to pre-approve
any waivers that New Jersey may grant
because the RVP program is a
discretionary program that the state has
submitted to generate additional
emission reductions and move the state
closer to attainment of the ozone
NAAQS. EPA is not pre-approving
waiters from a federally required
program or a program to which EPA has
already assigned specific emission
reduction credits as part of an overall
attaicunent demonstration. EPA could
not pre-approve waivers in such
situations because they would constitute
SIP relaxations. Here, whatever
emission reductions New jersey obtains
from the RVP program, even after any
waivers have been granted, will tighten
the existing SIP and improve air quality.
EPA notes that its pre-approval of any
waivers New jersey may grant under the
RVP program differs dramatically from
approval of a generic permitting
program such as a new source review or
le program. In those cases, EPA
rizes states to approve relaxations
ierwise applicable SIP
. . ..rements provided that the slate
follows SIP approved procedures
calculated to insure that all such
waivers are accounted for in the SIP
attainment demonstration and are
issued using replicable evaluation
techniques. 1-Icre, since EPA is not
currently relying on the New jersey RVP
program for any defined emission
reduction credit toward an approved
attainment demonstration, EPA need not
now analyze the criteria by which New
Jersey will issue any waivers. New
Jersey is free to issue waivers on the
basis of its own state criteria, consistent
with any requirements of its state
administrative procedures act.
When New Jersey does submit its
completed post-1987 aLtainment’
demonstration. EPA will assign specific
emission reduction credits to the RVP
program, taking account of any supplier-
specific waivers the state may have
issued by that time. Once EPA has
approved the New jersey post.1987 SIP,
it will take whatever rulemaking action
is necessary to ensure that any further
waivers under the RVP program, which
at that point would be considered SIP
relaxations, would be submitted to EPA
for approval as individual SIP revisions.
Finally, EPA notes that any suppliers
who receive waivers from New jersey
must still comply with the federal RVP
limit of 10.5 psi.
10. flow soon after the dale of final
approval of the New Jersey revisions
should the R VP regulations be made
effecLive?
Comments: A great deal of the
comments received commented on the
timing of EPA’s final action. Those
favoring EPA approval of the SIP
revision generally favored EPA acting
quickly to make the regulations effective
by their May I starting date or as close
to that as possible. These commenters
note that the Colonial Pipeline, which
supplies 20 percent of the Northeast’s
gasolIne, has been shipping 9 RVP fuel
to the Northeast since March 1, 1989.
They also pointed out that those
suppliers who have made a good faith
effort to comply with the May 1st date
would be at a competitive disadvantage
relative to those with cheaper, higher
volatility gasoline if the date Is
extended.
‘-. Those opposing EPA approval of the
SIP revision generally asked that if we
did approve it we must provide the
petroleum industry with realistic and
sufficient lead-time to enable 9 psi
gasoline to be distributed throughout the
distribution system. These commenters
cited EPA’s allowing 70 and 100 days for
the recently promulgated national
regulations to become effective at the
terminal and retail level respectively as
precedent for such a decision. A third
path, suggested by one commenter,
would be for EPA to make its final
approval conditional on the state’s
deferral of the compliance date for its
regulation.
Response: The timing issue is one of
the most difficult ones posed by this
action. Since EPA has had control of the
timing of the final federal RVP action.
the decision on the pieviously granted
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
Connecticut RVP SIP revisions, and the
decision on the New jersey RVP
revision, it is important that we insure
that both the federal and state programs
start with a maximum likelihood of
success and a minimum possibility of
supply disruption.
EPA must consider several issues in
deciding when to make the rule
effective. The first issue is when the
industry was put on notice that it would
have to supply 9 psi gasoline to New
Jersey. Since the New Jersey rule was
passed in 1988, the industry was on
notice since then of the State’s intention
to control RVP to 9 psi. However, the
New Jersey rule was preempted on
March 22. 1989 by the promulgation of
the federal volatility requirements.
Another issue to consider is the lead-
time that would bç necessary to enable
9 psi gasoline to get through the
distribution system. The record
indicates that the industry thought that
it would take from 60 to 70 days to
achieve compliance at the terminals in
New Jersey. The record also indicates
that the Colonial Pipeline, which
supplies at least 20 percent of the
gasoline in the Northeast, has been
shipping 9 psi gasoline since March 1,
1989.
The final issue involves the air quality
consequences of delaying the effective
date. EPA should not delay action on a
SIP revision in such a manner as would
thwart the State’s intent in requesting
the SIP revision. New Jersey’s submittal
‘of the RVP SIP revision in January was
clearly aimed at getting its regulatory
program in place for the 1989 ozone
season. Thus, it is important to have the
effective date as early as possible in
order to maximize the air quality
benefits of the program in 1989.
In deciding to make this action
effective on June 30, 1989, EPA has
attempted o balance these competing
interests. EPA believes that this
effective date will both minimize
possible difficulties the industry might
encounter with a shorter lead-time and
provide citizens In the Northeast as
much relief as Is practical during most of
the 1989 ozone season. Although some
suppliers may have made a good faith
effort to comply with the May I effective
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 115 / Friday, June 16, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
25581
date specified in the New jersey
proposal, they were under no obligation
to do so once EPi\ preempted the New
jersey requirement by promulgating
federat RVP controls on March 22, 1909.
The Agency cannot, therefore, select an
earlier effective date for all suppliers
based on the voluntary action of a few,
especially considering that the time
between the March 22 federal
rulemaking and todays publication is
critical to the refiner/supplier planning
and implementation process regarding
fuel delivery for the coming summer.
However, because refiners have
already begun to prepare for the sale of
9 RVP fuel as a result of EPA’s approval
of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and
Connecticut RVP SIPs and in light of the
fact that these states share many links
in the gasoline distribution network with
New Jersey, the Agency does not believe
that an additional 60 to 70 days lead-
time is warranted. This starting date in
New Jersey, therefore, mirrors the
starting date in Massachussets, Rhode
Island, and Connecticut.
11. Should EPA reopen the comment
period or withdraw and repropose this
SiP revision in light of EPA ’s final
action on the notional R VP regulation
and other alleged defects in the March
proposal?
Comments: EPA received divergent
comments on the appropriate process
for and timing of a final action on New
jersey’s SIP revision. Several
commenters argued that EPA should
take final action as soon 88 possible. On
the other hand, other commentcrs felt
that because of numerous allegedly
unresolved issues raised in their
substantive comments. EPA should at a
minimum repropose action on the
revision to deal with these issues before
proceeding to final action.
— Response: EPA concludes that given
its interpretation of the relevant law and
the seasonal nature of the New jersey
revisions, the Agency should proceed
expeditiously to final action based on
the record currently before it. EPA is
unpersuaded by the claim that
circumstances have so changed since
the proposed approval of the New Jersey
revisions that we should reopen the
comment period or withdraw and
repropose this action. EPA’s NPR for the
New jersey RVP program explicitly
discussed EPA’s final action on the
national RVP program relevant to final
action on the State program. EPA clearly
presented the path which EPA proposed
to follow and the conclusions which we
proposed to reach In light of the final
promulgation of federal RVP regulations.
Furthermdre, In the final Federal
Register notice on the national RVP’
program, EPA explicitly discussed
considtirdtiun of diffc ’rc :’ state RVP
contiol programs.
In this case EPA concLdes that it is
not necessary to issue a reproposal prior
to taking final action. EPA believes that
it has adequately responded to all of the
substantive comments ra:sed by
commenters in the substantive
discussions presented above. Obviously,
additional analysis on such technical
issues could always be conducted.
However, administrative agencies
generally have the discretion to
determine when issues have been aired
sufficiently and to close the record arid
proceed to final action, consistent of
course with the nee&to act in a
reasoned, non-arbitrary fashion
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power v.
N.R.D.C.. 435 U.s. 519, 554-555 (1978)).
Further, EPA should not delay action
on a SIP revision in such a manner that
would thwart the State’s intent in
requesting the SIP revision. In this case,
New jersey has submitted a seasonal
requirement that since currently
preempted must be approved in a timely
fashion in order to effectuate the state’s
intent that the regulations provide
emission reduction benefits in the
upcoming summer ozone season.
Therefore. EPA should make best efforts
to act on the information available to it
now to the extent that it is adequate or
else the agency would thwart the State’s
intent with regard to the 1969 ozone
season. Since EPA has concluded that
the existing record is sufficient. EPA can
proceed to final action at this time
based on that record.
Enforcement
EPA’s proposed approval of the New
jersey SIP revision indicated that there
was a problem with the test method
section. The regulation required that
testing be performed in accordance with
the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) method 0—323. EPA
stated that the State must revise its test
method section to include the EPA
recognized methods contained in EPA’s
national volatility rule which are based
on an ASTM proposed modification to
0—323 known as Annex 2. On April 27,
1989. EPA received comments from the
NJDEP which indicated that the State
cannot amend its RVP rule through
normal legislative procedures in time for
this year’s volatility control period. The
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection stated that it
will adhere to D—323 (which is still a
valid ASTM testing procedure and is
being used by other NESCAUM slates)
for the 1989 control period and
committed to amend its test
methodology to cite the EPA recognized
methods in 1990 and subsequent years.
EPA finds that its concerns ruIal j to
the test methods were addresse(l
sufficiently by the State and that the lest
methods sci.tion is approvable.
Final Action
EPA is approving this revision to the
New jersey Ozone State Implemeritd Lion
Plan to control gasoline volatility.
including any waivers New Jersey may
grant under the program. EPA has also
made the finding that the New Jersey
SIP revision meets the requirements of
section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act for an
exception to federal preemption.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Under section 3o7(b)(1) of the Act.
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United Slates
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of publication.
This action may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its
requirements [ See section 307(b)(2)l.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons.
Ozone. Incorporation by reference.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the
State Implementation Plan ror the Sidle of
New York was approved by the Director of
the Federal Register on july 1. 1982.
EPA is today approving the New
jersey SIP revision pertaining to its State
gasoline volatility program.
Dtite. June 8, 1989. -
William K. Reilly.
Adminisirolor.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, Part 52 of Chapter I of Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
P RT52—4AMENDED]
Subpart FF—New Jersey
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7842.
2. SectIon 52.1570 Is amended by
adding new paragraph (c)(45) to read us
follows:
§ 52.1570 IdentifIcation of Plan.
. . . . .
(c)
(45) Revisions to the New Jersey State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone
submitted on january 27. 1989 by the
New jersey State Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for its
-------
25502 Federal Resister / Vol.
54, No. 115 / Friday. June 16. 1909/ Rules and Regulations
tate gdsoliue volatility program.
ocluding any waivers that may be
gr;inted uiidr.r the program liv the sIat( .
In 1 t19. the control per:od will bi ’ tin on
Juiie 30.
(i) Incorpuralion by rcfcrciicc
Subchaptci 25 of Chaptc(27. Title 7 of
the New jeiscy Administrative Code
entitled “Control and Pioliibition of Air 3 Section 52.1005 is amended by
Pollution by Vehiculur I ’ucls.” adopted adding a new entry Subchapter 25 under
on January 27, 1939 and c ii :cicc on Title 7, Chapter 27 in numerical order as
I’eliruary 21, igt g. follows:
(ii) fldd,t:iinclnioler:ol April 27, 1939
letter from Chi istopher Dcggctt. NJDEP, § 52.1605 EPA-approved New Jersey S;ite
regulations.
to William Musryaski. EPA Region It.
Siate regutalion
Slate
elfocuvo EPA spprovcd date Comments
date
-
“S.
1 lie 7, Chapter 27
2/21/09 t FR date and c::it3n Of thiS document J Eliactiva dale 6l30I 9.
Subcl’opior 25. Controi and Prohibition of Air Potiutio
Veli,cuia Fuels”
n by
ll’fl Doc 89—14227 riled 8—IS-WI. 045 uclil
DiLLitiG CODE 6560-50-U
40 CFR Part 52
lSC-012b; FRL—3632-Sj
Approval and Promulgation of
ipiementotion Plans; South Carolina;
platile Organic Compound (VOC)
nlsslons
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Withdrawal of final rule.
SUMMARY: On April 17, 1009 (54 FR
15181). EPA disapproved without prior
proposal the May 24. 1985. version of
revisions made by South Carolina in Its
Air Pollution Control Regulations and
Standards. These revisions cnntaincd
deficiencies within the Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) regulations. EPA
subsequently received adverse
comments on the action. Accordingly.
the Agency is withdrawing its direct-
final disapproval. Elsewhere in today’s
Federal Register, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the May 24. 1085, version of
revisions made by South Carolina and
providing an opportunity to comment on
the proposal.
DATE: This action is effective on june 16.
1989.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the materials
submitted by South Carolina may be
examined during normal business hours
at the following locations:
Air Programs Branch. Environmental
Protection Agency. Region IV, 345
urtland Street NE.. Atlanta, Georgia
365.
It Carolina Dcpartinent nfl Icalth
..ad Environmental Control. 2000 Dull
Street. Columbia. Soulh C.iro!ina.
29201.
FOR FUflThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Altsman. EPA Rr’gton IV. Air
Programs Branch, at the Atlanta address
above or cull 404/347—2884 or FTS 257—
2064.
SUPPLCMENTARY INFORMATION: On June
5, 1985, the South Carolina Dcpnrtnaent
of Health anil Environmental Control
submitted to EPA for approval revisions
to the volatile organic compcund (VOC)
provisions of the South Carolina Air
Pollution Control Regulations and
Stonclards. These revisions were
adopted by the South Carolina Board of
Health and Environmental Control on
December 20, 1004, and were fnrwarded
to the State Legislature for approval.
The revisions became State-eFfective on
May 24, 1905. Based on the information
submitted, EPA found several of the
revisions to be deficient and therefore
disapproved them without prior
proposal (54 FR 15181 April 17, 1909).
In the final rulemaking, EPA advised
the public thai the effective date of the
action was deferred for 60 days (until
June 10, 1909] to provide an opportunity
to submit comments on it. EPA
announced that if notice was received
within 30 days of the publication of the
final rule that someone wonted to
submit adverse or critical comments, the
final action would be withdr.iwn and a
new rulemaking would be begun by
proposing a 30-day comment period.
EPA had eorlier published a general
‘\oticc explaining this special procedure
(46 FR 4 1477, September 4, 1901).
J PA has received adverse comments
on this action. Accordingly, the Agency
is today withdrawing its disapproval.
Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register,
EPA is proposing disapproval of this
plan and soliciting comments on tile
proposal.
EPA is withdrawing this action
without pro’ itling prior notice and
opportunity for comment. Thc Agency
finds that It has good cause within the
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) to proceed
without notice end comment. Notice and
comment would be impracticable in this
case because EPA needs to withdraw its
approval as quickly as possible in order
to consider the comments which the
public has submitted or may wish to
submit. Moreover, further notice is not
necessary because EPA has already
informed the public that it would follow
thic procedure if it received a request for
an opportunity to comment. For the
same reasons, EPA finds that It has good
cause under S U.S.C. 553(d) to mnke this
withdrawal immediately effective.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 3 of Executive
Order 122111.
List of Subjects In 40 CFR Port 52
Air pollution, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations. Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—7042.
Date: June 8.1989.
C tour C. Tidwoll,
Regional Adniinistrotor.
Therefore the addition of new
§ 5Z.2128 oppearing at 54 FR 15182. April
17, 1989, which was to become effective
on june 16. 1909, Is withdrawn.
(FR Doc. 80—14304 Piled 0—15-89:8.45 limI
SI WUG CODE 5560-SO-U
40 CFR Part 52
(FRL-3602—9)
Approval and PromulgatIon of
ImplementatIon Plan, State of Texas,
PartIculate Matter (PM 10 ) Group .11
Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protect ion
Agency (EPA).
-------
26030 F ’deraI Register / Vol. 54, No. 118 / Wednesday,’ June 21, 1989 I Rules and Regulation’s
(P) For Operation ARGUS the period
August 27, 1 58 through September 10.
1958.
(Q) For Operation !IAJ?DTACK l/the
prr od September 19, 1958 through
October31, 1q58
(R) For Operation DOMINICIIhc
criod April 25. 1962 through December
31. 1902.
(S) For Operation OOit’iINJCJIJ
PLOWShARE the period July 6, 1962
through August 15, 1962.
(vi) The term ‘ occupotion of
Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Japan. by
United States forces” means official
military duties within 10 miles of the
city limits of either Hiroshima or
Nagasaki. Japan, which were required to
perform or support military occupation
functions such as occupation of
territory, control of the population.
s ;abilization of the government.
demilitarization of the Japanese military.
rehabilitation of the infrastructure or
deactivation end conversion of war
plants or materials.
(vii) Former prisoners of war who had
an opportunity for exposure to ionizing
radiation comparable to that of veterans
who participate4 in the occupation of
I liroshima or Nagasaki, Japan, by
United States forces shall include those
who, at any time during the period
August 6.1945, through July 1. 1946:
(A) Were interned within 75 miles of
the city limits of Hiroshima or within 150
miles of the city limits of Nagasaki. or
(13) Can affirmatively show (hey
worked within the areas set forth in
paragraph (d)(4)(vii)(A) of this Section
although not interned within those
areas, or
(C) Served immediately following
internment in a capacity which satisfies
the definition in paragraph (d)(4)(vi) of
this section. or
(0) Were repatriated through the port
of Nagasaki.
(Authority: 35 U S.C. 312)
3. In § 3.812. paragraph (c)(2) is
revised, paragraph (c)(3) is removed and
old paragraph (c)(4) Is redesignated as
new paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
§ 3.812 SpecIal allowance payable under
section 156 of Pub. L 97—377.
• a a • a
(2) Claimants eligible for death
benefits under 38 U.S.C. 418. The deaths
in such cases are not service connected.
(3) Claimants whose claims are based
on an individual’s service in:
(i) The Commonwellth Army of the
hilippines while such forces were in
ie service of the Armed Forces
ursuant to the military order of the
• resident dated July 28, 1941, including
recognized guerrilla forces (ace 38 U S C.
107).
(ii) The Philippine Scouts under
section 14, Pub. L. 190. 79th Congress
(see 38 U.s c. 107).
(iii) The commissioned corps of the
Public Health Service (specifically
excluded by section 156 of Pub L. 97—
377), or
(iv) The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
(specifically excluded by section 156 of
Pub. L. 97—377).
(FR Doc. 89—14022 Filed 6—20-89: 845 an J
BILUNG CODE 0320-01-N
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
(Region II Docket No. 97; FRL-3602—41
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Revision to the
State of New York implementation
Plan for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA Is approving the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of New York.
These revisions will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds from
gasoline by limiting the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) of gasoline sold between
June 30 and September15 in 1989 arid
between May I and September15 of
each year thereafter to 9 pounds per
square inch. EPA is also finding that the
New York RVP regulations are
“necessary to achieve” the national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
for ozone and are therefore excepted
from preemption under section 211 of
the Clean Air Act. The intended effect of
this action is to make necessary
progress towards attainment of the
ozone standard as expeditiously as
practicable as required under the Clean
Air Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE This action will be
‘\effective June 30. 1989.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State
submittal are available at the following
addresses for inspection during normal
business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region I I Office, Air Programs Branch,
28 Federal Plaza, Room 1005. New
York. New York 10278.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Public Information Reference UnIt, 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division
of Air Resources, 50 Wolf Road,
Albany, New York 12233.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. William S. Baker. Chief, Air
Programs Branch. Environmental
Protection Agency. 26 Federal Plaza,
Room 1005. New York, New York 10276,
(212) 264—2517.
SUPPLEMENTAflY INFORMATION:
Introduction
This notice describes EPA’s decision
to approve revisions to the New York
SIP which limit the volatility of gasoline
from June 30 to September 15 in 1989
and from May 1 to September 15 every
year thereafter. The remainder of this
preamble is divided into four sections.
The first provides the background for
this action, with respect to both
chronology and the broad issues
involved. The second section presents
today’s action and EPA’s rationale. The
third section summarizes the comments
received on the proposed action and
EPA’s responses to them. The final
section discusses the enforceability of
New York’s regulation with regard to the
test methods as discussed in EPA’s
proposed rulemaking notice.
Background
On November 12. 1987, the
Commissioners of the Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM) signed a Memorandum of
Understanding expressing their
intention to reduce the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) of gasoline to 10 pounds
per square inch (psi) starting in the
summer of 1988 and to 9 psi in the
summer of 1989 and continuing every
ozone season thereafter. Since there
were delays in adopting necessary
regulations, the 1988 limit of 10 psi was
eliminated and New York passed a
regulation limiting the RVP of gasoline
to 9 psi from May I to September ‘15
starting in 1989 and continuing each
year thereafter. On January 31, 1989,
New York submitted a SIP revision to
EPA for approval to implement this
provision.
On March 22, 1989, EPA published a
Federal Register notice (54 FR 11868)
taking final action on national regulation
of RVP. to take effect this summer. The
maximum allowed summertime RVP in
New York under the federal regulation is
10.5 psi. Under sectldn 211 (c)(4J(A) of
the Clean Air Act (the Act): EPA’s final
action preempted inconsistent state
control of RVP, except In California. In
its final action, EPA noted that states
could be exempted from preemption
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 119 I Wednesday, June 21, 1q89 I Rules and Regulations
2G0
only if EPA finds it is ‘necessary” to
achieve the NAAQS as provided in
section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act. Section
211(c)(4)(C) of the Act states: “A state
may prescribe and enforce, for purposes
of motor vehicle emission control, a
control or prohibition respecting the use
of a fuel or fuel additive in a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine if an
applicable implementation plan for such
State under section 110 so provides. The
Administrator may approve such
provision in an implementation plan, or
promulgate an implementation plan
containing such a provision, only if he
finds that the State control or
prohibition is necessary to achieve the
national primary or secondary ambient
air quality standard which the plan
implements.” In it March 22, 1989
notice, EPA made specific note of the
NESCAUM states’ initiatives and the
conditions for EPA approval of state
RVP regulations.
On March 28. 1989, EPA published a
Federal Register notice (54 FR 12656)
proposing approval of the New York SIP
revision. EPA also proposed to find that
these revisions were “necessary” to
achieve the NAAQS for ozone within
the meaning of section 211(c)(4)(C) of
the Act and, thus, meet the requirements
for an exception to Federal preemption.
Description of Today’s Action
EPA today approves revisions to the
New York SEP which limit gasoline
volatility to9 psi between June 30 and
September15 In 1989 and between May
1 and September15 in each year
thereafter, The New York program
includes authority for the State to issue
waivers to invididual suppliers if
necessary to avoid supply dislocations.
EPA Is approving the program as a
whole, including any waivers the State
might issue under this authority. This
aspect of EPA’s approval is discussed In
full under section 9 of the next portion of
this notice describing EPA’s response to
comments.
EPA is also explicitly finding that the
New York revisions are “necessary to
achieve” the NAAQS within the
meaning of section 211 (c)(4)(C) of the
Act. This means that New York’s RVP
regulations are not preempted by the
Federal RVP regulations promulgated on
March 22, 1989.
EPA’s rationale for this action and its
effective date are presented below. In
this context many issues raised by
commenters on the proposal will be
addressed. The remaining comments
will be discussed in the next portion of
this notice. ,
In approving the New York RVP SIP
revisions, EPA must consider
requirements imposed by two different
sections of the Clean Air Act. As with
all SIP revisions, section 110 provides
the reqwrements for approval into the
SIP. In tLns case, since EPA has
promulgdted Federal RVP regulations,
section all(c)(4)(A) preempts
inconsistent State control. However.
section 211(c)(4)(C) provides that the
Administrator may except a State RVP
control program from preemption if he
finds it is “necessary” to achieve the
NAAQS. Thus, the New York revisions
must satisfy both section 110 and “ ..
section 211 requirements to gain
approval.
EPA has concluded that the New York
RVP regulations are “necessary” to
achieve the ozone NAAQS. In re,aching
this conclusion EPA has followed the
test first articulated in approving the
Maricopa County, Arizona SIP (53 FR
17413 (May 19, 1988) and 53 FR 30228
(August 10, 1988)) and later presented in
the proposed approval of the New York
revisions. EPA stated that if, after
accounting for the possible reductions
from all other reasonable control
measures, New York could demonstrate
that RVP controls are still required to
achieve the standard, then RVP controls
are necessary within the meaning of
section 211(c)(4)(C). EPA will not
interpret that provision to require a
State to impose more drastic measures
such as driving prohibitions or source
shutdowns before it can adopt its own
fuel control program.
As discused in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR), the record indicates
that the New York City Metropolitan
Area (NYCMA) needs VOC emission
reductions on the order of at least 33.8
percent from 1987 Inventory levels to
achieve the standard, The State
reviewed approxImately 25 measures
suggested by EPA as reasonable in
addition to RVP control to 9 psi and
found they could together potentially
achieve an 11.7 percent reduction from.
1987 levels in the NYCMA.
Enhancements to the State’s vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program could produce an additional 2.4
percent reduction. As indicated at
proposal, while EPA’s regulation of
gasoline to ‘10.5 psi reduces the emission
reduction attributable to the State
regulation, it does not affect the bottom
line, a shortfall will still exist. EPA’s
technical review of the data presented
in the State submission and by the
commenters affirms the conclusion that
a shortfall will exist even with all
reasonable State and Federal measures.
EPA continues to believe that the fact
that the State RVP regulation might not
by itself fill the shortfall and hence by
itself achieve the standard does not
mean the rule is not “necessary to
achieve” the NAAQS it is simple logic
that “necessary” is not the same as
“sufficient”. EPA believes th.it the
“necessary to achieve” standard must
be interpreted to apply to measures
which arc needed to reduce ambient
levels when no other measures that EPA
or the Slate has found reasonable are
available to achieve this reduction.
Beyond such identified “reasonable”
measures, EPA need look at other
measures before RVP control, only if it
has clear evidence that RVP control
would have greater adverse impacts
than those alternatives. EPA has no
such evidence here. Therefore, EPA can
defer to New York’s apparent view that
RVP control is the next less costly (or is
itself a reasonable) measure. Thus. EPA
concludes that New York’s RVP
regulations are “necessary” to achieve
the NAAQS.
Summary of Public Comments and
EPA’s Responses
The major issues discussed in the
comments are: (1) What constitutes a
finding of “necessary to achieve” the
standard under section 211(c)(4)(C): (2)
whether there has been an adequate
technical demonstration that controlling
RVP to 9 psi is “necessary” (i.e.,
whether the threshold for exemption
from preemption has been crossed); (3)
the scope of EPA’s discretion assuming
a finding that State RVP controls are
necessnry to achieve the standard; (4)
what effect the 9 RVP limit in New York
will have on the cost and supply of
gasoline in the State and the Northeast;
(5) driveability and safety concerns; (6)
whether there is an ozone problem in
New York: (7) whether the State has an
adequate enforcement program or
sufficient resources to implement the
State regulations; (8) whether the State
provided “reasonable opportunity” for
public comment; (9) what exemptions or
waivers from the State regulations
should be allowed; (10) the appropriate
timing for making the Stale regulation
effective; and (11) whether EPA should
withdraw or repropose this action or
reopen the public comment period in
light of EPA’s recent promulgation of
Federal RVP regulations and other
alleged deficiencies in EPA’s proposed
action. Each issue is explored in detail
below.
1. What constitutes a finding of
“necessary to achieve” the standard
under sectioii 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act?
a. Making the “Necessary” Finding
Without a Demonstration of Attainme:,g
Comments. One group of comments
questioned EPA’s ability to make a
-------
26032 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 118 I Wednesday. June 21, 1989 I Rules and Regulations
finding that New York’s RVP regulation
is ncces ary to attain the ozone
st.ind&ird without going through the
r.nmplete planning process invot .ed in
approvint a btfltc ’R response to EPA’s
i.ndir. ih.i t the current SIP is
substantially inadequate to achieve the
standard (the “SIP call”). Several
comments stated that EPA cannot
npprove New York’s RVP regulation as a
SIP revision without finding that the SIP
us a whole achieves attainment of the
NAAQS for ozone. Related comments
riucstioned EPAs ability to determine
whe(hcr New York’s RVP controls are
necessary without a new updated
iiiventory of VOC sources which EPA
will require [ ruin the states with ozone
nonauainment areas as part of their
response to the SIP calls.
Response Through its SIP calls, EPA
hae imposed on states like New York an
obligation to revise their ozone SIPs and
demonstrate attainment of the standard.
‘l’he thrust of these comments is that
EPA cannot make a finding of necessity
without the state first having gone
t ’ rough the new planning process and
developing a new demonstration of
attainment. EPA does not interpret
section 211 (c)(4)(C) to require a
complete demonstration of attainment in
der to approve a measure which will
ntribute to attainment.
Forcing a state to demonstrate
attainment before allowing it to adopt
stricter fuel controls would yield
perverse results. Areas with the worst
ozone rionattainment problems. which
have the most difficulty assembling a
derfionstration of’attainment. would be
disabled for perhaps several years from
adopting clearly necessary, stricter than
the national, RVP controls. Several
commcnters noted that New York so far
has not been able to identify any
combination of control measures which
would bring the State into attainment. It
is precisely in areas like New York, with
an especially difficult nonattainment
iroblem. where the expeditious
implementation of new controls. and
hence the finding of necessity under
section 2tt(c)(4)(CJ. is most appropriate..
Beyond that, it is reasonable for EPA
to use the best information it now has
available to determine whether New
York’s RVP program will be necessary
to achieve the standard without having
to wait for New York to complete it8
planning response to the SiP call,
including its updated inventory. As
explained below, the VOC inventory
and reduction figures New York
‘-‘itted to EPA was based on
nably reliable models EPA has
in the pasL Such figures are always
ile of refinement, but in the
Agency’s judgment the e’ .aenditure of
time required to do so is not worth the
marginally improved accJ acy See
Vermont Yanhee Nuclec: P3; c i - v
N J ? DC. 435 U S. 519. 544—535 (1978).
EPA hns n ’ot yet set a 3:e certain by
which New York must attain the ozone
standard. Congress may address the
widespread nonattainment problem in
the amendments to the Act now being
considered. In the meantime EPA has
also proposed its own policy for how to
deal with SIP planning for
nonattainment areas in the post-lOOT
period (52 FR 45104, November 24. 1987).
The air quality anulysis New York
submitted made it clear that RVP
control beyond the federal requirements
will be necessary to any attainment
plan, whether the attainment date that
Congress or EPA selects is imminent or
long-term. Moreover, there is
widespread agreement among EPA and
the States in the Northeast that major
VOC reductions, probably exceeding the
33.0 percent estimated by EPA in this
case, wiU be required to get cloée to
attaining the ozone standard. Nothing in
the air quality data from the summer of
1988, which have become available in
quality-assured form since publication
of the proposal, indicates that the
reduction requirement prolected by the
New York analysis overstates the
reduction necessary to achieve the
standard. Beyond that, the history of
ozone planning over the last decade
makes it clear that reduction targets are
seldom overestimated.
Furthermore, EPA’s approval of this
revision now is consistent with section
110(a)(2)(A) of the Act, which requires
attainment “as expeditiously as
practicable.” interpreting section
Z11(c)(4)(C) to require a complete
attainment demonstration before EPA
can approve (and a state can implement)
a fuel control that the state has
determined to be practicable and that
would advance the attainment date
would effectively put section
211(c)(4)(C) in conflict with section
11O(a)(2)(A). It is doubtful that Congress
intended EPA to choose an
interpretation that would create such a
conflict
b. Upstate Nonottainment Areas
CommenI.s. Several comments were
received on the propriety of EPA’s
section 211(c)(4)(C). finding for upstate
areas of New York which are in
nonattalninent, and EPA’s finding that
the application of the program statewide
is necessary to achieve the ozone
standard as- expeditiously as practicable
in all of the upstate and downstate
nonattamment areas. One commenter
stated that EPA,has not issued a SiP call
for the upstate areas pending analysis of
the 1988 ozone data, therefore New Yoi
is not required to take action in the
upstate areas. Another commenter
suggested that it is impossible for EPA
to evaluate the reductions claimed for
the upstate areas since there is no
inventory for this part of the State.
Response. The SIP call issued in May
1988 was based on air quality data’
through 1987 which indicated that the
only upstate area in nonattainment was
Jefferson County. During 1988, ozone
violations indicating actual
nonattainment were recorded in Erie,
Niagara, Dutchess, Albany, Essex.
Schenectady, Rensselaer. Saratoga, and
Washington Counties. At the moment,
EPA is quality-assuring this data. Once
this process is complete, EPA
anticipates that the State will be asked
to revise its SIP accordingly to provide
for mitigation strategies in these areas.
It seems clear that the upstate areas are
experiencing violations of the ozone
standard, and thus must put in place
such measures as are necessary to bring
the areas into attainment of the
standard. As EPA explained in its
proposal, New York has indicated that
no measures other than the RVP
program could be implemented in the
upstate areas rapidly enough to provide
any emission reductions during the 1989
ozone season, and that available
measures which would produce
emission reductions of the magnitude of
the RVP program could not be in place
for several years. Moreover, the
emissions reductions that the RVP
program would achieve are so large that
the program could very well produce
attainment of the’ ozone standard during
the 1989 ozone season in those areas. By
this logic, and assuming, as New York
has, that the RVP program Is -
practicable, the program appears to be
necessary to produce attainment in the
upstate areas, “as expeditiously as
praclicable,” as required by the Act.
None of the-comments submitted on this
issue disputes these findings.
Beyond that, two of the comments
supported EPA’s proposed approval For
the upstate areas in part because of the
benefits that would result by reducing
emissions transport to other downwind
nonattainment areas. EPA Is currently
working with the Northeast States on a
Regional Oxidant Modeling study on the
Northeast transport (ROMNE’I’)’
problem. As part of the study, the.
Agency hopes to quantify the extent to
which transport from each State Sn the
Northeast affects the air quality in the .
Northeast region. While this study is not
yet complete. EPA and the Northeast
States agree that..traneporL1a. .apecia1 .; . -
-------
Federal Register / VoL 54, No. 118 / Wednesday. June21,_1989 / Rules and Regulations
26O
problem in the Northeast, and that New
York State is one of the key states
involved In fdct, what is kno ri
generally about ozone formation
su. ’ gests that emissions from upstate
New York may contribute to ozone
formation in western New England, an
area that has experienced ozone
standard violations. This suggests that
controlling upstate New York emissions
may well be necessary for timely
attainment in parts of New England.
Thus, the commenters’ claims on
transport tend to confirm the
appropriateness of EPA’s proposed
finding that the New York RVP program
is necessary for timely attainment of the
ozone standard.
For these reasons, EPA concludes that
the RVP program is necessary to provide
for timely attainment. It is therefore
appropriate for the Agency to make a
8ection 211(c)(4)(C) finding For the
upstate areas.
As to the validity of the reductions
claimed for the upstate areas, It is true
that the State has not yet been required
to develop and submit emission
inventories as part of the SIP for the
upstate areas. However, it should be
noted that both New York and EPA
maintain statewide emission inventory
databases (respectively entitled the
Source Management System and the
National Emissions Data System) which
are adequate to evaluate the reductions
claimed for the upstate areas.
Finally, EPA noted a proposal that
New York had made the RVP program
effective on a statewide basis in order to
ensure compliance with the program in
all of the upstate and downstate
nonattainznent areas. None of the
comments submitted disputed the
necessity of this program coverage. New
York did grant. a waiver to the western
half of the state based on supply
considerations. This waiver is discussed
in more detail in sections 9 and 11
below.
c. The Standard EPA Has Applied To
Determine Whether Fuel Controls Are
Necessary Compared With Other
Controls
Comments. Several commenters
maintained that EPA had not adequately
analyzed whether there are other
control strategies reasonably available
which New York should Implement
before resorting to RVP controls
inconsistent with the federal regulation.
EPA will address these comments in
section Zc below. Other comments
concerned the standard that EPA should
use to determine whether RVP controls
are necessary compared to othe
controls.
Response. In the propcsal for this
action, EPA used the approach it firs
announced when nppro :ng the
Muricopa County, Ar’ r 1 SIP (53 FR
17413 (May 19. 1988). 53 FR 30228
(August 10, 1988)) to de’crminc whether
RVP controls beyond the federal
program are necessary to attain the
ozone standard in New York. Under that
approach, if after accounting for the
possible reductions from all other
reasonable control measures, New York
could demonstrate that RVP controls art’
still required to achieve the standard,
then RVP controls are necessary within
the meaning of section 211(c)(4)(C). For
the reasons stated in the Arizona action
and the New York proposal. EPA will
not interpret section 211(c)(4)(C) to
require a state to impose more drastic
measures such as driving prohibitions or
source shutdowns before it can adopt its
own fuel control program.
New York has demonstrated to EPA
that implementing all the control
measures which EPA now believes to be
reasonably available to New York for
VOC control (including measures that
the State has already adopted and is
now beginning to Implement) would not
achieve compliance with the ozone
standard. The roster of control measures
New York examined corresponds to the
list of controls EPA has identified for
states to implement In response to the
ozone SIP calls, and represents EPA’s
best judgment as to the controls which
could now be reasonably implemented.
See EPA’s proposed post.1987 ozone
policy (52 FR 45104, appendix C,
November 24, 1987). AFter examining all
controls EPA has determined to be
reasonable, a state is free to make its
own determination as to what control
measures should next be employed.
One corninenter maintained that
EPA’s method for determining what is
necessary in too vague because it would
allow EPA to approve state fuel controls
“simply because alternative measures
are more inconvenient, unpopular, or
costly.” As discussed in section 2c
below, EPA examined reasonable
alternative controls which New York
could implement end determined they
would not achieve enough reduction to
achieve the standard. EPA also has
determined that remaining controls such
as gas rationing, driving reductions, and
source shutdowns are so drastic that the
State may resort to fuel controls first.
This judgment concerning what Is too
drastic Is a complicated policy
determination requiring the
Administrator to weigh precisely those
factors which the comznenter would
exclude from his consideration—
whether the remaining alternatives are
costly or unpopular. In Amoco Oil Go
Environmental Protection A jenry. 501
F 2d 722, 740—741 the court distjfl uished
between the fuctual foundation which
EPA must provide in its adnunistrdtjve
decisions and policy judgments which
are an integral part of the findings
Congress requires the Administrator to
make.under the Act:
Where by contrast, the regulations turn on
choices of policy, on an assessment of risks.
or on predictions dealing with matters on the
frontiers of scientific knowledge, we will
demand adequate reasons and explanations.
but not iindings’ of The sort familiar from the
world of adjudication.
Id. at 741. EPA’s and New York’s
analysis of reasonably available
controls is based on a factual record
supported by the best analytical tools
the agencies had available to them at
the time. EPA’s judgment that State fuel
regulation is a less drastic course than
gas rationing and other unpopular
controls so far not implemented in any
SIP is clearly a matter on the frontier of
air pollution control planning, and
therefore cannot (and need not) be
supported by the same technical record
as, for example, EPA’s determination
that New York needs at least a 33.8
percent reduction from its 1987
inventory to attain the standard.
2. Have New York and EPA made an
adequate technical demonstration that
controlling RVP to 9 psi Is ‘necessary”
to atain the NAAQS?
a. Adequacy of Emission Inventory
Comments. Three petroleum Industry
commenters argued that the emission
inventory used in the technical
demonstration Is Inadequate. They
pointed out that EPA has already
requested that New York prepare a new
inventory as part of its response to the
SIP call. Therefore it Is argued that New
York’s reliance on the old inventory is
Inappropriate.
Response. As described In EPA’s
Technical Support Document, the
emission inventory used by New York
and reviewed by EPA is based on EPA’s
“Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors”, known by its document
- number “AP—42.” This document and its
updates are EPA’S longstanding
guidance for determining emissions for
inventory purposes and has served as
the basis for ozone SIP inventories since
the mid-lg7Os. Mobile source emissions
were estimated using the then current
version of EPA’s mobile source
emissions model, MOBILE 3, consistent
with standard EPA guidance, While EP/
has called for many states, including
New York. to update their inventories
-------
2503k Federal Rc ster I Vol. 54. No. 118 / Wednesday. Jttnc 21, 1989 I Rules and Regulations
f r poM-19 ’ SIP pldnnlng purposes. the
A ’ricy h is continued to use existing
II1/CfltOiil’3 ;n cvnieatirg curri nt control
riropo ials EPA exrc.cts the new New
York i v’ utety, not due until lute 1989.
to show ht hc ’r cnii sioiis than the
eurrcat inventory sinu it is expected to
uicludc more sources and improved
qu.thty assurance. Thus, if the current
inventory is lacking. it understates
current emissions and errs such that the
l ’kcly percentage reduction needed to
attain the standard is also understated.
As stated in the NPR. EPA believes
t’iat if there is an error in quantifying the
emission reductions resulting from
c ’untrol to 9 psi, those reductions are
understated. If the newly released
nobile source emission model,
MOBILE4, which includes the effects of
r.lnninc tosses, were used, one would
cxpcct the reduction in tons of VOCa to
increase significantly. Furthermore,
contrary to the commenters’ belief, the
estimated emission reduction is based
on reductions achieved during only the
four and one-half months each year the
regulation is effective. This approach
niay understate the reduction since 9 psi
fuel may be in the distribution system up
to two additional months on each end of
ae regulatory season.
Also contrary to the commenters
‘claim, EPA’s Technical Support
Document (TSD) does contain an
estimate of the emission reduction
achieved by going from EPA’s 10.5 psi
limit to New York’s 9 psi limit. EPA
estimated a 1.8 percent reduction from
the 1907 inventory. This estimate does
account for nonlinearity in emissions
with decreasing RVP limits.
b. Appropriateness of the Modeling
Demonstration
Comments. While some commenters
agreed that modeling was necessary to
evaluate the air quality benefit of the-
RVP reduction, they objected to EPA’s
reliance on the Regional Oxidant Model
(ROM). The commenters also raised
concerns about the appropriate
hydrocarbon to nitrogen-oxides (NO 1 )
ratios to be used in such modeling. A
third modeling issue concerns New
York’s and EPA’s inability to associate a
quantified increment of improved air
quality with the con trot of RVP to 9 psi.
Response. The claim that the ROM
does not provide the spatial resolution
needed for accurate prediction in
individual urban areas loses sight of the
fact that we are evaluating a statewide
t’rogram. The Urban Airshed Model
ggested by these commenters is
propriate for large urban areas but
mId have to be run over at least two
ciilfcrent geographic domains to cover
the entire State. Caught between the two
nviilable model scales, it i8 EPA s
technical judgriient that the ROM is an
nppropruite tool to use in evaluating
future reductions needed for New York.
EPA understands the concern thut
past strategies hjve focused almost
exclusively on controlling VOCs instead
of NO 1 . As indicated in EPA’s proposed
post-1987 ozone strategy. future control
scenarios arc li.kcly to include NO 1 .
However, it is highly unlikely that NO.
control atone will suffice. The best
technical information available to EPA
at this time concernin8 the Northeast
ozone problem points to the need for
substantial VOC reductions and at least
modest NO. reductions in the future to
attain the ozone standard. -
The last modeling issue concerned
New York’s and EPA’s inability to
associate a quantified increment of
improved air quality with the control of
RVP to 9 psi. While such a modeling
exercise would be ideal it is unlikely
that one would have much confldencç in
the outcome of such a sensitivity test.
The atmosphere’s response to emission
reductions of ozone precursors is highly
nonlinear such that small increments of
reduction may show little or no effect on
their own. However, when’ the
reductions from the State’s many
strategies are aggregated. the total
impact becomes quantifiable. Thus, even
though New York and EPA cannot
pinpoint where the air quality will
improve by what amount on what day,
we are confident that there will be a net
improvement in ozone levels if New
York were to decrease VOC emissions
by 1.8 percent.
c. Consideration of Other Alternatives
Comments. Commenters expressed
concern that New York and EPA have
failed to consider other significant
alternative control measures that could
lead to attainment, including Stage II
vapor recovery systems. source
categories that are listed in EPA’s post-
1987 strategy, more stringent motor
vehicle.standards. and a host of
transportation control measures (TCMs).
Response. EPA believes that sufficient
alternatives were considered. EPA and
the State have considered the emission
reduction potential of 23 different point
nd area source categories
corresponding to those suggested by
EPA in its proposed post-1987 ozone
policy (52 FR 45104. Appendix C,
November 24, 1987). Not surprisingly,
some of the source categories are not
relevant because there are no major
sources in those categories in New York
or because the State has already
adopted controls for those categories.
As noted I a the proposal, most of the
relevent categories have potential
reductions that are very small and,
when combined, total less than 1 5
percent of the 1987 inventory. Other
strategies that the State committed to in
its previous SIP but have yet fully
implemented (including such
extraordinary measures as architectural
coatings. consumer/commercial solvents
and auto refinishing)would produce
emission reduction on the order of iO.Z
percent, for a- total reduction of 11.7
percent. This would still leave a
shortfall of 22.1 percent.
Two commenters noted that the
proposal did not account for the
emissions reductions’that are
attributable to Stage LI vapor recovery
systems. While reductions due to Stage
II were not mentioned in the NPR, the
TSD did note that the reductions from
RVP control (9,000 TPY) would be
second only to Stage II controls (10,800
TPY). Since New York has already
adopted and begun to implement Stage
II controls, the shortfall discussed in the
NPR was calculated above and beyond
those reductions attributable to Stage II
controls.
With respect to TCMs, the
commentera failed to take account of the
fact that the existing New York SIP (40
CFR 52.1670(c)(61)) contains provisions
for the implementation of public
transportation improvements.ln the
NYCMA. It is true that New York has
not Implemented the types of TCM8
suggested by EPA In its proposed post-
1987 ozone strategy. However, based on
EPA’s experience with the
implementation of these measures in
other areas, we expect that New York
would only achieve an additional two
percent reductiomby- adopting similar
strategies. New York would still have an
estima ted shortfalL of approximately 20
percent.
While EPA recognizes that other
TCMs may be needed In New York. the
-remainder are difficult to quantify, yield
small reductions.lndlvidually, and. as
evidenced by the public reaction to the
EPA.promulgated Implementation plans
containing such measures in the 1970’s
(see H.R. Rep. No. 95—294, 95 Cong. 1st
Sess. reprinted in 4 Legislative History
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977, at 2748—55 (1978)); generally can be
expected to have more significant
adverse effects on the public as a whole
than RVP controls would. To be sure, if
there were sufficient evidence for EPA
to conclude that the State’s RVP
controls would result in significantly
more severe impacts than other . ,
measures that neither EPA nor the State
has yet identified as “reasonable” for
the State to implement, then It might
well be appropriate for the Agency to
-------
Federal. Register / Vol. 54, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 21, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
26035
account for the emission reductions that
those other measures would achieve
before determtning the shortfall against
which to tudge the RVP controls. The
Agency does not believe, however, that
the Stales RVP control would produce
significantly more severe effects than
such alternatives (e.g.. than a trip
reduction ordinance of the type that
Arizona found reasonable for
application in Phoenix and Tucson).
In sum, New York and EPA have
Indeed examined a broad range of
potential emission reduction strategies
and have still identified a significant
shortfall in the level of emission
reductions likely to be needed to
achieve the ozone standard. As
discussed above, In light of this
significant shortfall EPA may approve
the RVP program as necessary to
achieve the standard without first
requiring New York to Implement other
measures that EPA has not yet found
reasonable for implementation, such as
more stringent state motor vehicle
standards.
3. What Is the scope of EPA’s discretion
assuming a finding that State RVP
controls are necessary to achieve the
standard?
a. Permissible Bases for EPA ’s Decision
To Approve Slate R VP Controls
Comments. Several comments
asserted that even where EPA has
determined that State fuel controls are
necessary to achieve the standard, EPA
may nevertheless disapprove those
controls if EPA determines that the
economic or fuel supply impacts of the
State’s regulation are unreasonable.
These commenters suggested that EPA
may give significant consideration to
costs because section 211(c)(4)(C)
provIdes that the Administrator “may”
approve a SIP revision imposing state
fuel controls once he makes the finding
of necessity. Conversely, other
commenters maintained that EPA may
not disapprove the New York SIP
revision based on economic grounds,
once EPA has made the finding of
necessity.
Response. EPA believes that it must
consider cost to some limited extent
whenever the Administrator decides
whether to make a finding under section
211(c)(4)(C) that a fuel measure is
“necessary” for attainment. As
discussed above, to determine whether
state fuel controls are necessary, EPA
must look first at whether other
measures that it determines are
reasonable (and, perhaps, other
measures the state has adopted) will by
themselves achieve timely attalnmentl.
Arguably. an alternative measure is,
‘reasonable” only if its effects are less
drastic than the effects of the fuel
controls. Clearly the cost and supply
impact of the state fuel controls will be
a factor in any such judgment.
EPA does not interpret the use of
“may” in section 211(c)(4)(C) to give the
Administrator unfettered discretion to
disapprove the SIP revision on economic
grounds once he has made the finding
that state fuel controls are necessary to
achieve the standard. Section
211(c)(4)(C) must be read in the context
of the preemption created in section
211(c)(4)(A), which prohibits states from
adopting inconsistent fuel controls in
their SIPs, or anywhere else, for air
pollution control purposes. In the face of
this prohibition, the sole effect of the
“may” in section 211(c)(4)(C) is to
authorize the Administrator to overcome
a provision (section 211(c)(4)(A)) that
would otherwise bar him from
approving the SIP revision. The use of
“may” in section 211(c)(4)(C) does not
eliminate the obligation that section
11O(a)(3)(A) places on the Administrator
to approve the SIP revision, provided it
meets the requirements of section
11O(a)(2). See Train v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421
U.S. 60, 98 (1975). Section 11O(a)(2)
requires the Administrator to approve a
SIP revision if. among other things, it
may be necessary to insure attainment
end maintenance of the standard. EPA
may not consider the economic impact
of a necessary SIP revision under
section l1O(a)(2); under that provision, it
is for the state to determine what
economic costs are appropriate to
achieve the standards. Union Electric
Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 248, 256-258
(1976). Beyond that, it would be
incongruous for Congress to give EPA
more discretion to reject a SiP revision
for reasons unrelated to the goal of
achieving the standard as quickly as
possible precisely where EPA has
determined that a SIP revision is
necessary to achieve the standard.
Therefore, once EPA makes the finding
that state fuel controls are necessary to
achieve the standard, a finding which
includes a determination that such fuel
controls are more reasonable than other
available measures, EPA may not reject
a state’s SIP proposal simply for
economic reasons.
One commenter cited Motor vehicle
Manufacturers Assoca lion v.’E.P.A., 768
F.2d 385, 389—390 (DC Cir. 1985). for the
proposition that the use of “may” under
section 211 commits the decision to the
discretion of the Administrator. In
MVMA the court was examining EPA’s
decision to grant a waiver under section
211(0(4) of the Act for the use of fdel
additives not substantially similar to
those in the’fuel EPA uses to certify the
emissions from automobiles. The court
was not examining section 211(c)(4)(C),
which allows EPA, upon making a
particular finding not mentioned in
section 211(fl(4), to act on a SIP revision
submitted by a state alter full hearing at
the state level and subject to the
requirements of sections 11O(a)(2) and
(3](A).
b. Intent of Federal Preemption Under
etion 211 -
Comments. Several comments insisted
that EPA should disapprove New York’s
RVP controls because Congress
intended to avoid a patchwork of
different state fuel controls in favor of a
uniformly regulated national market for
fuels. These commenters expressed
concern that the exception in section
211(c)(4)(C) to the rule of preemption
under section 211(c)(4)(A) would
eventually swallow the rule, Several
comments urged EPA not to act
inconsistently with its decision not to
limit gasoline to 9 psi in 1989 in the
federal RVP control program.
On the other hand, several comments
urged EPA to support the regional
approach to RVP control that the
NESCAUM States are undertaking. One
commenter pointed out that where
Congress has not acted to address the
ozone nonattainment problem, it is
reasonable to let the States do all they
can to attain.
Response. It is clear that section
211(c)(4)(A) indicates that Congress
desired to maintain a nationally
regulated market for fuels. It is equally
clear that section 211(c)(4)(C) indicates
Congress recognized that there will be
states where the air quality problem is
so severe that the interest in a
nationally regulated market must bow to
the need for additional state controls on
Euel.content. EPA has not been able to
find any legislative history which
illuminates with any detail beyond the
language of the Act how EPA should
strike this balance.
It is reasonable to infer that Congress
was aware that the air quality needs of
particular States might create varying
fuel content requirements, and that
Congress accepted that risk in favor of
protecting the public health. Several
commentera cited Exxon Corp. v. City of
New York, 548 F.2d 1088 (Zd Cir. 1977),
as precedent that a uniformly regulated
fuel market Is the overriding purpose
behind section 211(c)(4). In Exxon the
court, however, was not faced with a
claim for an exception to preemption
under section 211(c)(4)(C), and
specifically left it to EPA to determine
-------
2(3035 Federal Re Lster / Vol. 54. No. 118 I Wednesday. June 21. 1989 / Rules and Regulations
whether such an exception is
appropriate:
The Act sensibly provides for an e’ccepiion
from its comprehensive preemption of local
re8tllation of motor vehicle lucia only when
such regulation is a provision in a Slate
iniplcincntation plan approved by the
Administrator who has the competence to
make the needed professional engineering
and energy conservation decisions.
Id. at 1096. Once EPA has made a
finding of necessity under section
Z11(c)(4)(C), it is reasonable for EPA to
interpret the Act to place paramount
importance on protecting public health
and achieving the standard.
EPA believes that the oil industry’s
concern that the exception will swallow
the rule is overstated. As described
above, EPA will approve inconsistent
state fuel controls only where the state
can demonstrate that exhausting all
other reasonable alternatives will not
achieve the standard, taking costs into
account in determining reasonableness.
This demonstration is not a trivial
hurdle, and it is highly unlikely that
every state with an ozone
nonattainment area could make such a
showing. Furthermore, a State is
unlikely to b.urden its citizens with the
potentially higher cost of lower RVP fuel
unless the air quality needs are
compelling. Finally, regional initiatives
such as NESCAUM’s help avoid a wide
variety among State controls. In this
case, the New York RVP program is
virtually identical to the RVP programs
already approved for Massachussets,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and
titus, provides consistent supply
requirements over a group of contiguous
States.
EPI also believes that its decision not
to impose a limit of 9 psi by 1089 in
EPA’s RVP control program does not
preclude EPA from approving New
York’s SIP revision. When developing its
federal RVP control program, EPA
imposed controls across the nation, and
had to determine the level of RVP
control which supply sources for the
entire continental United States could
reasonably meet. Further, although EPA
was able to make this determination as
to particular regions within the country,
EPA did not intend to account for the
particular air quality needs of each
state.
4. What cffect will the 9 RVP limit in
New York have on the cost and supply
of gasoline?
Comments. Several commenters
stated that if the 9 psi standard took
effect in 1989 the djstribution system
would be strained and that there could
be some significant supply dislocation
und cost increases. Several cther
commeriters were concerned about
possible supply problems. Several stated
that even if refiners had the capacity to
produce 9 psi gasoline, there would be
logistical problems requiring the need
for additional storage tanks for the
gasoline and excess butane. Other
comments suggested that foreign
imports at 9 psi might not be available.
Most of the oil company commenters
stated that there will be some need for
capital improvements at refineries to
meet the 9 psi standard. Several
coinnienters stated that there will likely
be a cost impact to the New York
standard and other commenters stated
that they were worried about the
increased cost. One other comment
stated that the estimates of increased
cost do not reflect the extra cost
increase that could accompany a
significant supply disruption.
Proponents cited two studies as
support for the position that supply is
not a problem.
Response. The potential supply
problems arise out of two factors. First,
decreasing the volatility of gasoline
requires increased refinery capacity. It
is certain that implementation of 9 psi
volatility in the NESCAUM States will
create a refining capacity reduction in
the amount of gasoline capable of being
produced at each refinery. This is true of
both domestic and foreign suppliers.
Second, the problem may be further
exacerbated by the expected increased
demand for gasoline in the summer
months.
Various studies have been conducted
to determine how much refining
capacity will be lost from
implementation of 9 psi volatility in the
NESCAUM states, how much demand
for gasoline is likely to increase in the
summer of 1989, and what effect these
factors wilL.have on gasoline supply
capabilities. The two studies done for
NESCAUM and the one done for EPA.
are inconclusive. There appear to be
numerous factors which make precise
prediction of these effects impossible.
However, under the EPA study (Sobotka
study), estimates indicate that the
volatility standard may be feasible
without serious supply problems.
The Sobotka study cites the
Department of Energy (DOE) as
predicting that demand for gasoline
should increase only in the range of I to
1.5 percent this summer. This estimate is
also supported by other studies
including one reported at a National
Petroleum Refiners Association
conference. The study also estimates
that approximately a five percent
refining capacity shortfall will occur at
domestic refineries because of the
NESCAUM volatility regulations. The
study estimates that with a 1 2 percent
increase in demand for gasoline in the
summer, U.S refineries would he able to
make up for a five percent domestic
shortfall, and a ten percent import
shortfall, without construction of new
facilities or installation of additional
equipment. Although various factors
make it impossible to accurately predict
the refining shortfall of imported
gasoline, there is no strong evidence
indicating that it will exceed ten
percent. Thus, the Sobotka study
suggests that it is likely that the
resulting refinery capacity shortfalls
from a 9 psi standard in 1969 should not
result in supply shortfalls.
In the unlikely event of unforeseen
supply disruptions, the State of New
York has the authority to take
immediate steps to provide needed
waivers or exceptions to the program. In
fact, the State has already exercised this
authority by exempting several western
counties from the 9 psi rule for 1989. It
should be noted that the State based
this decision solely on the potential for
supply problems and not on any lack of
air quality problems in these areas. The
State has committed to carefully monitor
the supply situation this year and take
other appropriate actions, as may be
necessary. to ensure that supply
problems do not occur as a result of its
State RVP control program. See also the
response to section 9 later in this notice
for more discussion of State waivers or
exceptions.
5. What effect will 9 RVP gasoline have
on driveability in cold weather and on
vehicle safety?
Comments. Several commenters
expressed concern that the 9 RVP fuel
would cause hard starting, hesitation,
and stalling in automobiles and farm
equipment during the early spring and
late fall. They stated that gasoline will
have to enter the distribution system in
March and will not be out until October
in order to comply with the regulation.
Other comments, including several from
automobile manufacturers, indicated
that there should be no adverse effect
from the use of 9 RVP fuel.
Response. We believe that the nature
of the gasoline distribution system
makes it very unlikely that 9 RVP fuel..
will be available to consumers in March
or early April, even if the blending-down
process by that time has begun to
reduce RVP. Continued availability of
low-RVP fuel is even less likely by late..
October because the blending-up . ,
process will occur rapidly at the close of-
the control period. Nevertheless, the’ 4,:
experience of California, which has
required 9 RVP fuel foi’ many yea rs,’- c-..’
-------
appears to demonstrate that widespread
driveability or fuel safety problems will
not occur in the Northeast. We know of
no evidence of extensive problems in
California. despite significant operation
at cool temperatures and high
elevations.
As further evidence of this conclusion.
one can compare the true vapor pressure
(TVP) experienced in fuel tanks at
different times during the year. For
example, when corrected for elevation.
gasoline in Billings. Montana at its
January 1988 average RVP of 13.6 psi
and at the historic low January
temperature of —30 degrees Fahrenheit
would result in a true vapor pressure of
1.0 psi. Similarly, for New York, the
analogous RVP and temperature of 10.0
psi RVP and —12 degrees F. would also
result in a TVP of 1.0 psi. In contrast, 8.5
psi RVP fuel at en analogous New York
temperature of 18 degrees F. would
result in a TVP of 1.8 psi, 80 percent
higher than the winter figure. We
conclude from this that if low-volatility
fuel were to r ach consumers during
very low temperature weather, any
degradation in driveability would be no
greater (and would likely be less) than
that experienced currently during the
winter. -
Conversely, low volatility fuel should
improve vehicle driveability in very hot
weather by reducing the occurrence of
such conditions as vapor lock and fuel
foaming.
6. Is there really a severe ozone problem
in New York or the Northeast?
Comments, A number of industry
commenters, in urging EPA to
disapprove the SIP revision, claimed
that the air Is really becoming cleaner
and cleaner over time and that the
ozone standard is being met more than
99% of the year. Environmental groups
countered these claims with data from
1987 and 1988 which show a worsening
of the ozone problem since 1986. They
noted that 1988 was one of the worst
ozone seasons on record across the
Northeast.
Response. EPA Is firmly convinced
that there is a serious ozone problem In
the Northeast. EPA’s conviction was
evidenced by last year’s SIP calls to
New York and most other Northeast
states. This SIP call was based on 1985-.
1987 ozone monitoring data which
ranked New York among the worst
.ozone nonattainment areas in the
country. EPA’s concern is further
heightened by the 1988 ozone season.
The ozone standard was exceeded more
frequently, at more sites, and at higher
levels in 1988 than in 1987.
7. Has New York demonstrated that it
has an adequate enforcen ent program
or adequate resources to implement the
RVP regulation, as required by section
110 of the Act?
26O3
0. Has New York satisfied the Act’s
public notice and hearing rcqumremefl 5 7
Fad ra)’Register / Vol. 54, No, ha I Wednesda ’, June 21, 1989 / Rules nd Regulatioris
Coniinen s. Several commenters
questioned whether the New York SIP
revision was adopted after “reasonable
Gommezits. One cornmenter notice and public hearing.” While
questioned whether New York has acknowledging that public hearings
developed an adequate program for were held, they aijeged that the decision
enforcement of the regulation, to limit RVP to 9 psi was actually made
Response. EPA believes that the State by NESCAUM some time before public
has developed an adequate enforcement hearings on the New York RVP
program for its RVP regulation. The . , regulation, and that therefore any
hearing nominally provided was
State has trained enough personnel - substantively inadequate. On the other
(with the help of NESCAUM and the hand, NESCAUM commented that ozone
State of California) to allow four teams pollution problems, especially in the
to perform field inspections. Given that Northeast, are clearly regional problems
New York will be testing only at the and must therefore be dealt with
primary distribution level and will be . through consistent regulations.
relying to some extent on examination ‘ Other commenters questioned
of distributor records, EPA believes that whether notice and hearing was
the State has adequate personnel to provided on the SIP revision or lust a
carry Out the RVP program as required State regulation. They believe that it
by section 110(a)(2)(F) of the Act. In was unclear from the public notices and
addition, the State has indicated that it materials available before the hearing
will eventually tie in RVP sampling with that the RVP rule was actually intended
Stage I inspections that the State has to be submitted as a revision to the SIP.
been re8ularly performing for several Response. As to the first claim, EPA’s
years at terminals and on gasoline tank TSD provides the date that the public
trucks. Finally, it should be noted that notice was published and Contains an
retail outlets, which are not subject to itemization of the dates the public
enforcement under the State’s rule, will hearinga’were held. Although there is no
be subject to EPA’S national . summary statement that the public
enforcement program. If gasoline that participation requirements for hearing
does not comply with New York’s 9 psi and,notice were met, the record does
limit is found at retailers in the State by speak to that effect.
EPA, we will surely share such evidence EPA finds concerns that the public
with the State. hearings were largely meaningless and
EPA notes that in the comparable thus not “reasonable” to be misplaced.
arena of enforcement through Delayed EPA is not convinced that New York
Compliance Orders (DCOs), courts have ‘ and the other NESCAUM States had
held that EPA may not second guess the predetermined the outcome of the
state’s choice of enforcement - hearings beforehand and without regard
to the hearings held in August 1988.
mechanisms so long as the chosen EPA acknowledges that New York did
system is a reasonable one. See
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. U.S E.P.A., o a initiate rulemaking on RVP control
pursuant to an agreement with the other
F.2d 99L 1005—1006(7th Cir. 1980): ,northeastern states. However, having
appealed, Bethlehem Steel v. Corsuch, initiated the rulemaking on that basis,
726 F.2d 356 (7th Cii’, 1984), reh. den., en the State then proceeded to promulgate
banc, vacated on reh., 732 F.2d 97 (7th the regulations through its full
Cir. 1904), withdrawn and appealed, 742 administrative process, giving adequate
F,Znd 1028(7th Cir. 1984). notice and opportunity for public
Furthermore, even if the New York hearing on the proposed regulations.
rule’s enforcement scheme were As a policy matter EPA agrees that
inadequate to support a finding, the ozone problem in the Northeast is a
ultimately, that the state’s eventually problem of regional magnitude and has
complete ozone SIP update meets all of held several meetings with top EPA and
the requirements In section 110(a)(2), State envirorunental officials in EPA
EPA could still approve the rule under Regions I, II, and III to determine whet
section 11O(a)(3). Th t is because, even concerted efforts the States could take
with an inadequate enforcement on their own to deal with issues of
program, the rule would still strengthen regional, but not necessarily national,
the pre-existing SIP and hence, under scope. Therefore EPA believes that it is
the rationale in Michigan v. Thomas. 805 appropriate for the northeastern states
F.2d 170, 188(6th Cir. 1988), be to regulate ozone precursors in a
approvable for that limited purpose. consistent fashion. However, each state
-------
2 ’)3 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 118 / Wednesddy, June 21, 1909 / Rules arid Regulations
must provide for adequate public
p irIicipation in the promulgation of
•nch iilu.il rc ulattons, including
asccs .ng anti responding to all
i.ubimtlcd coriments, as New York has
i one in onncction with its RVP
r-cjti! iions. As discussed more fully
bc!ow. EPA reviewed New York’s public
participation procedure and determined
that the State provided adequate
opportunity fur public input in
cn:v ection with development of the
R\’P rule.
The commenters argued specifically
that Ncw York’s hearing procedure was
not adequate to comply with section 110
of the Act or EPA’s hearing regulations
at 40 CFR section 51.102. The operative
lani uare an both the statute and the
re u ataon is “reasonable notice end
public hearing.’ The commenters
as ertcd that New York had
predetermined its Final decision on RVP
regulation and thus the hearing provided
was not reasonable.
However. EPA interprets the language
of both t!ie statute and the implementing
regulations as requiring the state to
provide. first, reasonable notice of a
public hearing, and 8CCOrid, a public
hearing. EPA doesnot believe that the
law requires the Agency to review the
hearing record and determine whether
the hearing provided was itself
“reasonable.’
EI’A’s interpretation of the hearing
requirement is clearly reflecterl in the
regulations at 40 CFR 51.102. The
regulations go into substantial detail on
the manner in which states must provide
notice of a hearing in order for that
notice to be considered reasonable. See
40 CFR 51.102(d); see also 40 CFR
51.102(g)(2). However, the regulations
mako absolutely no mention of specific
requirements for conduct of public
hearings. The state need only certify
that it in fact held a public hearing.
which New York clearly did, and need
not provide any detailed information on
the conduct of the hearing.
This is appropriate because the
reasonableness of public notice can be
assessed objectively by reviewing the
amount and variety of notice methods
used. Assessing the reasonableness of a
hearing on the other hand would be a
highly subjective determination done ‘
restrospeclively that would
unnecessarily infringe on the State’s
discretion in conducting its hearings. Of
course, if EPA received concrete
evidence that the hearing did not
provide adequate opportunity for public
oarticipation. it could find that the
hearing did not meet the intent of EPA’s
regulation. One commenter claimed that
New York failed to provide prior public
hearing on the waiver provisions of Its
RVP program, and thus that the hearing
did not in fact provide adequate
opportunity for public participation IL is
true that the August 1983 hearing did not
cover the waiver pros isiuns. However,
New York held a separdie hearing on
the waiver provisions in pirticular on
March 2, 1989. This liearirg provided the
required oppoitunity fur public
participation on the RVP program as a
whole, including the waiv’r provisions.
The commenters furthur claimed that
a state must specifically identify a
proposed regulation as a future SiP
ravision prior to scheduling a public
hearing on the regulation. However
neither the statute nor F.PAs regulations
contain any such explicit requirement.
The purpose of a public hearing is to
receive public input on the substance of
proposed reguldtions not on whether.
the state may or may not submit the
regulations as a SIP revision. For years
EPA has approved SIP revisions with no
analysis of whether the state had
publicly announced it intent to
eventually submit a proposed regulation
as a SIP revision at the state public
hearing stage.
Generally it should be totally
irrelevant to public conimenters whether
a regulation with which they will be
required to comply as a matter of state
law might also become an aspect of
federal law. At the time New York held
its public hearing on the RVP rule, prior
to federal preemption, commenters
should similarly have had no concern as
to whether the proposed State rule
would eventually become federal law as
well. Only where a state regulation
would otherwise be preempted by
existing federal law and therefore
unenforceable would the public have a
need to know that the stale intended to
seek federal approval of the regulation
for purposes of preemption waiver in
preparing comments at the state hearing
level. This was not the case at the time
of the Stale hearing on New York’s RVP.
rule. Moreover, given EPA s then
outstanding proposal to regulate RVP
and thus preempt state RVP regulation,
it should have been apparent to
commenters at the time of the public
hearing that New York would submit the
rule as a SIP revision to insure
enforcedbility in the event of EPA final.
RVP regulation and preemption.
‘9. Should waivers or exemptions from
the State regulations be granted to
suppliers who cannot provide 9 RVP
gasoline, and for alcohol blends of
gasoline?
Comments. Several commenters.
expressed concern over the State’s
Issuance of a waiver for western New
York for 1989 since it Introduces
uncertainties about whether the
volatility regulations will be applied
fairly and equitably to all gasoline
suppliers They indicated that the use of
supplier-specific waiver provisions
could diminish the calculated benefits of
the rule by allowing higher RVP gasoline
into the system, and financially
disadvantage those companies which
are able to comply. In addition,
coinmenters noted that the SIP revision
submitted to EPA by the State, and
F.PA’s subsequent Federal Register
notice. (ailed to consider the State’s
decision to exempt western New York.
With specific regard to alcohol fuel
exemptions, one commenter noted that
the inconsistency between New York’s
and EPA’s volatility programs appears
“counterproductive,” because, for
example, ethanol blending increases
volatility and therefore evaporative
emissions increase. The commenter
noted that in EPA’s Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for a national RVP
regulation (52 FR 31293, August 19,
1907). EPA concluded that gasohol usage
results in a greater contribution to ozone
formation than the gasoline which it
replaces.
The commenters concluded that if
waivers or exemptions are to be used.
they must apply to all suppliers and
significant penalties should be attached.
In addition, one commenter noted that
EPA has to consider how it will respond
to supplier-specific waiver requests; and
EPA “is urged to adopt a policy on
waivers which is consistent with Its own
RVP regulatory program.”
Response. EPA is aware that New
York has granted a waiver for the
western portion of the State and also
intends to grant waivers to individual
suppliers, if necessary. to avoid serious
supply dislocations during the Initial
stages of the RVP program. Although
EPA did not focus on thl aspect of the
program in its NPR, it is safe to conclude
that commenters were also aware of the
State’s actions and Intentions since the
issue was fully aired in the public
comments. EPA is approving the New
York RVP program as a whole, which
includes the ability of the State to Issue
waivers as appropriate. EPA Is
approving the waiver already issued (or
western New York and Is In essence
pre-epproving arty additional waivers
that New York might grant as part of the
overall RVP program beIng approved
into the New York SIP today. New York
will not be required to submit each
waiver to EPA as a SIP revision before t
may take effect. - •.. .‘ . -
EPA Is currently able to pre-approve.
any waivers that New York may grant
because the RVP program Is a
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 54, No. 118 I Wednesday , June 21, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
26039
discretionary program that the State has
submitted to generate additional
emission reductions and move the State
closer to attainment of the ozone
NAAQS. EPA is not pre-approving
waivers from a federally required
program or a program to which EPA has
already assigned specific emission
reduction credits as part of an overall
attainment demonstration. EPA could -
not pre-approve waivers in such
situations because they would constitute
SIP relaxations. Here, whatever
emission reductions New York obtains
from the RVP program, even after any
waivers have been granted, will tighten
the existing SIP and improve air quality.
EPA notes that its pre-approval of any
waivers New York may 8rant under the
RVP program differs dramatically from
approval of a generic permitting
program such as a new source review or
bubble program. In those cases. EPA
authorizes States to approve relaxations
of otherwise applicable SIP
requirements provided that the State
follows SIP approved procedures
calculated to insure that all such
waivers are accounted for in the SIP
attainment demonstration and are
issued using replicable evaluation
techniques. Here, since EPA is not
currently relying on the New York RVP
program for any defined emission
reduction credit toward an approved.
attaintment demonstration, EPA need
not now analyze the criteria by which
New York will Issue any waivers. New
York is free to Issue waivers on the
basis of its own State criteria, consistent
with any requirements of its State
administrative procedure act.
Several commenters questioned the
line New York drew in exempting the
western half of the State. and argued
that some inequities would result for
suppliers doing business at the
demarcation line: These are concerns to
be addressed to the State since EPA is
not at this time addressing the
substance of New York’s waiver criteria.
When New York does submit Its
completed post-1987 attainment
demonstration. EPA will assign specific
emission reduction credits to the RVP
program, taking account of any supplier-’
specifIc waivers the State may have
issued by that time. Once EPA has
approved the New York post-1987 SIP, it
will take whatever rulemaking action is
necessary to ensure that any further
waivers under the RVP program, which
at that point would be considered SIP
•relaxations. would be submitted to EPA
for approval as Individual SIP revisions.
Finally, EPA notes that any suppliers
who receive waivers from New York
must still comply with the Federal RVP
limit of 10.5 psI,
In its fuel volatility regulation, New
York has included provisions which
allow the Commissioner to grant an
exception to suppliers of fuels which are
composed of a blend of gasoline and
simple alcohols upon showing that
gasoline is not available that, when
blended, would meet the 9 psi standard
With regard to this provision, It must be
noted that: .ilcohol blends represent a
small fraction of the State’s fuel market;
that such exemptions would help to
avoid any impediments to the
development of alternative fuels; and
that these alcohol blends are not
excluded from complying with the
requirements for alcohol blends of
gasoline set forth by EPA in its Federal
Register Notice of March 22, 1989 (54 FR
11888) limiting the RVP of gasoline
during the summer months to 10.5 psi
(beginning 1989). The Federal rule
requires that methanol blends meet the
same RVP requirements of gasoline and
that ethanol blends meet a RVP not
more than 1 psi above the allowable
RVP for gasoline. Thus there will be no
loss in emission reductions relative to
the Federal program, which Is the only
alternative to the New York program.
EPA has no authority to disapprove the
State’s rule just because the additional
“necessary” emission reductions that it
would achieve are not as large as those
that might be achieved through a rule
tailored differently. Furthermore, EPA
believes that concerns about alcohol
blends in New York may be of little
practical Importance because field
testing of gasoline by EPA throughout
the summer of 1988 found virtually no
alcohol In gasoline.
10. How soon after the date of final
approval of the New York revisions
should the RVP regulations be made
effective?
Comments. A great deal of the
comments received pertained to the
timing of EPA’s final action. Those
favoring EPA approval of the SIP
revision generally favored EPA acting
quickly to take the regulations effective
by their May 1 starting date or as close
to that as possible. These commenters
note that the Colonial Pipeline, which
supplies 20 percent of the Northeast’s
gasoline, has been shipping 9 RVP fuel
to the Northeast since March 1, 1989.
They also pointed out that those
suppliers who have made a good faith
effort to comply with the May 1st date
would be at a competitive disadvantage
relative to those with cheaper, higher
volatility gasoline If the date is
extended.
Those opposing EPA approval of the
SIP revision generally asked that if we
did approve it we must provide the
petroleum industry with realistic and
sufficuer t leadtime to enable 9 psi
gasoline to be distributed throughout the
distribution system. These commenters
cited EPA’s allowing 70 and 100 days for
the recently promulgated national
regulations to become effective at the
tcrminal and retail level respectively as
precedent for such a decision. A third
path, suggested by one commenter,
would be for EPA to make its final
approval conditional on the Slate’s
S . deferral of the compliance date for its
regulation.
Response. The timing issue is one of
the most difficult ones posed by thié
action. Since EPA has had control of the
timing of the final federal RVP action,
the decision on the previously granted
Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, and New Jersey RVP SIP
revisions, and the decision on the New
York RVP revision, it is important that
we ensure that both the federal and
slate programs start with a maximum
likelihood of success and a minimum
possibility of supply disruption.
EPA must consider several issues in
deciding when to make the rule
effective. The first issue is when the
industry was put on notice that it would
have to supply 9 psi gasoline to New
York. Since the New York rule was
passed in 1988, the industry was on
notice since then of the Slate’s intention
to control RVP to 9 psI. However, the
New York rule was preempted on March
22, 1989 by the promulgation of the
federal volatility requirements.
Another issue to consider is the lead-
time that would be necessary to enable
9 psi gasoline to get through the
distribution system. The record
indicates that the industry thought that
it would take from 60 to 70 days to
achieve compliance at the terminals in
New York. The record also indicates
that the Colonial Pipeline, which
supplies at least 20 percent of the
gasoline In the Northeast, has been
shipping 9 psi gasoline since March 1,
1989.
The final issue involves the air quality
consequences of delaying the effective
date. EPA should not delay action on a
SIP revision in such a manner as would
lhwart the Slate’s Intent in requesting
(lie SiP revision. New York’s submittal
of the RVP SIP revision in January was
clearly aimed at getting Its regulalory
program in place for the 1989 ozone
season. Thus, It is important to have the
effective date as early as possible in
order to maximize the air quality
benefits ef the program of 1989.
In deciding to make this action
effective on June 30, 1989, EPA has
attempted to balance these competing
-------
fiO40 Federal Register I Vol. 54. No. 110 I Wednesday. June 21, 1989 ‘I Rules and Regulations’
ntorestg. EPA believes the June 30 date
rull both minimize possible difficulties
ho industiy might encounter wilh a
honor lczicl-time and provide cilizen3 In
he Nortllca5t as much relief as is
iructical dUnin8 most of the 1989 ozone
eason. Although some suppliers may
.ave made a good faith effort to comply
‘ iih the May I effective date specified
n the New York proposal. they were
andcr no obligation to do so once EPA
,reempted the New York requirement
y promulgating federal RVP controls on
1arch 22. iaao. The Agency cannot.
herefore. select an earlier effective date
or all suppliers based on the voluntary
iction of a few, especially considering
hat the time between the March 22
ederal rulemaking and today’s
ublication is critical to the refiner!
upplier planning and implementation
,roccss regarding fuel delivery for the
:oming summer.
However, because refiners have
itready begun to prepare for the sale of
p RVP fuel as a result of EPA’s approval
f the Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
onnecticut. and New Jersey RVP SIPs
and in light of the fact that these states
;hare many links in the gasoline
listribution network, the Agency does
ot believe that an additional 60 to 70
hays Iced-time Is warranted. This
atarting date in New York, therefore.
mrrors the starting date in
Aassachusetts, Rhode Island,
onnecticut, and New Jersey.
ii. Should EPA reopen the comment
eriod or withdrawal and repropose this
SIP revision in light of EPA’s final action
an the national RVP regulation, the court
challenge to the rule and other aLleged
Jefects in the March proposal?
Con rnenLs. EPA received divergent
comments on the appropriate process
br and timing of a final action on New
York’s SIP revision. Several commenters
argued that EPA should take final action
as soon as possible. On the other hand.
other commenters felt that because of
numerous allegedly unresolved issues
raised in their substantive comments,
potential air quality implications of the
waiver New York provided for the
western portion of the State. and the
pending American Petroleum Institute
court challenge to the rule. EPA ahould. .
at a minimum repropose action on the
revision to deal with these issues before
proceeding to final action.
Response. EPA concludes that given
its interpretation of the relevant law and
the seasonal nature of the New York
revisions, the Agency should proceed
expeditiously to final action based on
the record currently before it. EPA is
unpersunded by the claim that
circumstances have so changed since
the proposed approval of the New York
revisions that we should reopen the
comment pet iod or withdraw and
reprnpose this action EPA’s NPR for the
New York RVP program explicitly
discussed EPA’s final action on the
national RVP program relevant to final
action on the State program. EPA clearly
presented the path which EPA proposed
to follow and the conclusions which we
proposed to reach in light of the final
promulgation of federal RVP regulations.
Furthermore, in the final Federal
Register notice on the national RVP
program EPA explicitly discussed
consideration of different state RVP
control programs.
Ira this case EPA concludes that it is
not necessary to issue a reproposal prior
to taking final action. EPA believes that
it has adequately responded to all of the
substantive comments raised by
commenters in the substantive
discussions presented above. Obviously,
additional analysis on such technical
issues could always be conducted.
However, idministrative agencies
generally have the discretion to
determine when Issues have been aired
sufficiently and to close the record and
proceed to final action, consistent of
course with the need to act Ira a
reasoned, non-arbitrary fashion
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power v.
N.R , D.C., 435 U.S. 519. 554-655 (1978)).
Commentere argued that the waiver -
granted by New York for the western
portion of the State may have such
significant air quality implications for
the rest of the State that EPA should
delay action while new air quality
analyses are done to recalculate the
emission reduction benefits of the RVP
rule in the eastern portions of the State.
However. New York’s analyses were
based on the effects of the RVP rule in
each nonattainment area, such that
application of the rule in only certain
portions of the State will not affeot the
overall emission reductions to be -
achieved in any one area. EPA did
indicate in ita proposal that it believed
New York had made the RVP rule
effective on a statewide basis in order to
ensure compliarue in all of the relevant
nonattainineni areas in light of their
scattered geographical distribution and
the existing gasoline distribution
system. New York in fact exempted the
western portion of the State based upon
supply problems particular to that
region. New York believes that the
separate distribution system that serves
the eastern half of the State will have no
problem supplying adequate quantities
of 9 RVP fuel, and that application of the
RVP rule throughout his area is
necessary to ensure compliance. Given
these facts EPA concludes that the
waiver for the western half of the State
does not require reproposal.
Further. EPA should not dcluy action
on a SIP revision in such a maniier that
would thwart the State’s intent in
requesting the SIP revision. In this case.
New York has submitted a seasonal
requirement that since currently
preempted must be approved in a timely
fashion in order to effectuate the state’s
inLent that the regulations provide
emission reduction benefits in the
upcoming summer ozone season.
Therefore. EPA should make best efforts
to act on the information available to it
now to the extent that it is adequate or
else the agency would thwart the Slate’s
intent with regard to the 1989 ozone
season. Since EPA has concluded that
the existing record is suffIcient, EPA can
proceed to final action at this time
based on that record.
Fin ally. EPA finds no reason to delay
its final action on thia SIP revision due
to the pending court challenge to the
RVP program. The lawsuit Is merely
pending, and until such time, If any, as
the court acts to overturn the program
EPA believes It Is appropriate to
proceed with action on the program as
with any SIP revision requested by a
state.
Enforcement ‘.
EPA’s proposal of the New York SIP
revision indicated that there was a
problem with the test method section.
The regulation required that fuel
sampling and testing shall be “by
methods acceptable to the
Commissioner.” EPA stated that such
methods must include the EPA
recognized methode contained in EPA’s
national volatility rule. On April 27.
1989, EPA received comments from the
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation which
clarified the State’s teat method section.
In these comments, the State identified
the methods acceptable to the
Commissioner as being identical to the
EPA recngnized methodsand, In
addition, committed to Incorporating
these specific methods into its SIP at a
future date. EPA fuids that its concerns
related to the test methods were
addressed sufficiently by the Slate and
that the test methods section is
approvable.
Final Action
EPA is approving this revision to tbe
New York Ozone State Implementation
Plan to control gasoline volatility.
including any waivers New York may
grant under the program. F.PA has also
made the finding that the New York SIP
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 54, No. 118 I Wednesday, June 21, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
26011
revision meets the requirements of
section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Act for an
exception to federal preemption.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this rule from the
requirements of Section 3 of Executive
Order 12291.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed In the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit within 60 days of publication.
This action may not be challenged later
in proceedings to enforce its
requirements [ See section 307(b)(2)J.
Effective Data
The Administrator has determined
that there is good cause, within the•
meaning of 5 U.S.C. section 553(d)(3), to
make this action effective less than 30
days alter publication. The industry has
been on notice since the Administrator
approved the Massachusetts RVP SIP
(54 FR 19173; May 3, 1989) that the
Administrator was inclined to approve
Inconsistent state RVP rules to the
extent necessary toprovide for
attakunent. Making this action effective
on the same date as the Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island and New
Jersey RVP rules provides the industry
with a uniform effective date for all of
the state rules limiting RVP to 9.0 psi in
the Northeast. In addition, postponing
the effective date beyond June 30 would
undermine the State’s ability to achieve
the reductions in 1989 summer ozone
concentrations for which the RVP
program was intended.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control. Hydrocarbons,
Ozone, and Incorporation by reference.
Note..— Incorporation by reference of the
State Implementation Plan for the State or
New York was approved by the Director or
the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7042.
EPA is today approving the New York
SIP revision pertaining to its State
gasoline volatility program.
Date: June 9. 1989.
William K. Reilly.
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, Part 52 of Chapter 1, Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52—(AMENDEDJ
Subpart HH—New York
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
‘Authorfty ’ 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.
2. Section 52.1670 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(79) to read as
follows:
§ 52.1670 IdentificatIon of plan.
• • • a *
(c) *
a a S S S
(79) RevIsions to the New York State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone
submitted on January 31, 1989 and
March 13, 1989 by the New York State
Department of Environmental
onservation (NYSDEC) for its state
gasoline volatility control program,
including any waivers under the
program that New York may grant. In
1989, the control period will begin on
June 30.
(i) Incorporation by reference:
Subpart 225—3 of Title 6 of the Official
Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations of the State of New York
entitled “Fuel Composition and Use—
Volatile Motor Fuels.” adopted on
December 5, 1988, and effective on
January 4, 1989.
(ii) Additional material: April 27, 1989
letter from Thomas Jorling, NYSDEC, to
William Muazynski, EPA Region II.
3. The table in 52.1679 is amended
by adding a new entry Subpart 225—3 in
numerical order to read as follows;
§ 52.1679 EPA—approved New York State
regulations.
[ FR Doc. 89-14390 Filed 6-20-89: ft45 aini
eiwwo coca use-so-u
40 CFR Parts 60 and 61
(FRL-3603-81
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Delegation pf Authority to
the State of Iowa
AGENCY: Envlionrnental Protection
Agency (EPA). ..::.:
ACTION: Notice of ‘delegation of
authority.
SUMMARY: This notice announces an
extension of previously-Issued
delegations of authority for the
Implementation and enforcement of the
federal Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sourcps (commonly
known as New Source Performance
Standards or NSPS). 40 CFR Part 60, and
the federal National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP),
40 CFR Part 61. The action which
involved EPA and the state of Iowa
added two (2) NSPS and two (2)
NESHAP categories to the delegations of
authority. The state of Iowa also
updated its previously-delegated NSPS
categories to match current federal
rules, Incorporating any amendments or
corrections published since original
promulgation and slightly modifying the
language contained in the state rules to
match current federal regulations. The
NSPS delegation now includes all
categories except for grain elevators
(Subpart DD) for which federal
standards have been promulgated by the
EPA through January 29,1988. The
NESHAP delegation now includes all
categories promulgated through March
19, 1987, except for those covering radon
(Subparts B and W). radionuciides
(Subparts H. 1. and K), and asbestos
ienovation and demolition (under
Subpart M).
EFFECTIVE DATE; May 4, 1989.
ADDRESSES: All requests, reports,
applications, submittals, and such other
communications required to be
submitted under 40 CFR Part 60 or Part
61, including notifications required to be
submitted under Subpart A of the
regulations, for affected facilities or
activities in Iowa should be sent to
Chief, Alr’Quality and Solid Waste
Pràlection Bureau, Iowa Department of
Natural.Resources (II)NR), Henry A.
Wallace State Office Building, 900 East
Grand. Des Moines, Iowa 50319. A copy
of all notices required by Subpart A also
must be sent to Director, Air and Toxics
New York State reguisuon
S IIeCtIVO
Latest EPA approved date
Comments
a’ . .
.
.
•
•
•p •
Subpart 225-3,
“Fuel Composition and Use—Volatile
Motor
114189
FR date
and cItation 01 this document ... -
- .. -..
.. Effective
date 6F30189.
Fuels.”.
.
.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
REFORMULATED GASOLINE, TIOUMPING D OXYGENATED GASOLINE
AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE
The Clean Fuels Advisory Committee (hereinafter Advisory Committee) considered,
the technical and policy issues itwolved ii implementing the reformulated gasoline,
anbdumping and oxygenated gasoline provisions of sectIons 211 (k) arid (m) of the
Clean i r Act, as amended in 1990, and has reached a consensus on the underlying
pnnciples of the proposed rules and guidances (hereinafter proposed rules) to
implement these provisions.
The . a party on the Committee, agrees that:
1. The person signing this agreement is authorized to cxxnmlt the party to
its terms.
2. The party concurs ui principle to the outhne of the proposed rules, dated
August 16, 1991, when considered ass whole. The outhne of the
proposed rules is attached to this Agreement in Princ ’e .
3. EPA agrees to draft preambles and proposed rules conlistent with the
attached agreed upon oaline. These preambles arid proposed rules
WI form the basis of Supplemental Notices of Proposed Rulemaldng to
the maximum extent possible consistent with EPA’s legal obligations.
A draft of these Notices WI be made avaMab le to each psily for Its
re’Irnw and comment prior to uIgna re by the Adrnñu stor. At the
same time these drafts we made available to members 01 the Advisory
Committee, copies WI be submitted by EPA to the rulsmafdng dockets.
Based on ooawTlents to these drafts, EPA *1 undsr cs, prior to
proposal. an W*wmsl process to consult with the parties aid to
address the differences be un the commentors. After such
consultation, EPA wI pub s’ the Supplemsr l Notices 01 Proposed
Rulemaking and extend the comment period for the proposed rules
and guidances regarding reformuie’ed gasoline, autidumping and
oxygenatedgasohnepublishedonJuly9, 1991 (56FA31148,31151.
31154, and 31178)30 days beyond the publication of the Supplemental
Notices in the Federal Register .
QI’
-------
2
4. Each party other than EPA agrees not to file negative comments on the
Supplemental Notices pf Proposed Rulemaking to the extent that they
have the same substance and effect as the attached outhne.
5. In developing a final rule, EPA will give serious consideration to the
attached outline, along with other materials in the docket, subject to the
Statement of the President on Signing the Nego ated Rulemaking Act
at 1990 and EPA’s other legal obligations.
6. Each party other than EPA agrees not to take any action to inhibit the
adoption of the Supplemental Notices of Proposed Rulemaking as final
rules to the extent that the final rules and theW preambles have the
same substance end effect as the atW d outline concurred in by the
A sory Committee.
7. Each party other than EPA agrees not to challenge the reformulated
gasoline, antidumping end oxygenated Iabsllng rules in court to the
extent that the final rules arid theW preambles have the urns substance
and effect as the attached outline concurred in by the Advisory
Committee. Each p.iy, however, retains the rig to challenge
provisions in the ial rules and thaW preambles W the provisions are not
specifically addressed in the attached ou*le.
8. Each party other than EPA agrees to support the oxygenated gasoline
guidelines to the extent that the Vial guidelines end thaW preambles
have the same substance end affect as the attached outline concurred
in by the Advisory Committee.
—
Date
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CLEAN FUELS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OLITUNE OF SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULES mo GUIDANCES FOR
REFORMULATED GASOUNE, T!DUMPING AND OXYGENA TED GASOUNE
August 16, 1991
I. REFORMULATED GASOUNE
A. CERTiFICATION
1. Reiormijitad ge.olWis produced biiore March 1, 1997* 1 bs cerURed by EPA Ii resJta In no
Incrsaes In csddss nitrogen (NOx) (eas paragraph 1A3. bs ); cc,lUis no more ten 1.0
dums psrcere bsnzens; coilakis a lisa 2.0% sn by I d cor 1ne no heavy
tviWi ur eas slwsd; and nisas or is bsk the ioI Ing Reid Vapor Prssaws (RVP)
apsclitciaion dsalng the ozone . eaao’ —
a. InclsssBuea.,l2piRW,and -
b. tn isisCweaa &1pdRVP.
In Ilon, the geaclins mua msa the tc 1cs psslom*nce ndwd consids.ing is benzsne.
oxygsr . and won cs corUrt The is to be is is c 1P o i by the simple modsi.
The mudsi WI ce kb ai coj* the C il!s s b i NØisr and b vsr RVP and en
vsiust
In addition, the reiInVs wv ul reionnidaed gasolIne a rngas iilw, 110 dslliis
cannot ( ceId the r*is?s corveapondkig 1990 wmi a ragss.
2. EPA *1 issue $ pio o..d nis by N mbsr 30.19W corisk*ig the spsclflcs a more
o inØ. nwdai and ad essIng the o0 psi1om ce da. The umpl modsi Is
wbIc gsd to Inolude a lisa me IcIm*i parainasvs stilts, ds RW, c gsn,
aron cs beniens and T90. This nie *1 be bed by Uw 1.1990. R cmuiMtad
ga ie produced on or e ly l Ut I, 1997 n m be siiMad ia y * o mplar modsi . EPA
*5 e IW by Na *nbir 1991. a rl ig gr01 comprised kb.sa.d persons to
. psdi. the devulcpinsrl and i j1Io b nis. Each the ps se to this a ,sm.r1
WI convnit to ik In good i to - EPA In dsi IopIng s y ig the addstond ds
r’t 1 1 or me oon modsi w to sçedis concwretioe on the bTn . coilsrb, proposi
and ti* adoI lon the coinØsK modsi, a000i*ig to the el al and withIn the
isn*l ig procees W EPA I ts ble to ftiai s the nis by Mardi 1.19W. the rncerl1lcadon
reqi*emeil WI be dsisysd an a month .b .nota be commensivae with the daisy In
-------
2
3. NOxCompilence
a. Relormijated gssdlni certhied under the simple model wi be deemed to rssjt In no
IncriSse In oddes ol n rogen (NOx)W
(1) icc airisnogristsrthan2.1% ygenbywsI tor
(2) the ordy oxygsnete 1 contains I MTBE at a concentration no greater than 2.7% oxygen
bywelgit
EPA WI s sd ouiy procees patilon’s for approvi ygerwtes other tiwi MTBE at
conoeivsdons to 21% ygsn by welgit The patiloner mum demonatrats that use of.
th ygs . ew ad ey k t psot NOxth oi4’ith. use of edating data or data
generated by the patlioner.
b. In the cese of nWomii ad gasoline certified under the coniplm mcdii, the rslormiiated
gasoline shosid yield a no NOx increase ressit under the mcdii.
4. Ralonnijated gasclkw may be certified by means of the oomplsc model before May 1, 1997.
H r, such certPf atIo cannot rsssit in datartoratlon in VOC and t os cs performance from
ti achieved with the simple mcdii arid the niihiVs 1990 ennui ,isrigss for ssilur, TOO and
5. Vehide t.atlng *1 be pem i ed to quily n paramatais bit not to madly the coiihlclsrds of
— model parameters indudk uon c mygs vielh* TOO, ssiI c, bsrizsne and RVP.
When othir parameters we .i sequsiidy added to the cunçler model , the complea model
siwil be used in certifying these parameters
B. REFORMULATED GASOUNE ENFORCEMENT FOR OXYGEN, BENZENE,
TOXICS AND VOCS
1. frI is o ton, a refinery may aleot to comply WIh any wide rilormsimed giPins reqiirsmesls
on a per Ion
1.Oxyg -
a. CcivçI s with the averaged nd.,d *1 be dstsm*isd at the r lury V the ygsrwt.s
SI WI(ILI at the refinery arid at the teankwi V the oscygsr es we added d esm of
l sry.
b The avem ig period ii be the ciendar for w ise we in kwnsi1 wili the
NUOS cwtg n monosdds (CO). For an ares in nor men for CO, the aversig
periods siwi be the ccitd period sfrig wirIldi 2.7% ygei ed gasoline muet be sold
(ory Canard period ) enid . non canard period.
c. The average oscyg.n ndwd for refoimsieted gasoline ef be 2.1% bywelglt
d. The rrdninium oscygen content of each galon ii neformijated gssdfris siwil be 1.5% by
-t
-------
3
2. ComplIanc, on the average for bsnzene VOC. ar todcs wi be diterTnlnad ona refinery by
refinery bssie. No trading or banking wi be permitted for the VOC or toidcs performance
3. VOC averaging for Qua B and C aries (1906-1900)
a. The VOC avsragfrug period wi be designated by each refinery prior to the atail the VOC
averaging period and ray begin from the tints a refinery masts to make VOC-controlled
rulormiiitad gasoline id no later mln September 15. U relormiMted gasoline at d
— in ml gasoline dIittfbi *1on syitem ( cept it natal oi ms) muat be VOC-controlled
during the period Mayl Ilwough September 15; and for netal o.iita during the period
Jim. 1 through September 15.
b. For the 1006 it’d 1906 ozone sus.one the average RVP ef the ref iner ’s neforrniiatsd
ga.clin.ul b.7.l p CmsBwussandSOpdfcrC Cvisa. Inaddlion the
RVP ef iech gilon i’ulonmiated gasoline ef be no eater mln 7.4 psi for Qass B
areas and 13 psi for Cteu C aris e.
C. For the 1907 ttvougii 1900 ozone MSPV* the average VOC nsducdon the refinery’s
nilo,rntiited dlns sI I be it Isit itt addiloref 1.5% abciue the non-averaged
manded. Ths n**num VOC reduct#o’t neqi*id ol each galon refomniated gasoline
sa be 2.5% bel the non-averaged mandaid (e.g.. N ml non-averaged atandai’d I
15% thin the average VOC nsdumlon the refinery mum achieve I 115% and the
n*litnian per gilon VOC mdu o’i rsqi*smsr* I a 12.5%).
d. The RW erdorcemeil tolerance or a aingie w ih a skigie nçle taken it other thin
thi r y or ml poll it b od # ’ i lb U.S. owrvw s 1.3 psi RVP. A smaller
s*rcemsll tolerance for aamples taken anywhere sid be smablw ’ied by EPA based on
a m ie sample teat protocol.
4. Tcidcs it’d benzane averaging (1006 .1900)
a. The averaging period ef be the endw )W.
b The average benasne coilel ef the refinery’s mbitaimed gasoline ehd be no gaiter
mli .06 vdiarie peicert The beams conan ef each g on ef r*rmiiited gasoline
siwi not Dosed I .3 volume pervert
c. The average tondcs edut’ o’t ef be it INat 1.5% the ncn mged mandasd.
5. Co ce
a. dsreIve anawy. to dmwitini whether the VOC. oncygun. tci it’d benzsne mandards
ana b*ig n at age in each non vnenl erie be designed by a n1cgoi
ef a eita from it u y. EPA. the . the e civnei conviu y it ’ d the generef
p ø’e The wcdq’ot diafld by EPA, WI seleot one or mc ii induper’derd ooi$a Wns
WIt mcog ad .çerml in the Osid. to adwlee in the s wy deign. The euawy d..’gn
WI intern nspreeer e mples ef , i m%,j ,A gas w aei to cwuuanira itt a
ncn hnen1 erie are taksft The gvt iwi itJ.Uy Med independsrt
cos* oi. to cenduot the erawy and EPA si aster ’ one or morn oon actcru to
condum the survey. The workg’ct WI mor*cr the uuawy in Mmar*ufIu’i buá EPA si one
WI cw ol when and where the ounced erawys are condu ad.
-------
4
b. The ocriracto, conducting the surveys shiM prowld a split sample to sech siMce station
surveyed upon requsat. A sample *11 be cciuded from the survey arid, hence, from the
non.compllence detemilnhtlon If it sxcasds the applicable rex/mm (enforcement
or I deemed by EPA to be hivaMy taken or tested. Th. contractor shiM
icldy report survey r.s its to EPA and EPA shiM place the restiti In the public dockeL
c. Rdners (kicludkig Importer and blenders) who participate hi the avsraging program wil
pay for the surveys
d. The base survey program for the i*ie clUes *1 focus more survey. hi the early years the
program to otWi greater uaursnce c i kilUal cQn lancs, accordIng to the foI Ing
schediW
1. Fkatyear-l2osurveys
2. Sscondyeer-eosuiv.ys
3 Thlrdysar-eosurveys
4. Fourth year arid thereafter —50 surveys
MdlUoni surveys wi be added based upon the opordorwi Increase ci the rei’ornv.Mted
gesolkie n kut , (jp ,”ed to apt .ln areas Each nor sflner area wotid cpedence at
heat one VOC survey hi the Vat year. If any nor talrvei1 aria ls to comply with a
survey, the t number ci surveys *1 be Increased proporUor ely ( based on shire ci
gasolIne nwkat) to ooowd for the need to rekWi the hl ier stavey lavul hi
nor ahime i* aria to smur. filurs oompllance.
e. VOC Puifom nce
(1) In any nor talnmers aria, I the average ciiM samples (erdudhig mm/mar violations
arid h 1d sampiss) taken hi any or ek ci the ozone i i 1s to comply with
the applicable non4vsraged VOC iidud, then an a&*onWic edjuatmerl ci the
averaged i id arid the n I*i wi ortv hi the e& ee isi1 ozone auaao’i for
averaged ricnniild gasolIne produced by each refInery who served or wU serve
the nonconçl *ig noneUak nsr* area. Mi efhscted refInery et adjuat iM averaged
I ,.uLdetsd gasolIne deeth b any noi vnsi1 ares dealt jnated watt the sum.
VOC 1t: lon (B or C, as applicable) as the noncomplyIng nor aInmsr1 area.
A rV ieiy wi be a 4sct to at moat orw adIu Tiu1 per ie i ’i
(I) The fiat ns the ai*cn c ad$i neias are n l , they at be as blows:
(a) In the iae ozu season, average RVP ci the ref kierys ref Ormiiled
o ie.i be7.0pefforClessBareasend7.9b’CtassCaruas The
NW cieachgiMon cirulonni sd gusoTh ef be no gr erthsn 7.3 psI
ke C s Saruas arid 8.2 pal for Class C wsu
(b) In the 1W throucil 1909 ozone seasone, the average VOC red’ kwi ci the
r*ie. s ref omMiatad gasolIne ald be at lesat 2.5% ab the
non4wumged ndwd. The n mum VOC r,dgi o reqiired ci each
cn ci re1ormi sd gasolIne al be 1.5% beI the rlcn4veragsd
(B Th. second dme the auron c adjuatinelo are the mqi*sd average
VOC u o’i at be hici—, 1 an addlUor 1.0%. Mo the n**TUfl VOC
rtdu ftLo1i req*.d ci each gelon ci mbonntiated gasolIne af be k reased
byanaddllorid 1.0%.
-------
5
(2) Once an edJu rnef1 I applId, compliance wth the applicabli non-averaged standard
for two COnNCI*IVS years wi rSa4it hi a one-tkns movemeil the applicable
averaged standerd down by one adJu nsi1 (.g.. 1956 noncomplIance - adlust up
hi 1 ; 1956 and 1957 complIance - ad Jul down hi 1958). Any subsequerl
adju ln%e,1 i wi remain, regardless subesqusit compliance.
I. T dcs Psslomwice and 8sr zans Coilsil
(1) In any nor ainmsi1 area, I the average aM samples ( udhig n*Vinex violations
waii samples) taken hi four toidcs survey, (Iwo hi the summer season and two
in the mar eesao i ) condu ed d a1ng the caiendar yw lals to Comply wth the
ap ab’s non-averaged toidcs or bertzen landwd, then an aiScn lc adjus*msil
WI ij hi tis following calendar year. A bsnzs,w lalw WI bigger orgy a
bsnzens adJt nii1 and a to dcs Iure WI tugger orgy a t(Wc , adjulmeit me
adneil WI apply to aM averaged mfoimtiatsd gasoline produced by each
raMnsiy who seived or WI serve the on ying nor inmei1 area. A mllnsry
wi be sub e% to at moat one adJulmarl per ciendar year. The ai*omadc
adjulmera l be as follows:
0) the average bsnzsne 0011111 el U raMner s rilonnijatad gasoline etiaM be
decreased by an addllora .06 vokene perceil,
(I) the n dmum benzsne COIISII ailowed or each gilon rWorn iated gasoline
IWI be decreased by an add lond .1 vokans percsr*,
(I) the average t Ics mdu Ion l be increased by en addiloni I .0%.
(2) Once en ad u nsi* I appl od , compliance wVl ths applIc ls non-averaged ndard
two cone.cs years WI msia hi a on ne movemer* el l
averaged standard down by one adnea My subsequsre adJuW,neri WI
remain, regardless ajbesquerl compliance.
6. Rehire WI submi qiartsrly reports to EPA on the th* averaig pro vn.
7. The year 2000 avem ng pio wn for VOC and tides performance WI be s bllsl’isd hi
con un on wth the nismaidng addressing the year 2000 psrfomwnce de.
C. TEST TOLERANCES
EPA *1 illi appIcpr e tiat tolerances.
II. ANTIDUMPING
A. CompEwc W i 1996 and 1996 wiN be based on
1. conce WIt th m ws 1990 anniel average sd ul beneens endeuforw (as
dlem*isd by the ei’ldiaiçing sEt e modai ) aid the miss enni averages slur.
erd 190 n Loilil 125% ol the rd Ws corresponding 1990 smul averages, or
2. use the wu lut model h demon atss no increase hi eid*il bsnesrie undeslons from
the riiine s i o arvead average.
B. In 1997 and Im&, the oor ex model shaM yield no kiaease Wi sthaust todcs and
NOx from the rsllners 1990 annual avvage.
-------
6
C. A refiners 1990 baseline will be modified for refinery work-in-progress at year-end
1990 if it C8fl be demonstrated that
1. such a modification wai significant. I.e.. 1 et Isset a live percent dill ersnce between bsadlne
imiasions csicuiatsd with and wlho..* the oi pro sss ms itd, and
2. such wodc wee associated with other reg iatory rsqLdrsmsr*s, and
3. lure to si1 aidS id rs it an s diaos’dkwy r.giimoiy bwdsn, I.e. a substantial portion
the mflnsr s c*p woJd be et riak V the a msnt were n giint.d. and
4. such credi wotid n rssit 1 signlcant sn*cvvner twin (e.g., the aidS ii not cause the
relfrw to be ftve percent above the Clean k Act wsidumpkig bualk s etc.).
D. Myone may petition EPA to establish an indMduai refinery baseline for reflnenes
that are located In an leolated gasoline disbibution system which contains a
reformulated gasoline opt-in area surrounded by a conventional gasoline area,
and where it ‘5 shown that significant increases in todc emissions are occurring
in the conventional gasoline area.
E. A refinery may elect to establish an indMduai refinery baseline.
III . OXYGENATED GASCLJNE
A WP le recognizing state discretion, EPA guidelines shall recommend a credit
program which shall indude the following: -
1. Each gallon cicygsnsled gisoWe st coW et last 2.0% cx sn by wslgfrt
2. The ioI Q avem g period st apply
a. Fea acor psr1od livemoiorlae.thsira ngpsrIodsldbeths
b For was wI’i a contr 4 period ak m or longer, the avsm ng period d be three
m
3. Compliance WI be detannined et the Ie,mkiet .
4. The corvd wa WWI comist the applicable CMSWS.t
s. In me pr ds to ma ider ce, ma IWvS WI be ed lesd to nonlcr ma avakbity a
variety el cicyguU ard be advised to l. spprapr e maps r’cuwy to rsssorbly
sss ma iasa sr .s tie nwI .
B. EPA guidance on the con ol period length shell be in accordance with EPA
Approach I I except for Grants Pass, Medlord and ICemadi in the s ci Oregon
which shall have cored periods ci four mo,Eis from October 1 until Januery 31.
Additionally, the length of the New York City CMSA sh be coordinated with the
states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.
C. EPA will propose waiver guidelines and take public comment
-------
7
IV. INABILITY TO PRODUCE CONFORMING GASOLINE IN
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES
In appropriate s,weme and unusual circumetances (e.g. neflnl dleaatv or Act d God) which are dearly
oRside the coritroi d the refiner and which cotid not hevebeen avoided by the exorcise ot prudence,
dilgence and due cars, EPA may pern a refiner, tori brief perIod, to dl a tiibib fual which does not meet
the requirements for refonmiated gasoline it
1. it is In the public kiareet to do so (e.g., dlatrlbiaion d the noncorWOiTning fual is necessary to
meet proIe ed shoilfalls which cannot otherwise be compensated for), and
2. the refiner exercised prudent planning and was not able to avoid the violation and has taken all
reasonable ateps to minimize the e 4snt d the noncordornity, and
3. the refiner can show how the requirements for rulonnLdstsd gasoline wi be expeditiously
ach ed, and
4. the refiner agrees to make i thea quality detriment assoclated with the noncorWorming
gascW* where practlcabl and
5. pay the U.S. Treasury an amount equal to the economic benefit ot the noncordormity minus the
amount endad, pursuant to subparagraph 4 ab in maldng i the air quality detriment
EPA guidance on the yger ed gasoline program s advise the tes to consider a sirniar provision
for oxygenated gasoline.
V. FEDERAL PREEMPTION FOR REFORMULATED GASOUNE AND
ANTIDUMPING
A State may prescribe and enforce, for the purposes ef motor vehicle emission cort’oi. a control or
prohibition respecting the used a ful or ftil addlws in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine it an
applicable implementation plan for such S e under sectIon 110 ef * a.an Air Ad so provides. The
AdmIn rator may approve such provision in en k çlemar Ion plan, or promiigsta an kinplemeilatlan
plan containing such a provision, ordyit he ends the Stats control or prohb on is neesesary to
achieve the national pr nsry or secondary an lsrd air quality etandeid which the plan inplements. 11w
Adm1r rator may find U a S e coisef or prol*ition is r.cuu ry to achieve d etandard it no other
measures ttwt wosid bing aboia tindy nmss1 arM or it ediur m ins det and are tachnicaity
possible to inplemsnt, bt* are masoruble or inpracdcabls. The Mn*nltrator may make a ft kng d
neciss y under this paragraph n P the plan the arsa does not cor in an approved demonstration
d timely attainmurt
-------
c 78
10 S?4jr
1:)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
% ffiØ c C’
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
December 16, 1991
NOTE
SUBJECT: Section 211(m) SIP Revisions’ Potential
Requirement that Gasoline Sold or Dispensed
Outside the State’s Borders be Oxygenated
FROM: Jonathan Martel, Attorney
•- Air and Radiation Division
TO: Nancy Ketcham-Colwill, Assistant General Counsel
Air and Radiation Division
Issue Presented
May States’ SIP revisions establishing oxygenated gasoline
programs under § 211(m) constitutionally require that gasoline
sold or dispensed outside its bordei s be oxygenated?
Statutory Provision
Clean Air Act (“CM”) § 211(m) (2 provides, in pertinent
part:
(2) Oxygenated Gasoline in CO Nonattainment
Areas.-— Each plan revision under this subsection
shall contain provisions to require that any gasoline
sold, or dispensed, to the ultimate consumer in the
carbon monoxide nonattainment area or sold or dispensed
directly or indirectly by fuel refiners or marketers to
persons who sell or dispense to ultimate consumers, in
the larger of—— -
(A) the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical
Area (CMSA) in which the area is located, or
(B) if the area is not located in a CMSA the
Metropolitan Statistical Area in which. the
area is located,
be blended, during the portion of the year in which the
area is prone to high ambient concentrations of carbon
Pria’ed on Recycled Paper
-------
2
monoxide to contain not less than 2.7 percent oxygen by
weight (subject to a testing tolerance established by
the Administrator).
Background
Section 211(m) (1) requires that States with carbon monoxide
(“CO”) nonattainment areas having design values of 9.5 parts per
million (“ppm”) or above submit a State Implementation Plan
(“SIP”) revision establishing an oxygenated gasoline program.’
Section 211(m) (2) requires that states establish oxygenated
gasoline programs regulating conduct in the MSA/CMSA. The Bureau
of the Census establishes an MSA or MSA for United States cities
which geographically defines the city’s metropolitan area. 2 For
eight cities currently identified as subject to the § 211(m)
requirements 3 ( “covered areas”), the MSA/ MSA contains portions of
more than one State. Further, for five of these covered areas,
the portions of one or more of the States are not actually
CAA S 211(m) (1) (A) provides, in pertinent part:
Each State in which there is located all or part of an
area which is designated under title I as a
nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and which has a
carbon monoxide design value of 9.5 parts per million
(ppm) or above ... shall submit to the Administrator a
State implementation plan revision under section 110 of
part D of title I for such area which shall contain the
provisions specified under this subsection regarding
oxygenated gasoline.
2 gg “Revised Standards for Defining Metropolitan Areas
in the 1990s,” 55 Fed. Reg . 12154 (March 30, 1990).
See Draft Supplemental Notice of Proposed Guidance on
Establishment of Control Periods Under Section 211(m) of the
Clean Air Act as Amended at 19 (October 29, 1991). These
multistate covered areas include:
1. Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA—NH CMSA
.2. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ CMSA
3. Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA
4. Portland-Vancouver, OR-WACMSA -
5. Duluth, MN-WI MSA
6. Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA
7. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN—We MSA
8. Washington, DC-MD-VA MSA
-------
3
designated under title las in Co nonattainment. 4
On its face, § 211(m) (2) appears to require that each SIP
revision shall regulate conduct in the larger of the CMSA or MSA,
and no exception is explicitly provided for portions of that
geographical area that are outside the State’s borders. The
current draft of the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Guidance
questions, in light of constitutional issues raised, whether
Congress intended States to establish oxygenated gasoline
programs that require gasoline sold or dispensed outside its
borders to be oxygenated, and requests comment on this issue.
Yet, even if Congress did not anticipate the jurisdictional
problems associated with multistate covered areas, Congress
l4kely did intend that the oxygenated gasoline programs be
applicable in the entire MSA/CMSA. In addition, S 211(m) (1)
quite clearly does not require States without a nonattainment
area having a design value of 9.5 ppm or greater to submit SIP
revisions establishing oxygenated gasoline programs. Thus, the
basis for including attainment portions of the MSA/CMSA across
State borders from the nonattaininent portions remains in
question.
At least in the case of the Philadelphia CMSA, the Office of
Mobile Sources (“OMS”) is concerned that omitting attainment
portions of the CMSA in Delaware might undercut the program’s
effectiveness in addressing the nonattainment problem in
Pennsylvania. In addition, the Memphis and Shelby County Health
Department has submitted comments raising this concern (for the
Memphis, Tennessee MSA), as’a significant new policy issue on the
Final Rule Designating Areas for Air Quality Planning purposes. 5
In that comment, the Department notes that neither Mississippi
nor Arkansas contain nonattainment areas that would require
oxygenated gasoline programs and that those parts of the Memphis
MSA in Mississippi and Arkansas would therefore be omitted from
the program. The comment expresses concern that “border
hopping’ for gasoline purchase” will undermine the Memphis
Draft Implementation Guidelines at 6 (November 19,
1991). These cities are listed below, with the states containing
the portions of the MSA/CMSA which are in attainment provided in
parentheses:
1. Boston, Massachusetts (New Hampshire)
2. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Delaware, Maryland)
3. Memphis, Tennessee (Arkansas, Mississippi)
4. Minneapolis, Minnesota (Wisconsin) -
5. Duluth, Minnesota (Wisconsin)
Letter from J. Carter S. Gray, Technical Manager,
Pollution Control Section, Memphis/Shelby County Health
Department, to Air Docket No. A-90-42 (December 5, 1991).
-------
4
program’s effectiveness: The comment requests that the Agency -
determine whether the portions of Arkansas and Mississippi in the
Memphis MSA will be required to participate in the oxygenated
gasoline program under the currently proposed desigi ation and, if
not, that the Agency consider expanding the boundaries of the Co
nonattainment area to include at least some portion of these
other States.
OHS is considering promulgating a federal rule under
authority of CAA § 211(c) establishing an oxygenated gasoline
program applicable in those attainment portions of MSA/CMSAs
coveredunder § 211(m). This approach appears to practically
resolve this problem, ensuring coverage for the entire MSA/CMSA
while not implementing a reading of the statute that is
constitutionally questionable. Nevertheless, as the requirement
that States’ SIP revisions regulate conduct in the entire
MSA/CMSA arguably appears mandatory in § 211(m) (2), the Agency
must justify any decision not to implement that requirement.
Summary and Conclusions
It is not definitively clear whether application of Clean
Air Act § 211(m) (2) in multistate covered areas —— requiring one
State to directly regulated gasoline commerce outside the State’s
borders -— is constitutionally infirm. Yet, principles of
federal and State sovereignty reflected in interstate pollution
cases, Commerce Clause cases, and Non-delegation Doctrine cases
suggest that a constitutional challenge to such an application of
this provision might very well succeed. -
An alternative approach -- interpreting this provision
applied to require that States only directly regulate conduct
within their borders -- may be preferable for a number of
reasons. First , the structure of the Clean Air Act suggests
that, despite the specific and clear language of § 211(m) (2),
Congress did not anticipate or intend that States would directly
control gasoline outside their borders. Second , the general
rulemaking authority of § 211(c) offers an alternative mechanism
for the Agency to “fill the gap” left through this
interpretation, thus avoiding a constitutionally, questionable
approach. Third , if the Agency requires for SIP approval that
States directly regulate conduct in other States under §
211(m) (2), constitutional challenges would be likely. Even if
that approach would ultimately prevail under the Constitution,
the Agency’s litigation risk in adopting the S 211(c) approach
would be lower. States, environmental groups, and industry would
have a lower chance of success in a suit seeking to force EPA to
apply the consitutionally questionable reading of § 211(m) (2) as
a nondiscretionary obligation of the States to regulate conduct
outside their borders, and would have less to gain from success
in such a lawsuit. The Agency could even indicate, in the §
211(c) rule, that the States would be obligated to establish the
-------
5
extraterritorial § 211(m) (2) program in such location and at suc h
time that a court finds the scheme mandatory and constitutional.
Discussion
The text of § 211(m) (2) on its face unambiguously mandates
that SIP revisions require that gasoline “sold or dispensed
directly or indirectly by fue . refiners or marketers to persons
who sell or dispense to ultimate consumers” in the entire
MSA/CMSA be blended to contain oxygen. However, implementation
of this provision, as applied to a multistate MSA/CMSA consisting
of attainment portions in separate states from nonattainment
portions, raises serious constitutional difficulties. The
statutory structure indicates that Congress did not anticipate
the problem at issue here -- that attainment portions of the
MSA/CMSA may be located in contiguous States -— and made no
provision in § 211(m) to address it. 6 Rather, that structure
arguably indicates that Congress intended a State’s SIP revisions
to apply within the State. Yet, the plain language of §
211(m) (2) indicates that Congress intended the oxygenated
gasoline programs to extend to the entire MSA/CMSA.
Promulgation of a federal rule under authority of § 211(c)
would reconcile these conflicting indications of Congressional
intent, ensuring that entire MSA/CNSA5 are subject to the
oxygenated gasoline requirements and obviating the need for state
regulation of conduct wholly outside its borders. First,
however, the Agency must justify any decision not to implement
the § 211(m) (2) facial mandate that the SIP revisions require
gasoline sold or dispensed by fuel refiners or marketers in the
entire MSA/CMSA to be oxygenated.
There are two potential justifications for this approach:
First , the Agency could argue that § 211(m) (2) applied to
multistate MSA/CMSA5 is ambiguous, and that, particularly in
light of constitutional concerns, the provision should reasonably
be interpreted to require only that States establish programs for
application within their borders, even if a gap in coverage
results. Under this interpretation, the Agency may look to
another statutory provision to fill the resulting gap rather than
woodenly apply the facial statutory language in a context where
Congress arguably did not, or would not (if-it considered the
6 - Also, even for multistate covered areas in which each
• state’s portion contains a nonattaInment area, § 211(m) (2)
appears to require that each State’s SIP revision regulate
conduct in the entire MSA/CMSA, resulting in overlapping
jurisdiction. While this scheme would not leave gaps in coverage
that might threaten to undermine the program, itwould require
that inconsistencies in the overlapping regulations be avoided,
either through the SIP approval process or otherwise.
-------
6
issue), intend it to do- so.
Second , the Agency could argue that application of the S
211(m) (2) mechanism in the context of multistate MSA/CMSAs, while
unambiguous, would be unconstitutional, and that implementation
is therefore not required. Nevertheless, the Agency might argue
that it may utilize its general authority under § 211(c) to
accomplish Congress’s goal of requiring oxygenated gasoline
throughout each covered MSA/CMSA.
I..Interpreting 211(m (1) (A) to be Ambiquous as Applied
Section 211(m) (1) (A) clearly specifies that the States are
to establish the required oxygenated gasoline programs through
SIP revisions “under section 110 and part D of title I for such
area....” It is virtually beyond peradventure under the clear
terms of § 211(m) (1) (A) that States in which attainment portions
of a covered area are located are not obligated to submit SIP
revisions establishing oxygenated gasoline programs. Those
portions of the MSA/CMSA are not themselves designated under
title I as Co nonattainment areas, and certainly do not have Co
design values at or above 9.5 ppm. Had Congress consciously
intended to ensure coverage for the entire MSA/CMSA in the
specific context of multistate covered areas, Congress could
easily have required that all States containing portiçns of a
covered MSA/CMSA establish the program, rather than only those
States with CO nonattainment areas having a design value at or
above 9.5 ppm. It is unlikely that Congress, if it considered
the multistate MSA/CMSA problem, would have opted instead to
require one state to establish a program for the entire MSA/CMSA
including portions of other states. The absence of any refe:ence
in the legislative history to this serious problem is further
evidence that Congress did not consider it.
Even though .S 211(m) is more specific than the title I, S
110 SIP provisions,. Congress’s approach to multistate pollution
problems in title I, § 110 arguabl j is relevant to interpreting
how § 211(m) should be applied in the case of multistate
MSA/CMSAs. 7 The SIP provisions of title I indicate that Congress
understood a State’s SIP to apply only within the State’s
borders. Section 110(a) (1) clearly specifies that States are to
adopt and submit SIPs “which provide(] for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of (a NAAQS] ... within such
State.” (Emphasis supplied.) A further indication of this
See Kelly v. Robinson , 479 U.S.. 36, 43 (1986) (“ [ T]he
‘starting point in every case involving construction of a statute
is the language itself,’ (but] ‘in expounding a statute, we must
not be guided by a single sentence or member Of a sentence, but
look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and
policy.”) (citations omitted).
-------
7
understanding is that § 110(2) (D) separately addresses issues of
interstate air pollution. The approach taken in § 110(2) (D) is
to require each State to adopt provisions in their SIPS designed
to avoid contribution to other States’ nonattaininent or
interference with their control measures. 8
S Section 110(2)(D) requires that each SIP:
CD) contain adequate provisions-—
Ci) prohibiting, consistent with the
provisions of this title, any source or other
type of emissions activity within the State
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts
-. which will-—
(I) contribute significantly to
nonattainment in,or interfere with
maintenance by, any other State
with respectto any such national
primary or secondary ambient air
quality standard, or
(II) interfere with measures
required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for
any other State under part C to
prevent significant deterioration
of air quality or to protect
visibility,
(ii) insuring compliance with the applicable
requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement).
The Agency might also consider applying § 110(a) (2) (D) (i) (I)
to require that States containing attainment portions of a §
211(m) (1) (A) covered area establish oxygenated gasoline programs.
This, however, would require that the Agency find that the
attainment portions of the MSA/CMSA “contribute significantly to
nonattainment” f or Co in the contiguous state. The Agency might
argue that the inclusion of the entire MSA/CMSA under § 211(m) (2)
establishes a legislative presumption that the certain
dispensation of gasoline in that entire area contributes
significantly to the CO problem. in the nonattainment area. - Yet,
under title I, § 107(d) (1) (A), areas which contribute to ambient
air quality that does not meet the Co NAAQS should be designated
as nonattainment for CO. Thus, Agency action based on a finding
that attainment portions of the MSA/CMSA contribute significantly
to nonattainment in the contiguous State arguably would conflict
with the designation of those portions of the MSA/CMSA as
-------
8
Moreover, Congress inicuded substantial provisions in the -
Clean Air Act to create a mechanism for addressing interstate
pollution problems. Section 176A provides authority to establish
“interstate transport commissions” comprised of Agency and
States’ representatives to collectively assess the degree of
interstate pollution transport, assess strategies f or mitigating
the problem, and make recommendations to the Agency. Section
176(A)(c) provides a mechanism for the commission to force
problem States to take action. Section 184 establishes an
interstate transport region for ozone along the Eastern Seaboard
by operation of law, and specifies additional control measures
for included States. Section 106 authorizes the Administrator to
pay the costs for 2 years of interstate transport commissions and
to make grants to pay up to three-fifths of implementation
program costs. Section 108(e) provides that, for an air quality
control region in a State which the Administrator finds may
affect air pollution concentrations in another State, the State
nay redesignate the boundaries of the region within the State
only with EPA approval and the consent of all the significantly
affected States. These extensive provisions reflect a delicate
approach to interstate air pollution issues and suggest it is
highly unlikely that Congress intended in § 211(m) that one State
simply and directly regulate conduct in neighboring States to
preserve the integrity of its own oxygenated gasoline programs. 9
Finally, the Agency might argue that, because the facial
meaning of § 211(m) (2) at least raises substantial constitutional
questions in the multistate MSA/CMSAcontext (discussed below),
the Agency should adopt an alternative interpretation to avoid
the problem. Judge Cyr, in a dissenting opinion in the First
Circuit, recently stated courts’ general approach to statutory
interpretations where constitutional issues are raised:
We are required to start with the well-settled
theme that a court “will construe (a] statute to avoid
(constitutional] problems unless such construction is
Dlainly contrary to the intent of Conaress.” Edward J .
attainment.
One distinction between the oxygenated gasoline program
and the interstate pollution problems addressed elsewhere in the
Clean Air Act is that the CO problem at issue in § 211(m) does
not generally result from migrating pollution. Rather, vehicles
carrying gasoline purchased in a wide geographical area actually
enter the CO nonattaininent area and emit the CO pollution
directly into that area. It is unclear, however, why this -
distinction would lead Congress. to adopt a radically different
approach to the multistate nature of the problem in the § 211(m)
context that it constistently adopted for multistate problems
elsewhere in the Clean Air Act.
-------
9
De Bartolo Corp . v Florida Gulf Coast Building &
Constr. Trades Council , 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988)
(emphasis added). Recognizing “that Congress, like
(the judiciary], is bound by and swears an oath to
uphold the Constitution(,] (t]he courts will ... not
lightly assume that Congress intended to infringe
constitutionally protected liberties or usurp power
constitutionally forbidden it.” . Of course, the
corollary “is that every reasonable construction must
be resorted to, in order to save a statute from
unconstitutionality.” . quoting Hooper v. California ,
155 U..S. 648, 657 (1895) (emphasis added).
Reardon V. United States , Slip. Op. No. 90-1319 at 37 (1st Cir.,
O tober 29, 1991) (Cyr, J., dissenting). Arguably, for the same
reasons, the Agency, too, should adopt any reasonable alternative
interpretation of the statute to avoid constitutional problems.
II. The Constitutionality of the Facial Reading
The text of § 211(m) (2) on its face unambiguously mandates
that SIP revisions require gasoline “sold or dispensed directly
or indirectly by fuel refiners or marketers to persons who sell
or dispense to ultimate consumers” in the entire MSA/CMSA be
blended to contain oxygen. As applied to a multistate MSA/CMSA,
this provision on its face would require, for example, that
Pennsylvania submit SIP revisions which require that gasoline
sold or dispensed directly or indirectly by fuel refiners or
marketers who sell or dispense to ultimate consumers in portions
of Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, and Delaware must contain
2.7 percent oxygen by weight. Such exercise of jurisdiction by
Pennsylvania to prescribe law for territory in neighboring States
raises constitutional questions.
A. Principles Suggesting Unconstitutionality 10
10 The general approach to evaluating the
constitutionality of state laws under the Commerce Clause does
not seem appropriate for resolving the issue here. In a very
large number of cases, the Supreme Court has reviewed State
statutes regulating conduct within a State’s borders under the
“dormant Commerce Clause” to determine whether they impose an
undue burden on interstate commerce. Where Congress has neither
authorized not forbid the challenged State conduct, courts
consider whether the challenged law discriminates against
interstate -commerce, whether the law serves a legitimate (rather
than protectionist) local purpose, Hughes v. Oklahoma , 441 U.S.
336 (1979); Philadelphia v. New Jersey , 437 U.S. 617, 624 (1978),
and whether the burden on interstate commerce is incidental, Pike
v. Bruce Church , 397 U.S. 137 (1970). Congress’s consent may
validate an otherwise unconstitutional state regulation affecting
-------
10
The Supreme Court iecently addressed the constitutionality -
under the Commerce Clause of State regulation that controls
conduct in neighboring states in Healy V. Beer Institute, Inc. ,
109 S. Ct. 2491 (1989). In that case, the Supreme Court held
unconstitutional Connecticut’s beer price affirmation scheme on
the grounds that the statute had the effect of controlling
conduct outside its borders. 11 The Court reviewed its
“established view that a state law that has the ‘practical
effect’ of regulating commerce occurring wholly outside that
State’s borders is invalid under the Commerce Clause.” Healy ,
109 S. Ct. at 2497. The Healy Court distilled the principles
guiding assessment of constitutionality of extraterritorial state
statutes as follows: -
The principles guiding this assessment ... reflect the
Constitution’s special concern both with the
maintenance of a national economic union unfettered by
state-imposed limitations on interstate commerce 12 and
with the autonomy of the individual States within their
interstate commerce. See South-Central Development, Inc . v.
Wunnicke , 467 U.S. 82, 87—88 (1984). “Dormant Commerce Clause”
analysis seems inapplicable here, where Congress arguably not
only consented but reauired state regulations that not only would
unquestior ab1y affect interstate commerce, but would directly
regulate conduct in other states —- constituting an exercise of
power normally reserved to Congress under the Commerce Clause.
In Healy , Connecticut required out—of—state beer
shippers to affirm that their posted prices for beer sold to
Connecticut wholesalers were no higher than the prices for beer
sold in neighboring states at the time of posting, and made sale
in Connecticut at a higher price unlawful. In one bordering
State, Massachusetts, brewers are required to post beer prices on
the first of the month which are to be effective on the first of
the following month. Thus, Connecticut’s scheme would force
brewers to set prices for Massachusetts that would be a ceiling
for Connecticut prices in the following month. Also, volume and
promotional discounts offered in neighboring states would limit
prices that could be offered in Connecticut. Healv , 109 S. Ct.
at 2499—250Q.
12 Footnote 12 in original:
The entire Constitution was ‘framed upon the theory
that the peoples of the. several states must sink or
swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and
salvation are in union and not division.’ Baldwin v.
G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. , 294 U.S. 511 (1935).
-------
11
respective spheres:’ 3 Taken together, our cases
concerning the extraterritorial effects of state
economic regulation stand at a minimum for the
following propositions: First, the “Commerce Clause
precludes the application of a state statute to
commerce that takes place wholly outside of the State’s
borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within
the State,” Edgar v. MITE corp. , 457 U.S. 624, 642—43
(plurality opinion).... Second, a statute that
directly controls commerce occurring wholly outside the
boundaries of a State exceeds the inherent limits of
the enacting State’s authority and is inva]i.d
regardless of whether the statute’s extraterritorial
reach was intended by the legislature. The critical
inquiry is whether the practical effect of the
regulation is to control conduct beyond the boundaries
of the State. Third, the practical effect of the
statute must be evaluated not only. by considering the
consequences of the statute itself, but also by
considering how the challenged statute may interact
with the legitimate regulatory regimes of other States
and what effect would arise if not one, but many or
every State adopted similar legislation. Genera].ly
speaking, the Commerce Clause protects against
inconsistent legislation arising from the projection of
one state regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of
another State. And, specifically, the Commerce Clause
dictates that no State may force an out-of-state
merchant to seek regulatory approval in one State
before undertaking a transaction in another.
Healy , 109 S. Ct. at 2499 (citations omitted) (one footnote
omitted).
Here, § 211(m) (2) requires that States regulate commerce
taking place wholly outside the State’s borders, and the
extraterritorial reach is fully recognized. Further, unless the
SIP approval process is used to enforce uniformity in multistate
13 Footnote in original:
-The plurality in Edgar v. MITE Corp. , (457 U.S. 624,
641 (1982) (plurality)] noted: “The limits on a State’s
power to enact substantive legislation are similar to
th limits on the jurisdiction of state courts. In
either case, ‘any attempt “directly” to assert
• extraterritoria]. jurisdiction over persons orproperty
would offend sister States and exceed the inherent
limits of the State’s power.” 457 U.S. at 643,
quoting Shaffer v. Heitner , 433 U.S. at 197.
-------
12
covered areas, these State regulations could conflict with the -
regimes established in neighboring States. g supra , note 6.
Furthermore, § 211(m), as a State program, does not have pre-
emptive effect, and States containing attainment portions of a
covered area might establish gasoline requirements that would
conflict with the extraterritorial regulations of the
“nonattainment” State. Thus, application of § 211(m) (2) to
multistate covered areas seems in conflict with all of the
principles enunciated in Healy.
B. Arguments Supporting Constitutionality
There are at least two potential bases for distinguishing
the SIP revisions at issue here from the statutes at issue in
Healv and cases cited therein. First , those cases concern
economic regulations, which more directly involve interstate
commerce, whereas interstate commerce is only incidentally
implicated in the environmental regulations here. Second , here,
unlike any of the prior cases, Congress arguably mandated that
the States adopt the extraterritorial controls at issue. To that
extent, Congress arguably delegated limited power to regulate
interstate commerce to the State whose air quality problem
requires the regulation.
1. Economic v. Environmental Regulations
The statutes at issue in Mealy and prior cases generally
involved -economic regulations, such as price and business
organization controls, 14 where the regulatory regime within the
state was determined to interfere with commerce in other states.
In these cases, States’ intent to achieve in-state economic goals
necessitated application to out—of—state economic activity
precisely because interstate commerce otherwise interfered with
accomplishing the in—state commercial goals. Yet, a State’s
concern directly with the impact of interstate commerce is in
conflict with “the Constitution’s special concern with the
maintenance of a national economic union unfettered by state—
imposed limitations on interstate commerce.” Healy, supra.
Mealy , and two cases primarily relied upon therein --
Brown-Forinan Distillers Corp . v. New York State Liquor Authority ,
476 U.S. 573 (1986) and Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. , 294 U.S.
511 (1935) -— involved protectionist price regulations. Edaar V.
MITE. Corp. , 457 U.S. 624 (1982) (plurality opinion), also
considered inHealy, involved the Illinios Business Takeover Act,
which required that a tender offer for a- target company having a
specified connection to Illinois be registered with the State,
required that the offer not become effective for 20 days pending
administrative review, and empowered the State to deny
registration under certain conditions. See Healy , 109 S. Ct. at
2497 n.9.
-------
13
Here, however, the SIPs-are not designed to limit the impact of-
interstate commerce on a State. Rather, the controls are
intended to prevent the sale of more polluting gasoline outside
the state which will be burned inside the State, thus undermining
the State’s own effort to control pollution inside its borders.
The need to control commerce outside its borders is only
incidental to this goal.
A nuisance case regarding interstate pollution between one
State and citizens of another State filed under the Supreme
Court’s original jurisdiction may support this distinction.
In Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp. , 401 U.S. 493 (1971), Ohio
sought to invoke the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to
abate a nuisance, alleging that defendants in Michigan and Canada
were contaminating Lake Erie by dumping mercury into its
tributaries outside of Ohio. The Court noted jurisdiction,
citing a number of cases in which it had resolved claims that a
nuisance in one State caused noxious consequences in another.
401 U.S. at 496. Nevertheless, the Court declined to exercise
original jurisdiction on the grounds, first , that, as a
prudential matter, it is ill-equipped to resolve the kind of
complex factual dispute presented which routinely arise between
States and other States or citizens of other States, 40]. U.S. at
497-98; and, second , because Ohio courts were competent to
resolve the issue under State law.
The Court in Ohio v. Wyandotte emphasized the competence of
Ohio courts under Ohio law, despite the extraterritorial location
of the offending conduct:
The courts of Ohio, under modern principles of the
scope of subject matter and in personam jurisdiction,
have a claim as compelling as any that can be made out
for this Court to exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate
the instant controversy, and they would decide it under
the same common law of nuisance upon which our
determination would have to rest. In essence, the
State has charged Dow Canada and Wyandotte with the
commission of acts, albeit beyond Ohio’s territorial
boundaries, that have produced and, it is said,
continue to produce disastrous effects within Ohio’s
own domain. While this Court, and doubtless Canadian
courts, if called upon to assess the validity of any
decree rendered against either Dow Canada or Wyandotte
(Michigan], would be alert to ascertain whether the
judgment rested upon an even-handed application of
justice, it is unlikely that we would totall ! deny
Ohio’s competence to act if the allegations made here
are proved true. e, e.g. International Shoe Co . v.
Washington , 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
at 500. In a footnote, the Court made clear that no federal
-------
14
question jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the -
case “would have to be adjudicated under state law.” Ohio v.
Wyandotte Chemicals Corp. , 401 U.S. at 498 n.3. In this case, at
least in the interstate pollution context, Ohio could apply its
own law to conduct occurring wholly outside its borders in order
to abate a nuisance. Likewise in the SIP context here, a State
may arguably prohibit unoxygenated gasoline formulation and sale
in a bordering State that was having a deleterious impact on the
complaining State’s CO nonattainment area.
There is reason, however, to question whether the Wyandotte
case would apply to support the constitutionality of the §
211(m) (2) “facial” interpretation. Supreme Court cases between
States have emphasized that state law does not control interstate
pollution disputes, and instead have applied federal common
law.’ 5 A year after Ohio v. Wyandotte , in Illinois v. Milwaukee ,
406 U.S. 91 (1972), Illinois sought to invoke the Supreme Court’s
original jurisdiction to enjoin political subdivisions of
Wisconsin from allegedly polluting Lake Michigan. While the
Court noted that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
U.S.C. § 1151 (“FWPCA”), makes pollution of interstate waters
subject to “abatement” when it “endangers the heath and welfare
of any persons,” the injunction remedy sought was outside the
scope of remedies prescribed by Congress. . at 102—03. The
Court refused original jurisdiction, (noting that political
subdivisions are citizens of their respective States, at 97),
and remanded the case to the district court to consider the
extra-statutory injunction remedy the case under federal common
]. The Court held that pollution of interstate waters, in the
absence of applicable federal statutory law, does create an
action arising under federal common law, which is embraced within
the “laws” of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
1331(a). at 99.
One additional distinction between Wyandotte and Healy
may be that a court “adjudicatory” order enjoining a nuisance,.
like any other tort case that may have its roots it, and has an
impact on commerce outside a state’s borders, applies
specifically on facts presented. In contrast, a “prescriptive”
legislative control like that in Healv is of general
applicability. The principles stated in Healv, supra , make
specific reference to legislative, as opposed to judicial
authority. While court exercise of adjudicatory jurisdiction
based on effects wjthin the state’s borders may be legitimate
despite extraterritorial effects on commerce, a state
legislature’s exercise of prescriptive jurisdiction directly
controlling extraterritorial conduct &rguably is not. Indeed,
since innumerable tort claims against a business engaged in
interstate commerce would have extraterritorial effects on such
businesses, this distinction may be significant. See Restatement
of Foreign Relations Law , § 401 sep . (1990).
-------
15
Yet, while the Illinois V. Milwaukee Court unequivocally
applied federal common law, it arguably did not overrule the
applicability of state law in Ohio v. Wyandotte , decided just one
year earlier. In the Illinois opinion, the Court stated: “(T]he
[ Federal Water Pollution Control] Act makes clear that it is
federal, not state, law that in the end controls the pollution of
interstate or navigable waters.” 406 U.s. at 102. The Court
then added in a footnote, “The contrary indication in Ohio V.
Wyandotte Chemicals Corp. , 401 U.S. 493, 498 n.3, was based on
the preoccupation of that litigation with public nuisance under
Ohio law, not the federal common law which we now hold is ample
basis for federal, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).” The
I linois case seems to have recognized federal common law only as
a source of law to vindicate rights created under federal
statutes such as the FWPCA (leaving state law to residually to
apply to interstate pollution disputes where no federal rights
are established). g Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino , 376
U.S. 427, 426 (1964) (“Principles formulated by federal judicial
law have been thought by this Court to be necessary toprotect
uniquely federal interests. Of course the federal interest
guarded in all these cases is one the ultimate statement of which
is derived from a federal statute.”); Textile Workers v. Lincoln
Mills , 353 U.S. 448, 457 (1957) (recognizing federal common law as
‘the source of substantive law to be applied under the Labor
Management Relations Act, § 301(a)); Hinderlider v. La Plata Co. ,
304 U.s. 92, 110 (1938) (Brandeis, 3.) (applying federal common law
to determine the effect of an interstate compact regulating water
apportionment).
The Clean Air Act would likely provide sufficient basis to
apply federal common law to disputes arising between states
regarding interstate air pollution. But here, not only might one
argue that —— under Ohio v. Wyandotte —— states retain the
ability to prohibit conduct outside their borders that causes
pollution problems within the State, but Congress under a facial
interpretation of Clean Air Act S 211(m) (2) mandated that States
do so. Under this interpretation, Congress itself indicated that
interstate air pollution does not raise federal concerns in the
context of Clean Ai-r Act § 211(m) (2) requiring state law to be
displaced by federal statutory or common law. Federal statutory
law pre-empts any federal common law, Illinois v. Milwaukee , 406
U.S. at 91,and here that pre—einptive statutory law arguably
refers back to state law. Thus, if Ohio.v. Wyandotte governs
here, then a State’s SIP revisions conceivably may legitimately
control gasoline formulation outside its-borders. But the
applicability of Wyandotte to the clearly extrateiritorial
prescriptive scheme at issue here is at least questionable.
Even though the Court in Illinois v. Milwaukee did not
overrule Wyandotte , and did not explicitly depart from the
Hinderlider, Lincoln Mills, Sabbatino reliance on a statutory
-------
16
basis for federal common law, the Court nevertheless strongly
suggested that constitutional principles of federalism and state
sovereignty necessitate resort to a federal rule of decision to
resolve interstate pollution disputes (a view possibly in
conflict with the Wyandotte case). The Court stated the
controlling principle as follows:
As the field of federal common law has been given
necessary expansion into matters of federal concern and
relationship (where no applicable federal statute
exists, as there does not here), the ecological rights
of a State in the improper impairment of them from
sources outside the State’s own territory, now would
and should, we think, be held to be a matter having
basis and standard in federal common law and so
directly constituting a question arising under the laws
of the United States.
Illinois v. Milwaukee , 406 U.S. at 90 (quoting Texas v. Pankey ,
441 F. 2d 236, 240). The Court emphasized:
ttRjghts in interstate streams, like questions of
boundaries, ‘have been recognized as presenting federal
questions.’ Hinderlider V. La Plata Co. , 304 U.S. 92,
110. The question of apportionment of interstate
waters is a question of ‘federal common law’ upon which
state statutes or decisions are not conclusive.”
Ibid-.
Illinois v. Milwaukee , 406 U.S. at 105 (footnote omitted).
Further, the Court noted:
(I]t is not only the character of the parties that
requires us to apply federal law ... where there is an
overriding federal interest in the need for a uniform
rule of decision or where the controversy touches basic
interests of federalism, we have fashioned federal
common law. Certainly these same demands .f or applying
federal law are present in the pollution of a body of
water such as Lake Michigan bounded, as it is, by four
States.
at 105 n.6. See also Milwaukee v. Illinois , 451 U.S. 304,
335 1981) (Blackaun, J., dissenting) (“Both before and after Erie
( R. Co . v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64 (1938)], the Court has fashioned
federal law where the interstate nature of a controversy renders
inappropriate the law of either State. When such disputes arise,
it is clear under our federal system that laws of one State
cannot impose upon the sovereign rights and interests of
another.” (citations omitted)). Further, the Court in Illinois
v. Milwaukee relied on earlier cases emphasizing federalism and
State sovereignty principles in applying federal law without
-------
17
regard to a federal statutory basis.’ 6
2. Delegation of Legislative Authority
The second basis for distinguishing the SIP revisions at
issue here from the Healv case is that here Congress arguably
mandated that the States adopt the extraterritorial controls. No
case has been identified in which Congress has required that a
State adopt regulatory controls applicable outside its borders.
Through this lens, § 211(m) (2) may be viewed as delegation of
Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. As such,
it is unclear whether congressional can validate extraterritorial
state regulatory controls which would otherwise constitute an
S
16 The Illinois v. Milwaukee Court relied on similar
interstate nuisance cases decided on the basis of federal common
law prior to Erie Railroad Co . v. Tompkins , 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
(establishing state law as the general rule of decision in
diversity cases in federal court). First, in Missouri v.
Illinois , 200 U.S. 496 (1906), the Supreme Court entertained in
its original jurisdiction Missouri’s suit in equity to enjoin
Illinois’s discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River.
Recognizing that Congress could address this matter under its
power to regulate commerce, the Court noted that Congress had not
forbidden the action of Illinois. .I . at 519. In such a case,
the Court held, the Court must declare the principles governing
the dispute, even if in conflict with legislation of one or both
states. Id . While the Court decided that Missouri’s bill stated
grounds for relief, it found that the facts did not support the
case.
Similarly, in Georgia v. Tennessee , 206 U.S. 230 (1907),
Georgia filed a bill in equity in the Supreme Court to enjoin
defendant copper companies from discharging sulfur dioxide gas
from operations in Tennessee which migrated over Georgia
territory, damaging Georgia forests and crops in the form of
sulfuric acid or acid rain. Regarding such interstate pollution,
the Court stated:
When the states by their union made the forcible
-abatement of outside nuisances impossible to each, they
did not thereby agree to submit to whatever might be
done. They did not renounce the possibility of making
reasonable demands on the ground of their still
remaining quasi-sovereign interests; and the
• alternative to force is a suit in this court.-
at 238. Satisfied that on the facts Georgia had made out a
case within the requirements of Missouri v. Illinois , the Court
granted the injunction.
-------
18
unconstitutional exercise of state authority under the Commerce-
Clause and exceed the enacting State’s inherent legislative
authority.
It is clear under the Non-delegation Doctrine that Congress
cannot delegate its own legislative powers or, particularly, its
exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce. In Wilkerson v.
Rahrer , 140 U.S. 545, 560, (1891), the Supreme Court stated:
By the first clause of section 10 of article 1 of
the constitution, certain powers (including the power
to regulate interstate commerce,] are enumerated which
the states are forbidden to exercise in any event....
Congress cannot relieve from the positive restriction
interposed. ... Nor can congress transfer legislative
power to a state, nor sanction a state law in violation
of the constitution.... It does not admit of argument
that congress can neither delegate its own powers, nor
enlarge those of a state.
In Rahrer , the Court upheld the Wilson Bill, which provided that
liquor brought into the state shall be subject to the state’s
police power to the same extent as locally produced liquor. The
Court had earlier, in the absence of Congressional action,
invalidated -— as a regulation affecting interstate commerce —-
an Iowa statute prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor
Leisy v. Hardin , 135 U.S. 100 (1890). The Court in Rahrer held
that the Congress’s incorporation of state law in the Wilson Bill
simply manifested Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause to
determine that free interstate commerce does not require
uniformity in treatment of intoxicating liquors inside states’
borders. See Prudential Ins. Co . v. Beniamin , 328 U.S. 408, 425
(1946) (Commerce Clause is not a limitation upon power of
Congress, but is grant of plenary authority, and “whenever
Congress’ judgment has been uttered affirmatively to contradict
the Court’s previously expressed view that specific action taken
by the states in Congress’ silence was forbidden by the coiniuerce
clause, this body has accommodated its previous judgment to
Congress’ expressed approval.”).
More recently, the Court considered a challenge to the
constitutionality of the federal Sentencing Commission as
unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to
promulgate sentencing guidelines for federal criminal offenses.
Mistretta v. United States , — U.S. —, 109 S. Ct. 647 (1989).
The Court, while recognizing that Congress may not delegate its
legislative power, xplaine that Congress could constitutionally
delegate authority federal agencies if the. general policy and
boundaries of the d legated authority are sufficiently
delineated. 109 S. Ct. at 655. The Court emphasized that
since striking down excessive delegations in A.L.A. Schecter
Poultry Core . v. United States , 295 U.S. 495 (1935) and Panama
-------
19
Refining Co . v. Ryan , 293 U.S. 3388 (1935) (cases in which
Congress had failed to articulate any policy or standard to
confine discretion of authorities exercising delegated power),
broad delegations to agencies have been upheld without deviation.
Mistretta , 109 S. Ct. at 655. The Court summarized, “In recent
years, our application of the nondelegation doctrine principally
has been limited to the interpretation of statutory texts, and,
more particularly, to giving narrow constructions to statutory
delegations that might otherwise be thought to be
unconstitutional.” . at 655 n.7 (citations omitted).
It is unclear to what extent the analysis applicable to
delegations to federal agencies also applies to delegations to
states. See United States v. Sanchez—Lopez , 879 F.2d 541, 560
(9th Cir. 1989) (career offender provision of Sentencing
Guidelines, which is triggered by federal and also state drug
convictions, does not constitute an unconstitutional
subdelegation of congressional authority to the various states);
see also United States v. Sharpnack , 355 U.S. 286 (1958) (statute
making subsequently enacted state criminal law applicable to
federal enclave inside the state not unconstitutional delegation
of legislative authority). Here, Congress’s articulation of
policy and standards in Clean Air Act § 211(m) (2) is very
specific and sufficient under these cases to support delegation
of implementation authority to the Environmental Protection
Agency.
However, delegation of authority to a State to legislate
control over interstate commerce may be constitutionally
deficient anyway. Congressional delegation of such power may not
supersede the restriction contained in the second principle
enunciated in Healy, supra -— “a statute that directly controls
commerce occurrinq wholly outside the boundaries of a State
exceeds the inherent limits of the enacting State’s authority.”
The constitutional principles of federalism and State sovereignty
seem to cut across the Commerce Clause, Non-delegation, and
interstate pollution/federal common law cases discussed above.
In these areas, the Court particularly has emphasized the need
for the federal government to resolve interstate disputes, and
States’ surrender of power to address such matters independently.
See Rahrer , 140 U.S. at 561 (“By the adoption of the
constitution, the ability of the several states to act upon the
matter solely in accordance with their own will was extinguished,
and the legislative will of the general government
substituted.”); Missouri v. Illinois , 200 U.S. at 520—21 (“It may
be imagined that a nuisance might be created by a State upon a
navigable river like the Danube, which would amount to a ôasus
belli for a State lower down, unless removed. If such a nuisance
were created by a State upon the Mississippi the controversy
would be resolved by the more peaceful means of a suit in this
court.”). If state control of commerce dutside its borders would
exceed its sovereign legislative authority, and would interfere
-------
20
with the exercise of other state’s sovereign authority, arguably
Congress may not delegate its own authority over interstate
commerce to validate such action.
In United States v. Mazurie , 419 U.S. 544 (1975), the Court
considered a challenge to Congress’s delegation to an Indian
Tribal Council of authority to regulate distribution of alcoholic
beverages on an Indian Reservation, including land not held by
Indians. Even though non-Indians on non-Indian—held land would
be excluded from participation in the governmental process, the
Court noted:
This Court has recognized limits on the authority
of Congress to delegate its legislative power. Those
limits are, however, less stringent in cases where the
entity exercising the delegated authority itself
possesses independent authority over the subject
matter.
Mazurie , 419 U.S. at 556-57 (citations omitted). Because Indian
tribes “are unique aggregations possessing attributes of
sovereignty over both their members and their territory,” .j . at
557, the Court held that the delegation was proper. See also
Nance v. , 645 F.2d 701, 714—15 (1981) (EPA’s approval under
Clean Air Act of Indian tribe’s redesignation of its reservation
from Class II to Class I air quality standards was not
unconstitutional delegation of authority). While the Indian
cases concerned entities which possess independent authority
over the subject matter, it is reasonably clear from Healy that
states possess no independent authority over commerce in
neighboring states. Thus, the limits on delegation of
Congressional authority would be more stringent in this context.
The Mazurie case does not alone indicate that delegation of
narrowly defined authority to regulate interstate commerce in §
211(m) (2) would be unconstitutional, but taken together with the
federalism and State sovereignty principles enunciated in this
and other cases, indicates the constitutionality of such a scheme
would be at least highly questionable.
-------
21
Disk: Martel—Bi & LAN: Oxy.11:December 16, 1991: FINAL
-------
Office of Air and Radiation
Oxygenated Gasoline
Implementation Guidelines
July 27, 1992
Field Operations and Support Division
Office of Mobile Sources
Washington, D.C.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION 1
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 2
SIP DUE DATE 3
REGULATORY OPTIONS AND OXYGEN CREDIT AVERAGING 6
DISCUSSION OF WAIVERS 7
EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF OXYGENATED GASOLINE
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS 10
TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC EFFECTS OF FUEL OXYGEN CONTENT ON CO
EMISSIONS 10
ADAPTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY 11
EFFECT OF OXYGEN ON FLEET CO EMISSIONS THROUGH TIME 12
IMPACT OF FUEL OXYGEN ON AMBIENT CO AIR QUALITY 12
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF OXYGEN AS A CO REDUCTION STRATEGY 13
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
GUIDANCE FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION 14
REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED PARTIES 15
1. Registration 15
2. Recordkeeping 16
3. Transfer documents 16
4. Reports 17
5. Attestation engagements 17
REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE OFFICIALS - ADMINISTRATIVE 17
1. Registration applications 17
2. Compliance reports 18
3. Attestation reports 18
REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE OFFICIALS - FIELD INSPECTIONS 18
1. Retail/wholesale purchaser-consumer facility inspections 19
2. CAR and blender CAR facility inspections 20
3. Penalty Policy 21
OTHER STATE RESPONSIBILITIES 22
1. Laboratory Testng 22
2. Test methods 23
3. Availability of Clear Gasoline 24
4. Tritning 24
5. Public Outreach 25
RESOURCE ESTIMATES FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION 26
1. Pbnning stage 26
2. Implementation Stage 27
-------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
Motor vehides ai’e significant contributors of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. An important
measure toward reducing these emissions is the use of cleaner-burning oxygenated gasoline. Extra oxygen
enhances fuel combustion, which tends to be less efficient in cold weather. The oxygen also helps to offset
fuel-rich operating conditions, particularly during vehide starting, which are more prevalent in the winter. A
gasoline blend co& ming 2.7 percent oxygen, by weight, will result in approximately a 15-3)96 reduction in
CO emkcinnc
Oxygenated gasoline programs are a cost-effective means of reducing CO pollution. There arc
currently local oxygenated gasoline programs in seven US. dtie > EPA strongly recommends that states
adopt oxygen credit averaging programs rather than per-gallon 2.7 weight percent oxygen content programs.
Averaging programs allow for the creation of valuable credits for gasoline cont nn more than 2.7% oxygen
by- weight, wfiich may thee be used to offset the use of gasoline contnining lesser amounts of oxygen. The
trading of these oxygen credits will allow added flexibility and efficiency in the marketplace which should
rcsu in c savings to Tdfiners and ultimately consumers.
Within EPA, the Field Operations and Support Division (FOSD) of the Office of Mobile Sources is
responsible for the winter oxygenated gasoline programs and these guidehne& FOSD is available to assist
state and local agencies in implementing these programs. FOSD will also be responsible for auditing the
state and local programs once in operation. Al M2n lto, the Section Chief for the Regional/State/Local
Coordination Section, is the project manager for this program. Within this Section, the duties are divided
among the staff by Regions. Paul Ar ropoulos works with Regions I, VII and IX; Michael Ball works with
Regions II, IV and VIII; Anne-Marie Cooncy works with Region III; and Meredith G. Miller works with
Regions V, VI and X. All may be reached at (202) 233-9050. FOSD will be working through the relevant
EPA regional offices to support the effective and timely implementation of these programs.
-------
This document provides EPA’s guidance to states regarding implementation oversight and
enforcement of oxygenated gasoline programs. This guidance is a general statement of policy. It does no
establish a binding norm and is not finally determinative of the issues addressed. Agency decisions in any
particular case will be made applying the law, applicable regulations and guidelines on the basis of specific
facts and actual action.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Section 211(m) of the Clean Air Act as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the
Act) requires states with CO nonattainrncnt areas having design values of 93 parts per million or more
based on 1988 and 1989 data to submit a revision to their State Implementation Plans (SIPS) which establish
wintertime oxygenated gasoline programs ’ These programs are to beg*n no later than November 1, 1992.
The oxygenated gasoline programs must require gasoline in the specified control areas to contain not
less than 2.7% oxygen by weight. Where averaging programs are adoNed, gasoline cont hing oxygen above
2.7% by weight may offset gasoline with an oxygen content below 2.7% and no gallon of gasoline should
contain less than 2.0% oxygen by weight. (This minimum will reduce the variability in oxygen contents and
distinguish gasoline intended for use in an averaging program from clear, nonoxygcnated gasoline.) The
minimum 2.7% standard shall apply during chat portion of the year in which the areas are prone to high
ambient concentrations of CO (the ‘control period.’) The Length of these control periods is to be established
by the EPA Administrator and shall not be less than four months in length. 2 At a state’s request with
respect to a CO nonattainment area, EPA may reduce the control period if a state can demonstrate, based
1 In the July 9 Federal Renister notices of proposed guidelines dealing with oxygenated gasoline programs,
EPA indicated that Steubenville, OH and Winnebago, WI would be required to have oxygenated gasoline
programs. As explained in the February 5 Federal Register supplemental notices of proposed guidelines
however, since &ese two areas have not been hccified as carbon monmide nonattainment areas, they cannot
be required to implement programs under section 211(m). 57 FR 4408 (February 5, 1992).
2 will issue separate guidance establishing control periods for each area required to have an oxygenated
gasoline program. A Supplemental Notice of Proposed Guidance on control periods has been issued. 57
FR 4408 (February 5, 1992).
2
-------
upon meteorological conditions, that a reduced period will assure that there will be no CO exceedances
outside of such reduced period.
The requirements of the oxygenated gasoline program shall apply to all gasoline sold or dispensed in
the larger of the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
in which the nonattainment area is located. For nonattainnient areas not located in a CMSA or MSA, the
control area is the nonattainment area. The requirements of the program shall apply to every county or
partial county which is located in the CMSA, MSA, or nonaitainment areas.
SIP DUE DATE
For any area that has a CO design value of 9.5 parts per million or greaser for any two year period
er198,theActrequiresthatarcvisiontothcS lPshallbesubmittcdwithinl8monxhsaftersuchtwo
year period. The Act, however, does not specify the due date for the required SIP revisions for the areas
which must implement an oxygenated gasoline program bcg!nning in 1992. EPA believes it is reasonable to
require that these SIP revisions be submitted by November 15, 1992, the date other CO SIP revisions are
due.
According to section 211(m), SIP revisions muss be submitted by each state in which there is located
allorpartofanarcawbich i sdcsignatcdundcrTislc lasacarbonmonondenonanainmentarcawitba
design value of 93 parts per million or more based on 1988 and 1989 data. 3 Under the Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Guidance on Establishment of Control Periods, 4 these areas indude:
1. Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH CMSA
2. Hartford-New Britain-Middletown, C I CMSA
3. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-Cl CMSA
4’ Syracuse, NY MSA
5. Baltimore, MD MSA
sunra . note 2, at 4409.
57 FR 4408 (February 5, 1992).
3
-------
6. Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA
7. Washington, DC-MD-VA MSA
8. Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC MSA
9. Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA
10. Raleigh-Durham, NC MSA
11. Duluth, MN-WI MSA
12. Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH CMSA
13. Minneapolis-SL Paul, MN-WI MSA
14. Albuquerque, NM MSA
15. El Paso, TX MSA
16. Colorado Springs, CO MSA
17. Denver-Boulder, CO CMSA
18. Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA
19. Missoula, MT
20. Provo-Orem, UT MSA
21. Chico, CA MSA
22. Fresno, CA MSA
23. Las Vegas, NV MSA
24. Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA
25. Modesto, CA MSA
26. Phoenix, AZ MSA
27. Reno, NV MSA
28. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA
29. Stockton, CA MSA
30. Anchorage, AK MSA
31. Fairbanks, AK
32. Grant’s Pass, OR
33. Klamath County, OR
34. Medford, OR MSA
35. Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA CMSA
36. Sacramento, CA MSA
37 San Diego CA MSA
38. Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA
39. Spokane, WA MSA
The control areas as designated above were based upon 1980 census data, the only data available at
the time of passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Shortly, the 1990 census data il1 be made available.
There have been some early indications that there may be some MSA/CMSA boundary rh ang s due to
population th2nges, particularly in parts of New England. The Agency recognizes that most state planners
have already begun consideration of these oxygenated gasoline programs in light of the 1980 census list. The
Agency encourages states to include new boundaiy areas, when they are available, in their 1992 oxygenated
gasoline plans if possible, but will be fle,dble if this is not possible. The new boundaries should be adopted
for the 1993 oxygenated gasoline program start date at the latest, in order to accurately reflect the
4
-------
demographics of each CMSA and MSA.
A number of these, proposed control areas include more than one state. For some of these multi-
state MSAS and CMSAs the portions of one or more of the states in the MSA or CMSA are not actually
design t 4 as being in CO nonattainment. This situation is illustrated below.
Proposed Profram Area MSA/CMSA States
Nonattainment Attainment
Boston Massachusetts New Hampshire
Philadelphia Pennsylvania Delaware
New Jersey Maryland
New York . New York
New Jersey
Connecticut
W hingtnn D.C. D.C.
Maryland
Virginia
Memphis Tennessee Arkancac
Mkc ’ccippi
Minneapc(m Minnesota Wisconsin
Duluth Minnesota Wisconsin
Portland Oregon
Wachington
[ be Agency notes that section 211(m)(1) obligates (elach state in which there is located all or part
of an area which is designated under Title I as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxzde...(toI submit to the
Administrator a State implementation plan...for such area... Section 211(m)(2) provides further that the SIP
revisions should require that the oxygenated gasoline program apply to fuel refiners or marketers in the
larger of the CMSA or MSA in which the CO nonattanment area is located. However, the Agency does not
believe that states containing only an attainment portion of the MSA or CMSA are obligated to submit SIP
5
-------
revisions. In the case of such states, the attainment portions of the MSA or CMSA located within their
boundaries are not themselves designated under Title I as nonattainment areas for CO. A state such as New
Hampshire, without any CO nonattainment areas, would therefore have no SIP to which revisions could be
made.
REGULATORY OPTIONS AND OXYGEN CREDIT AVERAGING
EPA strongly recommends that states adopt an oxygenated gasoline averaging program. Akhougli
not actually required to achieve the desired air quality results or to comply with the requirements of the Act,
an averaging program has certain benefits which have been recognized by Congress. The principal advantage
of this program design is that when compared to an oxygenated gasoline program requiring a minimum per-
gallon 2.7% oxygen content, a program incorporating an oxygen averaging provision will prove to be less
costly for implementation in 1992. This is due to the fact that averaging programs will allow the supply of
oxygenates to be used in a flexible, and hence more efficient, manner. This flexibility will in turn lead to cost
savings both for consumers and regulated parties. Therefore, EPA recommends that states adopt averaging
programs for their oxygenated gasoline programs. 5 EPA is not suggesting that states mandate avera ng
Instead, EPA recommends that states allow gasoline marketers the flexibility to opt to meet the 2.7% oxygen
by weight requirement by choosing either a per-gallon or an averaging strategy. Even if an averaging
program is authorized by a state, it is likely that some marketers will select the per-gallon option.
EPA published a supplemental notice of proposed guidelines for credit programs on February 5, 1992 (57
FR 4413).
6
-------
DISCUSSION OF WAIVERS
There are four types of waivers provided for under Section 211(m).
Section 211(m)(3) provides for three waivers from the oxygenated gasoline requirements of section
2’ 1(m). Two of the aivcrs are available only at the initiation of states. These two state waivers would be
based on: (1) a showing that the use of oxygenated gasoline would interfere with a national, state, or local air
quality standard for a pollutant other than carbon monoxide (section 211(m)(3)(A)); or (2) a demonstration
that mobile sources do not cignificantly contribute to the area’s carbon monoxide problem (section
211(m)(3)(B)). The third waiver provided for in section 211(m)(3)(C) is available at the initiation of any
person’ and is based on a demonstration that there is an inadequate domestic supply of, or distribution
capacity for, oxygenated gasoline.
Section 211(m)(2) provides for another waiver which is available only at the initiation of a state. A
state can request a reduced control period waiver if a state can make a showing, based on meteorological
conditions, that a reduced control period will assure no exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) outside of the reduced control period.
1. Reduced control period waiver
Section 211(m)(2) requires the EPA Administrator to determine the portion of the year in which a
carbon monoxide nonattainment area (with a design value of 9.5 parts per million or greater based on 1988
and 1989 data) is prone to high ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide. This portion of the year, or
‘control period,’ shall not be less than 4 months in length.
The control period may be reduced to less than 4 months if a state can demonstrate that, based on
meteorological conditions, a reduced control period will assure that there will be .no exceedances of the CO
standards outside of such reduced control period.
7
-------
2. State waiver based on interference with a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) other than
carbon monoxide
Section 211(m)(3)(A) governs waivers from the oxygenated gasoline requirements based on a State’s
demonstration ‘to the satisfaction of the [ EPAJ Administrator’ that oxygenated gasoline would prevent or
interfere with a NAAQS, or state or local ambient air quality standard, for an air pollutant other than carbon
monoxide. The Admtnu trator shall, upon satisfactory demonstration, waive the Section 211(m) requirements
in whole or in part. The demonstration should include a consideration of meteorological conditions, the time
period in which peak carbon monoxide emissions occur, historical data on ambient air quality, and other
relevant information.
3. Stationary source.based waiver
Section 211(m)(3)(B) recognizes that an area’s carbon monoxide nonattainment may be due to
causes other than mobile sources. Under section 211(m)(3)(B), a state may demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the EPA Mminiqrator that mobile sources of carbon monoxide do not contribute sgnificantly to the
carbon monoxide levels in an area. Upon such demonstration, the Administrator shall waive the oxygenated
gasoline requirements of section 211(m)(2).
4. ‘Supply and distribution’ waivers
Section 211(m)(3)(C) allows any person to petition the Adminktrator to ‘make a finding that there
is, or is likely to be, inadequate domestic supply of, or distribution capacity for, oxygenated gasoline.’ EPA
published proposed guidelines for section 211(m)(3)(C) waivers on the September 3, 1991,6 and a final
Notice of Availability for the guidelines on April 17, 1992 These guidelines discuss information that EPA
believes is necessary to consider supply shortages and/or distribution problems.
6 56 FR 43593 (September 3, 1991).
57 FR 13742 (April 17, 1992).
8
-------
The section 211(m)(3)(C) waiver, if granted, would result in an entire area being waived from the
program. The Act expressly prohibits “partial delays or lesser waivers.’ The Act specifics that if a waiver is
granted, the Administrator shall delay the effective date of the program for one year. EPA may not grant a
waiver for a lesser period (e.g. for one month of the control period). Upon petition, the Administrator may
extend a section 211(m)(3)(C) waiver for one additional year.
EPA’s latest information indicates that there is adequate supply and distribution capacity for
oxygenates for the 1992 control season. EPA therefore expects no supply and distribution waiver requests.
EMISSION REDUCIIONS AND COST.EFFECIIVENESS OF OXYGENA1 D GASOLINE 1
This section is included in order to assist the states in developing their oxygenated gasoline
implementation poliocs and SIP submfttals. The information contained here and in the June 3, 1991 EPA
document titled “Emission Reductions and Cost Effectiveness of Oxygenated Gasoline” 2 may be used by the
states in estimating the costs associated with these oxygenated gasoline programs. These attempts to
illustrate the possible air quality effects of the oxygenated fuel program are not comprehensive guides to
fvrw e air quality in the specific areas mentioned, since the ambient data are subject to climatic fluctuations,
____in traffic patterns, and other variables that cannot be reliably predictet Also, the impact of
stationary sources will vary from area to area.
1 This section has been taken directly from an EPA document tided, “Emission Reductions and Cost
Effectiveness of Oxygenated Gasoline,” dated June 3, 1991. This document was prepared in support of the
oxygenated gasoline guidance development process.
2 This document may be found at the EPA Air Docket, 401 M Street, S.W., Room M-1500, W2 hingson,
D.C. 20460. The Docket number is A-91-04, lI(A)4.
9
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
The 1989 National Air Ouality and Emission Trends Reoort 3 indicates that mobile sources account
for about two thirds of CO emissions, a figure that is only slightly down from its 1980 level of 70%.
Aggregate emissions from stationary and area sources of CO have been fairly constant, de 1ining only slightly
over the 1980-198 ‘eriod. See Figure 1.
Two factors have had the greatest impact on mobile source CO emissions fleet turnover and vehi fe
miles travelled (VMT). Over the last decade, fleet turnover has brought CO emissions down as old
technology, higher-emitting vehicles have been replaced th newer technology, lower emitting ones. Even as
they age and accumulate mileage, the newer technology vehicles emit less CO than the older ones did at
similar stages in vehicle life. Counteracting new technology, however, VMT has increased for the nation as a
whole as population increases and average per-capita mileage climbs. To this point, fleet turnover has
outweighed VMT’s upward influence on CO emissions over the last decade, accounting for the dQwnwa,d
trend in total emissions. The Agency’s mobile emissions model predicts that as the fleet conversion to newer
technology is completed, fleet turnover will become more neutral with regard to emissions, and continued
increases VMT may bring about a egate emissions increases.
EPA expects the downward trend to continue until about 1999 when the light duty fleet will be
comprised almost entirely of 3-way/closed loop vehides, a newer technology discussed below. The increase
in VMT, previously masked in its effect by fleet turnover, will then bring about some increase in eivthuons.
TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC EFFECrS OF FUEL OXYGEN CONTENT ON CO EMISSIONS
Agency data on the impact of oxygenates on CO emissions have been collected as part of the
Air Ouality and Emission Trends Report 1989 . February, 1991, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA -450/4-91.003, p.3-17.
10
-------
Agcnc s Emission Factors program. Analyses of those data have been reported in various technical
reports 4 and incorporated into a modified version of the MOBILE4 emissions model These analyses
distinguish three technology groupings and separately estimate the impact of oxygenates on CO emissions
within each group. Those impacts are shown below for light-duty vehides:
TABLE 1
Technology-SpecIfic Effects
o.Emlss loiasofaFuelwlth3.5%
Oqgen and Volatility Matched to Base Fud
Vehide Effect of Blend
Group on CO Emissions
No Catalyst -22.9%
Oxidation
Catalyst -33.0%
Closed Loop -202%
Since current data offer no basis to reject the proposition that CO response is linear with percent oxygen,
interpolation provides the reductions by technology type associated with 2.7% oxygen: -17.7% for pre-
catalyst, -25.5% for oxidation catalyst, and -13.6% for 3-way catalyst/dosed loop technology.
ADAPTIVE LEARNING TECHNOLOGY
While one theory suggests that fuel oxygen content should have a lesser impact on CO emissions in
vehides with the newer dosed loop systems (approximately post-l98 4 LDVs), current test data is to the
contraly. Evaluated in EPA’s Technical Report of October 1988 , the CO impact of 3.7% oxygen was even
“Derivation of Technology Specific Effects of the Use of Oxygenated Fuel Blends on Motor Vehicle
Exhaust Fmkcions ”, October, 1988, Technical Report No. EPA-AA-TSS-PA-88-1. “Guidance on F ctimating
Motor Vehicle Emission Reductions From the Use of Alternative Fuels and Fuels Blends”, January 29, 1988,
Technical Report No. EPA-AA-TSS-PA-87-4.
5 Derived from Table 3-1 in “Guidance on Estimating Motor Vehicle Emission Reductions From the Use
of Alternative Fuels and Fuel Blends”, January29, 1988, EPA Technical Report No. EPA-AA-TSS-PA .87-4, p.35.
11
-------
greater in the post. 1984 sample data than for other closed loop vehicles.
EFFECT OF OXYGEN ON FLEET CO EMISSIONS THROUGH TIME
The overall effect of oxygen on fleet CO emissions is presented in FIgure 2 for a loosely modeled
mid-Atlantic scenario whose mthile source emissions of CO in 1992 represented about 76% of total CO and
where the stationary and area source components arc assumed to remain constant in an absolute sense over
the period of time modeled. 6 The CO emission level at 2.7% oxygen is 13% lower than the base case in
1992. By 1995 the difference is 12%, and by 3 )00 it is 10%. A west coast scenario should appear very
cin ii v in program effect except that the local fleet is older on average and thus is perhaps more responsive
to the oxygen leveL Since the west coast scenario was modeled after San Diego, the extent of stationary
source involvement is lower and the proportional reductions in overall CO emissions attributable to oxygen
are higher. The west coast scenario is presented in Figure 3.
IMPACT OF FUEL OXYGEN ON AMBIENT CO AIR QUALITY
In order to model the impact of the proposed program on ambient CO levels, a ‘rollback” modelling
approach has been used whereby a percentage decrease in emissions from all sources (including the relatively
constant stationary and area sources) is applied to actual ambient levels projected forward to the time period
b ing analyzed here. The actual data for Philadelphia’s 1989 daily maximum overlapping 8-hour averages
with correction for “double-counting of high hourly readings are shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 shows the
same data adjusted for the changes in emission levels expected between 1989 and 1992. The overall height of
each bar shows the level to be expected in 1992 without the oxygen program, while the lower segment (for
the four months where there are two segments) shows the ambient level expected with 2.7% oxygen. Figures
6 e the mid-Adantic and West Coast scenarios discussed in this analysis arc based, respectively, on some
data for Philadelphia and San Diego, this modeling work should not be regarded as a rigorous accounting of
emissions inventories for either area. The extent of stationary source influence and various other items of
information were taken from area-specific data, but national default information was used to predict VMT
growth, and certain other features of the local situations were not modelled rigorously, since these analyses were
intended only as illustrative.
12
-------
6 and 7 examine the ambient air quality for 1995 and 2000.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF OXYGEN AS A CO REDUCTION STRATEGY 7
Table 2 presents the cost-effectiveness calculations by year for a general mid-Atlantic scenario
(based on stationary source contribution and VMT for Philadelp i as being more or less representative). A
wvst coast scenario using San Diego as a general model is shown in Table 3. The per-gallon costs used in
these tables are long-nm cost flgurcs It Lc likely that short-run costs in 1992 will be higher, and also likely
that the cost numbers in the later years will fluctuate with shifts in oil and basic commodity prices. A
c astant long-nm per-gallon price is med in thcsc tables to facilitate erAnun tion of the impact of fleet
composition and VMT trends on cost-effectiveness. Since each year’s program costs and the consequent
emission reductions occur together in time and vary in direct proportion to one-another, the cost-
effectiveness numbers have not been discounted.
information concerning the additional availability of oxygenates indicates that the cost effectiveness
of oxygenates as a CO reduction strategy will be increased beyond the estimates provided in this document.
13
-------
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
GUIDANCE FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION
These implementation guidelines should be used to augment other soon-to-be-issued guidance on
credit avetaging and control periods and regula4ions on p%unp labeling. Successful implementation and
compliance programs must be demonstrated by each state in meeting its obligations through its State
Implementation Plan (SW) revisions submitted to the Agency under section 211(m) of the Act. EPA views
the topics discussed below as important components of such programs. These recommendations are based,
in pail, on the Agency’s prior experience with the enforcement of fuels rcgulations as weil as the evaluation
of state oxygenated gasoline programs which are presently in place in seven US eihc
It is the Agency’s intention to fully support the efforts of the states in developing and implementing
these oxygenated gasoline programs. The Agency has developed standard materials for the use of the states
including industzy audit forms and industry report forms and databases. The Agency also anticipates
working with states to develop tr tining materials and public awareness packages. EPA believes that use of
these standardized materials will bring a desirable level of consistency to the programs throughout the
country.
Enforcement issues
The Agency views certain components as essential to an effective enforcement scheme for an
oxygenated gasoline program. This section addresses these components.
EPA is aware that effective enforcement may be more difficult in those program areas which contain
more than one strte within the MSA or CMSA. The Agency will work through its Regional offices to
encourage cooperative activities by the states in an attempt to coordinate the implementation of these multi-
state programs.
14
-------
REQUIREMENTS FOR REGULATED PARTIES
I. Registration
AU parties in the gasoline distribution network who are either located in or who do business in a
control area should be required to comply with the requirements of the oxygenated gasoline program if they
plan to market gasoline in that control area. All parties which handle gasoline in bulk, meaning all terminal
operators and owners, as well as all oxygenate blending facility operators and owners, should be required to
register with the state. Each party should be required to inform the state of its intentions concerning the
marketing of oxygenated gasoline. The above registration requirements should apply regardless of whether a
state has chosen to implement an averaging program or not.
Any party which wishes to participate in an averaging program for marketing oxygenated blends
should apply to the state through this registration for permission to ad as a control area responsible pasty
(CAR) or blender control area responsible party (blender CAR).’ Those who wish to ad as CARs and
blender CARs, after state approval of the application, should be c gned CAR registration numbers, which
authorize the parties to participate in the credit averaging program. A list of these CAR numbers should be
given to each registered CAR. Any party which wishes to comply with the 2.7% oxygen by weight
requirement on a per-gallon basis must also register. The difference between these two types of parties is
that those who wish to ad as CARs and blender CAR.s, after state approval of the application, should be
tccigiied CAR registration numbers, which authorize the parties to participate in the credit averaging
program. However, parties complying with these guidelines by dispensing and offering for sale gasoline
cont ’n’ng at least 2.7% oxygen by weight per gallon should not be -c.cigne d a registration number, thereby
exduding them from participation in the averaging program.
t As discussed in the proposed guidelines and supplemental proposed guidelines, CARs and blender CARs
are the parties in the gasoline distribution network which are responsible for assuring that only oxygenated
gasoline is sold into any control area which has adopted an averaging program. it is the CARs and blender
CARs which are the credit-averaging parties.
15
-------
2. Recordkeeping
All parties in the gasoline distribution network who are located or who do business in a control area,
and whose product is eventually sold into the control area for ultimate use, should be required to keep
records concerning certain day-to-day activities. Under these guidelines, refiners and importers should be
required to keep a copy of all the tests that are performed on batches of gasoline prior to shipment, as well
as copies of the bills of lading or transfer documents for each batch. Carriers and distributors should be
required to keep copies of the documents which accompany every batch of gasoline their employees handle.
Terminal owners and operators and CARs and blender CARs (in an averaging program) should be required
tokeeprecordsofboththcgasolinetheyreceivcfromupstreamparties asweUascopiesofallthctests
performed and records created before the gasoline was transferred to a downstream party.
3. Transfer documents
As proposed under EPA ’s guidelinea, all parties in the gasoline distribution network whose product
is eventually sold in a control area for use in the oxygenated gasoline program must create records which
accurately reflect certain properties of the product they are transferring. All refiners and importers must
generate documents specifying whether or not each batch is oxygenated, the oxygen content of the gasoline
by weight, and the oxygenate type and per.ent by volume. These documents must accompany every shipment
which leaves the refinery or import facility. Terminal owners and oxygenate blenders, as well as CARs and
blender CARs (in an averaging program), after they have altered the oxygen content of gasoline received
from upstream, must either create new documents specifying oxygenate type and content, or add the
pertinent information to a comprehensive bill of lading already accompanying the gasoline shipment. Either
way, the information must accompany every shipment of gasoline which leaves the terminal or blending
facility. These transfer documents must accompany all gasoline intended for sale in a control area, and
copies of them should also be kept on file by the retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer.
16
-------
4. Reports
Under EPA guidelines 1 when an averaging program is implemented, all CARs and blender CARs
should be required to submit reports to the states detailing certain activities during the control period.
Information should be induded specifying the following; the volumes of gasoline bought, sold and
transferred; volumes and types of oxygenate bought, sold, and transferred; number of credits bought, sold or
transferred; and a detailed demonstration of how credits were calculated.
5. Attestation engagements
When an averaging program is implemented, each CAR and blender CAR should be held
responsible for conducting one audit of its records as the dose of each control period, or every six months,
whichever is shorter. A Certified Public Accountant should conduct the evaluation of the fadlit s accounting
pradice and should verify in an attestation report whether or nct a facility has accurately represented its
activities.
REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE OFFICIALS - ADMINISTRATIVE
Each state which implements an averaging program will need a certain number of admm-ctrative
personnel to implement the oxygenated gasoline programs. Some of the work is clerical in nature - data
entry and filing. The Agency recommends that the state keep all records required in one centralized
location. With the aid of the databases being developed in conjunction with EPA, the same office should
compile initial registrations, compliance reports, and attestation reports.
1. Registration applications
Before the start of each control period, each state should receive applications for registration from
all parties wishing to market oxygenated gasoline in a control area during a control period. This registration
will define the regulated universe within any oxygenated gasoline control period. With the aid of the
databases developed by EPA, these applications should be easily processed, with registration numbers
17
-------
generated automatically and data gored.
2. Compliance reports
Each state should receive, at the close of every averaging period, compliance reports from all CARs
and blender CARs which dispense fuel in a control area administered by tha stale. It will be the
responsibility of each state to process these reports in order to determine compliance with the averaging
provisions of the ox enatcd gasoline regulations. This may be done through the use of both reporting forms
and databases developed by the EPA. The Agency envisions the use of simple arithmetic checks (to be sure
that all the necessary calculations have been correctly done), and cross-checks between CARs (to be sure
that if CAR X reports that it sold 6 credits to CAR Y, CAR Y reports the same transaction). If review of
these simple reports uncovers a potential violation of the state rules and regulations peltaining to the
oxygenated gasoline program, EPA expects that state enforcement personnel would follow up with a visit to
the suspect facility, or request more detailed records.
3. Attestation reports
In addition, each state should receive copies of the attestation report. State personnel should also
review these reports and refer any discrepancies which inlicate potential violations of state rules and
regulations to the proper enforcement personnel.
REQU1REMEN FOR STATE OFFICIALS - FIELD INSPECTIONS
Each state will be responsible for monitoring the compliance of the parties in the gasoline -
distribution network with the oxygenated gasoline rules and rcgulations. A number of field inspectors should
be employed to visit facilities which supply gasoline to the control area in order to determine program
4
compliance. Sampling should be conducted primarily at the terminaIs retail stations and wholesale
purchaser-consumer facilities. Enforcement should also occur at the CAR and blender CAR facilities in
those states which implement an averaging program. EPA suggests random checks of other parties in the
18
-------
gasoline distribution network as well.
Inspections at all locations should entail both physical sampling of gasoline and record review. In
states where averaging is an option, when visiting CARs, blender CAR facilities and parties downstream of
them, inspectors should check for the 2.0% oxygen by weight minimum requfrement, verify that each batch of
gasoline is properly docuàented with the appropriate information indicated on the transfer document, and
see that each party is maint ning proper records concerning its activities. Upstream (refiners, distributors,
etc.) from the CARs and blender CARs, inspectors should check gasoline batches to be sure that the
accoznpan ing records accurately reflect the specifications of the gasoline in question. In areas which have
implemented per-gallon programs, inspectors should check for the 2.7% oxygen by weight minifflum.
1. Retail/wholesale purchaser-consumer facility inspections
In inspecting retailers and whoIrc Ie purchaser-consumers within a control area, the emphisis of the
inspection should be on a physical sample of gasoline. EPA suggests that at least )% of all retail stations in
a control area be inspected during each control period regardless of whether the program is per-gallon or
aver ng The Department of Weights and Measures in Phoenix, AZ currently tests the gasoline at every
retail station in its program area once every quarter. The more often facilities can be inspected, the better
the program’s enforcement presence will be in the area.
When visiting facilities, enforcement officers should pull adequate samples from each separate grade
of gasoline offered, and a sample from each tank (where more than one tank of a certain grade is being
dispensed). Each state should establish sampling procedures, 2 induding chain of custody procedures.
2 . appendix D of 40 CFR part 80 for sampling methodologies.
19
-------
One inspector should be able to take approximately 25 samples per day for analysis in the labs. This
schedule should entail visits to approximately 6 facilities per day. EPA recommends that the schedule for
inspections be somewhat random, so that the 20% of the retail and wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities
visited in each control area can more reliably be taken to represent the entire control area, rather than
localized portions thereof.
After obt2ining the samples, enforcement officials should verify proper pump labeling, and briefly
check the faduit s paperwork and recordkecping system to ensure that the proper information is being
retained and is accessible. If any retail station is found to be in violation of any of the state rules and
regulations, program officials should have the ability to issue stop sale notices and lock pumps or have the
tanks pumped out if necessary. Program officials should report back to the retail stations if violations are
found through laboratory analysis of the samples taken earlier. Again, program officials should have the
authority to stop the sale of the illegal gasoline and lock pumps or have the tanks pumped out if necessary.
2. CAR and blender CAR facility inspections for averaging programs
For averaging programs, inspections of the CAR and blender CAR facilities should entail record
review and physical sampling. Again, 20% of the CAR and blender CAR facilities which serve a control area
should be visited every control period. At the end of each control period, every CAR should be required to
submit attestation engagement reports to the state. As the winter months progress, verification that the
CARs and blender CARS are complying with the program as established by the state rules will be crucial.
Physical testing for the minimum oxygen content combined with record review should be able to reveal
whether or not proper credit accounting is occurring as shipments leave and enter the CAR facility.
20
-------
3. Penalty Policy
All states should establish appropriate penalty schedules for facilities violating the oxygenated
gasoline requirements. These penalties may indude administrative, civil and criminal penalties that will deter
or eliminate non-compliance with the requirements as well as enforcement actions such as stop sale orders
and revocation or suspension of a facility’s license to operate. The penalty schedule should account for the
severity of the violation, intent, frequency of violations, and other considerations. The penalties that are
established should ensure recovery of any economic benefit associated with the violation, plus recoup an
additional amount to deter potential violators who believe they may not get caught. The policy should also
rccognze that penalty assessment should provide for fair and equitable treatment of the regulated
community and for swift resolution of environmental problems.
The penalty schedule should indude but need not be limited to:
• Notices of Violations
-Warnings
- Cease and Desist Orders
- Suspension of license or permit to operate
- Revocation of license or permit to operate
• Monetary fines
- Prohibition of equipment operation until proper product is in place
- Removal of violating product from facility
Provisions for criminal penalties should also be considered as possible deterrence mefhanLcmc. If
the penalties available to the state do not sufficiently deter violations and non-compliance continues,
alternative penalties should be established. The state must assure compliance in order to continue to receive
the SIP credits provided for by the program.
In formulating a penalty policy, the nature of the potential violations must be considered within
every state. The following are some examples of factors which should be considered:
21
-------
• The intentional nature of the violation
• Whether the violator cooperated with the state
- Whether a repeat violation is involved
- The difference in required v. actual oxygenate levels
OTHER STATE RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Laboratory Testing
Based on the experience of the currently operating oxygenated gasoline programs, the Agency .
believes that when possible, each state should attempt to minimine the time needed to analyze gasoline
samples taken from the field. Although an independent contract lab could conceivably work with a state to
streamline the sample transport and analysis structure, the Agency feels that the best way a state can do this
is to establish its own independent laboratory facility for the testing of samples obtained by state enforcement
personneL Although the capital investment involved in purt4i tchig the laboratory equipment will be high,
state ownership should prove to be le& expensive in the long run.
Some states currently running oxygenated gasoline programs have their own labs, while others do
not. Clark County, Nevada sends its samples to independent labs for analysis, which often involves a 1-day
delay between the time the samples are taken in the field and the time the enforcement officials receive the
results of the gasoline analysis. On the other hand the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures has
taken the initiative of setting up an independent state lab. Arizona owned one gas chromatograph before the
program began, but with the start of the oxygenated fuels program in 1989 state officials purchased another,
doubling the analysis capability of their laboratory. Samples pulled in the field each day can be analyzed
overnight, allowing disciplinary action to take place, if necessary, by the afternoon of the following day. This
quick turnaround frequently allows noncomplying product to be removed from the marketplace prior to
consumption, averting potential air quality damage. EPA believes that the quick response allowed by the use
of an on-site laboratory is invaluable in an effective enforcement scheme for oxygenated gasoline.
22
-------
It is estimated that the startup cost for establishing an in-house laboratory is approximately $125,000,
which is primarily involves the cost of a gas chromatograph. With this cost amortized over the ten-year
useful life of the equipment at an interest rate of 10%, the per-sample testing cost falls far below the $100.00
minimum estimated cost charged by independent laboratories which do contract worlc. 3
In addition to the cost, the Agency believes the only way to have an efficient enforcement presence
in the regulated community is to have very quick turnaround on laboratory tests, making it possible to follow
up with potential violators the very next day and have noncomplying gasoline removed from distribution.
State laboratories facilitate this rapid turnaround. When program officials have to wait three or more days
for the results from the analysis of field samples, violations are harder to identify and prosecute.
2. Test methods
States should carefully consider the adequacy and accuracy of the methods allowed or required for
testing product samples. While drafting the guidelines for the oxygenated gasoline programs, it has come to
the Agency’s attention that the ASTM method currently used by most laboratories in the country does not
presently have the capability to detect the presence of certain heavier oxygenates in gasoline, such as TAME.
At this time ASTM is pb nnit gto extend the scope of its test to indude up to 15% MTBE by volume (2.7%
oxygen by weight) and 17% TAME by volume.
As an alternative to the ASTM method, the Agency has developed a single column, direct injection
gas chromatographic procedure for quantifying the oxygenate content of gasoline. Unlike the current ASTM
method, this method can be used to detect all types of o enates in gasoline. The Agency prefers this new
EPA test over the ASTM test. The Agency anticipates it will be more accurate, easier to conduct, and less
a more detailed discussion rcl2hng the state costs associated with oxygenated gasoline programs, please
see the June 26, 1991 EPA document titled Administrative and Related Costs of the Oxygenated Gasoline
Provisions. This document can be found in the EPA Air Docket, 401 M Street, S.W., Room M-L500. The
Docket number is A-91 -04, II(A)2.
23
-------
expensive than the ASTM method. However, at this point in time industry is understandably apprehensive
about adopting a reLatively new test.
For these reasons, the EPA guidelines establish both testing methods for use in oxygenated gasoline
testing. 4 This will allow the regulated parties to use equipment they may already possess, and a test method
with which they are already familiar. Nevertheless, the Agency would like to strongly recommend use of the
Ann Arbor method, especially if it is determined that the ASTM method has neither expanded its capabilities
or improved its precision standards to match those of the EPA method.
In addition to the approval of these two te5ting methods, EPA would like to establish a procedure
whereby additional testing methods may be approved by the Agency. EPA recognizes that there are many
potential tests for use in the detection of oxygenates in gasoline, and would like to encourage the
development of even newer and more efficient methods. The Ann Arbor EPA lab has already begun
evaluating some alternative laboratory methods, as well as some oxygenate screening devices which may be
useful in the field. Therefore, the Agency shall work on creating a procedure for the evaluation and approval
of other oxygenate tests.
3. Availability of Clear Gasoline
EPA advises the states to monitor the availability of a variety of oxygenates and to take appropriate
steps necessary to reasonably assure the availability of various oxygenates in the market.
4. Trpining
Each state should be responsible for training not only their own personnel in the complexities of the
oxygenated gasoline program needs, but also the personnel throughout the state responsible for complying
with the rules and regulations. Workshops should be held for the benefit of persons in the gasoline
57 FR 4413, 4437 (February 5, 1992).
24
-------
distribution network who will be working with oxygenated gasoline. Topics to be covered should include
handling of the product, teaching approved testing and sampling methods for use in quality assurance
programs, handling customer complaints related to oxygenated gasoline, information for mechanics,
developing effective filing systems for the records required by the regulations, and computing compliance
through o edk aver ng Each state should make an effort to be sure that all parties in the gasoline
distribution network serving its control areas are knowledgeable and cooperative regarding the program
requirements. Better contact between the regulated industry and the enforcement officials should facilitate
resolving questions and problems as they arise and thereby enhance the programs’ effectiveness.
5. Public Outreach
The Agency believes that some form of public outreach is important to make states’ programs most
effective. It is audal that the driving public in each control area be fully supportive of the oxygenated
gasoline programs. Programs currently in place have provided the Agency with ideas on how a good public
awareness program should work. Arizona’s public education program involves adverthing. informational
brochures and a hotline. Colorado aho established an information hoiline which received 2,000 inquiries and
complaints during its fIrst year. Last year, it received only 12. Colorado’s experience shows that public
outreach is most likely to be important during the first season, when consumers are most unf mili r with
oxygenated gasolines. The Agency recommends that the states anticipate public uneasiness, and provide the
maximum amount of information possible to alleviate it. Special effort should be made to educate the area’s
mechanics regarding the oxygenated gasoline program, as mechanics are a common source of information for
the driving public.
25
-------
RESOURCE ESTIMATES FOR STATE IMPLEMENTATION
The following is a general discussion of some components and resources recommended by EPA for
successful implementation of an oxygenated gasoline credit averaging program. The costs associated with
many of these components represent just the first control season, with the assumption that costs presumably
will decrease in the second season as tr2ining and public relations costs become unnecessary.
When using this information for specific state program planning , please keep in mind that these
numbers will vary according to the number of regulated parties in the oxygenated gasoline control area. For
a more detailed discussion of the Agency’s consideration of the costs of the oxygenated gasoline programs,
please see the attached document Adminic*rative and Related Costs of the Oxygenated Gasoline
Provisions.
Using the oxygenated gasoline programs which are currently in place in the U.S. as models, the
Agency believes the average Clean Air Act oxygenated gasoline program beg rniing in 1992 can be effectively
developed and implemented by just a few well-trained, dedicated persons. For example, the e cting Denver,
Colorado program has a two-person oxygenated gasoline team, exduding the activities of sample collection
and analysis.
1. Planning stage
Developing a program
• Read EPA’s guidelines, then develop regulations accordingly.
- Obtain the necessary legislative and regulatory authority for implementation.
- Develop guidelines for regulated patties concerning recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
- Answer questions and help direct the activities of the iegulated parties.
26
-------
Setting un a laboratory
- Buy the necessary equipment (a new gas chromatograph will cost approximately $125,000 which can be
amortized over several years to reduce the immediate capital expenditure). Alternatively, establish a contract
with a convenient laboratory for the testing of samples (testing costs between $75.00 and $130.00 per
sample).
• Establish methods for testing oxygenated gasoline.
- Develop standards and procedures for laboratory testing.
- Hire one technician to run the lab, including testing and conducting compliance checks, if a gas
chromalograph is purchased. If the samples are analyzed eLsewhere, it may take one technical person 15
minutes per report to verify compliance information, and one clerical person 15 minutes to file the
information.
Developing an administrative enforcement scheme
- Set up databases and train personnel in their operation (databases are being developed by EPA).
• Establish chain of custody rules and enforcement scheme.
2. Implementation Stage
Inspection d retail/wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities
- During each control period, inspect at least 20% of stations in control area. These inspections should
indude both phyzical sampling and record review.
- Assume that one inspector can obtain samples from 6 stations per day, making sure to sample each grade
of gasoline and each tank from which gasoline is dispensed or offered for sale.
• Hire field inspectors based upon the number of regulated facilities in the control area.
27
-------
lnsnection of uostream blending facilities
• For averaging programs, during each control period, inspect 20% of CAR and btender CAR facilities which
serve the control area.
- Inspect refineries and other upstream facilities
- Assume that one inspector can obtain samples from 3 facilities per day, making sure to sample each grade
of gasoline dispensed or offered for sale.
- Hire field inspectors based upon the number of regulated facilities in the control area.
Post-inspection duties
• After samples have been analyzed, those f2iing to meet the established requirements will call for
enforcement follow-up. A staff person should return to the facility where the illegal sample was pulled,
conduct a more thorough record review in order to determine the gasoline’s origin, and serve notice of the
violation.
Review of reports submitted to the state for averanin2 oromams
- Regulated parties participating in averaging programs should be submitting three different types of records
to the states: registration forms, averaging period reports, and control period attestation engagement reports.
Assume that the review process will take one program person one hour per report, and one derical person
one half hour to file and enter the information into the database. This review process will entail comparing
trading parties’ reports for accuracy, made possible through the use of the databases a developed by the
EPA.
28
-------
Public Outreach
- Beginning 3 months before the program’s start and continuing during the program’s operation, conduct
public outreach activities. These may include, but are not limited to:
- Advertisements -
-Hodines
• Public meetings
• Educational materials (brochures, etc.)
- Press coverage
Tr ainhiD
• Two months before the beginning of the first control season, conduct training workshops for local
mechanics and representatives of the gasoline distribution network. Discuss the requirements of the
oxygenated gasoline program, individual responsibilities, as well as air quality benefits to be gained. Be sure
that all regulated parties have been given the appropriate reporting forms (currently being designed by the
Agency).
29
-------
Table 2
Cost-Effectiveness of CO Oxyg.nate Progrea
Mid-Atlantic City • - 4-Month Period
Gasoline Progra. Progra.
Cal. (au. gal.) Cost Total Coat I.n.fit Progra.
Year (4-Mo.) p .r gal. (.illiona) (tons) Cost/Ton
1992 714.9 50.0205 $14.7 66.061 $222
1993 729.5 50.0205 $15.0 63,162 $237
1994 745.9 50.0205 $15.3 61,101 $250
— 1995 764.2 50.0205 $15.7 58,874 $266
1996 783.0 50.0205 $16.1 56,890 5282
1997 803.3 50.0205 $16.5 55,402 $297
1998 825.4 50.0205 $16.9 54,278 $312
1999 848.7 $0.0205 $17.4 52.779 $330
2000 873.3 50.0205 $17.9 53,220 $336
Table 3
Cost-Effectiveness of CO Oxygenate Prograa
West Coast City - 4 Month Control Psriod
Gasoline Progra. Prograa
Cal. (oil. gal.) Cost Total Coat knsfit Progra.
Year (4-Mo.) per gal. (.illiona) (tons) Cost/Ton
1992 314.1 50.0435 $13.7 37,888 $491
1993 321.2 50.0435 $14.0 26,599 $525
1994 328.5 50.0435 $14.3 25,541 . $559
1995 336.5 $00433 $14.6 24,682 $598
1996 344.1 50.0435 $15.0 23,534 $637
1997 353.8 50.0435 $15.4 22,829 $674
1998 363.3 $00435 $158 22,090 $7l
1999 3737 50.0435 $16.3 21411 $739
2000 384.6 50.0435 $16.7 21,506 $778
-------
Figure 1
National Trend in Emissions of Carbon Monoxide
1980 - 1989
Miscellaneous Solid Waste
Fuel Combustion E Transportation
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
CO emissions, million metric tons/year
120
100
80
60
40
20
Industrial Processes
0
1980
1989
-------
Figure 2
Mid-Atlantic Scenario
Thousands of tons, CO
600 Base case
2.7% oxygen
500
400
300
200
100
0 i I - I I I I I I I
1992 .1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
-------
Thousands of tons, CO
200
Figure
3
West Coast
Scenario
Base case
- - - - - — - -- - _
2.7% oxygen
150
100
50
0
I
I
I I
I
I
I
1992
.1993
1994 1995 1996
1997
1998 1999 2000
-------
ppm
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 4
Top 1 ive Monthly 8-Hour CO Concentrations*
hiladeiphia Metropolitan - 1989
* The bars represent the five hLghest daily
J F M A M J
1989
J A
0
N
D
8-hour CO readings within each month.
-------
ppm
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 5
Predicted CO Concentrations with Oxy-Fuels
Effect
Philadelphia Metropolitan -- 1992
* The bars represcht predictions of the five
highest daily 8-hour CO readings within each
1992
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
month.
-------
ppm
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 6
Predicted CO Concentrations with Oxy -Fuels Effect
Philadelphia Metropolitan -- 1995
* The bars represent predictions of the five
highest daily 8-hour CO readings within each
month.
I
1995
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
-------
ppm
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 7
Predicted CO Concentrations with Oxy -Fuels Effect
Philadelphia Metropolitan -- 2000 __
* The bars represent predictions of the five
st daily 8-hour CO readings within each
h.
I
I
J F M A M J A S 0 N D
2000
-------
determined that the proposed
rulemaking does not have sufficient
rederalism implications to warrant the
Preparation of a Federalism
, ssessment,
lJst of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors. Marine Safety. Navigation
(water). Safety Measures, Vessels.
Waterways.
Regulation
In consideration of the foregoing.
subpart C of part 105 of title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as
Follows:
1. The authority citation for part 105
continues to read as follows:
Authority 33 U.S.C. 1225 and 1231; 50
U.S.C. 191:40 CFR 1.48 nd 33 CFR 1.05—1(g).
6.04—i. 8.04-6. and 160.5.
2. A new § 165.T841 Safety Zone:
West Port Arthur Turning Basin. Taylor
l3ayou.
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: West Port Arthur Turning
Basin, Taylor Bayou.
(b) Effective Dote. This regulation
becomes effective on June 24, 1992. It
terminates on February 1. 1993 unless
emergency dredging operations are
completed prior to this date.-
(c) Regulations: (1) In accordance with
e general regulations in § 165.23 of this
Irt. the COTP Port Arthur TiCis
tablishing a safety zone requiring a 36
..ot draft restriction in the West Port
Arthur Turning Basin. No vessel with
greater than a 36 foot draft may traverse
the West Port Arthur Turning Basin.
Dated: June 24. 1992.
Ii. Robinsot,,
Captain. USCC Captain of the Port. Port
Arthur. Texos.
JFK Doc. 92—25308 Filed 10-19—92:8:45 am)
ea.ueic coos is -ia .
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 80
IFRL-4524 -6l
• Notice of Final Oxygenated FueI*
Labeling RegulatIons Under SectIon
211(m) of the Clean Air Act as
Amended . j
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking .
SUMMARY: Section 211(m) of the Clean
Act, as amended by the Clean Air
I Amendments of 1990 (the Act)
uires that various states submit
itions to their State Implementation
Plans, and implement an oxygenated
gasoline program. Section 211(m)(4) of
the Act provides that any person selling
retail oxygenated gasoline pursuant to
these state programs shall be required to
label the fuel dispensing sysiem—in
accordance with EPA regulations—
providing notice that the gasoline is
oxygenated and will reduce motor
vehicle CO pollution. This action
promulgates these labeling regulations.
The oxygenated gasoline program, and
therefore the labeling regulations.
applies to all states with carbon
monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas
having design values of 9.5 ppm or more
based generally on data for 1988 and
1989.’ The lablelng regulations apply to
those retail gasoline pumps located
within the control area of the s(ate
oxygenated gasoline program, and apply
during the period of the year (control
period) covered by the state oxygenated
gasoline program. EPA’s guidance on
control periods by area will be
addressed in a separate Federal Register
notice.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These regulations are
effective on November 19. 1992.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this
rulemaking have been placed in Docket
A—91-04 by EPA. The docket is located
in the Air Docket Section (LE—131). US.
Environmental Pro ectiôn Agency , ’401 M
Street S.W.. Washington. D.C. 20460, in
room M—15a0 Waterside Mall and may
be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon
and from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying docket material.
EPA utilized the Regulatory
Negotiation process developing the
labeling regulations that appeared in the
July 9, 1991 Federal Register. 2 A
separate docket exists for the
Regulatory Negotiation. Materials
related to the Regulatory Negotiation
have been placed in Docket A—91—17 by
EPA.
FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alfonse Manna to. (202) 260—9050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
‘Plea., refer to the “Supplemental Notice or
Proposed Culdance on E ,Isblishment of Control
Periods under Section 211(m) of the Clean Air Act
as Amended, ’ 57 PR 440& 4409 (Februsty 5. 1992p.
Finut guidance on establishment of control period,
will be published shortly
‘58 FR 31151
dispense oxygenated gasoline pursuant
to the requirements of section 211(m) of
the Act. On July 9. 1991 EPA proposed
labeling regulations in the Federal
Register.’ EPA utilized the Regulatory
Negotiation process in the development
of those proposed regulations. This
process is discussed below.
The remainder of this preamble is
divided into three parts. Section Ii
provides background information on
today’s action. Section Ill presents
EPA’S final action and rationale. Section
IV summarizes and addresses comments
received in response to the July 9. 1991
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMJ.
II. Background
Requirements of Section 211(m)
Section 211(m) of the Act requires
states with carbon monoxide
nonauainment areas with design values
of 9.5 parts per million (ppm) or more,
based on data for the two year period of
1989 and 1989,’ to submit revisions to
their State Implementation Plans (SIP’s)
to implement an oxygenated gasoline
program. The state must implement an
oxygenated gasoline program In
specified control areas, requiring
gasoline to meet a minimum oxygen
content of 2.7% by weight, subject to a
testing tolerance established by the
Administrator. As noted above, the
control period guidance will be the
subject of a separate Federal Register
notice.
Section 211(m)(4) aujhorizes the
Administrator to promulgate labeling
regulations for the sale of gasoline at
retail gasoline stations in oxygenated
gasoline control areas. On July 9. F.PA
proposed such labeling regulations. Oti
July 18. 1991. a public hearing was held.
Regulatory Negotiation Process
EPA utilized the Regulatory
Negotiation process to aid in the
development of these regulations. This
process was initiated on February 8,
1991, when EPA announced its intent to
form an Advisory Committee to
negotiate certain guidelines and
proposed regulations implementing the
clean fuels provisions of Section 211 (k)
and (m) of the Act. A public meeting
was held on February 21—22. 1991 in
Washington, D.C. and, after considering
comments submitted in response to the
notice and the results of that public
meeting. an Advisory Committee was
established on March 13. 1991.’ On
‘58 FR 31148 (Julyg. 19911
• .ce footnote I. above.
• 58 FR 31148 (July 9. 1991).
• Sara 5187 (February 5. 1991J.
‘SO FR 105 2 (March 13 1991)
Q/()
Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 203 I Tuesday. October 20, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 47769
Th s notice promulgates EPA s
labeling regulations for certain retail
pumps that dispense oxygenated
gasoline. Under Section 211(m)(4) of the
Act the Administrator is authorized to
promulgate regulations for labeling of
retail fuel dispensing systems which
-------
47770 Federal Register I Vol. 57. No. 203 / Tuesday. October 20. 1992 Rules and Regulations
August 16. 19 Jl. an Agreement in
Principle was sigrtedby members of the
Advisory Committee- That Agreement
embodies the consensus on the part of
the Advisory Committee members on
basic elements of the oxygenated
gasoline and reformulated gasoline
programs. A copy of (he Agreement has
been placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking. The above-referenced
notices contain a more detailed
discussion of the issues referrecf to the
Regulatory Negotiation Advisory
Committee, as well as information on
the requirements of the regulatory
negotiation process.
ill. Description of Today’s Action
Under the labeling regulations issued
today, the gasoline pumps at retail
stations in each control area are to be
labeled. durmg the applicable control
period. with conspicuous labels. Persons
who own, lease, operate, controL or
supervise retail gasoline stations are
responsible for compliance with the
labeling requirements, of this section.
The label must be clearly readable to
the public, in. order to inform the public
of what product ‘it is receiving.
EPA’s labeling regulations require that
each gasoline pump stand at the
affected retail outlets mast- have. during
the control periods, a legible and
conspicuous label stating the following:
The gasoline dispensed [ rain this pump
is oxygenated and will reduce carbon
monoxide pollution from motor vehicles.
This language is proper either for a
per gaflon 2.7% program or for a credit
program requiring a 2.7% average
oxygen content and a minimum oxygen
content for each gallon of gasoline sold
in the control area.
lithe state oxygenated gasoline
program contains a credit program with
no minimum oxygen content
requirement, then the label must state
the following The fuel dispensed from
this pump meets the requirements of the
Clean Air Act as part of a program to
reduce carbon monoxide pollution from
motor vehicles.
This second form of labeling language
is r.ecessary so consumers are not
misled into believing that the purchased
gasoline is oxygenated, when in fact it
lawfuLly may contain no oxygen at all.
This could occur if a state oxygenated
gasoline program contains a credit
program, without requiring a minimum
oxygen content for alt gasoline.’ Under
such a scenario, gasoline with no
oxygen content could legally be sold In
the control area, during the applicable
control period, if it is averaged with
‘A àepar lc Fudq,g R. 1 1ut., namice wiU sddreu
Su dclinti (or averegILl 5 prvgrftn%.
gasoline that has an oxygen content
greater than the standard. EPA has
recommended in its guidelines for credit
programs tbat states adopt a 2.0%
minimum oxygen content in connection
with their credit program.
The first form of the labeling language
is to be used where the state oxygenated
fuel program has a minimum oxygen
content requirement or a per gallon
requirement.
EPA believes each form of these
labels conforms with the requirements
of the Act. They each inform the public
of the beneficial goal of section 211(m}’s
mandated oxygenated gasoline program.
and of reductions in carbon monoxide
emissions from motor vehides.. The
consumes is provided information in a
clear and understandable way, while
minimizing the changes of confusing the
public. -
In order to ensure that this
information Is. legible and made
readable to the public. EPAs Labeling
regulations require that the posting be in
block letters of no less than 20-point
bold type. In the July 9 1991 Notice of
Proposed Rulemakin& EPA had
proposed to require that the posting be
in block letters of no less than 30-point
boLd type.. However, several parties
pointed out that 38-point letters would
be m h too large for this labeL EPA
agrees with this concern arid has
adlusted the required lettering size to 20-
point.
The color of the letters should
contrast with the background upon
which they are placed. The label is to be
placed on the vertical surface of the
pump on each side with gallonage and
dollar aznowit meters.. The label is to be
placed on the upper two-thirds of the
pump. By specifying the placement and
size of the label, EPA seeks to ensure
that it in dearly recognizable and
readable for the public. EPA realizes
that, In some rare cases, the specified
placement of the label required by this
rule may be illogical because of pump
design. EPA anticipates that the
placement specified here will work well
in the vast majority of situations.
However, the Agency is willing to wor c
with parties who experience placement
problems because of pump design. in
order to develop equivalent placements
that are readily visible to consumers.’
IV. Summary of Comments and EPA
Response.
A. Locolion of Lobe is
Continents,- Some commenters
expressed concern that gasoline pumps
are already cluttered with labels. A few
commentere suggested that labels
should be permitted on the gas station
building itself, in a window, or near the
fuel dispensing area. These commenters
expressedconcern that too many labels
may create information “noise.” and
therefore not serve the purpose of
informing consumers.
Response: An oxygenated gasoline
labeling regulation is mandated by the
Clean Air Act and requires the “fuel
dispensing system” to be labeled.
B. Older Pumps
Comment A commenfer pointed out
that older pumps may have glass
covering the upper one-half of the pump.
Some customers may have trouble
reading pump meters if the labels are
.required on the upper one-third of the
pump. The commenter suggests that EPA
allow labeLs to be on the upper two-
thirds of the pump In situations where
placing Labels on the upper one-third
would interfere with • customer . ability
to read the pump meters.
Rerponse. EPA agrees wpth this
concern and has revised the regulation
accordingly.
C. WotrfingofLeLirets
Cozw.aenL- Some conmmeiaters
expressed concern about a label stating.
“The fuel dispensed from. this pump
meets therequiremontaof the Clean Air
Act as part of a program to reduce
carbon monoxide pollution from motor
vehicles. ’ The concern is that such o
label may mislead consumers into
believing that they are p wchmiag
oxygenated gasoline when they may not
be when there Is no minimum oxygen
content requirement in a state credit
program. It has been suggested that
when a gasoline contains 0% oxygen, the
label should not be used on that pump.
EPA specifically requested comments on
this issue in the fuly . 1901 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.
Some commenfers suggested that EPA
should change the word “poLlution ’ to
“emissions” in the labeling language.
Some commenters felt that the control
period should be added to the labeling
language. They believed that ii the
control period is stated on the labels, the
labels can stay on the pumps all year.
Labels would not have to be replaced at
the start of each control period or
removed at the end of the control period.
Response: EPA believes that the
language as originally agreed upon a ’
the Regulatory Negotiation is the most
appropriate language- The Agency feels
that the word “pollution” will be better
understood than the word “emissions”
by the general public. Also if ii is so
desired, a state could add a requirement
to their-oxygenated gasoline program
that the relevent control period be listed
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 203 I Tuesday. October 20. 1992 1 Rules and Regulations
47771
on the label. This would be acceptable
to EPA provided that the statement
required by today s regulations also
appears in its entirety, without
alteration or addition.
0. Labeling with the Type of Oxygcnatc
Cumment: Some commenters are
concerned about users (e.g. civil
aviation, boats) who need to know
whether the oxygenated gasoline they
receive contains ethanol or MTBE.
These commenters ask whether EPA’s
language is meant to substitute for, or be
an additional requirement to. state
labeling regulations.
Response: EPA’s labeling regulation is
not meant to restrict states from
imposing additional informational
requirements. However, the statement
required by today’s regulations must
also appear in Its entirety, without
alteration or addition.
£ Type Size for Labels
CommenL’ Some commenters were
concerned that 30-point type is too large
for the required labels. The statement
required by today’s regulation is
somewhat lengthy and, if it were to be
printed In 30-point type, would take up a
good deal more space than is necessaty
to serve Its purpose. Several parties
suggested 20-poInt type, which Is easily
readable by consumers at the pump.
Response: EPA agrees with this
concern and has revised the type size
accordingly. The label must be printed
in block letters of no less than 20-point
bold type.
V. Environmental Impact
The sale of oxygenated gasoline
reduces carbon monoxide emIssions
from motor vehides and thereby helps
carbon monoxide nonattainment areas
in their efforts to achieve compliance
with the national ambient air quality
standard for carbon monoxide.
Oxygenated gasoline, Is becoming a
widely recognized control strategy for
reducing carbon monoxide emissions
from motor vehicles In a timely and
cost-effective manner. These labeling
regulations will promote consumer
awareness about the beneficial effects
of oxygenated gasoline In the reduction
of carbon monoxide emissions from
motor vehicles.
VI. Public Partidpation
EPA held a public hearing on these
labeling regulations on July 10, 1991.
- .tajor comments and response are
ummanzed in part IV, above. All
;onimcnts have been placed in the
,ublic docket specified In the
‘Addresses” section of this notice.
VII. Impact on Small Entities
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, S U.S C. 001 through 612, whenever
an agency is required to publish a
general notice of rulemaking For any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public contact, a
regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the Impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e. small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). A regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. however, if the
Administrator certifies that the rule will
not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Because the information required to
comply with these labeling regulations
will be supplied to retailers as part of
the normal course of business by
marketers and distributors, EPA
estimates that the only cost of this
regulation to retailers will be the cost of
the label ltseIl. Therefore, the
Administrator certifies that the rule will
not have a substantial effect on small
entities.
VIII, Administrative Designation and
Regulatory Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291, the
Agency must judge whether a regulation
is “major” and thus subject to the
requirement to prepare a regulatory
impact analysis. Today’s rule Is not
major. It will not result in an effect on
the economy of $100 million or more,
will not result In significant increased
costs or prices, will not have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity
and innovation, and will not disrupt
domestic export markets. Therefore the
Agency has not prepared a regulatory
impact analysis under the Executive
Order.
These final regulations were
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) for review as
required by Executive Order No. 12291.
Any written comments received from
0MB and any EPA response to those
comments have been placed in the
public rulemaking docket.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980.44 U.S.C. 3501 ef seq.. and
implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, EPA must obtain clearance from
0MB for any activity that will Involve
collecting substantially the same
information from 10 or more non-Federal
respondents. This rule does not conduct
or sponsor the collection of information.
and is therefore not subject to the
requirement of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
X. Statutory Authority
Authority for today’s action is granted
to EPA by Sections 211 and 301 of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545 and 7601).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 00
Fuel additives. Gasoline. Labeling.
Motor vehicle pollution.
Dated: October 14. 1992,
William K. Reilly.
Administrator.
Part 00 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended to read
as follows:
PART 80—REGULATION OF FUELS
AND FUEL ADDITIVES
1. The authority citation for part 00
continues to read as follows:
Authority’. Sees. 114, 211 and 30 1(a) of the
Clean Air Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7414.
7545, and 7001(a).
2. Section 80.2 Is amended by adding
new paragraphs (pp), (qq). and (rr) to
read as follows:
§ 80.2 Oeflntllons.
a • a a
(pp) Control area means a geographic
area In which only oxygenated gasoline
under the oxygenated gasoline program
may be sold or dispensed. with
boundaries determined by Section
211(m) of the Act.
(qq) Control period means the period
during which oxygenated gasoline must
be sold or dispensed In any control area,
pursuant to Section 211(m)(2) of the Act.
(ri) Oxygenated gasoline means
gasoline which contains a measurable
amount of oxygenate.
3. New subpart C consisting of
§ § 80.35 thru 60.39 is added as follows:
Subpart C—Oxygenated Gasoline
Sec. 80.35 LabelIng of retail gasoline pumps:
oxygenated gasoline,
Secs. 80.38-00.39 [ Reecrved.l
§ 80.35 Labeltng of retail gasotine pumps;
oxygenated gasoline.
(a) For oxygenated gasoline programs
with a minimum oxygen content per
gallon or minimum oxygen content
requirement in conjunction with a credit
program. the following shall apply:
(1) Each gasoline pump stand from
which oxygenated gasoline Is dispensed
at a retail outlet In the control area shall’
be affixed during the control period with
a legible and conspicuous label which
contains the following statement: The
gasoline dispensed from this pump Is
oxygenated and will reduce carbon
monoxide pollution from motor vehicles
-------
47772 Federal Register I Vol . 57. No. 203 / Tuesday, October 20, 1992 I Rules and_Regulations
(2) The posting of the above statement
shall be in block letters of no less than
20-point bold type; in a color r.ontrasting
with the intended background The label
shall be placed on the vertical surface of
the pump on each side with gallonage
and price meters and shall be on the
upper two-thirds of the pump, clearly
readable to the public.
(3) The retailer shall be responsible
for compliance with the labeling
requirements of this section.
( 14 For oxygenated g solir.e programs
with a credit program and no minimum
oxygen conteni requirement, the
following shall apply:
(1) Each gasoline pump stand from
which oxygenated gasoline is dispensed
at a retail outlet in the control area shalt
be affixed during the control period with
a legible and conspicuous label which
contains the following statement: The
fuel dispensed from this pump meets the
requirements of the Clean Air Act as
part of a program to reduce carbon
monoxide pollution from motor vehicles.
(2) The posting of the above statement
shall be in block letters of no less than
20-point bold type: in a color contrasting
with the intended background. The label
shall be placed on the vertical surface of
the pump on each side with gallonage
and price meters and shall be on the
upper two-thirds of the pump, clearly
readable to the public.
(3) The retailer shall be responsible
for compliance with the labeling
requirements of this section.
(FR Doc. 92—25399 Filed 1O-19-02 8:45 amJ
BiWWG COOC Isis-SO-U
40 CFR Part 268
(FRL—4524—5J
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Land Disposal Restrictions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Approval of Interim Final
Hazardous Soil Case-By-Case Capacity
Variance.
SUMMARY: In the final rule’ establishing
land disposal restrictions (LDR) for
Third Third hazardous wastes, EPA
granted a national capacity variance for
those hazardous soils whose best
demonstrated available technology
(BDAT) was incineration. retorting, or
vitrification, as well as for soils
contaminated with radioactive mixed
waste, due to a lack of treatment
capacity. Approximatdly 73 percent of
the wastes restricted from land disposal
by the Third Third rule received the
national capacity variance when they
were contained in soils. The national
capacity variance expired on May 8,
1992.
Whde the var:ancc was in effect. CPA
received information from generators of
hazardous otls and trade associations
indicating that there would not be
sufficient treatment capacity for
hazardous soils when the variance
expired on May 8. 1992. In response to
this information, EPA gathered data to
determine whether treatment capacity is
available for hazardous soils to which
the national capacity variance applied.
and, if not. to determine the reasons that
it is not available. information obtained
from various companies and trade
associations indicated that a shortage of
treatment capacity for hazardous soils
continues to exist, for reasons beyond
their control.
Under 40 CFR 268.5. EPA is approving
an interim final case-by-case extension
of the LDR effective date, to May 8. 1993.
applicable to all persons handling Third
Third hazardous soils whose UDAT is
either Incineration, retorting. or
vitrification, or handling Third Third
soils contaminated with radioactive
mixed waste. No further applications
will be required at this time from
persons granted the extension by this
action. However, EPA Is requiring such
persons to do certain recordkeeping, and
to meet certain other requirements to
qualify for the extension.
DATES: This action becomes effective on
October 13, 1992 and expires on May 8,
1993. Comments on this action must be
submitted on or before November 19.
1992.
AOORESSE& Any person wishing to
comment on this interim final variance
must send an original and two copies of
their comments to the EPA RCRA
Docket (OS—305), room 2427, U.s.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW., Washington. DC 20460.
Place the docket number F—9Z-CDZP—
Ft it on all copies of the comments.
The docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. except on
Federal holidays. The public must make
an appointment to review docket
materials by ceiling (202) 260—9327. Tht
public may copy a maximum of 100
pages from any document in the docket
at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.20
per page.
FOR FURTHER tNFORMATION CONTACT:
For general Information contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424—9346 toll—free
or (703)920—9810 locally. For
information on specific aspects of this
notice, contact Nicholas R. Vizzone,
Analysis and Land Disposal Restrictions
Section. Capacity Programs Branch (OS—
321W). Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW. Washington DC 20460. (703)
308-8477.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:.
Outline
I. Background -
A. History
Ii Revised Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Soils
II. Iustificati n for thu Extension
A. Demonstration under 40 CFR 26R S
B. Consultation With the States
C Conclusion
III. Requirements for this Extension
I. Background
A. H,story
Congress enacted the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of
1984. which amended the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Among other things. HSWA
required EPA to develop regulations that
would impose, on a phased schedule.
restrictions on the land disposal of
hazardous wastes. In particular,
sections 3004(d), (e). and (g) of RCRA (2
USC 6924 (0), (e), and (g)) prohibit the
land disposal of all wastes identified or
listed as hazardous as of November
1984, unless the wastes are treated (or
meet treatment standards) In a manner
that “substantiaLly diminish(es) the
toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce(s) the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste
so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized.” That alternative to
satisfying these treatment standards is
disposal in a unit from which there will
be no migration of hazardous
constituents for as long as the waste
remains hazardous.
In developing such a broad program,
Congress recognized that adequate
alternative treatment. recayery, or
protective disposal capacity might not
be available by the applicable effective
dates. Therefore, section 3004(h)(2)
authorized EPA to grant a national
capacity variance (based on the earliest
date that such capacity would be
available but not to exceed two years)
that delays the effective date for new
treatment standards. En addition, under
section 3004(h)(3), EPA can grant an
extension of the deadline on a case-by-
case basis for one year (renewable for
one additional year): however,
variances are limited to a four year time
period from the effective date.
On June 1. 1990. EPA published a final
rule (55 FR 2.2520) establishing
prohibitions and treatment standards for
wastes in the final third of scheduled
prohibitions. Among other things. the
-------
—
UNrT’ED S
) 1 IORANDUX
SVBTECT:
TO:
PROM;
I//th i
ar
0 s$ .z, ;-2-3 r s s
l 70 -.2--3c g3
-
r
I,tl , ccrcac
IVI U U J GRALcO .J S 5.
Requirements for Reduced RVP in Stats Maintenance Plans
William L. MacDowell , Chief
Regulation Development Section
Air and Radiation Division, Region 5
Michael Horowitz
Office of General Counsel
Air and Radiation Division
I Thi . memorandum is ii response to the memorandum that you
sent to Jan Tierney, Paul Argyropolous and myself regarding the•
likelihood that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
would approve a state maintenance plan for a particular ozone
nonattairuiient area where the stats requires that gasoline and
alcohol related fuels sold in the area hays a lower volatility
(Reid Vapor Pressure — RVP) than is required under f.d.rai Clean
Air Act regulations. This issue arose becBuse the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) has announced its
intention to request that the Dayton moderate ozone nonattainment
area be redesignated a. attainment. The redseignation requ.st!s
10-year IDaintenance plan, as currently drafted, requires the use
of fuels with RVP of 7.8 psi or lover. This requirement is more
stringent than the 9 • 0 psi federal RVP standard that is in effect
for the Dayton area. -.
Stat. apd local governments are generally preempted under
section 2l14j (4) of the Clean Air Act (W) from requiring a
lower RVP ard for gasoline and alcohol fuels than that
mandated Section 211(c) (4) forbids any state except
california- adopting or enforcing any control or prohibition
respecting am j characteristic or component of a fuel for purpoess
of motor vehicle control if EPA has promulgated a control or
prohibition applicable to such characteristic or component under
C1 section 211(c) (1), unless the stats control or prohibition is
identical to EPA’s regulations. As the federal RVP standa.ds
were promulgated under section 211(c) (1) (as veil as section
211(h) ) , tbe general prohibition applies to state RVP controls.
p, ta ànsmtttaimemO75?1 frip91 ’ . (4 )
Vl
Pdrdcd .i R,cjckdPuitir
TOO
NOISIAIa 1TY 3 O 9U0 09i ZOZ
ZO:Rt 28/U/ZO
-------
However, an. exception to the general prohibition on state
and local governments exists under CM section 211(c) (4) (C). A
state may implement a more stringent RVP requirement if an -
applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the state provides
for such fuel control. EPA may approve such a SIP provision
where EPA finds that the stats control is necessary to achieve
the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), in this case,
for ozone. The EPA has approved SIP provisions for RVP controls
in several instances where states have shown that such controls
were necessary to achieve attainment in ozone nonattainment
areas. In addition, EPA ha9, on occasion, approved plans
providing for statewide RVP control in attainment and
nonattainment areas where the state demonstrated that the
statewide RVP control was necessary to achiev, the NAAQS in
nonattainment areas within the stats and/or in neighboring
states. EPA approval of Revisions to th. state
implementation plans for ozone for New York (54 FR 26O3O, une
21, 1989) and New 3ersey (54 FR 25572, uns 16, 1989). All
- previous SIP approvals were premised on a shoving that the RVP -
reduction wai necessary to achieve the ozone WAAQS in azi reá
that was currently not in attainment.
In the Ohio situation, hpwever, your memorandum indicates
that,. the Dayton area has already achieved attainment without the
use ‘of the lower RVP standard. OEPA wishes to implement the
lower standard not to achieve -the ozone NAAQS, but merely to
provide an emissions growth margin to facilitate economic growth
while maintaining the NAAQS in Dayton.
There is considerable question as to whether EPA can approve
a state maintenance plan that includes a requirement for low RVP
gasoline in an area that has already reached attainment without
the lower RVP standard. The language of section 211(c) (4) states
that EPA cah approve SIPs containing a fuel provision different
from the comparable federal provision only where the SIP
• provision is necessary to j j compliance with a NAAQS.
• Section 211(c) (4) doss not stat. that EPA can approve such a
provision if it is necessary to intiin coapliancs with the
• NMQS. The word achievement (or the synonymous word attainment)
refers to the reaching of a goal that would occur at a specific
- moment in time. Xaint.nance, however, is an ongoing process that
begins cnc. ç 4evem.nt has occurred. The general usag, of the
- two words, t •fore, indicates that achievement cannot be
presumed t 1ude maintenance.
• )foreov other sect ions of the Clean Air Act use pbrases
like achisv. and meintainN the NAAQS or i.mpleaent and aaintain
the NMQS, indicating that Congress understood that maintenance
and achievement were not synonymous and that Congress
specifically identified maintenanc, wher, it intended to include
maintenance. For example, section 110 of the Act contains
several references to “implementation, maintenance and
—2 —
oo
NolsiAle zzv 3 O
liSO 09Z gog ZO: T 56/U/ZO
-------
enforcement” of the NMQS standards
distinguishes bet wan contribution I
interferenc, with maintenance. In
of the Clean Air Act, prior to the C
1990, required any SIP to contain ar
necessary to assure that national a
ar. achieved and maintained.” secti
Act Amendments of 1990 refers to acI
WAAQS. Further, the CM, as amended
that specifically deals with mainte
clear that Congress was aware of thi
attainment and maintenance. Congro
included a reference to maintenance
it wished to allow stat, fuel requi
requirements are necessary for main
It is. however, possible that I
under section 211(c) (4) (C) was *ininl
statement from Congress in the 1egi
that they intSntionally precluded t
such provision, were necessary to mi
legislative history is silent regard
language of section 211Cc) (4) (C) to
addition, when section 110(a) (2) CD)
was replaced by section 110(a) (2) (C
were not included in the new sectie
provides no indication as to vhethe
making a significant revision to thi
did not appear to consider the two
different. (The Senate version of
contained the phrase “achieved and
of Representatives version containe 1
The House version of this section Wl
in conference for the final bill.
word “maintain” was not discussed,
HOuse report or in the Conference r 1
at least some inferential evidence I
the exclusion of the word “maintain
on the meaning of a section of the
evidence do.. not appear sufficient
“necessary. to achieve,” as used in
maintenance, in light of the evidan
above.
Section 110(a) (2) (D) (i) (I)
0 nonattaLnment and
ddition, section 110(a) (2) CD)
lean Air Act Amendments or
enforcement plan “as
bient air quality standards
on 815(b) (2) of the Clean Air
jevement and maintenance of
contains a section 175k
aries plans. Therefore, it is
distinction between
s could have, therefore,
in section 211(c) (4) (C) had
sment. where such
enance of the standard.
he exclusion of maintan nce
entional There is nd 1ear
lative history to indicate
ate fuel provisions v er.-
iintain compliance. The
ling why Congress limited the
“nec!essary to achieve”. In
of the p e-1990 Clean Air Act
, th. words ‘and maintained’
i, yet the legislative history
Congress believed it was
i section. In fact, Congress
ers ions to be substantially
hi. section in the amendments
taintained,” while the House
I only the word “achieved.”
is accepted without discussion
he, decision to discard the
,r even noted, in either the
port.) Therefore, there is
that Congress did not consider
to have a substantial effect
tatute • Howevsr, this
to justify interpreting
211(c) (4) (C), to include
a to the contrary discussed
in the abstract, ould accept a state
maintenance plan that required gasc me to hay, lower RVP than
the RVP required under the federal tandaxd (which, -for the
reasons discussed above, appears ii robable), the facts in
Daytnm’a case, a. you have describi L them in your letter, would
appear to preclude Dayton from succ sefully making a showing of
n.cessity. Dayton has achieved attainment without the *ise of
lower RVP fuel and it intends to implement several other control
coo,,
H0ISIAT’ IV ?O0
gesO 09Z O& . £0:QT 6/U/ O
-------
measures to maintain the. standard. You state that a maintenance
plan could be prepared without assuming the use of low-RVP fuel.
Given these facts, EPA could not approve Dayton’s maintenance
plan f it included a requirement for low-RVP fuel. Therefore,
it is highly unlikely that EPA would approve Dayton’s maintenance
SIP if it includes a provision to lower the standard for fuel
volatility below the federal standard.
This determination does not apply to a situation where a
former nonattainment area has achieved NMQS compliance with the
help of a preexisting (and preappreved) requirement for low RYP
gasoline and includes the low RVP requirement in its maintenance
plan. Where EPA approves a state implementation plan that
includes a lower RVP standard to achieve compliance in’ a
nonattainment area, and where such nonattainment area
subsequently attains the NAAQS with the help of the lower RVP
standard, EPA would not be required to rsconsid.r the lower RVP
st. - ard in acting on the xedesignation request. EPA ha& 1ready
ap v.d the state RVP standard as being necessary to achieve , -
atta..nment and the continuation of the standard in a aatht.nanc e
plan does not compromise the initial determination. In tact, the
maintenance plan provision of the CAA, section 175A, requires SIP
measures to be included as implemented maintenance measures or,
at a iini uni, to be included in the state’s contingency plan for
the ,area.
In addition, vherC WI? is not a measure in the existing SIP,
the state may be able to includ, the low RVP requirement as a
contingency measure in its redesignation request. The
maintenance plan containing such a contingency measure would need
to include several things with respect to such a contingency
measure. First, in th. maintenance plan, the state would need to
provide that if the former noitattainment area ever fell back into
nonattainment, the state would submit a request to EPA to find,
under section 211 (c) (4) (C), that the RVP requirement is necessary
for the area to achieve the ozone NAAQS. Second, since the
implementation of a lower RVP would rely upon EPA’s determination
of whether it was necessary to achieve attainment, the state
would need to provide for the possibility that a lower RVP could
not be implemented. To do so, the state would need to provide
for a backup- measure in the maintenance plan. The maintenance
plan could go include a commitment to adopt, as an alternative
to the sps ft d measure, measures identified by EPA as
practicab3 its denial of the state’. request for a lower RVP -
requiremen the state chooses to adopt a.a ures specified by
EPA and EPA ha. provided several options for acceptable measures,
the state must adopt the requisite number of these measures as is
necessary to again achieve the standard. The stat. would need to
irciude a schedule for snbi (tta1 of the section 211(c) (4) (C)
xQ. 1est to EPA and a schedule for final adoption and
in d utation of a lower RVP standard, or the back-up measure,
or the alternative measures. The schedule would need to be tied
—4—
IS O OU oZ@ eo:IT 6/U/ZO
-------
to the triggering event for the contingency measure, not EPA’S
action on the 211(c) (4) (C) request.
The following is an example of how this process would work.
t7pon the specified triggering event (e.g., a violation of the
standard) the State would submit the 211(c) (4) (C) request to EPA
within the specified tame frame. The request wo3ald -have to
include the information required for a showing of n.ce*sity.
(The request should note the reasons why the backup measure is
uneasenabls or impracticable.) The EPA would determine as
expeditiously as practicable whether the lover RVP standard was
necessary to achieve compliance.... If EPA determines that the
lover standard is necessary, thtn the lower RVP standard would
need to be implemented in the Dayton area within the time from.
specified in the maintenance plan However, if EPA determined
that the lower RVP standard is not necás.ary because other
reasonable and practicable m.ssures.sxist, then the state_would
have to implement the other sea sure. identified by EPA aI
practicable to achieve the standard or implement the identified
backup in the time specified in the maintenance plan. 4inally ,
if EPA was unable to make a final section 211(c) (4) (C)
determination befor. the time identified in the maintenanc, plan
for implementation of a contingency measure to promptly correct
the violation, the state would need to implement the back - up
measur. at that time.
I hape this information is helpful in providing your
response to OEPA. If you have any further questions, please call
me at (202) 260—8883.
t OISIAIa UT 3 0 USO O9 ZOZ Z/ZO
-------
ç O St 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
4 L pç i Y
3
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Memorandum from Region IV on Lowering Gasoline RVP
Standards below 7.8 psi
FROM: Michael Horowitz, Attorney y’ tj
Air and Radiation Division I
TO: Al Mannato, Chief
Field Operations & Support Division
Regional/State/Local Coordination Section
You have asked for my guidance regarding a memorandum sent
to you by Kay Prince from Region 4. The memorandum contained six
questions regarding whether and to what extent state governments
can reduce (or ask the Agency to reduce) the standards for
volatility (Reid Vapor Pressure - RVP) of gasoline and alcohol
blend fuels in their states. The following memorandum provides
responses to Ms. Prince’s questions.
Question 1 : What areas can lower their RVP below 7.8 [ psi]?
Response : There are two methods for the volatility standard in an
area to be reduced below the current federal volatility standard.
Under the first method, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) would revise its national regulations for volatility.
Under the second method, a state would implement its own
requirements for a more stringent volatility standard and then
revise its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to reflect the more
stringent standard. Both of these methods require that the state
make significant showings regarding the need f or a more stringent
standard and other critical issues.
(a) Revision of National Volatility Standards .
Section 211(h) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) states that
EPA’s national regulations for volatility under section 211(h)
cannot mandate a volatility standard below 9.0 psi in any
attainment area, unless such attainment area was formerly a
nonattainment area. Therefore, EPA cannot promulgate a
-------
volatility standard under section 211(h) that requires gasoline
volatility to be below 9.0 psi in any attainment area that has
never been a nonattainment area. Moreover, EPA is not likely to
tighten its volatility regulations in any area that is currently
in attainment (even if it was at one time out of attainment) if
the area is meeting the national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for ozone using more volatile fuel.
EPA could require a rionattainment area to lower its RVP
below 7.8 psi, but section 211(h) requires EPA to show that the
lower RVP is necessary to generally achieve comparable
evaporative emissions in nonattainment areas, taking into account
enforceability, the need for emission control, and economic
factors. EPA’s initial regulation used meteorological data to
determine what the volatility standards for nonattainment areas
should be to achieve comparable emissions. Revision of these
standards for a single area would therefore likely be based at
least partly on additional meteorological data.
b. Revision Incorporated Into State Implementation Plan
State governments are generally preempted under Clean Air
Act section 211(c) (4) (A) from requiring that any or all areas in
a state meet a more stringent volatility standard than the
federal standard. 1 However, a state can require a more
stringent standard in its SIP if the state can show under section
211(c) (4) (C) that the more stringent standard is necessary to
achieve the NAAQS for ozone in a particular nonattainment area. 2
The state can make this showing by providing evidence that no
other measures exist that would bring about timely attainment, or
that such measures exist and are technically possible to
implement, but are unreasonable or impracticable. If a state
makes this showing, it can lower the volatility to whatever
standard has been shown to be necessary in the rionattainment
areas.
Moreover, a state can also reduce the volatility standard in
any or all attainment areas in the state; however, the state must
first show that such stringent standards are necessary in the
attainment area(s) for nearby nonattainment area(s) to achieve
the NAAQS for ozone. While this showing may not be difficult for
1 EPA’s federal standards were promulgated under both
section 211(c) and section 211(h). States are generally
preempted under section 2 11(c) (4) (A) from requiring fuel
standards that are more stringent than federal standards
promulgated under section 211(c).
2 This memorandum does not address whether a state may
also require a more stringent standard as part of a maintenance
or contingency plan for a former nonattainment area.
—2—
-------
an attainment area that is in the same metropolitan area as a
nearby nonattai nment area, it is more difficult to make such a
showing for an attainment area that is a considerable distance
from the nearest nonattainment area. Thus, statewide reduction
in volatility levels may be difficult in states with large areas
that are in attainment and are far from nonattainment areas.
However, it should be noted that the EPA approved New York
state’s statewide volatility regulations, which were more
stringent than the federal standards for the state, because EPA
found that New York was able to show that the more stringent
standards were required for the whole state. The final approval
noted that several counties had experienced ozone problems and
that emissions in New York could affect ozone levels in western
New England, which also had experienced ozone problems. Also,
the approval noted that the statewide program was necessary to
ensure compliance with the program in all upstate and downstate
nonattainment areas. EPA also approved similar statewide
regulations for New Jersey and, I believe, Connecticut. •The
federal register notices approving the New York and New Jersey
SIP provisions are attached to this memorandum.
Question 1 asks which areas can lower their RVP below 7.8.
The state may lower RVP in any area to below 7.8 psi if it can
show in the state implementation plan that the standard requested
is necessary to achieve the ozone NAAQS.
question 2 : What is necessary to demonstrate that lowering the
RVP is necessary to achieve the standard and/or other measure(s)
are unreasonable and impracticable?
Response : I have attached the rulemaking notices that provide
EPA’s approval of New York, New Jersey and Maricopa County,
Arizona SIP revisions that required more stringent volatility
standards in those states or counties. These notices should be
illustrative of the showing that is necessary to demonstrate
necessity. Basically, the approach used in those areas was to
review all possible reduction from all other reasonable control
measures. If, after accounting for such reductions, RVP controls
are still required to achieve the standard, then the RVP controls
are necessary under section 211(c)(4)(C). EPA did not interpret
section 211(c) (4) (C) to require that a state impose more drastic
measures, such as driving prohibitions, before it could adopt
fuel control regulations. The revision of section 211(c) (4) (C)
in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (adding the language that
allowed a showing of necessity if other measures exist but are
unreasonable or impracticable) indicated Congress’s agreement
with this approach.
question 3 : Under what circumstances can attainment areas lower
their RVP?
Response : See the response to Question 1.
—3—
-------
Question 4 : Can attainment areas lower their RVP through state
regulation and not make it federally enforceable?
Response : The effect of preemption under section 2 11(c) (4) is
that a state may only lower its RVP standard through a revision
to its SIP. SIPs are, by definition, federally enforceable.
Therefore, any reduction in RVP through state standards must be
federally enforceable.
question 5 : If a State passes a state law lowering the RVP to
any level, and is submitted/approved as a SIP revision making it
federally enforceable will the FOSD enforcement team enforce the
lower RVP?
Response : This question is most appropriately answered by FOSD.
However, it is my understanding that FOSD will not take the
primary role in enforcing state laws reducing RVP standards.
Such enforcement will be left to the state government that passed
the law. However, FOSD is not precluded from enforcing the state
law and may decide to increase its enforcement efforts if state
enforcement efforts are not sufficient.
Question 6 : What are the prbcedures to amend (the) December 12,
1991 Federal Register notice on RVP to lower the RVP requirements
from 9.0 to 7.8 (psi]. Can a State take credit for this
reduction in (its) Reasonable Further Progress 15% plan?
Answer : The December 12, 1991 federal register notice explains
the procedure for state requests to lower the federal volatility
standard in nonattainment areas. (The federal standard generally
may not be reduced from 9.0 psi in attainment areas.) In
summary, the state must request such a revision by a letter from
the governor. The request must contain information sufficient to
show that such a revision is “necessary to generally achieve
comparable evaporative emissions (on a per-vehicle) basis) in
nonattainment areas, taking into consideration the enforceability
of such standards, the need of an area for emission control, and
economic factors.”
A state may not take credit for a reduction in the federal
volatility standard in the state’s Reasonable Further Progress
15% reduction plan. Section 182(b) (1) (D) of the Act clearly
states that regulations concerning RVP promulgated by the
Administrator by the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 or required to be promulgated under section
211(h) are not creditable toward the 15 percent reduction.
I hope this information is helpful in providing your
response to Region 4. If you have any further questions, please
call me at (202) 260—8883.
—4—
-------
16/24/93 16:26 fliP PPO6R( MS - fliP ENFORCEMENT
1
1I ?
UNITED SlATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
e, REGION IV
345 COURTLANO STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. G OROIA 3O3G
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Lowering Gaaoline’s Reid Vapor Pressure below 7.8.
From: Kay Prince, Section Chief
Regulatory Planning and Development Section
ir Programs Branch
Air, Pesticide, and Toxics Management Division
To: Al Mannato, Chief
R/S/L Coordination Sbction
Included are questions concerning the issue of lowering.RVP below
what is required by the December 12, 1991 RVP rule and the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990. Some of the States in our region are
evaluating new options that can be included In their attainment
strategies, and a prompt answer will certainly be beneficial to
them. .
1. What areas canlower their RVPbelow 7.87
2. What is necessary to demonstrate that lowering the’ RVP is
necessary to achieve the standard and/or other.•m aaure
are unreasonable and impractical?
3. Under what circumotances can attainment areae 1ower
their RVP?
- . - . .A,;,.
- - I
4. Can attainment areas lowerS their RVP- through- a sta te
regulation: and not make it federally enf rceabie fl ij ,i
I — —.. ,u j s
5. If a State passea a state law lowering the RV n
level, and is submitted/approved as a SIP revia .on making
it federally enforceable will, the FOSD anforcement4 team
enforce thelower RVP? , ‘
6. What are the procedures to amend December .l2 Y ’l99l
Federal Regieter Notice on RVP to lower
requiremepte from 9 • 0 to 7.8. / Can a State take credit
for this eduction in their Reasonable Further Progress
15% ’p1an? -
OPTIONAL FORJ 4 ft
—
-------
05/L4/91 L0:1$ 202ZI0&392
OCC- AR D lvi ..
Federal Register / Vol. 60. l 4o. 21. I Wednesday. February 1, 1003 1 Rules and R gi1l tions
6027
rcason.ihleness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its
actions concerning SIP’s on such
grounds. Union Electrftco.v. U.S.-EPA.
427 U.S. Z46. 255 6 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
This action has been classified as a
Table 2 action for signature b the
Regional Administrator under the
procedures published in the Federal
Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR
9214—2225), as revised by an October 4.
1993 memorandum from Michael H.
Shapiro. Acting M nstanL Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The 0MB has
exempted this regulatory action from.
CO. ] , 8U8 review.
Under section 307(bXlJ of The Clean
Air Act. petitions for judicial review of
this action approving twenty VOC.
RACT regulations for West Virgtnia
must be filed in theUnfted States Court
of Appeals for tIre Appropriate clcuft by
April 3. 1995. Filing petition. for
reconsideration by the Adminis ator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the tints
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed. and shall not
postpone thn effathveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See Saclion
307(bl(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CYR Part 52
Environmental protection. Air
pnhiution control. Hydrocarbons.
Incorporation by reference.
Intergovernntcntal relations. Ozone.
Reporting and recordkeeplng
requirornents.
Dated: November 10.1994.
Stanley L. I.askswskh
•icfingflcgionclAdminlslro lor. Rc Mn III.
40 CFR pan 321s amendbd aefollows
PART 52—fAMENOFO]
1. The authority citation for part 32..
continues to read as follow.:
AuthorIl r. 47 U.S.C 7401-7871q.
Subpart XX—W ,st Virginia
• 2. Section 52. 52O is amended by:
adding a sentence to the beginning of.
paragraph (c)(23) Introductory ext. and
by adding paragraph (c)(33) to reed as
follows:
§ 52.2520 identifIcatIon of plan.
• • . • .
rules contained in paragraph (‘:)(3 ) of certified low emitting vehicles iii
this section.’ • • . Massachusetts be . .izg;with model
• • . • . sear 1993. Furthit .ofl 14gj .;1 ..1g94,tho
(33) Ro isjons to the w t . ommonwèaj fliidlb notjfled EPA
State Implementation Plan submitted of its decision to si bstinit.
August 12. 1993 by the West Virginia Massachusctts’,veyslon o(the California
Department of Commerce. Labor & Low Emission Vehicle (MA LEV)
Environmental . Program for thi CleanFliel Fleet ( F)
(I ) Incorporation by reference. Program as provided for. iii section
(A) Letter of August 10, 1993 from the 1Il2(C)(4)(B) Ofthä.Cle t Air Act (CAA).
West Virginia Department of Commerce. DATES: This final rule is effective on
Labor & Environmental Resources Apr11 3. loos unless advsrs or critical
transmitting Title 45 LegislatIve Rules, commentsare racuivedby .March 3,
Series 21. Regulation to Prevent and 1905. in which case tho.rule will be
Control Air Pollution from Emis.cion of withdrawn. If the rule is withdrawn.
Volatile Organic Compounds. timely notice wiLl bepu6lished in Lii ,
(B) Title 45 LegIsl tIve Rules. Series Federal Ragiutsr
21. Regulatlqn to Prevent and Control ADOflSUS Continents maY be mat1 d to
Mr Pollution from Emiuion of Volatile. Linda M. Murnhy. DirV*, 1or, Air.
Organic Compounds. sctiOfls 1. 2. 3.4. Pesticides and Toxict.Managament
5.6, 7 8.9.11.12,14,13.16,17,18. DIvision. U.S .EnvIronm y sl Protection
.19. 21, 22. 23, 24. 25.26,27. 28, 29. 31.. Agency. Region 1. JF C Federal Building,
36. 39. 41. 42. 43. 44.45. 46.47. nd 48. Boston. MA. 02203.Coples of the
and Appendix A. which wars adopted documents.relevnnt là thisaction are
May 26. 1993 and effectIve July ‘. 1993. available for public Inspection during.
(ii) Additional material. . normal business hoqis, by. appointment
(A) Remainder of August 10. 1993 at the Air. Pesticides ahd Toxlcs
State submittal pertaining to the rules Management Divisidn.U.S.
referenced In paragraph (c)(33)fi) of this -Environmental Pot ctioiiAgenq .
section. . .. Region E One Congri si Street. 10th..
(iii) Additional inforotation. . . floor, Boslon..MAOnOd: Air and.
(Al The rules in this paragraph (i:1133) Radiation Docket and. Information
supersede the rules contained In Ceiuer, U.S. Environmental Protection ..
paragraph (c)(28) of this section. Agelicy. 401 M Stzut S W, (LE—13 1).
Washington, DC 20450i and the DIvision.
IFR Dec. .s—1 toe Piled 1-31-95; &4S smj of Air Quality ControL Department of
I L COOl 5P15f Protection; One Wiiit r
Street. 8th floor Boston, MA 02108.
40 CFR Part 52 Foq FURThER IIIFORMAT1ON COSITACT
Dainlen I lou Iihan..(61 .7). 585—3266.
(MA38—1—4fl2a A—1—FRI.-.6136—Tl :
SLIP LEMSIITARY 0IFOthuT!CN:
Approval and Promulgation of Air Bacb . d -
Qua llty.lmp(emenfation Plans; Soction 182(cU4XA) blthe Clean Air
Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
Subailtutlon of the California t.ow Act requires .ceñain States. Includingi..
CmIsslán Vehicle PrOgram for the . Massachusetts. ;o submit a Stats
Clean Fuel Fleet Program implemcnrntion Plan (SIP) rsvi ion that
Includes measure, to implement the
• AGENCY: Environmental Prutection Cleaum Fltel Fleet Program (CFFP). Under
Agency (EPA). this program: a certain.spec lfled
£CtIOlft Direct final . percentage of vehicles, purchased by
flt operators for covered fleets must
meet emission st hda1ds that are more
sLrtngcnL than those thai apply to
conventional vehl4eó. Covered fleets
are defined ag (leets of 10 or m.or.
vehIcles thataro centrally fueled or
capoble of being csntrallyl aeled. The.
program applies to 1998. a id later model
year vehicles In thi entire.
Commonweo Mas c useitswhich
is compris dof wd,sepa ale
nonaueipmeuc areas: Section ..
182(c )(4UB)of be Aét aflciwsitateti.us
out ’of the CJöFizelFleut ..
Program by submittifig tg EPA approval
a SiP revision conslst(ng oil program or
programs that will rdsuttin at least
SUMMARY: in this action, the
Environmental ProtectIon Agency is.
announcing approval of the State
ImpleiJeniation Plan submitted by the
Commonwealth of Maomr.h.useiis for the
purpose of meeting the requirement to
submit tho Clean Fuel Fled I rogram or
a substituts program that meets the
requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA
Is approving the State s plans rot
implementing a substitute program to
opt out of the Clean Fuel Fleet program.
On November 13, 1993. the
(c i • Commortw alth of Massachusetts
(25) As of July 7.1993 the rules in this rormaily submitted a revision to their
paragraph (c)(25) are superseded by the SIP to require the sal of California
-------
05/24/95 10:19 20226O&392
OGC-CL4R Divis.
r o2a Federal Re Ister / Vol. 60. No. 21 /_Wednosday.Fcbruary 2, 1995 / Xulcs and Regulation.
ec1ui’ a1ent long term reductions tn
o’.ona producing ai,d’to ic air emissio is
ç :p would.
In a ordance with section 1t 2fc)(4).
thc Cnmrnonweafth of Massachusetts
uhrnined a commitmeln to either adopt
id submit a Clean Fuel Fleet Program
I’r n rquivalent substitute program.
was suhniued for parallel
processing on November 13. 1992. nd
a formal request was s bmittod on May
7. I I93 . EPA proposed conditional
approval of Massachusetis ar.tlnn on
June 7. 1993 ( i8 3192n). However.
prior to fInal EPA action on
Massachusetts commitment. the Cnu,i
of Appeals for the DisIj iCt of Coumblo
held thet EPA ’s conditional approval
policy was contrary to law. The cowl
held that a base commitment from a
state was not cuffident to weirant
conditional approval from EPA under
section 110(k)(4) of the Act. NflDCv.
EPA. 22 F.3c1 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
Tliwrv1 r . EPA could not take flrtal
artion on Massachusetts’ commiuneni.
In faahlornng a remedy for EPA;
improper use of its conditional epproyal
authority, the court did not want states
to be penalized for their reasonable
r fl cc on EPAs actions.
Massachusetts submitted a commitment
to adopt a ubsihuta for the CPFP by
May 13. 1994. in rellence on EPA
iiiJanco. and the Commonwealth
fulfilled that commitment by adopting
arid submitting the w Emission.
Vehicle (LEV) program regulations on
May 11. 1994. Therefore. EPA does not
belicv that Massachuretis should lose
its ability to opt-out of the FFPbocouse
of EPA s improper use of Its conditional
approval authority. 1’A is today taking
athon on Massachusetts suhsnisidons of
November 15. 1993 and May 11. 1094.
whic h ate intonded to substitute MA
I.EV (or the CIT program.
ilie Act niqilires states to ohsen’e
(.ilrlziIn procedural requirements in
developing iinpkiiu.mlatlon plan
revisiostS fur ulsniissIon to 1 PA.
Suction; 11fl(a)(ZI and 173fr.)(7) of the
Act ri quirv states to provide reasonable
notice and opportunity for public
c.onhunent before accuptiog the submitied
measures. Sectioa 110(1) of the Act also
requires stales to provide reasonable
notare and hold a public hearing before
. Clopting SIP provisions.
EPA imist also determine whether a
t.sIu s submittal is cbmplete before
taking further action on the submittal.
See s ection ii0(k)(i). EPA’S
completeness criteria far SIP submluals
are OI out in 30 CFR. pan 51. appendix
V (1i193).
II. State Submittal
Massac:husetts submitted a SIP
revision on November 15. 1993. and
supplemented it on May ii. 1994.
which substiuiiud a low emission
vehicle (1EV) program for the Clean
Fuel Fleer program. Maasar.hiisotts held
public hetuings on October30 end 31.
1991 ; November 1 . 1991; February 3. 9.
10 end 12. 1991; and October 1. 5—9.
1993 to entertain public comment on its
SIP rgvisions these hearings included
cho Commonwealths proposal to opt
out if the Clean Fuel Fleet Program with
LEV. Massachusetts regulation 310
O 1R 7.40, ‘CalIfornIa Low Emission
Vehicle Program” (the LEV program).
was adopted by the Commonwealth on
Janus y 31. 1992. EPA reviewed the
Commonwealth’s submission for
completeness. in accordance with the
completoness criteria. md found the
subnuttals to be complete on October
25. 1994.
Massachusetts has limited its
proposed LEV Program tq passenger
vehicles and light-duty trucks at the
present time. When California Air
Resuwte Board finalizes Its standards
for the remainder of the vehicle
Nusacbusetts will awmne the
potential air quality bsn.riis of adopting
the emission standards for medium duty
vehicles, heavy-duty ttucks.
motorcycles, and off-highway
equipment. By adopting the program for
passenger vehicles and light-duty
trucks. Massachusetts ezpecls to
decrease VOC and NOz emissions far In
excess of what would be achieved from
a C ?? program (namely. 42 tons per
summer day of ‘IQC end 35 tons per
swmner day olNOx as compared tsr 1.95W
VOC and 0.99 NOx from a CFF progñm,
long term). The Commonwealth
exorcised hi choice to substitut, enough.
equivalent emission reductions credIt
fromils LEV program for the C??
program so that. of the tots) reductions
obtained from the LEV program. only
1.95 tons per summer day VOC and 0.90
Ions per summer day NOx will apply as
a substitute for the C?? program.
lfl. Anal iis oIState Submission
Section!102(c)(4) of the Clears Air Act.
which allows states required to
Implement a Clean Fuel Fleet program
to ‘opt out’ of the program by
submitting a SIP revision con.cisting of
a substitute program, requires that the
suhstitut program results in equal or
greater emission reductions then does
this Clean Fuel Fleet program. Also. EPA
can only approve substitute programs
that consist cxr.lusively of provisions
other than those required by tho Clean
Air Act for die area. Massachusetts ’ LEV
program satisfies both at these
requirements. I. -
Section 182(c)(4)fB).stotes that a
zncnsurecan be substhutad.for all or a
portion of the CFF program. and that
sorb a substitute program will be
approvable liii achieves long-term
reductions equivalent to those
that would have been achieved by the
portion of the CT? progress for which
the measure is to be substituted.
Massachusetts, in exercising itS
option under section 177 ’ of the Clean
Air Act. has adopted a 1EV program
which ffeds all new light duly
vehiclcs. iiIcaIly passenger cars and
11gm duty trucks under 5750 pounds
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (CVWR)
fur vehicle model ysers 1995 and later.
The MA LEV program isa f r reaching.
program designed to improve the
emissions performance of vehicles over
a long period of thee. Thi program sets
forth five dillerentsetsofcmlssion
standards. and ph1il . fodu er i
may market any combination of vehicle,
provided that the annual.averuga
emissloni of each m.utafacturer’a fleet
complies with a flset4ltemge limit that
becomes more stringust !ach. yder. In.
addition. Masear.hoaetts 1EV program
requires manufocturam to begin to
market a fized percentag, of zero
emission vehicles (2EVs) in model year
1995. The 2EV requirement will help
ensure that the LEV program will result
in rductions’ofawa forming
emissions ‘to a dupe. that lest least
equivalent, to the Clam Fuel Pleat
program. , .; u .. ,
Massachusetts’ EVprogram will
assure rgductlons of ozon.-Iorznlng and
air toxic emiulons that are at least..
equivalent to those that would have
been realized, through implementation
of a Clean Fuel Tleetprogrnm. The LZV,
program isa statewidsLprogr sm affecting
the sale of all light dut r vehIcles. A
Clean Fusi Fleer pwgr n effects a rnucb
smaller subset of vehicles, i.e. new
covered fleet vehicles’t.hat are already
included in the LEV program. The L .EV.
program has Tleet’ávsragó emission
standards that sin comparable to the
Clean Fuel Vehicle (CFV) emission
standards that apply to clean fuel I2 eL
vehicles. Wkbm pect1oiong’i .Pin
emission stondardslornon:methane
i nic ses .(NMOG ) ’ the Clean Fuel.
Fleet progrnmTequlzu1h 170% of ttew
covçrcd light dutyvshicld and light
ditty truck purehasis in the effected
fleets in model year 2000 and later meet’
the CFV emission standard: of 0.073
gramslmile;whi le the California LEV
program requires that the long term
NMOG standard for 100% of all light
duty vehicles be no more than 0.062
gramaper mile (modof ean2003ond’
-------
O /Z4/95 LQ ZO ezoz2.O. 3z
OGC- AR D lvi i.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 21 F Wednesday. February i 1005 / Rules and Regulations 5O2
‘aiur),’ Based on the above
r sideratIons, M sadtuacus ’ L.EV
program has the potential to achieve
emission reductions f.,r in exr.esa of
‘hose expected hy the Clean Fuel Fleet
p?o ram. The LEV prognim also boa on
e rIter implementation date, beginning
with motlel year L995. than the foot
)rO ritm.
.PA. auto mnnufncttn ç and stales
aru cun ntly Con iderin the pus ihiUty
or developing a voluntary nationoi LEV.
equivalent motor vehicic cmisstnn
control program. See 59 FR 4 5664 (Sept.
Li. 994) end 59 FR 53396 (Oct. 24.
t 104). EPA does not expect that todays
npprovui will Impede the de relopment
or impismenrotlon of such a program. If
Massachusetts were to participate In a
LEV.oqulvalortt program. it would have
his opportunity to revise IL; clean funi
I1 ct program substItution.
EPA is publishing this nile without
p.ior proposal becamte EPA views this
is a noncornroversial amendment and
1inicipatos no adverse comments. This
action will be effective April 3, 1993
unless, by March 3. 1995. adverse or
rilual comments ate received.
if such comments are received, this
rub will be withdrawn berore the
effective date by publishing a
tubsequent document. In the Pmposed
kules Section of this Federal Reisiar,
CPA Jut, proposed the same approval.
on which It is taking final action in thi.
riuliimnldng. IIsdverse comments are
rrup.iyc.d in r sponsa to this action. EPA
will address them as part. ala Final
rulemaking associated with that
proposed action. EPA will not instflute
a second comment psnod on this action.
11 no advent. eommeets ar received,
the public is advised that this nile will
he offe ive April 3, 1995.
Maa tai;htu,dt . I ui MS cirnemly b s. .
PlforcuT.bIo PJMOG atindsid aspen of l iii i , . _ .
b i ti. in lb. p,ncm. .1 .dopiln 5 one. Circit the
I.iu.L uf titi mt(umabls 5 1 1406 atasdird. thesis no
iwurarce iliat Mauachuastis’ LEV psepiem will
irhu., the urn. .mhi ion buefli. a. ill,
utopled Cahifenla, F 1t406 a,ao . P. •u
4’VcflI taiion “ri ” As laslist
‘ed ’icukrna of ‘he LEt ’ pvevIis will ha .qust toe
rmaItr thin th. riducdsn. $ fl. Ft.en . . -.
Mt,sachus.tis do.. ha.. sZEV iii .. m n4 .iu.
which rni ht by iia.If pvo’td. NducttOa$ squall.
or irate ha ,, ihe CF?? Buss It Masa.chvaatls d li
‘te l hauci ZEV mandate. hi LEV peoçerna,m
p ’o’.ida. stilTcast ,edudlun. to jwdlfy ua
aiitvi,luie. Mi ,sa.chu,’tftp LEV . . ,. prohibits..
auto inanuficinrers from seIiiitg hi M dL.sau. ,..
aS! vthk)o in lb. reulatod eis a , that
wIIfl.d I,, Cithibirni.. Manafictursn sne ,eUy do
‘ t “dottbk.cantfy ’ vehicles to Calibntli(I-m..
tiunufacturs both a LEV and ii IJLEV v al .1 the
u, ,uu msi ,Jei). Auto msni. c,t have Mid that th
in ’ of vohkbo sold in CalIfornia does not differ
sh iflc tl r .m the 0112 sold Ia Maiuchn..ii.
il thea. lacier.. Ii i ..unilksiy ibm the NMOG
iaera e of vehicles sold In coinphiar.ct with
Maaa.e.IiuuwItjs 1. 1W lwepIvn wnui4 1)... I,,w ibsi
.th isv pnt rani wotild not reduce .mkato ,t, eu
a. much as would a
Fine! Action . request for revisiort to any State
EPA is approvingMassachusatia uv impiementation.planitachi’,qtigst t n t
program as a stibelitute for a Clean Fuel revision to the Statd inipfernontation
Fleet program: as submitted by the suite plan Thell be cons lderedlepe?ateiy in
on November 13, 1993 and May 11, light of specilic technical, economic, -
1994. pursuant to sectIons 177 and and environmonial factors md in
1M2(c)(4X9) of tim Clean AiT Act. relation Ia relevant s ’ a Lutory end
Under the Regulatory Flexibility t, regtilalnry reqeirement,.
5 U.S.C. 600 c i seq.. EPA must prepare nder section 307(b)(1) oftho Clean
a regulatory flexibility analysis Mr Act, petitions foi judicial, review of
assessing the impact of any proposed or this action mu*t be filed in the United
final rule on small emities . 5 U.S.C 603.. StatesCou,t of Appeals forthe
and 604. Alternatively’. EPA may certify appropnatc circuit by.April 3,99 .
that th. uls will not have a significant , Filing a petition foi’ reconsideration by
impact on a substantial number of small. . the Administrator of this final rule does
enritfes. Small amities include small not affect the finality of this rulo.for ,ihe
businesses, small not-Ter.proflt purposes of judicial review-nor does it
enterprises, and governunszlt entities extend th time within which a petition
with Jurisdiction over populations of mr judicial review may be filed, and
less than , . shall not- postpone the effectiveness of
This action has been classified as a such rttle’or action. This acilon.may not -
Table 2 actIon by the Regional be challenged later In proceedings io
Administrator under the procedures entgrc Its requirements.(Sse .ssciion
published itt the Federal Register on 301(b)(2J.)
January 19, 3969(54 FR 2214—2225). as List of Subjects in 40 CFR afl5Z
revised by an October 4. 1993. Eiwiron.rnental’protectlon, 4 1r’
memorandum rrom Michael H. Shapiro. pollution control. Cerbon monoxide.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Mr
and Radiation. A future document will Hydrocarbons. Incorporation by
reference. lntergovemmentai toialions,
inform the general public of these Nitrogen dioxide, Oz s, Riporting and
tables. On january 6.1989. the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) waived recortikeeping reqtdrements.
TabLe 2 and Table 3 revIsions (54 FR Note incorpoTation by reference of Ui.
2222) from the rt ,quirements Stoic Implumentatlon Plsd ’ió the.
O inmunwcelth of Masuchusclts was
3 uf Exuculive Order 12291 fa a ’ a period approved by the Diractor ot he Fédsml
of iwo years. Th. US A.has submitted ti ’ t 3 j t . July 1 . 52.
a request fore permanent waiver fat Detsd; December 1*, 1994.’ -
Table land Table 3 SIP revisions. The --
0MB has agreed to tin the
temporary waiver until such time as It flc iesoI Adrninisfmioc. RaèIopi ’
rules on EPA’s request. This requeu . . PUt 52 of chapiarl. title 40, of the
continues in effect un sr Code of Federal Regulitian *s amended:
Order 12866 which superseded , as follows: , :: : .
Executive Order 12291 en September. . PART 52—4AMENDEDJ ’
3 , 1993. -
SiPapprovols under sectIon 110 and “‘ 1. The autlturñy.dtiI oitfoi art 52 -
subchapter I. port of the CAA do : c0 I1ti 5 to ieedas’follqQá
crl.jt any new requlpamenis ,’bui’ . Avihont>- 42. US.C.-Uo 767iq
sinsply epprove niqui,emeds that the •. . . .. . . -
Commonwealth is already isi
Therefore, b cagse the . SUbpOIt W .—MUSICIIUS.ItS-
2. Ssclioñ 52.1120 is am nded by
$1 fl ..ad4ing paragraph (c UO3. ’to rand as
rvquismentsJ certify that ’lt does not’ . fo llowm . . ‘.
havi rstgnlUcun Impact on any smell . ‘‘
entities aff4ed. Moreover, due to the § 5 ,1 120 IdenUffcatlan at plan.’
nature of the fodsial .slate relationship . . a a .
under the CAA, preparation of a .. . • •.
.regulatory.flexlhility analysis would (103) Revisions to the Staiss,
constitute’federal inquhyinth the lmplem.ntat lon Plan submitted by the
econertaic ieuoniablenass’nf state action. Massachusetts Dep8r,j entiof
Thd CAA’ forbId; EPA to base its gctioni ..E ’viràm,ntsl Pro ocn.âft1Jov mbcr’;
concerning SIPs on such grounds. ‘ iS,i993 and. May ii;’ia9 i. aubstjtuting’’
Union,R!ectric Co. V. U.S. E.P.A.. 42? -, the.Col lfornla Low Emiuios.Ye ticIe
U.S. 246. 256—66 (S.CL 1976): 42 U.S.C. program for the Clean f ’tmt leet’..
7410 (a)(2).
Nothing In this’adlon should be ‘ . ! ncorpo,at(oit byieferenèivt”’
—construed as permitting or .allowing qr (A) bitterwfronn the Misi*çbusotts
estuibl shing e precedent for any future -‘ De partment of EnvIrnnfe*ttaI’Piótection’
-------
05/24/95 10:21 20226033fl
OGC-CZ&R Myls.
IFR Djt. flS—2101 Ellud 1—31—’M:&431m 1
In LIMO COO I!IS$O-P
40 CFR Part 80
(AMS RL-614e —4L
ReguI tlan of Fuels and Fuel
Additives: Standards for Reformulated
and Conventional Gasolin.
AGENCY: l nvircnmont Protection
Agwi y.
ACTON: Partial wlthdrawril of final rule.
LOORESSES; Matcria)s directly relevant
lullic direct final rule arc contalnc!d in
Public Docket A—94 .-30. loa’tod et
Room M—1500. Watorside Mall (ground
floor). U.S. Environmental Protection
• Agency. 401 M StrectSW. Washingi on.
• D.C. 20400. Other matenals relevant to
the reformulated gasoline final rule em
contained in PubUc DockclrA-01-02.
end A—92—12 The docket may be
inspected from &oo eta, until 4:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. As provided in
40 C1’R part La reasonable few may be
r.havgod by EPA for copying docket
iiiiit rii*l*
oaf
1. 2004. Likowiso, since the
reformulated gasoline program will
commence on December 1. 1004, the
clan flcacions and changes contalneil In
the direct finaFtule promote succcss(ul
•lrnplcntentotfon oftia. reformul •
gascllx c and.onai.dumping p T a
Since a number of.thc chang
final rule were notFnsubstezitia
proi.idcd a 30.dny commcnLpcriocl hL
which commotus on specific item,
could ho aulpinittad or a public hearing
requested. EPA also announced that It
woi wjthdi’aw from the direct’flnal
rule those items that were edveracly
commented on. This would have (lie
effect of ro.actlvsting the regulatory
prorisions.for those items in the final
rule for reformulated gosolinu
promulgated on Decembor 25. 1003 asitl
published in the Federal Rcisler on
February 16.1994 (39 FR 7715).
The Agsncy.has received adverse
cornmicti en just low p1 the chaiigus
In the di bet ru ilrule.Thc C0UUrCnI I
thsolyes can iUoundJn Public
Docket A—944 Each of the specific-
items addre ed:In.the comments Is
being withdrawn from tb. DFRM by
today’s action, which is.effective
irnqiediai.1y All items that were not
adversely comrii n&ed on will go into
effect on September 19.4991. -
A copy of this action is available oa.i
the EPA. Offià oF Air Quality P1aopj j
end Standards (OAQPS) Tochnolog i..
Trenslcr Nctwor Bulletin oard Systei
(TTNBIIS)_ The service is free nLa ri
except for (ha cost of the pho
Users are able to access and d
TTN files on their. first call. The—
TFNBDS can biacces,ed with a d l ’
(1.130 Federal Register I Vol. 60. No. 21 / Wednesday. February 1. 2095 / Rules and Regulations
dated November 5. 1093 and May 12. Emission VehIcle Pro r m’ . 310 CMR 3. Table 52.1157 of § 52,11fl7
1994, submitting a revision to the 740. amended by adding new entrith.
Massachusetts State Implementation” (C) Additional definitions to 320 CMR existing state citation.for 310 CMRTàO.
Plan which substitutes the California 7.flfl “Delinittona” (dated and effective ‘Deflnitions”; and by adding new state
Low Emission Vehicle program for (be 2131/92) to carry out the requirements citation for 310 CMR 7.40. iJ Low
Cl,iui Fuel Fleet program. set forth in 310 Q.4R 7.40. EmissIon Vehicles” to read as follows:
(B) A regulation dated am l affective (ii) Additional materials. p3.1157 EPA-approved Massachusetts
january 31. 1992. entItled 1J Low • “ (A) Additional norwegnlatory por1inn t State regulations.
eFt) e submittal. S S •
TA8L 52.11 67.—EPA-APPRoVED RULES AND REGULATIONS
Datesub.
Suite citation TliIthub ’ecl • F I Re ta .1’20 ci: . C ommcntzlunapprov.d
sections
StatS Dy EPA
310 CMR 7.00 .... Definitions 11115/93 February 1.1995 flnse Fflcitatlon 1mm 103 Appro ing a ltIonI deG.
0.4111194 • p lehac dalel. ‘ • ‘moos for.
310 CMR 7.10 .. Low emiuãon v . 11115193 Fabluaiy 1, 1095 (Insert FRdtatlon.ttom 103 Substitute for CFFP,
HeIe. 66/11/94 publ isMddaraj. •
•
SUMMARY: On July 20. 2904. EPA FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT
pulilished a direct final i. (DFRM) • foamr jackson Stephens. USEPA
which made minor corrections, (RDSD—12). Regulation Development
churl flcations. and rcvi.inn to various and Support Division. 2565 PlymOuth
provIsions in the final refomtulamd Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 40105. Telephone:
usoline rub, which wee published . (3131668-4276. To request copies of
February 16.1994. EPA Is withdrawing ‘ this document côntaci; Debates Frank.
certain portions bf thaDFRM, hfäusa ‘U.S. EPA (RDSD— 12). Regulation
;id orso or critical comments were Devclopment and Support DMsion .
received by the Agency. or an • . . Pfyinouth Road. Arm Arbor’; MI
opportunity to sutimil such commenteat 4d105. Telephone (313)
a public hearing wax requested for thos. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAIION: Tho’
specific portions. EPA is only D RM piablishcd by EPA on July20.
withdrawing from the DFRM those . • 1094 made a number of changes to
items which have been specifically EPA’s regulations fur reformulated and
arldrn.cscd In those adverse comments, conventional gasoline. EPA Issued a
The porlinne of the DFRM withdrawn • direct final rule because the changes it
by EPA cwicern individual baseline . contained were gerucrully minor in,’
adjustments based on production of JP ” naiijrc and were expected io.b. non’
4 jet fuel and changes to the vslid range controversi4Lma DFRM allowed the
Iliiiils for RVP under the Simple Model,. Agency to finalize such cbangu in an
All oLh r changes noted in the July 20. expeditious and timely manner. For
2994 DFRM will go Into effect on instance, many of the changes clarified
September19. 1994. issues relevant to th. development and
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective, auditing of individual baselines which
January 26. 1995. . were to be submitted no later September
-------
u4/u4/va
- & -
Q11
tO -
UNETED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
I RESEARCH TRIANGLE PAR ( NC 27711
oFFIcEoF
A OUAUTY PLANMNG
AND STANDARDS
: i4 APR 1995
SUBJECT: Potential Request from Colorado for Permanent.
Change in Denver’s Raid Vapor Pressure (RVP)
Standard
FROM: David coie cswLCi&...
Ozone Policy and Strategies Group 04D—15)
TO: Jeff Bou]c, Reg. VIII
Tim Russ, Rag. VIII
.r This is in response to your February 22, 1995, memorandum
requesting responses t9 four questions pertaining to a potential
request from the State of Colorado for permanently changing the
RVP gasoline standard from 7.8 to 9.0 psi. Based on discussions
between the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Mobile
Sources, I have responded to your questions belOw.
S
Ouestipn 1 : The Denver area (classified al transitional) may
qualify to use the limited maintenance plan approach (Region mi
has not been advised yet by the Stat, if this is indeed their
intention). Does the above presumption supersede EPA’s earlier
requirement for a quantitative demonstration that alternative
emission reduction strategies obviate the need for lover RVP
fuel? . . . -
Raa nss: Onc, the redesignation request and maintenance plan
are fully a svved, this docuasnatation may replace a
quantitatt i onatration.
Ouastiøn 2 - f EPA grants the State a RperaanentR waiver, based
upon no violations of the ozone standard, would this Upermanentu
waiver be revoked and 7.1 RVP imposed if the area subsequently
violated the ozone standard? If yea (or no), what i. th. legal
basis for this?
£ : In response to the State’s request for RVP relaxation
from 7.8 to 9 • 0 psi, EPA would approve a permanent change (not a
waiver) in the federal standard and would rev sa the table in the
federal RVP rule. The table woUld indicate that the Denver area
is subject to 9.0 RVP as a federal standard. -
-------
d4IU4l
If the area subsequently violates the ozone NAAQS after this
permanent change is made in the federal RVP standard, EPA would
not require a change in the status of the federal program. The
State has the option through the contingency portion of the
maintenance plan to implement and enforce a State program for 7.8
psi Rh? upon a violation of the standard.
In order for the State to use the lover RVP gasoline as a
State program upon a violation, a finding of necessity must first
be made by EPA under section 211 Cc) (4) (C) —see attached Act
provision. If this finding of necessity is not provided,
Colorado must commit to choose an alternative, unspecified
measure as a backup that the State deems appropriate. The State
would need to give EPA a schedulO for identifying and
implementing -is backup measure (e.g., 12 months from
notification —. at lower RVP would not be approved), as yell as a
schedule for .rnplenentirtg the lower .RVP measure. This is
consistent with previous Agency guidance and published’mctidñs
approving ozone redesignations to attainment where the State
committed to a lower RVP in their maintenance plan. Refer to
(1). November 8, 1993, memorandum from Michael Horowitz, Office of
General Counsel, to William )(acDowe]l, EPA Region V,
URequjz.ementa for Federal RVP in Stat. Maintenance Plans and
(2) final approval of ,Preble County, OR ozone redesignation (59
FR 48397, September 21, 1994).
Ouestion 3 : Could EPA require 7.8 psi RVP gasoline to be a
contingency measure for the maintenance plan? If yes, what would
be our legal basis?
B onm : No, EPA would not require the State to specify 7 • 8 psi
RVP gasoline as a contingency measure for the maintenance plan.
The State may exercise its option of committing to the lower RVP
as a contingency measure in the maintenance plan, which would be
approved into the SIP.
QUMtiQn.A:. Rave other ozone nonattainment/attainaent areas made
a similar est for thi, type of a “permanent waiver?
Bensa: k has approved similar requests for changes in the
federal 1t ItIndard from Cherokee County, SC and Knox County,
TN. In the erokee County, SC redesignation (57 FR 59300,
December 15, 1992), South Carolina’s maintenance plan relied on
RVP of 9.0 psi, even though the lower RVP (7.8 psi) vent into
effect in Cherokee Count on June 1, 1992 • EPA approved the
maintenance plan because the State adequat.ly demonstrated that
the ozone standard could be maintained using the less stringent
RVP of 9.0 psi.
Similarly, in the Knox County, TN redesignation (58 FR 50271,
September 27, 1993), EPA approved the State’s maintenance plan
which relied on 9.0 psi nv to demonstrate maintenance of the
-------
standard. At that time, EPA finally approved the redesignation
request even, though the State was operating under the iederal 7 •
RVP and EPA had not taken final action approving a change to 9.0
RVP. This is because the State’s projected inventory throughout
the maintenance period shoved that, even with 9 • 0 RVP, VOC and
NOx emissions did not increase- above the baseyear inventory.
There was no discussion in either of these final approval notices
about using 7 • 8 RVP as a contingency measure in the event of a
future violation of the ozone standard.
If you have any question., please contact me at (919) 541—
5565 or Michael Ball, OHS at (202) 233—9005.
cc: Michael Ball, OHS
Michael Horowitz, OGC
Kevin McLean, OGC
-------
Sec.2fl .CUAN AIR ACT
21$
249
CI.UN AIR ACT Sec. 211
(0) h. manulacturer of anY additiv, to notIl him as to the
chemk I composition of such ad4itlve.
(2) For the purpeis of registration of fuels end fuel additives the
AdminIatr th, may also require the manufacturer of any fuel or
fuel addilly....
(A) to conduct teste to determine potential public health it.
fecig at s Ø fuel or additive (including, but not limited to, car.
C - - - iiic, or mr snIc effect.), and
- -. I techniqu
vs In
r such add Jve, anJ
ed ne e ry to deter-
of the fuel or I .
vehicle
motor vehicles, motor vehicle engine., fuels, or fuel additivee auI.
milled within 10 day, of notice of proposed ruleniaking the AJ-.
ministrator shall hold a public bearing and publish findings with
respect to any matter he Is required to consider under this sub U
paragrnph. Such finding, shall be publinhed at. the time of promui 1 .
gation of final regulations. .
(Ci No fuel or fuel additive may be prohibited by the Administra-
tot under paragraph (1) unless he rinds, and publishes such floding,
that In his Judgment such prohibition wlfl not cause the use of any
other fuel or fuel additive which will produce emloslons which will
endanger the public health or Welfare to 11* usine or greater
degree than the use of the fuel or fuel additive proposed to be pro, ‘
(31A) For the purpose of obtaining evidence and data to carr.j
out paragraph (2), the Administrator may require the manufactur 7 , a
er of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engsne to furnish any ln P
formation which baa been developed concerning the emissions rromV
motor vehicles resulting from the use of any fuel or fuel additlvs J
or th. effect of such use on the performanc, of any emiivdnn co ’
trol ds cius or system.
(B) In obtaining Information under subparagraph (A), section 80? .
(a) (relating to .ubpenas) shall be applicable.
(4XA) Except as otherwise provided I subparagraph (B) or (Ci, no
Stat. (or political subdivision thereofl may prescribe or attempt t
enforce, for the purpoes. of motor vehicle emission control, any .
control or prohibition respecting any characteristic or component;
of. fuel or (heel additive In a motor vehicle or motor vehIc
the Administrator has found that no control or proliIhI .
tion of the characteristic or component of a fuel or fuel addi-
tive under paragraph (1) is necessary and has published his
finding In the Federal Register, or
(11) It the Administrator ha. prescribed under paragraph (1) a
control or preldblticu appllcabl. to such characteristic or com 4
patient of a fuel or fuel additive, unless State prohibition or.
control s Identical to the prohibition or control prescribed by i
the Administrator.
(B) Any Stat. foe which application of section 209(a) has at any
been waived aectkon 209(b) may at any time p crihe.
the purpose of motor vehicle emission control, a,.
any lust or fuel additive.
enforce, for purposes of motor ye-
a control or prohibition respecting the use of
in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine if
plan for such St.t. under sectIon 110
approve such provision in an
an implementation plan con-
such a finds that the State control or
ion is atlonal primary or second. .
ambient th. plan lmpioni bia. Tb.
mlnistrak a blat. control or prohibiti -
rv tq achiev , that standard If no other iii urea 1I 1 ‘
bI1n about timely attainment exist, or If other m ‘:-
to -
thaleanbsu.odtc
fuel, the racomInsIu
and the
such ethic
caine the
live eo tali
on th. em
engine. nonroad
which such ernie
....r su1
Lprecs
result.
toted in conformity
the Adecinistre-
sred c,nfldentlel.
‘ subsctlon, in.
I
register such
(U i
( --
Information
Information i
manufacture. Ii
of any fuel or
or r
or pro -
eofsc
led or prohibited by
ph (1) except
sentic data, In-
ituol devices
•:r. the pro’
iviemorays-
r a manu ._.. Urer at
-------
Establishment of Control Periods under Section 211(m)
of the Clean Air Act as Amended
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Mobile Sources
Field Operations and Support Division
-------
Guidance on EstablLshment of Control Periods under Section 21l( ) of
the Clean Air Act as Amended
SU1’ 4ARY: Section l1(m) of the Clean Air Act as amended by the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (“the Act”) requires that various states
submit revisions to their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) and
implement an oxygenated gasoline program. This requirement applies to
all states with carbon monoxide (CO) nonattajrtment areas with design
values of 9.5 parts per million or more, generally based on data for
1988 and 1989. The oxygenated gasoline program must require gasoline
in the specified control areas to contain no less than 2.7% oxygen by
weight during that portion of the year in which the areas are prone to
high ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide, except that a state is
strongly encouraged to adopt an averaging program employing marketable
oxygen credits.
Section 211(m) (2) requires that the Administrator specify the
portion of the year in which the area is prone to high ambient
concentrations of carbon monoxide. This portion of the year (“control
period”) is to be not less than four months in length, unless the state
can demonstrate that based on meteorological conditions, a reduced
period will not result in exceedances outside of such reduced period.
This document provides EPA guidance on control periods by area.
This document also discusses the geographic scope of the control areas-
The primary determinants of the control periods are the statutory
minimum of four months and data on exceedances of the carbon monoxide
standard at the design value monitor in the design value year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Alfonse Mannato, (202) 260-9040
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
This document provides EPA’s guidance on establishment of control
periods for oxygenated gasoline programs under section 211(m) of the
Act. Section II provides the background for this guidance, with
respect to chronology and the broad issues involved. Section III
presents EPA’s guidance on control periods and rationale. Comments
received and EPA responses to those comments are also contained in
Section III.
2
-------
II. Background
Section 211(m) of the Act requires states with carbon monoxide
(CO) nonattain ent areas with design values of 9.5 parts per million or
more, based on data for the two-year period of 1988 and 1989, to
submit reVisions to their State tmplementation Plans (SEPS) . Such
states must individually implement an oxygenated gasoline program in
the specified control areas requiring gasoline to meet a minimum oxygen
content of 2.7 percent by weight, subject to a testing tolerance
established by the Administrator. This oxygen content requirement
applies during the portion of the year, referred to as the “control
period,” in which the areas are prone to high ambient concentrations of
CO. The length of the control period, as required by section 211(m) of
the Act, is to be determined by the Administrator and shall not be less
than four months in length. EPA may reduce the control period if a
State can demonstrate that because of meteorological conditions, a
reduced period will assure that there will be no carbon monoxide
exceedances outside of such reduced period. The oxygen content
requirement is to cover all gasoline sold or dispensed in the larger of
the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) or the
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in which the nonattainment area is
located.
This document provides EPA’s guidance to states regarding the
establishment of control periods for oxygenated gasoline programs,
under section 211(m) of the Act. This guidance is a general statement
of policy. It does not establish a binding norm and is not finally
determinative of the issues addressed. Agency decisions in any
particular case will be made applying the law, applicable regulations
and guidelines on the basis of specific facts and actual action. The
proper control period will also be an issue during the notice and
comment rulemaking undertaken by EPA to review individual state
submissions of oxygenated gasoline programs as SIP revisions as
required by section 211(m).
To expedite Agency decisions in particular cases, a state
submitting a SIP revision which includes an oxygenated gasoline program
with a different proposed control period than the applicable control
period as specified in these guidelines should provide as detailed an
explanation as possible for the differences.
The Agency has determined that the 1988 and 1989 data from
several areas is inadequate to properly characterize the ambient
concentrations of CO. Therefore, for these areas - Boston,
Cleveland and Washington D.C. - older, more representative data
has been used.
3
-------
Regulatory Negotiation
EPA used a Regulatory Negotiation Advisory Committee (Advisory
Committee) to aid in the development of the proposed 2 and
supplemental 3 guidelines published on July 9, 1991 and February .5,
1992. For a discussion of the Regulatory Negotiation process as it
relates to development of these guidelines, please refer to the
February 5, 1992 Supplemental Notice.
III. Guidance and Rationale
Control Periods
In establishing an oxygenated gasoline program, the Act specifies
that oxygenated gasoline will be required during the portion of the
year in which the areas are prone to high ambient concentrations of
carbon monoxide. The control period shall not be less than four
months. These control periods are to be determined by the
Administrator. EPA may reduce the control period if a state can
demonstrate, based on meteorological conditions, that a reduced period
will assure that there will be no carbon monoxide exceedances outside
of such reduced period. Under section 211(m) (1) (B) of the Act, areas
with carbon monoxide design values of 9.5 parts per million (ppm) or
greater for any two-year period after 1989 shall submit SIP revisions
establishing an oxygenated gasoline program within 18 months of such
two-year exceedance period. EPA will address control period issues for
such areas as necessary.
In analyzing the control period issue, the Agency has focused
primarily on the ambient monitoring data from 1988 and 1989. The
Agency chose this time period because it is the time period specified
in § 211(m) of the Act for determining inclusion in the program. For
areas where the Agency believes that 1988-89 ambient monitoring data is
inadequate, the Agency has focused on the ambient monitoring data that
was used to determine that area’s attainment status. EPA has also
considered more recent data in response to comments from state
officials requesting modified control periods.
EPA considered various approaches to calculating the period “prone
to high ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide,” a phrase which the
Act does not define. The first approach taken by EPA analyzed the
ambient monitoring data by looking at the average carbon monoxide
concentrations which occurred in 8-hour overlapping periods (Approach
I).
256 FR 31151 (July 9, 1991).
57 FR 4406 (February 5, 1992).
4
-------
For each of the covered Co nor.att r..ent areas, the five h gnest
days in each month were calculated and pl3tted for 1988 and 1989. Bar
graphs reflecting this information for the origin al!y-proposed 39
oxygenated gasoline areas have been placed in the docket.
Preliminary control periods under Approach I were identified by noting
those months where any of the five highest days exceeded the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Co.
Examination of the data resu] ,ting from the Approach I analysis
revealed considerable heterogeneity in the length and temporal
placement of a number of areas that share fuel distribution facilities.
As a result, it was suggested that there is•a need to constrain this
heterogeneity to facilitate transportation logistics. That is, where
possible, areas that share pipeline distribution systems should be’
given the same control period. In evaluating this suggestion, EPA
considered a second way of analyzing the monitoring data.
This second approach used the exceedances of the carbon monoxide
standard at the design value monitor in the design value year (the year
in which the design value was established), to identify the months the
individual areas were prone to high ambient concentrations of carbon
monoxide. The outer boundaries of the season in which these
exceedances at the design value monitor occurred was considered along
with the larger body of monitoring data mentioned before.
Determination of the control periods in this manner results in a
significant degree of consistency among the control periods of areas
which share oxygenate sources and transportation facilities.
In many cases, using both approaches, the 4-month statutory
minimum length for the control period was the controlling factor, along
with the requirement that, in general, these programs begin no later
than November 1, 1992.
The result of the second analysis, called Approach II, has been
used by the Agency as the basis for most of the control periods
established in today’s guidance. Several modifications, noted below,
were made to Approach II. EPA’s guidance on control periods by area is
set forth in Table 1.
“ In the July 9, 1991 Federal Register Notice, this number
was 41, not 39. As of the current date, neither Steubenville, OH
nor Winnebago, WI has been designated as a CO nonattainment area.
Therefore the number of CO nonattainmertt areas covered by these
guidelines is currently 39. Both of these areas have been
deleted from Table 1.
These bar graphs appear in a document titled, “Bar graphs
of carbon monoxide in Non—Attainment Areas - Rev...sed,” June 7,
1991, which is contained in the public docket.
5
-------
By usLr.g :r. a a . ‘: -:- :• s
value year ar d : ‘ c-i.’ E-’: .r a-era eS
ppr acn tles the :or trc_ ge ’:: :e:—. ’- :::- ::‘e : :se,’
methodology used to define a .ze t. : t..:- :f e -r c. r
standar I occurs wher. the seccr es .e ::r. .‘e: qe
in a year exceeds the AAQS fc Appr 3C & .SO
provides :ore logica ::r.stsze z 2 . ‘ e ;3sce szr:o . .
Using this second approach, the easterfl seaboard, with the
exception of the New York City area, converges on a co on core 4-month
period from November through Febjuary. This sa:e core period prevails
in Petroleum Adminis ration for Defense D str_cts (PADDs) 3 and 4 and
in a su.bstantial portion of PADD 5. Five areas were assigned control
periods in excess of four months using thIs approach.
One area which merits a separate analysis is the New York City
CMSA. Data from 1988—89 suggested that a control period extending ntC
the summer might be warranted in the New York City area. Based on this
data, EPA initially proposed a 12-month control period. However,
consideration of the area’s 1990 and 1991 data supports a shorter
control period. The New York State Deputy Commissioner previously
proposed that the New York City CMSA program require 2.7% oxygen by
weight in gasoline from November 1 to March 31, and 2.0% oxygen by
weight from April 1. to October 31. In response to the February 5, 199
supplemental notice, comments were received from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and Energy, the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection and New York City Department of Environmenta]
Protection officials requesting a 7-month control period based upon tL-
1990 and 1991 data. EPA has had extensive discussions with New York,
New Jersey and Connecticut state ofticialé, to attempt to coordinate
their input regarding this issue for their common control area. As a
result of these discussions, the requests from the local officials, and
6 The definition of PADD is contained in the Petroleum
SuDP1v Monthly (DOE/EIA-0109), prepared by the Energy Information
Administration, Office of Oil, and Gas, U.S. Department of Energy
(May 1991). The definition, which appears on page 143, is as
follows:
Petroleum Administration for Defense (PAD Districts .
Geographic aggregations of the 50 States and the
Dist .ict of Colu.mbia into five districts by the
Petroleum Administration for Defense in 1950. These districts
were originally instituted for economic and geographic
reasons as Petroleum Administration for War (PAW)
Districts, which was, established in 1942.
A map showing PADDs by State appears on page 110 of the
above referenced publication.
6
-------
the fact that all carbon monoxide exceedances frcn 1990 and 1991
occurred between October and April, EPA’s guidance indicates a 7-month
control period for the New York City control area, for the period of
October 1 through April 30.
Based on discussions during the regulatory negotiation process,
and in accordance with the “Agreement in Principle,” EPA had proposed
to modify the control periods for Grant’s Pass, Medford and Kiamath, in
the state of Oregon to the four months from October 1 through January
)1. This was a modification of the control period originally proposed
in the July 9, 1991 Notice. 7 The ambient air data from southern
Oregon indicates high ambient concentrations for these counties in the
months of December and January. The Agency considered additional
months given the four—month statutory minimum. For one county,
February had somewhat lower concentrations than October, and for the
other two counties the February and October concentrations were
approximately the same. EPA has received additional comments on this
modification in response to the February 5, 1992 supplemental notice.
The State of Oregon has requested that the control period for southern
Oregon be returned to the original November through February period.
The State believes that this control period will more accurately match
the time when these areas are prone to high ambient concentrations of
Co.
Based on EPA’s analysis of the data alone, these counties are not
prone to high ambient concentrations of Co in either October or
February. Nevertheless, the Act requires a minimum control period of
four months. While the statute specifies that the control period is to
constitute that time of year in which the area is prone to high ambient
Co concentrations, this criterion is insufficient for selecting whether
October or February should be included to meet the statutory minimum in
this case. In such a case, the Agenôy believes it may reasonably
consider other factors, including the state’s preference, where the
environmental data does not provide a substantial basis for
distinction.. The commenters were split on their choice of control
periods whether to include October of February. Therefore, the Agency
has decided to concur with the State of Oregon’s request to set the
control period from November through February.
EPA has decided to adopt Approach II primarily because it is more
consistent with the methodology used to determine attainment. This is
consistent with the statute’s emphasis on attainment status and design
value, both of which are based on design monitor values. This approach
will also aid in the implementation of these state programs by helping
to integrate control periods for areas which share oxygenate sources
and transportation facilities. EPA is fully confident that Approach II
reasonably reflects the period “prone to high ambient concentrations of
carbon monoxide” for the applicable areas.
56 FR 51151 (July 9, 1991).
7
-------
several commenters have raised a concern regarding Litchfield
County, Connecticut. Section 211(m) f the Act provides that the
oxygenated gasoline program should apply in the entire Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA) or Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area
(CMSA) during that area’s control period. Separate parts of Litchfield
County are included in both the Hartford and New york City CMSAS. This
problem is compounded by the fact that these two control areas are
proposed to have different control periods. EPA believes that the
Connecticut SIP revisions should provide that each part of Litchfield
County be subject to the control period applicable to the MSA or CMSA
of which it is a part. The state has indicated that this decision will
be a ceptable to them.
Minnesota has requested a control period of October 15 through
February 14. Many gasoline marketers opposed starting or ending a
control period in the middle of the month. Their opposition was based
upon the recordkeeping and logistical problems that a mid-month date
would create. Given that one of the highest ambient readings in
Minneapolis occL’rred on October 15, EPA does not believe that the
October control period hould be shortened to exclude the first two
weeks of October. Also, there were no exceedences in February in the
Minnesota ambient data. Therefore, EPA reaffirms its control period as
published on February 5, 1992 — October through January. If the State
believes that February should be included, the State can consider
including it as part of the control period which will be included in
its SIP revision.
Several commenters including the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection suggested that Boston should not be required
to implement an oxygenated gasoline program. These commenters did not
believe that the ambient monitoring data warranted implementation of an
oxygenated gasoline program in the Boston CMSA.
EPA does not agree with these commenters and thus strongly
believes that the Boston CNSA is an area which is required to implement
an oxygenated’gasoline program by November 1, 1992.
EPA believes that the monitoring data collected in Boston in 1988
and 1989 was inadequate to properly characterize Boston’s CO problem.
The CO microscale site in Boston was discontinued in June 1988 due to a
lost lease. The site was eventually moved to a new location and
resumed operation in january 1990. The new site has shown no
exceedences from January 1990 through January 1992. However, rerouting
of traffic patterns past this site for a major 10-year construction
project is scheduled to begin in May 1992, and concentrations are
expected to increase. Since a microscale CO monitor did not operate
for 6 of the 8 calendar quarters during 1988 and 1989 and the previous
site had recorded CO exceedences in 1986, the Agency believes it is
reasonable to consider alternative data. The alternative data that the
agency has chosen to use is the calendar year data from 1986 and 1987.
Use of this data is consistent with current Agency policy and the
Agency’s calaaification decision for Boston under Title I of the Act.
8
-------
Specific response to the co: .ze-.ts concerning the accuracy and
validity of the 1986 and 1987 Boston onitor ng data will be Contained
in the Technical Support Document to the Title I
Designation/Classification Corrections Notice. Using the 1986 and 1987
data, EPA concludes that the Boston CMSA has a design value of 9.8 pp—
Co and, hence, is required to implement an oxygenated gasoline program.
The County of Sacramento has submitted a letter in response to the
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Guidance. The letter states that the
County would like to petition the EPA Administrator under section
211(m) (3) of the Act that the Agency alter the control period as
proposed for Sacramento from October through January to November
through February. EPA does not believe that the ambient data warrant
such a change. There were Co exceedances in Sacramento in October and
none in February during the 1989-1990 period. EPA will address the
issues raised more fully at such time as a petition is actually
received.
A comment from the Califoinia Air Resources Board (CARB) points
out that EPA, in the proposed guidelines, stated that it will consider
recent ambient air quality data in issuing final guidelines or in
reviewing individual SIPs. CARB recommends that the Los Angeles
control period should not include the month of September. The reason
given is that there were no Co exceedances in September for the years
1989 to 1991. This would result in a control period of October 1
through February 29. EPA agrees that it would be appropriate to
eliminate the month of September from Los Angeles’ control period and
has adjusted Table 1 accordingly.
Effective Date
In the Notice of Proposed Guidance on Establishment of Control
Periods published on July 9, 1992 EPA proposed that gasoline programs
with control periods beginning in September, October, and November
would have effective dates of September 1, 1992, October 1, 1992, and
November 1, 1992, respectively. In addition, EPA proposed that for
areas with a control period of twelve months, the effective date will
be September 1, 1992.° Based on comments, however, EPA proposed in
the February 5, 1992 Supplemental Notice that the effective date, for
all areas with control periods beginning on or before November 1, 1992
will be no later than November 1, 1992.
After considering the public comments, EPA is recommending a
November 1, 1992 start date for all programs. EPA is concerned that an
effective date prior to November 1, 1992 would afford industry and the
states insufficient time to implement the oxygenated gasoline programs.
EPA recognizes that a November 1 start date could deprive areas of air
quality benefits from the oxygenated gasoline program during that
portion of control periods prior to November 1, 1992. In addition, EPA
recognizes that certain areas may have an effective control period in
8 56 FR 31148, 31153 (July 9, 1991).
9
-------
/
the winter of 1992-93 of less than four months. Nevertheless, EPA
believes that the time necessary to successfully i pleme t this program
this first year justifies the November 1. start date. In any case,
states will control periods comn encing prior to November 1 are not
precluded from starting their programs prior to the November 1.
deadline.
EPA also believes that the November 1, 1992 start date is
consistent with the Act, which provides that the oxygenated gasoline
requirement “shall take effect no later than November 1, 1992 (or at
such other date during 1992 as the Administrator establishes under the
preceding provisions of this paragraph).”
For additional information and discussion of the issues related to
start date, the February 5, 1992 Supplemental Notice should be
consulted.
GeoaraDhjc ScoDe
According to Section 211(m) of the Act, SIP revisions must be
submitted by each State in which there is located all or part of an
area which is designated under Title I as a nonattainment area for
carbon monoxide and which has a carbon monoxide design value of 9.5
parts per million (ppm) or aboye based on data for the two-year period
of 1988 and 1989 and calculated according to the most recent
interpretation methodology issued by the Administrator prior to
enactment of the 1991 amendments to the Act. These control areas are
as follows:
.1. Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH CMSA
2. Hartford-New Britain-Middletown, CT CMSA
3. New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA
4. Syracuse, NY MSA
5. Baltimore, MD MSA
6. Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA
7. Washington, DC-MD-VA MSA
8. Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC MSA
9. Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA
10. Raleigh-Durham, NC MSA
11. Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH CXSA
12. Duluth, MN-WI MSA
13. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN—WI MSA
14. Albuquerque, NM NSA
l5. El Paso, TX NSA
16. Colorado Springs, CO NSA
17. Denver-Boulder, CO CMSA
The Agency has determined that the 1988 and 1989 data from several areas is
inadequate to properly characterize the ambient concentrations of CO. Therefore, for
these areas - Boston, Cleveland and Washington, D.C. - older, more representative
data has been used.
10
-------
18. Fort Collins-Loveland, CO MSA
19. Missoula, MT
20. Provo-Orem, UT MSA
21. Chico, CA MSA
22. Las Vegas, NV MSA
23. Fresno, CA MSA
24.’Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA
25. Modesto, CA NSA
26. Phoenix, AZ NSA
27. Reno, NV NSA
28. Sacramento, CA NSA
29. San Diego, CA MSA
30. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA
31. Stockton, CA NSA
32. Anchorage, AK NSA
33. Fairbanks, AX
34. Grant’s Pass, OR
35. Kiamath County, OR
36. Medford, OR NSA
37. Portland—Vancouver, OR-WA CMSA
38. Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA
39. Spokane, WA NSA
Section 211(m) (2) of the Act requires that the oxygenated gasoline
program apply to all gasoline sold or dispensed in the larger of the
CMSA or NSA in which the nonattajnment area is located. For
nonattajnment areas not in a CMSA or NSA, the control area is the
nonattainment area. The requirements of the program shall apply to
every county, or partial county which is located in the CMSA, MSA, or
nonattainment areas. Table 2, compiled based on information from the
U.S. Census Bureau, contains a list of the counties that are covered by
these programs. States may rely on the list of covered areas by CMSA,
NSA, or nonattainment area that appear in Table 2 for implementing
oxygenated gasoline programs in 1992.
This requirement has caused some concern. State officials in
Minnesota have expressed concern over the designation of the entire
Duluth NSA as requiring an oxygenated gasoline program. Most of
northeastern Minnesota is included in the Duluth MSA. According to
state officials, much of this area is national wilderness area, and
therefore very rural and sparsely populated. The state believes that
compliance with the oxygenated gasoline provisions as proposed may
prove an ‘nerous burden for the few gasoline marketers and retailers in
the area.
Congress specifically mandated in the Act that these programs be
implemented in “the larger of the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical
Area (CMSA) in which the. (CO nonattainment] area is located, or if the
area is not located in a CMSA, the Metropolitan Statistical Area in
which the area is located.” Moreover, EPA does not agree that
compliance in northeastern Minnesota will be onerous since that area
already receives its gasoline from the Duluth area. Therefore, as
11
-------
stated above, Table 3. includes the entire CMSA or MSA, hichever is
larger.
For certain multi-state MSAs and CMSAS, the portions of one or
more of the states in the MSA or CMSA are not actually designated as
being in Co nonattairtment. For example, the Memphis CMSA extends to
areas of Arkansas and Louisiana which are designated as attainment for
CO. This problem arises in a number of additional states.
The Agency notes that section 211(m) (1) obligates “(e]ach State in
which there is located all or part of an area which is designated under
title I as a nonattajnment area for carbon ;onoxide. . . (to] submit to
the administrator a State implementation plan... for such area...”
Section 211(m) (2) provides further that SIP revisions require that the
oxygenated gasoline program apply to fuel refiners or marketers in the
larger of the CMSA or MSA in which the CO nonattainment area is
located. The Agency does not believe that states containing only an
attainment portion of the MSA or CMSA are obligated to submit SIP
revisions. In the case of such states, the attainment portions of the
MSA or CMSA located within their boundaries are not themselves
designated under title I as a nonattainment area for CO. These states
therefore are not required to submit SIPs for such areas. Therefore,
for the Memphis CMSA, Tennessee is required to implement an oxygenated
gasoline program in Shelby and Tipton Counties.
The Agency does not believe that Congress intended States
containing nonattainment portions of the MSA or CMSA to establish
oxygenated gasoline programs requiring that gasoline sold or dispensec
for use outside its borders be oxygenated. An interpretation that
section 211(m) requires such states to establish oxygenated gasoline
programs applicable in this manner to the portions of the MSA or CMSA
outside their borders raises serious constitutional issues regarding
the principle of a State’s sovereignty vis a vis other States and about
the constitutionality of Congress’s delegation of power to regulate
interstate commerce.
For areas that have carbon monoxide design values of 9.5 parts per
million (ppm) for any two year period after 1989, the Act requires that
a revision to the SIP shall be submitted within 1.8 months after such
two year period. The statute does not specify.whether two-year periods
after 1989 are to be overlapping or mutually exclusive. EPA believes
the two—year period was specified to ensure that a sufficient amount of
data is considered, and therefore an overlapping approach is more
appropriate. EPA will address the geographic scope issues for these
areas as such action becomes necessary.
One such area is Ogden, Utah which has been classified as
nonattainment with a design value of 9.9 ppm based on 1989 and 1990
data. Ogden will be required to implement an oxygenated gasoline
program beginning in 1993.
12
-------
TABLE 1 - Guidance on C x tro1 ?er od
y Nor attair.r ent Area
Novenber I - February 29
Hartford-New Brjtajn-Mjdd letown, CT CMSA
Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NM CMSA
Syracuse, NY MSA
Baltimore, MD MSA
Philadelphia-wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA
Washington, DC-MD-VA MSA
Greensboro-winston-sa lei-Hjgh Point, NC NSA
Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA
Raleigh-Durham, NC NSA
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH CMSA
Albuquerque, NM NSA
El Paso, TX MSA
Colorado Springs, CO NSA
Denver-Boulder, CO CMSA
Fort Collins-Loveland, CO NSA
Missoula, MT
Provo-Orem, UT NSA
San Diego, CA NSA
Anchorage, AX MSA
Fairbanks, AX
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA CMSA
Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA
Grant’s Pass, OR
Kiamath County, OR
Medford, OR NSA
October 1- April 30
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA
13
-------
October 1 - January 31
Duluth, MN-WI MSA
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA
ChLco, CA MSA
Fresno, CA MSA
Modesto, CA MSA
Reno, NV MSA
Sacramento, CA MSA
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA
Stockton, CA MSA
October 1 - February 29
Las Vegas, NV MSA
Phoenix, AZ MSA
Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA
September 1 - FebruarY 29
Spokane, WA MSA
14
-------
TABLE 2 - C ’.SA an “SA 3 COU 1T’1
Boston-Lawrence-Sa] .en. MA- 4H C SA
Boston, MA PMSA:
Bristol County (pt)
Mansfield Town
Norton Town
Rayrtham Town
Essex County (pt)
Lynn City
Lynnfield Town
Nahant Town
Saugus Town
Middlesex County (pt)
Acton Town
Arlington Town
Ashland Town
Ayer Town
Bedford Town
Belmont Town
Boxborough Town
Burlington Town
Cambridge Town
Carlisle Town
Concord Town
Everett City
Framingham Town
Framingham (CDP)
Groton Town
Holliston Town
Hopkinton Town
Hudson Town
Lexington- Town
Lincoln Town
Littleton Town
Maiden City
Marlborough City
Maynard Town
Medford City
Meirose City
Nat ick Town
Newtown City
North Reading Town
Reading Town
A partial county is indicated by (pt)” following the county name. The cities and
towns that appear below the county name are those that are included in the program
area.
15
-------
Sherborn Town
Shirley Town
Somerville City
Stoneham Town
Stow Town
Sudbury Town
Townsend Town
Wakefield Town
Waltham City
Watertown Town
Wayland Town
Weston Town
Wilmington Town
Winchester Town
Woburn City
Norfolk County (pt)
Be].lingham Town
Bra intree Town
Brookline To n
Canton Town
Cohasset Town
Dedham Town
Dover Town
Foxborough Town
Franklin Town
Holbrook Town
Medfield Town
Medway Town
Millis Town
Milton Town
Needham Town
Norfolk Town
Norwood Town
Quincy City
Randolph Town
Sharon Town
Stoughton Town
Walpole Town
Wellesley Town
Westwood Town
Weymouth Town
Wrentham Town
Plymouth County (pt)
Carver Town
Duxbury Town
Hanover Town
Hanson Town
Hingham Town
Hull Town
Kingston .Town
Lakevi]le Town
Marshfield Town
16
-------
Middleborough Town.
Not-well Town
Pembroke Town
Plymouth Town
Plympton Town
Rockland Town
Scituate Town
Suffolk County
Boston City
Chelsea City
Revere, City
Winthrop Town
Worcester County (pt)
Berlin Town
Bolton Town
Harvard Town
Hopedale Town
Lancaster Town
Mendon Town
Milford Town
Southborough Town
Upton Town
Brockton, MA PMSA:
Bristol County (pt)
Easton Town
Norfolk County (pt)
Avon Town
Plymouth County (pt)
Abingdon Town
Bridgewater Town
Brockton City
East Bridgewater Town
Halifax Town
West Bridgewater Town
Whitman Town
Lawrence-Haverhill, MA-NH PMSA:
Essex County, MA (pt)
An esbury Town
Andover Town
Boxford Town
Georgetown Town
Grove]and Town
Haverhi]l City
Lawrence City
Merrimac Town
Methuen Town
Newbury Town
Newburyport City
17
-------
North Andover Town
Salisbury Town
West Newbury Town
Lowell, MA-NH PMSA:
Middlesex County, MA (pt)
Billerica Town
Chelmsford Town
Dracut Town
Dunstable Town
Lowell City
Pepperell Town
Tewksbury Town
Tyngsborough Town
Westford Town
Salem—Gloucester, MA PMSA:
Essex County (pt)
Beverly City
Danvers Town
Essex Town
Gloucester City
Hamilton Town
Ipswich Town
Manchester Town
Marblehead Town
Middleton Town
Peabody City
Rockport Town
Rowley Town
Salem City
Swampscott Town
Topsfield Town
Wenham Town
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain. OH CMSA
Akron, OH PMSA:
Portage County
Kent city
Summit County
Akron City
Barberton City
Cleveland, OH PMSA:
Cuyahoga County
Cleveland City
Geauga County
Lake County
18
-------
Medina County
Loraln—ElyrLa, OH PMSA:
Lorain County
El ’ria C Ity
Lorain City
Denver-Boulder. CO CMSA
Boulder-Longmont, CO PMSA:
Boulder County
Boulder City
r ongmont City
Denver, CO PMSA:
Adams County
Arapahoe County
Denver County
Denver City
Douglas County
Jefferson County
HArtford-New Britain-Middletown CT CMSA
Bristol, CT PMSA:
Hartford County (pt)
Bristol Town
Bristol City
Burlington Town
Litchfield County (pt)
Plymouth Town
Hartford, CT PMSA:
Hartford County (pt)
Avon Town
Bloomfield Town
Canton Town
East Granby Town
East Hartford Town
East Windsor Town
Enfield Town
Farmington Town
Glastonbury Town
Granby Town
Hartford Town
19
-------
Hartford City
Manchester Town
Marlborough Town
Newington Town
Rocky Hill Town
Simsbury Town
South Windsor Town
- Suffield Town
West Hartford Town
Wethersfield Town
Windsor Town
Windsor Locks Town
Litchfield County (pt)
Barkhamsted Town
New Hartford Town
Middlesex County (pt)
East Haddam Town
New London County (pt)
Colchester Town
Tolland County (pt)
Andover Town
Bolton Town
Columbia Town
Coventry Town
Ellington Town
Hebron Town
Somers Town
Stafford Town
Tolland Town
Vernon Town
Willington Town
Middletown, CT PMSA:
Middlesex County (pt)
Cromwell Town
Durham Town
East Hampton Town
Haddam Town
Middlefield Town
Middletown Town
Middletown City
Portland Town
New Britain,CT PMSA:
Hartford County (pt)
Berlin Town
New Britain Town
New Britain City
Plainville Town
South ington Town
20
-------
Los Ange1es-Anahe -R1yersLde. CA CMSA
Anaheim-Santa Ana, CA PMSA:
Orange County
Anaheim City
Santa Ana City
Los Angeles-Lang Beach,CA PMSA:
Los Angeles County
Burbank City
Long Beach City
Los Angeles City
Pasadena City
Pomona City
Oxnard-Ventura, CA PMSA:
Ventura County
Oxnard City
San Buertaventura (Ventura) City
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA PMSA:
Riverside County
Palm Springs City
Riverside City
San Bernardino County
San Bernadino City
New York - Northern New Jersey- Lana Island NY-NJ-CT CMSA
Bergen—Passaic, NJ PMSA:
Bergen County
Passaic County
Paterson City
Bridgeport-Milford, CT PMSA:
Fairfield County (pt)
Bridgeport Town
Bridgeport City
Easton Town
Fairfield Town
Monroe Town
Shelton Towh
Stratford Town
Trumbull Town
21
-------
New Haven County (pt)
Artsonia Town
Beacon Falls Town
Derby Town
Milford Town
Milford City
Oxford Town
Seymour Town
Danbury, CT PMSA:
Fairfield County (pt)
Bethel Town
Brookfield Town
Danbury Town
Danbury City
New Fairfield Town
Newtown Town
Redding Town
Ridgefield Town
Sherman Town
Litchfield County (pt)
Bridgewater Town
New Milford Town
Jersey City, NJ PMSA:
Hudson County
Hoboken City
Jersey City
Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ PMSA:
Hunterdon County
Middlesex County
New Brunswick City
Perth Amboy City
Somerset County
Monmouth-Ocean City, NJ PMSA:
- Monmouth County
Ocean County
Nassau-Suffolk County, NY PMSA:
Nassau County
Suffolk County
22
-------
New York, NY PMSA:
Bronx County
New York City (pt)
Kings Counts
New York City (pt)
New York County
New York City (pt)
Putnam County
Queens County
New York City (pt)
Richmond County
New York City (pt)
Rockland County
Westchester County
White Plains City
Newark, NJ PMSA:
Essex County
Newark City
Morris County
Sussex County
Union County
Elizabeth City
Norwalk, CT PMSA:
Fairfield County (pt)
Norwalk Town
Norwalk City
Weston Town
Westport Town
Wilton Town
Orange County, NY PMSA:
Orange County
Stamford, CT PMSA:
Fairfield County (pt)
Darien Town
Greenwich Town
New Canaan Town
Stamford Town
Stamford City
23
-------
Phlade1ph1a-Wil ington—Trenton, PA-DE- U- PMSA :
Philadelphia, PA-NJ PMSA:
Bucks County, PA
Chester County, PA
Delaware County, PA
Montgomery County, PA
Norristown Borough
Philadelphia County, PA
Philadelphia City
Burlington County, NJ
Camden County, NJ
Camden City
Gloucester County, NJ
Trenton, NJ PMSA:
Mercer County
Trenton City
Vineland-Miliville—Bridgeton, NJ PMSA:
cumberland County
Bridgeton City
Millville City
Vineland City
Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD PMSA:
Salem County, NJ
Portland-Vancouver OR-WA CMSA
Portland, OR PMSA:
Clackamas County
Portland City (pt)
Multnomah County
Portland City (pt)
Washington County
Portland City (pt)
Yamhill County
Vancouver, WA PMSA:
Clark County
Vancouver City
24
-------
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose. CA D SA
Oakland, CA PMSA:
Alameda County
Berkeley City
Livermore City
Oakland City
Contra Costa County
San Francisco, CA PMSA:
Mann County
San Francisco County
San Francisco City
San Mateo County
San Jose, CA PMSA:
Santa Clara County
Palo Alto City
San Jose City
Santa Cruz, CA PMSA:
• Santa Cruz County
Santa Cruz City
Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA PMSA:
Sonoma County
Petaluma City
Santa Rosa City
Va].lejo—Fairfield-Napa, CA PMSA:
Napa County
Napa City
Solano County
Fairfield City
Vallejo City
Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA:
Seattle, WA PMSA:
King County
Auburn City
Seattle City
Snohomish County
Everett City
25
-------
Tacoma, WA PMSA:
Pierce County
Tacoma C1.ty
Albuaueraue. NM MSA
Bernalillo County
Albuquerque City
Anchorage. AK MSA
Anchorage Borough
Anchorage City
Baltimore. MD NSA
Anne Arundel County
Annapolis City
Baltimore County
Baltimore City
Carroll County
Harford County
Howard County
Queen Annes County
Baltimore City
Chico. CA NSA
Butte County
Chico City
Colorado S rinps. CO MSA
El Paso County
Colorado Springs City
Duluth. 104-WI NSA
St. Louis County, MN
Duluth City
El Paso. TX NSA
El Paso County
El Paso City
26
-------
Fort Collins, Lcvelar.d, Co MSA
Lari ar County
Fort Collins City
Loveland City
Fresno. CA MSA
Fresno County
Fresno City
Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point. NC MSA
Davidson County
High Point City (pt)
Davie County
Forsyth County
Winston-Salem City
Guilford County
Greensboro City
High Point City (pt)
Randolph County
High Point City (pt)
Stokes County
Yadkiri County
Las Vegas. NV NSA
Clark County
Las Vegas City
Medford. OR NSA
Jackson County
Medford City
Memohis. TN-AR-MS MSA
Shelby County, TN
Memphis City
Tipton County, TN
Minneaoolis-St. PauL MN-WI MSA
Anoka, County, MN
Carver County, MN
Chisago County, MN
Dakota County, MN
Hennepin County, MN
Bloomington City
Minneapolis City
Isanti County, MN
27
-------
Ramsey County, MN
St. Paul. City
Scott County, MN
Washington County, MN
Wright County, MN
Modesto. CA MSA
Stanislaus County
Modesto City
Turlock City
Phoenix. AZ MSA
Maricopa County
Mesa City
Phoenix City
Scottsdale City
Tempe City
Provo-Orea. UT NSA
Utah County
Orem City
Provo City
Raleigh-Durham. NC MSA
Durham County
Chapel Hill Town (pt)
Durham City
Franklin County
Orange County
Chapel Hill Town (Pt)
Wake County
Raleigh City
Reno. NV NSA
Wa shoe County
Reno City
Sacramento. CA MSA
El Dorado County
Placer County
Sacramento County
Sacramento City
lob County
Davis City
Woodland City
28
-------
San DieQo . CA MSA
San Diego County
Escondido City
San Diego City
SDokane. WA MSA
Spokane County
Spokane City
Stockton. CA MSA
San Joaquin County
Lodi City
Stockton City
Syracuse. NY NSA
Madison County
Onondaga County
Syracuse City
Oswego County
Washjngton. DC-MD-VA MSA
District of Columbia
Washington City
Calvert County, MD
Charles County, MD
Frederick County, MD
Frederick City
Montgomery County, MD
Prince Georges County, MD
Arlington County, VA
Arlington (CDP)
Fairfax County, VA
Loudon County, VA
Prince William County, VA
Staf ford County, VA
Alexandria city, VA
Fairfax City, VA
Falls Church City, VA
.1anassas City, VA
Manassas Park City, VA
29
-------
Other CO Nonattair ent Areas Re ’uired to :- er.ert Ox’,’Qenated Gaso1 ne
Progra ms 2 :
Missoula, MT
Fairbanks, AK
Grant’s Pass, OR
Kiamath Co., OR
2 Please see the November 6, 1991 Federal Register Notice on Air Quality
Designations (56 FR 56694 November 6, 1991) for a more detailed definition of the
boundaries for these CO nonauainment areas. This notice is scheduled to be updated
shortly.
30
-------
Guidelines for Oxygenated Gasoline Credit Programs under
Section 211(m) of the Clean Air Act as Amended
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
Office of Mobile Sources
Field Operations and Support Division
-------
Guidelines for Oxygenated Gasoline Credit Programs under Section 211(m) of the
Clean Air Act as Amended
SUMMARY: Section 211(m) of the Clean Air Act as Amended by the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 (The Act ) requires that various states subm revisions to
their State Implementation Plans (SIPs), and implement oxygenated gasoline
programs. This requirement applies to all states with carbon monoxide (GO)
nonattainment areas with design values of 9.5 parts per million or more based
generally on 1988 and 1989 data. The oxygenated gasoline program must require
gasoline in the specified control areas to contain at least 2.7% oxygen by weight
during that portion of the year in which the areas are prone to high ambient
concentrations of carbon monoxide.
Section 211 (m)(5) of the Act requires that EPA promulgate guidelines for state
credit programs, allowing the use of marketable oxygen credits for gasolines with a
higher oxygen content than required to offset the sale or use of gasolines with a lower
oxygen content than required.
These guideknes are for such oxygenated gasoline credit programs.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to these guidelines have been placed in Docket
A-91-04 by EPA. In addition, EPA has engaged in the Regulatory Negotiation process
to assist in developing these guidelines. A separate docket has been set up for the
Regulatory Negotiation, Docket A-91-17. These dockets are located in the Air Docket
Section (LE-131), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, in room M-1500 of Waterside Mall, and may be inspected
from 8:30 am. to 12:00 noon and from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alfonse Mannato, (202) 260-9050
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON:
I. Introduction
These guidelines are for oxygenated gasoline credit programs required under
section 211 (m)(5) of the Act. The remainder of this preamble is dMded into three
parts. Section II provides the background for this action, with respect to chronology
and the broad issues involved. Section Ill presents EPA ’s action and rationale.
Section IV summarizes and addresses comments received in response to the Notice
of Proposed Guidance’ published on July 9, 1991 and the Supplemental Notice of
‘56 FR 31148 (July 9, 1992).
-------
Proposed Guidance 2 published on February 5, 1992.
II. Background
Motor vehicles are significant contributors of carbon monoxide emissions. An
important measure to reduce these emissions is the use of ocygenates in motor
vehicles gasoline. By adding oxygenates to gasoline, exhaust emissions of carbon
monoxide are reduced.
Section 211(m) of the Act requires that states with carbon monoxide
nonattainment areas with design values of 9.5 parts per million or more, based on
data for the two year period of 1988 and i989, 3 submit revisions to their State
Implementation Plans (SIPs). Although the Act does not specify a due date for these
SIP revisions, the Agency is interested in setting such a date in order to encourage
consistency across the nation in implementing the oxygenated gasoline programs.
Out of three possible due dates proposed by the Agency in its February 5, 1992
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Guidelines, 4 today’s guidelines specify November
15, 1992 as the due date for the submittal of section 211(m) oxygenated gasoline SIP
revisions. Many comments received by the Agency on this issue expressed the view
that the states would have difficulty complying with an earlier submittal target date
because of the complexities involved and the tight timellnes associated with
implementing an oxygenated gasoline program. In addition, this date is consistent
with other CO SIP call provisions which are specified in section 187 of the Act. Also, a
date earlier than November, 1992 would likely require notice and comment rulemaking.
The SIP revisions for the required CO nonattainment areas must establish
oxygenated gasoline programs requiring at least 2.7% oxygen by weight, except that
states may adopt credit programs such that gasoline with a higher oxygen content
than required can offset the sale or use of gasoline with a lower oxygen content than
required. The oxygen content requirement is subject to a testing tolerance to be
established by the Administrator. The oxygen content requirement applies during the
•portion of the year in which the areas are prone to high ambient concentrations of
carbon monoxide.
2 57 FR 4414 (February 5, 1992).
The Agency has determined that the 1988 and 1989 data from several areas is
inadequate to property characterize the ambient concentrations of CO. Therefore, for
these areas- Boston, Cleveland and Washington, D.C. - the older, more representative
data has been used.
57 FR 4414 (February 5, 1992).
3
-------
Under the Act, the length of these control periods is to be established by the
Administrator and shall not be less than four months in length unless a State can’
demonstrate, based on meteorological conditions, that a reduced period for any
individual control area will assure that there will be no carbon monoxide exceedances
outside of such period. These requirements are to cover all gasoline sold or
dispensed in the larger of the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) or the
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in which the nonattainment area is located.
Guidance on the establishment of control periods appears in additional guidelines
published separately. 5
Section 211 (m)(5) of the Act requires that the Administrator promulgate
guidelines allowing for the use of marketable oxygen credits from gasolines with a
higher oxygen content than required to offset the sale or use of gasolines with a lower
oxygen content than required. Under that subsection, oxygen credits may not be
transferred between control areas but instead may be used only in the area in which
they were created.
These guidelines are for state oxygenated gasoline credit programs. The
guidelines include an enforcement scheme with responsibilities and liabilities of various
parties involved in the oxygenated gasoline industry.
This document presents EPA’s guidance to states regarding credit programs to
be employed in oxygenated gasoline programs under section 211(m) of the Act. This
guidance is a general statement of policy. It does not establish a binding norm and is
not finally determinative of the issues addressed. Agency decisions in any particular
case will be made applying the law, applicable regulations and guidelines on the basis
of specific facts and actual action.
To expedite Agency decisions in particular cases, a state submitting a SIP
revision which includes an oxygenated gasoline credit program should identify all
areas where the state program differs from these guidelines and provide as detailed an
explanation as possible for these differences. For example, this explanation could
include, but need not be limited to, an explanation of any circumstances unique to the
state or localities involved and a demonstration of whether the state’s proposed
program would be at least as effective as the program presented in this guidance.’
EPA is aware that the gasoline production and distribution industry extends to
all areas of the country, crossing state borders in an intricate, nationwide web of
EPA is publishing final guidelines for the three oxygenated fuels-related notices
which were published at 56 FR 31148, 31151 and 31154 on July 9, 1991. Two of
these notices were published as supplemental notices at 57 FR 4408 and 4413 on
February 5, 1992.
4
-------
— r
commerce. At the same time, the oxygenated gasoline programs required by the Act
are centered around a limited number of carbon monoxide nonattainment areas and
their surrounding CMSAs or MSAs. State-based oxygenated gasoline credit programs
should be structured in a way that assures their successful implementation, to the
greatest extent possible, wahin the limits of state authority over a nationwide
production and marketing structure. Coordinauon among states is specifically
addressed in sections 102 and 187(e)(1) of the Act. EPA believes that these
provisions reflect Congress’s concern that state programs applicable to multi-state
nonattainment areas be coordinated, with the Agency’s help.
EPA will attempt to minimize problems associated with multi-state MSAs and
CMSAs. The Agency is committed to providing technical support to the states in
implementing these oxygenated gasoline guidelines. These guidelines should help
ensure program consistency in multi-state program areas. The Agency plans to
provide technical support such as standardized training materials, audit forms, industry
report forms, and database software to state officials. Also, the Agency will encourage
cooperative activities by the states in an attempt to coordinate the implementation of
these multi-state programs.
Regulatory Negotiation
EPA used the Regulatory Negotiation process to aid in the development of
these guidelines. This process was initiated on February 8, 1991 when EPA
announced its intent to form an Advisory Committee to negotiate certain guidelines
and proposed regulations implementing the clean fuels provisions of Section 211(k)
and (m) of the Act. 6 A public meeting was held on February 21-22, 1991 in
Washington, D.C. and after considering comments submitted in response to the notice
and the results of that public meeting, an Advisory Committee was established on
March 13, 1991. On August 16, 1991 an Agreement in Principle was signed by
members of the Advisory Committee. That Agreement embodies the consensus on
the part of the Advisory Committee members on basic elements of the oxygenated
gasoline and reformulated gasoline programs. A copy of the Agreement has been
placed in the public docket. The above-referenced notices contain a more detailed
discussion of the issues referred to the Advisory Committee, as well as information on
the requirements of the regulatory negotiation process.
Summary of the Guidelines
These guidelines are to be employed in state oxygenated gasoline programs in
which gasoline containing more oxygen than the minimum 2.7% by weight than is
required would generate marketable credits.
6 56 FR 5167 (February 8, 1991).
56 FR 10522 (March 13, 1991).
5
-------
The credit program guidelines here presented by EPA are designed to ensure
that all gasoline sold or dispensed in the control area, on the average, meets or
exceeds the minimum oxygen content required under Section 211(m).
Gasoline is typically sold or dispensed from gasoline terminals into trucks for
shipment to retail stations, or transferred in bulk to other terminals. Under the
Agency’s averaging program guidelines, averaging at the terminal level is required. In
addition, oxygenate or gasoline blending conducted in trucks at the terminal or at
remote locations is to be included in such averaging. This scenario should
encompass all retail gasoline in a control area and should thus result in all such
gasoline meeting the required oxygen content on the average. Taking advantage of
the terminals’ central position in the gasoline distribution system should maximize the
credit program’s success while minimizing its burdens, both on the regulated
community and the governmental bodies involved.
The party responsible for complying with the minimum 2.7% oxygen by weight
standard on the average, over the designated averaging period, must be specifically
identified. This party will be designated the Control Area Responsible Party (CAR).
The responsibilities of the CAR are discussed more fully below.
At the terminals the CAR would be the person who owns the gasoline sold or
dispensed from a control area terminal into a truck. 8 Selling or dispensing gasoline
from a terminal into trucks is commonly referred to as “breaking bulk.” Parties who
own or operate terminals but who do not own or sell gasoline are not CARs. Also,
persons downstream from a control area terminal who blend oxygenates into gasoline
or who otherwise change the oxygen content of gasoline intended for use in any
control area are also CARs, but are called Blender CARs. Blender CARS and CARs
are hereinafter collectively referred to as CARs. Terminal owners, whether or not they
are CARs, must provide CARs using the terminal with the volume and oxygen content
of the gasoline delivered to or received from each CAR.
The volume and oxygen content of all gasoline entering into a terminal must be
provided to the CAR. Based on this and other information the CAR must keep a
running weighted average of the gasoline it transfers into each control area.°
Gasoline that is transferred in bulk becomes the responsibility of the CAR to whom it is
transferred. Gasoline transferred by a CAR to another CAR is therefore removed from
• Control area terminals would be those terminals at which gasoline intended for
use in any control area is sold or dispensed into trucks. The terminal itself need not
be physically located in the control area.
Section 211 (m)(5) of the Act requires that an averaging program be conducted
separately for each control area.
6
-------
the averaging calculations of the CAR who transferred the gasoline. At the end of the
averaging period, the average oxygen content of all gasoline the CAR distriouted to
trucks destined for each separate control area is calculated separately. In each
control area, if the average oxygen content is greater than or equal to the required
minimum, then compliance has been demonstrated. Credits are created if the average
is greater than the required minimum. If the average oxygen content is less than the
required 2.7% by weight minimum then credits are needed to meet the compliance
average.
The averaging program presented in these guidelines is similar to the type of
program used by EPA in the lead phasedown gasoline program. To comply with the
oxygenated gasoline program CARs must, at a minimum, achieve the sales-weighted
average oxygen content over a specified time period, called the averaging period.
This can be done either by always selling each gallon of fuel w h an oxygen content at
or above the requisite oxygen content, or by adjusting the quantities and types of fuel
sold over the averaging period either directly or by obtaining credits from another
regulated party within the control period to attain at least the requisite oxygen content
on an averaged basis.
There is no intended prohibition or limitation on the ability of third party brokers
to facilitate the purchase and sale of credits. However, while persons other than CARs
may act as brokers, only CARs may own credits. Since brokers may not be as
established in the industry as CARs, they may have a reduced sense of responsibility
for the program requirements. Also, credits may be transferred to the extent such a
transfer would not result in any transferor having a negative credit balance at the
conclusion of any averaging period. Any credits transferred i violation of this
limitation are improperly created credits which may not be used regardless of the
transferee’s good faith. Where any credit transferor has in its balance both credits
which were properly created and those which are improperly created, the properly
created credits should be applied first to the transfers before the transferor may apply
any credits to achieve its own compliance.
Although not strictly necessary to achieve the desired air quality results or to
comply with the requirement of Section 211(m), an averaging program has a number
of benefits. The principal advantage of this program design is that it entails less
regulatory intrusion into the marketplace than traditional command and control
approaches. It thus retains a high degree of marketing flexibility and competition
among blending agents. The advantageous aspects of this approach can be further
enhanced by allowing suppliers to trade oxygen credits among themselves, with
suppliers of relatively low-oxygen fuels able to purchase such credits from suppliers of
relatively high-oxygen fuel within a control area.
Furthermore, when compared to an oxygenated gasoline program requiring
oxygen content compliance on a per-gallon basis, a program incorporating an oxygen
7
-------
averaging provision should prove to be less costly to implement in 1992. This is due
to the fact that averaging programs will allow the supply of oxygenates, which some
parties have suggested to be limited for the first control season beginning in 1992, to
be used in a flexible and hence more efficient manner. Therefore, EPA strongly
recommends that states adopt averaging programs consistent with these guidelines.
EPA and various parties have raised concerns about the possibility that in the
context of an averaging program, gasoline which does not conform to the
requirements for oxygenated gasoline may be sold or dispensed within a control area
without being detected since there would be no per-gallon standard against which to
test the gasoline. Two options were considered to address this potential problem.
The first option would have required the use of a marker. Under that option, gasoline
which was not destined for use in a control area would contain a marker and it would
be a prohibited act for parties downstream of the terminal in the distribution system to
sell or dispense such marked gasoline in a control area. The second option was to
establish a minimum oxygen content requirement for all gasoline sold or dispensed
within the control area.
EPA’s guidelines specify a minimum of 2.0% oxygen by weight in all gasoline
offered for sale, sold or dispensed by a CAR for use in the control areas during the
control period. This requirement would also apply to all parties downstream of the
CAR. The same minimum requirement would apply for all gasoline sold or dispensed
to the uftimate consumer in the control area during the applicable control periods. The
only exception to this requirement would be for gasoline sold or dispensed from one
CAR directly to another CAR. Also, this requirement does not prevent the storage of
nonoxygenated gasoline which is either intended for use in blending with ethanol or
intended for use outside of control areas. EPA requests that states monitor the
availability of and demand for a variety of oxygenates, and should take appropriate
steps necessary to reasonably assure the availability of these various oxygenates in
the marketplace.
In these guidelines, CARs are required to register with the state, and to provide
reports on each averaging period. Under the guidelines, each CAR which has
registered to engage in credit averaging and trading shall, as an additional part of the
reporting requirements, submit an attestation engagement to the state. The attestation
engagement may be conducted by either an internal auditor employed by the CAR or
a certified public accountant (CPA). The attestation engagement shall be based upon
the agreed-upon procedures contained in these guidelines, and shall focus on the
underlying documentation that forms the basis of the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements under these guidelines. This attestation report will be made at the
conclusion of each annual control period. An illustrative CPA report is included as
Appendix 0.
These credit program guidelines provide that credits are created on the basis of
8
-------
the oxygen content of the oxygenated gasoline sold or dispensed in a particular
control area, that credits are to be used to demonstrate compliance only within the
same control area tn which they were earned, and that credits may only be used
during the averaging period in which they were created.
Ill. Action
Sale of Only Oxygenated Gasoline in a Control Area
The guidelines specify that each state establish a minimum 2.0% oxygen
requirement by weight in all gasoline sold or dispensed by a CAR for use in the
control areas during the control period. This requirement would also apply to all
parties downstream of the CAR. The same minimum requirement would apply for all
gasoline sold or dispensed to the ultimate consumer in the control area during the
control period. The only exception to this requirement would be for gasoline sold or
dispensed from one CAR directly to another CAR. This requirement would apply in
addition to the other requirements for averaging programs.
There are several reasons for using a minimum content requirement as an
adjunct to an averaging program. First, in each control area there will be less potential
variation in the effect of the program on the ambient air quality level on any given day,
because of the 2.0% oxygen by weight minimum. Second, enforcement of the
program will be somewhat simplified in that state enforcement personnel could readily
take samples for comparison to the required minimum. 10 Finally, there will be less
potential for consumer confusion concerning the amount of oxygen being marketed.
EPA recommends that the states implement a five-day leadtime requirement.
The data suggests that a leadtime of five days will ensure that most, if not all, retail
stations will be able to dispense gasoline on the first day of every control period that
contains the 2.0% oxygen by weight minimum content requirement. A longer period is
not necessarily supported by the data and may cause a significant reduction in the
supply of oxygenates available for the oxygenated gaso ne programs during the
control periods throughout the country, especialty in the fIrst year of the program.
EPA recommends that each state become familiar with the logistics associated with
their respective CMSAs and MSAs in order to ensure that a five-day leadtime is
adequate.
Length of Averaging Period
The following averaging periods shall apply to all control areas: For any area
with a control period of five months or less, the averaging period shall be equal to the
10 Sampling for the minimum will not obviate the need for states to audit CARs to
ensure the averaged standard of 2.7% is being met. Guidelines for state audits will be
covered in a separate implementation document to be issued later this year.
9
-------
control period, and for areas with control periods of SIX months or longer, the
averaging period shall be three months in length. In addition to these averaging
periods, EPA recommends use of a 30-day reconciliation period following each
averaging period, during which time CARs may purchase or sell credits for use in
connection with the averaging period which has just concluded. Because credits may
not be “banked, or carried from one control period to another, this reconciliation
period will allow maximum use of credits by each CAR during each control period.
Banking Credits
Some parties have suggested that the banking of credits from one averaging
period to another should be allowed as a means of permitting further flexibility to the
industry. In light of the averaging periods that have been established, the minimum
requirement of 2.0% oxygen in every gallon of gasoline and the 30-day reconciliation
period at the end of each averaging period, the Agency believes sufficient flexibility is
available, is concerned that carryover of credits could potentially present air quality
problems, and therefore is not including a banking provision in these guidelines.
Blendstock/Export/Storage Issues
The sale or distribution of nonoxygenated gasoline by any person for use in any
control area is prohibited under these guidelines unless (a) such gasoline is
segregated from oxygenated gasoline, (b) the documents which accompany such
gasoline are clearly marked as ‘nonoxygenated gasoline, not for sale to ultimate
consumer in a control area,’ and (C) the nonoxygenated gasoline is in fact not sold or
dispensed to ultimate consumers, during the control period, in the control area.
Gasoline intended for sale to the ultimate consumer in a control area during the
control period must contain the required 2.0% minimum oxygen content to avoid
enforcement action at any point from the CAR to the retailer or the wholesale
purchaser-consumer.
In classifying product, however, some concern has been expressed about
blendstock, gasoline which is destined for export, and gasoline in storage. These are
petroleum products that are not standard oxygenated gasoline and would not contain
the required 2.0% oxygen content, but which might have a legitimate presence within a
control area.
As a matter of enforcement policy, EPA expects that a state would not hold a party
liable for the possession or transfer of nonoxygenated product downstream of the
refiner or importer facility which may arguably meet the regulatory definition of gasoline
if the following requirements are met:
1. The product is dearly labeled as ‘blendstock/export/storage ’ and the
evidence supports this classification;
2. The accompanying documents clearly state that the product does not
comply with the oxygenated gasoline requirements;
10
-------
3. Some aspect of the product’s quality supports the party’s claim that the
product was intended to be further blended before being sold, supplied, etc. as
finished product;
4. The seller, supplier, or transporter of the product has obtained a written
certification or notice on shipping documents from the buyer/recipient of the product
that the buyer/recipient understands that the product is not intended for sale or
distribution as finished gasoline in a control area unless or until (a) it is blended to
meet the oxygenated gasoline regulatory requirements; (b) the buyer/recipient
receives equivalent certification from a subsequent buyer or obtains a written
certification that the gasoline will not be sold or dispensed for use within a control
area; and
5. The party has no knowledge or reason to believe that the product will not be
further blended to comply with the regulatory standards before being sold, supplied or
transported as finished product, or that it would be sold or dispensed without further
blending within a control area.
Registration
At least 30 days before the beginning of any control period, any person who sells
or dispenses gasoline obtained from a control area terminal, known as a CAR, would
be required to register with the state. At the time of registration, every CAR would be
required to declare its intention to comply with these guidelines through oxygen credit
unit averaging or per-gallon minimum standards. My party which decides it would like
to participate in a control area as an averaging CAR, either prior to or after the start of
the control period, may do so after submitting a registration application to the state,
and recevng the state’s approval. States are encouraged to process the applications,
especially those received in mid-season as quickly or possible. When registered by a
state, every CAR would receive a CAR identification number, with averaging CARs
authorized to conduct oxygen credit unit trades. This registration would be on a form
provided by the state, and would contain basic information provided by the
owner/operator on the day-to-day operation of the terminal or blending facility from
which the CAR operates. The state would have the flexibility to request additional
information that it deems appropriate. A valid registration would be a pre-condition for
operating as a CAR. From the time any such information becomes inaccurate, the
CAR would have 30 days in which to provide an update. The 30-day time period
would allow the states sufficient time for the review of applications, while still allowing
the CARs the flexibility to join state averaging programs during a control season.
Soeciflc Resoonsibilities/Liabilities of Regulated Parties
The oxygenated gasoline credit program guidelines impose responsibilities on
parties in the gasoline industry which fall generally into four categories:
Persons who produce or import gasoline (refiners and importers)
are responsible for assuring that gasoline is tested and that the
documentation that accompanies the 9asoline accurately reflects the
11
-------
oxygen content. Liability for violations of tnese requirements is for the
refiner or importer only.
Persons who transport, store or sell gasoline (refiners, importers,
bIenders , distributors, resellers, retailers, wholesale purchaser-consumers and)
have various responsibilities associated with assuring that only oxygenated
gasoline is sold or. dispensed for use in control areas. Persons who transport,
store, or sell gasoline downstream from the CAR are responsible for assuring
that gasoline intended for sale to retailers or wholesale-purchaser consumers
within a control area meets the 2.0% required minimum oxygen specification.
Persons who transport, store, or sell gasoline at the terminal or upstream from
the terminal are responsible for assuring that the oxygenate content of all
gasoline intended for use in a control area, as stated on the accompanying
paperwork, is accurate. These persons are also responsible for assuring that
all nonoxygenated gasoline sold into a control area for use as a blendstock is
sold only to CARs duly registered with the state. Liability for violations of these
requirements is for the facility where the violation is found, and for all persons
upstream from that facility, except in the case of violations associated with the
minimum requirement, which stop at the terminal.
Terminal owners and operators are responsible for assuring that the
oxygen content of the gasoline they receive, handle or dispense is accurate.
CARs are responsible for assuring that gasoline intended for use within a
control area, during the control period, meets the 2.0% required minimum
oxygen specification; for obtaining the information necessary to assure, if
possible, that oxygenated gasoline once accounted for is in fact sold or
dispensed in the proper control area; for properly accounting for credits
generated, transferred or received; for assuring that the oxygenated gasoline
standard is met on the average for each averaging period in each relevant
control area; and for submitting reports evidencing compliance.
Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers are responsible for
assuring that gasoline intended for sale during the control period contain at
least 2.0% oxygen, by weight.
The term responsible for assuring as used above is not meant to imply that a
party guarantee compliance at a point downstream from it in the gasoline distribution
netwo, k. In fact, elements of various defenses that would be available to regulated
parties are discussed below.
With respect to those regulatory responsibilities where potential liability exists for
parties upstream from the facility found in violation, the guidelines include liability for
the operator of the facility in violation and presumptive liability for upstream parties.
Under this approach, defenses would be available for each party with presumptive
12
-------
I
liability. This is the scheme which is followed under the federal gasoline lead
contamination, volatility, and diesel fuel sulfur content regulations.”
EPA believes that the principal advantage of the presumptive iiability approach
is that it allows identification of the person who caused the violation. EPA is
concerned that nonoxygeriated gasoline could be mixed with oxygenated gasoline by
any person in the gasoline distribution network, and that it would be difficult or
impossible for the state to identity the person responsible for causing this violation. In
order to address this difficulty, those persons who actually handle the gasoline, who
are in the best position to identify the cause of any violation, must have an incentive to
be forthcoming in providing accurate compliance information. EPA believes that a
presumptive liability scheme is the most appropriate method of addressing this
concern. This is a scheme which is familiar both to EPA and to industry, arid makes
the most efficient use of state resources.
Under a scheme of presumptive liability there are a number of defenses
available to all parties in the oxygenated gasoline distnbution network. In any case in
which a refiner, importer, CAR or blender CAR, distributor, reseller or carrier would be
liable for a violation detected downstream of its own facility, any party can construct a
defense by demonstrating three things:
1) That the violation was not caused by the regulated party or its
employees or agents;
2) That the proper documentation accompanied the product and that the
documents contain accurate information regarding the oxygen content of the product
in question; and
3) In the case of a refiner, importer, CAR or blender CAR, distributor, or
reseller, that the regulated party conducts an acceptable sampling and testing
program to assure the quality of the product being handled on a regular basis.
The idea of a quality assurance program is not unique to these oxygenated
gasoline guidelines; the Agency has employed such defense schemes in other fuel
programs such as lead phasedown. The Agency feels that the easiest way for a
regulated party to prove that it is not liable for violations is through a random sampling
and testing program; however, this type of testing is not required for all parties in the
gasoline distribution network. Because by definition they never take ownership of the
gasoline they handle, carriers will be held to a different standard for liability defense.
For refiners, importers, CARs and blender CARs, distributors and resellers, for a
quality assurance program to be acceptable to the Agency, the regulated party would
See 40 CFR 80.23, 80.27 and 80.29.
13
-------
need to demonstrate that it either conducts the program itself, or commissions an
independent testing service to conduct systematic periodic testing of a percentage of
the total product handled by that regulated party. The program should be designed to
provide an accurate representation of a sample of products handled by the regulated
party.
The design of these quality assurance programs would be flexible, a matter to
be considered by each individual regulated party and the state enforcing its
compliance.
For the forgoing reasons, EPA has designed a liability scheme for the
oxygenated gasoline credit program guidance based upon presumptive liability. EPA
believes such an approach will be the most effective and equitable method of placing
liability upon the party or parties responsible for causing a violation.
The Control Area Resoonsible Party - The Control Area Responsible Parties (CARs)
are those parties subject to the average oxygen content standard. To account for
oxygenated gasoline credits units, the CAR must know the specific oxygen content of
each batch of oxygenated gasoline it has delivered to a control area to be offered for
sale or dispensed by a retailer or a wholesale purchaser-consumer dunng the control
period.
The guidelines direct that there be two potential responsible parties. The first
would be the person who owns gasoline which is sold or dispensed over the rack
from a control area terminal, or the CAR. A control area terminal is a facility which is
capable of receiving gasoline in bulk, i.e. by pipeline or barge, and/or at which
gasoline is altered either in quantity or quality. Gasoline which is intended for use in
any control area is sold or dispensed into trucks at these control area terminals. The•
second potential responsible party would be the person who owns oxygenated
gasoline which is sold or dispensed from a control area oxygenate blending facility, or
the Blender CAR. A control area oxygenate blending facility is any facility or truck at
Which the oxygen content by weight of gasoline intended for use in any control area is
altered in any manner other than combining two or more fuels complying with the
2.0% oxygen by weight minimum requirement. The quality or quantity of gasoline is
not altered in any other manner, except through the addition of deposit-control
additives. All CARS and Blender CARs will be required to register with the state before
being allowed to buy or sell oxygenated gasoline or oxygen credit units.
Questions have been raised as to the regulatory status of various parties such
as a truck blender who blends raffinates or who adds gasoline to an oxygenate blend.
The definitions have been expanded to indude these various scenarios. Such
blenders would be considered a CAR he sells or dispenses blended gasoline in a
control area during a control period since he is altering both the quantity and the
quality of gasoline.
14
-------
At gasoline terminals which sell or dispense gasoline for use in a control area,
the owner of the gasoline which is sold or dispensed is the CAR. The CAR must know
the oxygen content of the gasoline it is dispensing or selling in order to account for
the credits or debits generated by that gasoline and to ensure that every gallon
complies with the minimum oxygenate requirement of 2.0% oxygen content by weight
The CAR would know this inform ticn through receipt of transfer documents from
upstream parties, through its own testing as part of a quality assurance program, or
by receipt of information on the mathematically calculated oxygen content from the
terminal operator in charge of the terminal from which a CARs gasoline was sold. It is
the CAR ’s responsibility, at the close of every averaging period, to demonstrate
compliance with the average 2.7% oxygen content by weight for the total volume of all
gasoline sold or dispensed into any one control area over the course of the entire
averaging period.
CARs which have chosen to comply with these guidelines through a per-gallon
standard would have less of a burden to prove compliance with an oxygenated
gasoline program.
When any blending of oxygenates occurs at the terminal, or at another location
downstream from the terminal, the responsible party is the Blender CAR. Owners of
gasoline who are not registered CARs are permitted to sell gasoline only outside of
control areas, or to sell to registered CARs and Blender CARs. Once a Blender CAR
has obtained the gasoline, it may add oxygenates to it in order to comply with the
average oxygen content standard and the minimum per-gallon oxygenate requirement
of 2.0% oxygen by weight. It is the Blender CAR’s responsibility, at the close of every
averaging period, to demonstrate compliance with the average 2.7% oxygen content
by weight for the total volume of all gasoline it sold or dispensed into any one control
area over the course of the entire averaging period.
CARs and Blender CARs have the same responsibilities and liabilities. Their
responsibilities consist generally of accounting for all oxygen content associated with
the oxygenated gasoline which is dispensed into trucks for delivery into any control
area during a control period, to ensure that every gallon sold or dispensed for use in
the control area meets the 2.0% minimum oxygen requirement, and for submitting
reports to the state at the conclusion of each averaging period showing average
oxygen gasoline standards were achieved.
EPA’s guidelines provide that CARs shall, as part of the reporting requirements,
engage either an, internal auditor or an independent certified public accountant (CPA)
or firm of CPAS to perform an agreed-upon procedures attestation engagement of the
underlying documentation that forms the basis of the reports which are submitted to
the state in accordance with the requirements of the guidelines at the conclusion of
each annual control period. This requirement is discussed more fully below.
15
-------
The averaging responsibility is located at the gasoline terminals and at blender
facilities because, as previously described, they represent the last centralized point in
the gasoline distribution network before gasoline is transported by truck to a wide
variety of retail locations in the control area. EPA expects that compliance with the
averaging requirement at terminals and blending facilities will lead to compliance, on
average, by all gasoline dispensed to ultimate consumers in the control area. The
centralized nature of the CAR facilities will also allow the averaging requirement to
apply to a manageable number of identifiable parties, facilitating implementation and
enforcement. Because the 2.7% oxygen by weight requirement is an average to be
applied over an entire control area, if a CAR supplies a single control area from more
than one terminal, the CAR may combine volumes sold from the respective terminals
to satisfy the average oxygen requirement.
ft is EPA’s opinion that the owner of the gasoline is in the best position to
exercise control over the oxygen content of the gasoline. However, EPA
acknowledges that there are various situations where the responsibilities of a CAR may
be shifted to another CAR which is in a better position to assume such responsibilities.
A CAR would be able to contractually assign its responsibilities under these
guidelines to another party who is also a registered CAR by contractually transferring
ownership of the gasoline. Thus, a party which owns gasoline but which wishes to
reassign its CAR responsibilities (i.e. recordkeeping, reporting, averaging, etc.) to
another party better-suited to act as the CAR for the gasoline in question (such as a
parther in an exchange agreement) could do so. The assigning CAR would have a
zero volume of gasoline to report.
In addition, these guidelines allow terminal owners and operators to act on
behalf of a CAR by accepting gasoline into the terminal, but not to allow its
introduction into commerce unless the proper documentation accompanies it
containing information such as oxygen content and volume, or until testing using
approved methods has been done to establish the oxygen content. This is designed
to assure that the information needed to conduct averaging is available to the CAR.
.The terminal owner or operator would also be responsible for conducting a quality
assurance program to verify the accuracy of such information.
Compliance in the oxygenated gasoline program for CARs is based upon the
oxygenated gasoline dispensed into trucks or barges for transport into control areas,
plus or minus any credit transfers, and excluding the oxygenated gasoline transferred
outside the control area in bulk or to another registered CAR in any control area.
Separate compliance determinations must be calculated for every control area served
by a CAR, regardless of the number of terminal facilities owned by that CAR which
serve the same area.
The following is an example of a compliance calculation for a CAR.
16
-------
On day one of the compliance period the CAR received 100,000 gallons of
oxygenated gasoline, containing 3.0 percent by weight oxygen. The credit status of
this batch of gasoline is calculated as follows:
Actual Oxygen Content Units = weight percent X gallons
3.0 X 100,000 = 300,000 actual oxygen content units
The CAR received a total of three other shipments of oxygenated gasoline
during the compliance period, which had the following oxygen contents:
Batch Gallons % Oxygen Oxygen Content Units
2 100,000 2.0% 200,000
3 100,000 2.3% 230,000
4 100,000 2.9% 290,000
In this example, the CAR had no bulk transfers of gasoline to another control
area, or to any non-control areas. Also, it is assumed that all the gasoline associated
with these four batches was sold or dispensed in this same control area during the
same control period. Therefore, the four batches of gasoline received constituted the
total gasoline which was relevant to the oxygenated fuel compliance determination. To
determine compliance, the CAR compares the required total oxygen credit units to the
actual oxygen credit units which resulted from the gasoline sold or dispensed into the
control area.
The required oxygen credit units are calculated by multiplying the averaging
standard times the total volume in gallons. The averaging standard is 2.7 weight
percent oxygen, meaning that in this example, the resulting required total content of
oxygen is:
2.7 X 400,000 gallons = 1,080,000 oxygen credit units
The actual oxygen credit unit total is compared to this required total. In this
example the actual total is 1,020,000 oxygen credit units, which is 60,000 oxygen
credit units less than the required total. As a result, the CAR must obtain 60,000
oxygen credit units generated by another CAR in the same control area and averaging
period in order to achieve compliance.
For each control area served by a CAR, calculations such as these must be
computed.
17
-------
The next sample calculation demonstrates how a CAR or terminal operator will
compute the running weighted average oxygen content of a single bulk tank out of
which oxygenated fuel is sold or dispensed into any control area. These calculations
shall be used by a CAR or terminal operator who receives oxygenated gasolines of
varying oxygen content during the compliance period, and stores them all in the same
tank. This example is unlike the one above which would require that each shipment of
oxygenated fuel be handled separately.
On day one of the control period, the CAR has 400,000 gallons of oxygenated
gasoline in a tank, which contains 2.0% oxygen by weight. No gasoline is sold or
dispensed out of this tank on day one, and on day two, the CAR receives another
100,000 gallon shipment of oxygenated gasoline, this time containing 2.4% oxygen by
weight. The running weighted average oxygen content of this tank, now containing
500,000 gallons of oxygenated gasoline, would be calculated as follows:
2.0 X 400,000 = 800,000 oxygen credit units
2.4 X 100,000 = 240,000 oxygen credit units
The average running weighted average oxygen content is found by dividing the total
oxygen credit units in the tank by the number of gallons of oxygenated gasoline in the
tank:
1040,000 divided by 500 000 = 2.08
Therefore, the running weighted average oxygen content of this tank is 2.08% oxygen
by weight.
This calculation is a simplification. It assumes that the amounts of gasoline
entering and leaving a tank can be easily accounted for, and that the different
oxygenate-containing gasolines will mix uniformly in the tanks. In reality, some tanks
are capable of recevving and dispensing gasoline at the same time. Also, there may
be some stratification of the oxygenate levels within a tank. But because the Agency
feels that there will be few instances of terminal storage tanks receiving gasolines of
different oxygenate and oxygen contents, the RWOC system is the most appropriate
method.
To continue the example, on day three the CAR dispenses 5 separate batches
of 10,000 gallons of oxygenated gasoline each from this tank into 5 separate trucks,
for a total of 50,000 gallons dispensed into the control area. The gasoline in these
trucks has an oxygen content of 2.08% by weight, based on the calculation above.
These withdrawals leave 450,000 gallons of oxygenated fuel in the tank.
After dispensing this gasoline, the tank receives a shipment of 200,000 gallons
of oxygenated gasdine containing 2.7% oxygen by weight, bringing the total gallonage
18
-------
in the tank up to 650,000 gallons. The running weighted average oxygen content of
the tank after this addition would be calculated as follows:
2.08 X 450,000 = 936,000 oxygen credit units
2.70 X 200,000 = 540,000 oxygen credit un s
1,476,000 divided by 650,000 = 2.27
Therefore, the running weighted average oxygen content of the tank after both
the dispensing of the 50,000 gallons and the addition of the 200.000 gallons of 2.7%
gasoline is 2.27% oxygen by weight. Any gasoline subsequently dispensed into trucks
would have an oxygen content of 2.27% by weight.
The next example is a compliance calculation which would be used by a
blender CAR. On day one of the compliance period the blender CAR received 900
gallons of gasoline containing 0.0% oxygenate by volume. The blender CAR then
added 100 gallons of ethanol, bringing the total volume of gasoline to 1000 gallons,
the oxygenate volume percentage up to 10.0% and the oxygen content by weight up
to 3.5%. The credit status of batch 1 of gasoline is calculated as follows:
Actual Oxygen Credit units = weight percent X gallons
3.5 X 1,000 = 3,500 oxygen credit units
The blender CAR had a total of three other shipments of oxygenated gasoline
during the compliance period, which had the following volumes and oxygen contents
after the blender added oxygenate to the products:
% Oxygen
Batch Gallons when dispensed Oxygen Credit Units
2 1,000 3.5% 3,500
3 1,000 2.2% 2,200
4 1,000 2.7% 2,700
In this example, the blender CAR had no transfers of gasoline to another control
area or to any non-control areas. Jso, it is assumed that all the gasoline associated
with these four batches was sold or dispensed in the same control area during the
same control period. Therefore, the four batches of gasoline received constituted the
total gasoline which was relevant to the oxygenated fuel compliance determination. To
determine compliance, the blender CAR compares the required oxygen credit unit total
to the actual oxygen credit unit total which resulted from the addition of ethanol to the
gasoline which was sold or dispensed into the control area.
19
-------
The required oxygen credit unit total is calculated by multiplying the averaging
standard times the total volume in gallons The averaging standard is 2.7 weight
percent oxygen, meaning that in this example, the resulting required oxygen credit unit
total is:
2 7 X 4,000 gallons = 10,800 oxygen credit units
The actual oxygen credit units total is compared to this required total. In this
example, the actual total is 11,900 units, which is 1,100 units more than the required
total. As a result, the blender CAR may transfer 1,100 oxygen credit to another CAR
or blender CAR in the same control area and averaging period.
Attestation Engagements
EPA’s guidelines provide that each CAR which engages in credit averaging
shall, as part of the reporting requirements, engage a certified public accountant (CPA)
or firm of certified public accountants to perform an agreed-upon procedures
attestation engagement of the underlying documentation that forms the basis of the
reports, in accordance with the requirements of the guidelines, at the conclusion of
each annual control period. These guidelines permit the use of two different types of
auditors:
1) Internal auditors may be used in certain situations. Many large
companies may have internal auditors on staff who may perform the attestation
engagements required under these guidelines. Internal auditors may perform these
duties provided they are either Certified Internal Auditors (CIAs) or members in good
standing of the Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc. (IIA). As such, the internal auditors
will be bound by the hA’s Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.
This requirement is intended to guarantee a number of things: That the internal
auditor is independent of the activities being audited under these guidelines; that the
internal auditor is objective and proficient is his or her profession; and that the internal
auditor is bound by a code of professional ethics.
2) When internal auditors meeting the criteria discussed above are not
available within the CAR’s organization, an independent CPA or firm of independent
CPAs must be used to perform the attestation engagement required under these
guidelines.
Regardless of whether an internal auditor or a CPA is used by a CAR,
attestation engagements would be conducted in accordance with the applicable
professional standards following agreed upon procedure contained in these
guidelines. These guidelines cover a wider range of services than the audit of
historical financial statements. EPA has worked closely with the AICPA and industry in
establishing these procedures which will accurately and efficiently provide the intended
compliance information in the most cost-effective manner. The llA is supportive of
20
-------
these procedures as well.
These attestation engagements are not intended as substitutes for enforcement
audits conducted by the state, but are intended to serve as a means of improving
compliance with the oxygenated gasoline program by identifying problem areas to the
regulated parties. Such attestation engagements will assure regulated parties that
their records will be reviewed and cross-checked for accuracy by a third party. They
will lead te the correction of simple arithmetic errors and will help to clarify the
regulatory requirements. And importantly, they will deter the submission of false
reports.
EPA’s guidelines provide that annual attestation engagements be conducted by
an internal auditor or a CPA with the report submitted by the CAR to the state no later
than 120 days following the end of the control period. Submission of the auditors or
CPA’s report by the CAR to the state is required, and failure to meet this requirement
would constitute a reporting violation by the CAR. EPA intends to develop
standardized CAR-reporting forms for the state to adopt as a means of enhancing
uniformity and consistency in the attestation engagement and agreed-upon
procedures. Drafts of these CAR-reporting forms have been sent to those states that
have expressed an interest in establishing an averaging program and have been
placed in Docket A-91 -04.
EPA believes that the objectivity of the attestation engagement, whether
performed by internal auditors or independent CPAs, is important for the effective
enforcement of the oxygenated gasoline program. This obiectivity will help to ensure
accurate accounting of oxygen content and gasoline volumes. In response to
comments, EPA has made several changes that should significantly reduce the costs
of these attestation engagements. These changes are: a) the use of specific ‘agreed-
upon procedures; b) the use of internal audit staff, as appropriate and consistent with
both the VA Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and the AICPA
Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements; c) the use of audit sampling; and
d) requiring the report to be submitted in 120 days instead of 60 days after the end of
the control period.
In order to maintain consistency within the process EPA specifies the following
credentials for the CPAs to be chosen by the regulated parties, and provides the
following minimum guidelines to be followed in each attestation engagement.
(1) Credentials of internal auditors or CPAs. The guidelines
21
-------
require that the attestation engagements be conducted by either internal auditors or
independent CPAs and that attestation engagements are to be conducted in
accordance with either the Codification of Standards for the Professional Practice of
Internal Auditing or the Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements,
respectively. In general, the attestation standards deal with the need for technical
competence, independence in mental attitude, due professional care, adequate
planning and supervision, sufficient evidence, and appropriate reporting.
EPA’s guidelines, in stating that the attestation engagements be performed in
conformity with the above-referenced standards, anticipate that the internal auditors
and CPAs will perform all of the required engagement procedures. EPA also expects
that the internal auditors and CPAs will document the procedures and findings with
working papers, consistent with’the applicable standards.
(2) Attestation Guidelines in General. The guidelines
contain a listing of the general types of standard industry records which are required
to be included in the CPA’s attestation engagement procedures.
The CAR shall, as part of the reporting requirements, conduct an attestation
engagement. This engagement shall be performed by either an internal auditor or a
CPA or a firm of CPAs. This attestation engagement will study the underlying
documentation that forms the basis of the reports, in accordance with the
requirements of the guidelines, at the conclusion of each annual control period.
In performing the attestation engagement, the CPA should determine the
sample size for each population to which agreed-upon procedures will be applied in
such a manner that a sample size is equal to that which would result by using the
following sampling parameters:
Number in Population (N) Sample Size
66 or larger 59
41-65 41
26-40 31
0 - 25 N or 24, whichever is
smaller
The number of populations from which samples should be drawn will vary
depending on the circumstances. Sample items should be selected in such a way that
the sample can be expected to be representative of the population.
If the internal auditor or CPA agrees to use some other form of sample
selection and some other method to determine the sample size, that agreement
should be summarized in the internal auditor’s or CPA’s report.
22
-------
In the case of an independent CPA, while an CPA should be required to issue
the attestation engagement reports called for by the guidelines, nothing shall preclude
the CPA from requesting assistance from the CAR’s internal auditors in accordance
with the Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements.
(3) Attestation Engagement Guidelines for Control Area
Responsible Parties. It is EPA’s belief that many CARs will also be terminal operators.
However, not all CARs will be terminal operators and therefore all CARs may not have
access to some of the records referenced below. For example, a non-terminal
operator CAR will likely not possess records showing the oxygen content of gasoline
entering the terminal. The requirements applicable to non-terminal operator CARs and
blender CARs would therefore be less exhaustive than those listed below. These
parties would have to demonstrate the basis of their compliance calculation.
Following is a listing of the records each CAR should maintain:
1. Records which show the quantity and oxygen content of oxygenated
gasolineentering the terminal and leaving the terminal in bulk;
2. Records which show the destination, quantity and oxygen content of
truckloads of oxygenated gasoline going to specific control areas;
3. Records which show the oxygen content of gasotine in storage tanks
from which trucks are loaded, and the calculations which formed the
basis for claimed oxygen content;
4. Testing results for storage tanks when additional gasoline is added;
5. Records showing the oxygenate type and amount which was blended;
and
6. Records which show the beginning and ending inventories and
oxygen contents of all gasoline and oxygenate storage tanks involved
in the oxygenated gasoline program.
Terminal operators normally prepare daily operations summaries for the
volumes of each tank’s inventory balances (beginning and ending), transfers in and
transfers out. Daily reports are supported by pipeline meter tickets, truck tickets, and
tank gauging reports. These daily reports are then summarized by month or quarter.
The chemical characteristics of the product stored or moved into or out of each
tank are based on periodic laboratory analysis or certificates of analysis from the
supplier. In order to comply with the guidelines, laboratory reports (or summaries
thereof) currently in use must be revised to document more fully the oxygen content of
the oxygenated gasoline, and to provide a method of averaging these characteristics.
Compliance with the minimum 2.0% oxygen by weight requirement must be strictly
monitored. The exact form of the detailed or summary reports has not yet been
determined, but the prudent terminal operator will likely perform computer analysis and
summarization of the data. These reports will also be the basis for calculating
23
-------
compliance with the oxygen standard, and determining the amount of credits
generated or required.
Special circumstances for terminals will likely require special data to be
collected in order for the CAR to demonstrate compliance, credit generation, or debit
generation. Each CAR is responsible for assuring that such data is available.
(4) CAR Reporting Forms. The guidelines provide that
the internal auditor’s or CPA’s agreed-upon procedures be applied to standardized
forms provided by the state.
Refiners and Imoorters
Refiners and importers are responsible for determining the oxygen content of all
gasoline produced or imported. This determination must be made separately for each
batch of gasoline. The importance of correctly determining the oxygenate content of
each batch of gasoline is that this parameter must be known when the gasoline arrives
at the control area where it will be dispensed. The shipping documents which
accompany each batch of gasoline down the distribution chain must specify the
oxygenate and oxygen contents associated with each shipment of gasoline. In this
manner, the person who brings the gasoline into the control area where it is intended
to be used knows the oxygenate and oxygen contents for which an accounting must
be made.
An effective state oxygenated gasoline program would include state inspections
and audits of gasoline refiners and importers. The purpose of these inspections and
audits is to collect and analyze samples of gasoline stored at the refinery or import
facility to determine if the gasoline has been properly tested and classified. In
addition, the states shall audit testing records for oxygenated gasoline previously
produced or imported for proper classification and oxygen content.
To facilitate these audits EPA’s guidelines provide that refiners and importers be
required to retain copies of documents which demonstrate that appropriate sampling
and testing was conducted to support the oxygen contents claimed. The guidelines
also provide that refiners and importers retain copies of documents which describe the
purchase or production of oxygenated gasoline as additional support for oxygen
content.
These records are to be retained at the refinery or import facility if practicable,
or at the business office of the refiner or importer. EPA recommends that states
establish a record retention requirement which coincides with their relevant statutes of
limitations for enforcement of their oxygenated gasoline programs.
Where a violation is found at a refinery or an import facility the refiner or
importer would be solely liable. The refiner or importer would have no specified
24
-------
defense where the violation is discovered at that facility other than to contest the
existence of the violation.
EPA’s guidelines provide that in cases where gasoline produced or imported by
a refiner or importer is found downstream from that party for which the oxygen content
of the gasoline is improperly stated, the refiner or importer will be presumptively liable
for these violations. The rationale for this presumption is discussed above. The
refiner or importer will be able to avoid liability W it could demonstrate that it did not
cause the violation and that the results of tests performed by the refiner, importer or
blender on the gasoline show that the proper classification and oxygen content of the
gasoline was recorded when it left the control of the refiner or importer.
In cases where gasoline which is identified by the corporate, trade or brand
name of a gasoline refiner is improperty classified or for which the oxygen content is
improperly stated, the guidelines provide that the named refiner be presumptively
liable. This liability would attach regardless of who actUally produced or imported the
gasoline (e.g., the named refiner would be presumptively liable even though the
gasoline was obtained by the named refiner from another refiner through an exchange
agreement). In order to avoid liability in this situation, these guidelines specify that the
named refiner must show the following:
(1) Records of test results for the gasoline when it was produced or
imported showing the oxygen content; and
(2) The violation was caused by action(s) of someone other than the refiner
or its employees or agents; and
(3) The violation was caused by an act in violation of law, or an act of
sabotage or vandalism; or
(4) The violation was caused by an act which was in violation of a
contractual obligation designed to prevent such violations which was
imposed by the refiner on the party operating under the refiner’s brand
name, and despite periodic sampling and testing by the refiner to assure
compliance with the contractual obligations; or
(5) The violation was caused by the act of a carrier or other distributor
engaged by the refiner for transportation of gasoline but with whom
the refiner did not have a contractual relationship, despite efforts by
the refiner (such as a periodic sampling and testing) designed to
assure that violations do not occur.
This refiner’s defense for violations found at branded facilities is closely
modeled upon the enforcement schemes followed in the federal gasoline lead
contamination, volatility, and diesel fuel sulfur content regulations.
25
-------
Distributors
EPA believes that gasoline distributors should be responsible for ensuring that
gasoline sold, dispensed, transported or stored by a distributor downstream of the
terminal is properly characterized as either oxygenated gasoline or nonoxygenated
gasoline. Distnbutors would be prohibited from selling, storing or transporting
gasoline intended for use in a control area during the control period which does not
meet the 2.0% minimum oxygen content requirement. Distributors would not be
prohib ed from storing nonoxygenated gasoline within the control area as long as it is
intended for sale in a non-control area or is intended for sale outside of the control
period or is to be used for blending with ethanol and is properly segregated and
labeled. If the fuel is intended for use in the control area and is to be sold or
dispensed after the end of the control period in the control area then the storage tank
should remain segregated until that time.
EPA’s guidelines provide that a distributor downstream of the terminal should
be liable for violations of the above requirements found at the distributor’s facility. In
addition, the guidelines specify that distributors should be liable for such violations
found at facilities downstream from the distributor, which could include facilities
operated by other distributors, downstream carriers, retailers and/or wholesale
purchaser-consumers.
In the case of oxygenated gasoline which is sold, transported, or stored
between the refinery or import facility and a control area terminal, these guidelines
provide that distributors have the additional responsibility of ensuring that their
gasoline conforms to the oxygen content which is stated in the paperwork which
accompanies the gasoline. In EPA’s guidelines, distributors would be liable for
violations of this requirement found at the distributor’s facility, and for violations found
between the distributor and the control area terminal or oxygenate blending facility.
Under EPA’s guidelines, the distributor upstream of a control area terminal or
oxygenate blending facility could avoid liability for the above requirements if it could
show: (1) that it or its employees or agents did not cause the violation (e.g., by
showing causation elsewhere); (2) possession of documents required to accompany
the gasoline, such as invoices or bills of lading, which contain the information required
by paragraph (h) of the guidelines; and (3) evidence of a quality assurance sampling
and testing program carried out by the distributor to monftor, when appropriate, the
oxygen content.
EPA believes that when gasoline found at a distributor’s facility is improperly
classified or the oxygen content is not properly stated in the accompanying
paperwork, persons upstream from the distributor should be presumptively liable for
these violations. The upstream parties would include refiners, importers, blenders,
carriers and distributors, with the exception that liability associated with the minimum
oxygen content requirement would not apply upstream of the control area terminal.
26
-------
Carriers
Carriers are distinguished from other distributors in that carriers do not take title
to the product they store or transport. As a result of this distinction, carriers
traditionally have had liability presumptions and defenses which are different from
other distributors under federal fuels enforcement schemes (e.g., volatility, leaded
contamination, and diesel sulfur).
There are at least two options for ensuring that oxygenated gasoline
transported or stored by upstream carriers and downstream carriers conforms to the
oxygenated gasoline requirements. One option is to make carriers liable only for
violations detected at the carrier’s facility, unless the carrier is able t show that it did
not cause the violation. Under this option, carriers would not be presumptively liable
for violations found downstream from the carrier’s facility, unless it can be shown that
the carrier in fact caused the violation. This is the traditional approach used for
carriers.
The second option is to make carriers presumptively liable for violations
detected downstream from the carrier. The Agency feels that it is possible for carriers
to after the quantity or quality of the product they handle, thereby necessitating some
form of quality assurance. A carrier could cause a violation under these guidelines, for
example, if its holding tanks were not properly emptied and cleaned between
shipments, or if it inadvertently mixed oxygenated gasolines with nonoxygenated
gasolines. Carriers would be able to avoid liability by showing that they did not cause
the violation, and by showing that the gasoline they transport or store conforms to the
accompanying shipping documents.
The rationale for the first liability scheme is that carriers normally do not alter the
quality of the gasoline they transport or store - in fact, the EPA’s definition of carrier in
40 CFR Part 80 requires that they not after the quality of the gasoline. Under this
argument, carriers only transport or store what they are given, and have no control
over the product. This approach was found to be most appropriate in the gasoline
volatility program because EPA is able to sample and test gasoline at any point
downstream from the carrier to determine if the gasoline conforms to the standard.
When violations of the applicable volatility standard are found, EPA normally is able to
gather enough facts to establish who caused the violation, thus deterring future
violations.
Because carriers by definition do not alter the quality or quantity of the gasoline,
and because an extensive testing requirement would be an undue burden on the
industry, EPA believes that applying presumptive liability to carriers is not appropriate.
Retailers and Wholesale Purchaser-Consumers
27
-------
The guidelines provide that during the control period, retailers and wholesale
purchaser-consumers in CO nonattainment areas are prohibited from selling or
dispensing gasoline that has less than the required 2.0% minimum oxygen for use in a
control area. Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers would be liable for
violations of the above requirements found at their facilities.
Under various federal fuels enforcement schemes, retailers and wholesale
purchaser-consumers have been able to avoid liability by showing they did not cause
the violation. The same shall hold true for these guidelines, so long as the facility also
has retained all documents which accompanied the gasoline in question.
Product Transfer Documentation
Under these guidelines, on each occasion physical custody or title of gasoline
transfers from one party to another (other than when gasoline is sold or dispensed for
use by the ultimate consumer at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer
facility), certain information shall be exchanged to facilitate administration and
enforcement. This information should be recorded either on a separate transfer
document or through the addition of the required information to paperwork which
already accompanies the shipment of gasoline. This information should include the
following:
- a. The date of the transfer;
b. The name and address of the transferor;
c. The name and address of the transferee;
d. The volume of gasoline which is being transferred;
e. The proper identification of the gasoline as
nonoxygenated or oxygenated;
f. The location of the gasoline at the time of the transfer;
g. The type of oxygenate; and
h. The oxygen content of the gasoline, and for transfers
upstream of the control area terminal and for transfers
between CARs, also the oxygenate volume of the
gasoline.
Recordkeeping and Reporting
All CARs should be required to maintain reports containing compliance information.
Parties which have selected the option of meeting the standard on a per-gallon basis
would be required to maintain a basic set of information. The records kept by these
parties would be much simpler than those the guidelines require of averaging parties.
Information to be recorded would include data on product received by the party (for
example, the date the product was received, the source of the shipment, the type of
product received, the total volume of the shipment), and data on the product sold or
supplied by the party (for example, the date the product was sold or supplied, the type
of product sold or supplied, the total volume of the shipment, the name of the person
to whom the product was sold or supplied, the oxygenate content, and the oxygen
28
-------
content of the product).
Parties which have selected the option of meeting the standard on an average
basis would be required to maintain more detailed information because of the greater
complexities of demonstrating compliance when averaging and credit trading are
involved. Information to be recorded would include data on product received by the
party (for example, the date the product was received, the source of the shipment, the
type of product received, the total volume of the shipment, and the results of any tests
performed), data on the product sold or supplied by the party (for example, the date
the product was sold or supplied, the type of product sold or supplied, the total
volume of the shipment, the name of the person to whom the product was sold or
supplied, the oxygenate content, and the oxygen content of the product). In addition,
the party would also be required to calculate the average oxygen content of its
product based on such information and according to the procedure outlined above.
In addition to the information detailed above, CARS engaging in trading oxygen
credits during a control period would be required to supply additional information in
their reports. Such information should include the name, CAR identification number
and address of the other party in each trade and the quantity of oxygen credits
(volume and oxygen content of gasoline) traded. The party selling or otherwise
transferring oxygen credits shall demonstrate how the credits.in question were
calculated. The party buying or otherwise receMng oxygen credits would be required
to calculate its compliance with the regulatory standard through the use of these
credits. Both parties to an oxygen credit trade would submit documentation to the
state which is adequate to demonstrate their mutual agreement to the trade and to
transfer the credits no later than 30 working days after the close of the averaging
period for which the trade is reported. A contract signed by both parties no later than
30 days after the close of the relevant averaging period would be sufficient for this
purpose. A purported trade would not be recognized as valid unless both parties
have reported and adequately documented it.
Persons who own control area terminals but who do not own the gasoline which is
dispensed from those terminals are not subject to the averaging standard. These
terminal operators would be required to maintain records. These records would have
to include information on the ownership, volume, and oxygen content of gasoline sold,
dispensed or transported during each averaging period, and the location to which it
was transported and whether it was within a control area or not. Such records would
provide a partial cross-check on reports submitted by persons subject to the
regulatory standard.
All parties subject to these recordkeeping requirements should be required to
retain these records for the period of time established by the state. The records
should be available for appropriate state review, even if the party is not required to
submit information to the state. For all records, the state would have the authority to
29
-------
determine whether any record should be recognized as meeting regulatory
requirements or not.
The only parties which would be required to send in compliance reports to the
state are the CARs. No later than 30 days after the close of the averaging period,
each CAR should submit a report to the state evidencing compliance and detailing its
purchases, shipments, sales, and credit accounting for the averaging period in
question. Aiso, no later than 120 days after the close of the averaging period, each
CAR should submit an internal auditors or CPA ’s attestation engagement report in
accordance with these guidelines.
SamDlino and Testing Methodologies
The sampling methodologies recommended for oxygenated fuels programs are,
in part, the same as those set forth at 40 CFR Part 80, Appendix D relating to
sampling procedures for fuel volatility.
In these guidelines, the Agency is identifying two separate testing methods for
eventual use with these oxygenated gasoline guidelines. The American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard test method, Designation D 4815-89, is
presently the most widely-used method for the determination of alcohols and MTBE in
gasoline by gas chromatography. This test method covers a procedure for
determination of methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, n-propanol, isobutanol, sec-butanol,
tert-butanol, n-butanol, and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in gasoline by gas
chromatography. However, it does not currently have the capability to detect the
presence of some of the heavier oxygenates in gasoline, one example being TAME,
although ASTM is planning to extend the scope to include up to 15% MTBE by volume
and 17% TAME by volume. Adaptation of the method 4815 for ETBE analysis is
straightforward and merely requires a change of internal standards. An additional
shortcoming of ASTM D481 5-89 is that many states which have already implemented
oxygenated gasoline programs have found the ASTM precision standards to be
inadequate because of large variations in accepted oxygen level measurements.
ASTM is currently focusing on both of these issues, and although a revised test
method is not yet available for industry use, the ASTM committee has allowed EPA to.
publish a working final draft of the revised test method, ASTM D-4815-9X. This
method has an expanded range of oxygenates which ft can test and it will yield results
in terms of mass percent oxygen. This draft is induded in these guidelines as
Appendix B. This draft has not yet been finalized by the ASTM committee, and there
are sure to be some minor changes, but is included as part of this notice in order to
give advance EPA approval for the soon-to-be finalized method. Until this method is
finalized, ASTM D4815-89 is still in effect. ¶2
12 For ASTM D—4815—89, 57 FR 4437 (February 5, 1992).
30
-------
Also in reaction to the shortcomings of ASTM D481 5-89, EPAs laboratory in
Ann Arbor, Michigan has developed an alternative testing methodology. This method
is a single column, direct injection gas chromatographic procedure for quantifying the
oxygenate content of gasoline. Unlike the current ASTM method this method can be
used to detect all types of oxygenates in gasoline. This method is included in these
guidelines as Appendix C.
The Agency believes that the EPA test (OFID) has various advantages over the
ASTM method, and is therefore preferable. The Agency anticipates it to be more
accurate and easier to conduct. Like the new ASTM method, the OFID method will be
calibrated to yield its results in terms of the mass percent oxygen contained in the fuel
blend being analyzed, which is simpler to convert into the unit of measurement of the
statutorily mandated standard than volume percent oxygenate is. This fact will
eliminate the need for the detailed conversions described in the section below,
Oxygen Content Conversions.
However, at this point in time the EPA OFID test is new, and industry is
understandably apprehensive about adopting a relatively new test. These guidelines
therefore specify that either the ASTM test method or the OFID method may be used.
This will allow the regulated parties to use equipment they may already possess, and a
test method with which they are already familiar. Nevertheless, the Agency would like
to strongly recommend use of the Ann Arbor method.
In addition to the approval of these two testing methods, EPA would like to
establish a procedure whereby additional testing methods may be approved by the
Agency. EPA recognizes that there are many potential tests for use in the detection of
oxygenates to gasoline, and would like to encourage the development of even newer
and more efficient methods. The Ann Arbor lab has already begun evaluating some
alternative laboratory methods, as well as some oxygenate screening devices which
may be useful in the field. Therefore, the Agency shall work on creating a procedure
for the evalua on and approval of other oxygenate tests.
The ASTM method contains precision information for the volume percent of
various oxygenates that varies as a function of the volume of oxygenate being
measured. The Agency plans to use a single testing tolerance for ethers and alcohols
that represents the predominant volume of these oxygenates that is expected to be
used to comply with the oxygen content requirements. The use of a single testing
tolerance for each oxygenate will simplify enforcement. This tolerance, as mandated
by the Act, section 211 (m)(2)(B), will be established by the Administrator.
Oxygen Content Conversions
An issue has been raised concerning the ability to accurately determine the
oxygen content c i gasoline when oxygenates are added by volume (usually
downstream of the refinery). This is a concern because as the specific gravity (or
31
-------
density) of the base gasoline varies, the weight fraction of oxygenate (and oxygen)
varies for any specific oxygenated gasoline blended. Hence, two blends of oxygenate
could result in differing oxygen weight fractions if the specific gravity of the base
gasolines for the two blends differ.
Typically, oxygenates are blended with gasoline volumetrically. For example, a
len percent ethanol blend typically refers to a volume percent. The standards of an
oxygenate program as delineated in the Clean Air Act Amendments are in terms of
weight percent oxygen. Technically, in order to calculate the weight percent oxygen in
the oxygenate blend, several factors must be taken into consideration. These are:
temperature and specific gravity of the oxygenate and the gasoline, and, for ethanol,
the amount of denaturant, which is some fraction of the volume ethanol added to the
gasoline. Elsewhere in these guidelines, it is stated that standard temperature will be
60 degrees Fahrenheit. In order to calculate the weight percent oxygen in the blend,
the weight percent oxygenate must be calculated. Accordingly, to calculate the weight
percent oxygenate from volume percent oxygenate, specific gravities of the oxygenate
and the blend must be taken into consideration. (Specific gravities (or densities) as
well as weight percent oxygen in the oxygenate may be found in Table 1 for common
fuel oxygenates.)
Table 1. Specific Gravity and Weight Percent Oxygen of Common Oxygenates
Oxygenate
Weight fraction
oxygen
Specific Gravity
at 60 deg F
methyl alcohol
0.4993
0.7963
ethyl alcohol
0.3473
0.7939
normal propyl alcohol
0.2662
0.8080
isopropyl alcohol
0.2662
0.7899
normal butyl alcohol
0.2158
0.8137
isobutyl alcohol
0.2158
0.8058
secondary butyl alcohol
0.2158
0.81 14
tertiary butyl alcohot
.0.2158
0.7922
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
0.1815
0.7460
tertiary amyl methyl ether AME)
0.1566
0.7752
diiso propyl ether (DIPE)
0.1566
0.7300
ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE)
0.1566
0.7452
32
-------
The following equation describes the conversion from volume percent oxygenate to
weight percent oxygenate:
w oxyg.nac . 11
xygenace oxygenate d
bi
Where
W = weight fraction (for percent, multiply by 100)
oxygenate = oxygenate in the blend
bi = blend
V = volume fraction
d = specific gravity.
The specific gravity of the oxygenate is known (see Table 1) and, the specific gravity
of the blend has been measured and is, therefore, known, the calculation is
straightforward. If, however, the specific gravity of the blend is unknown, it can be
estimated as the volume weighted contribution of the specific gravities of the gasoline
to which the oxygenate is added and the oxygenate itself:
d ( VgasXdga.) + ( Vg .Xd yg.nice) (2)
Where
gas = gasoline to which oxygenate is added.
The weight fraction of oxygen in the blend is simply the product of the weight fraction
of oxygen in the oxygenate (from Table 1) and the weight fraction of oxygenate in the
blend. Therefore, the weight fraction of oxygen in the blend is:
WQJgyg•fl = W 0 j(yg•fl •X W0 yg• 0jyg• . (3)
Where
oxygen/oxygenate = oxygen in the oxygenate.
Substituting equations (1) and (2) in equation (3), results in:
33
-------
w = (4)
oxygen (V xd ) • ( V xd
gas gas oxygenace or,’genace
For blends with more than one oxygenate, the equation becomes:
w E(_Vo yg. cexd,gena exW ygeniaxygenate) (5)
oxygen (V xd ) +1( V xd
gas gae oxygenac. oxyg.naCe
The following examples demonstrate use of the equation:
Question 1: Suppose nine gallons of neat ethanol are blended with 91 gallons of
gasoline to make 100 gallons of ethanol blend gasoline. The specific gravity of the
gasoline is 0.74. What is be the weight percent oxygen in this blend?
Answer 1: In this case, the volume fraction of ethanol is 0.09 and the volume fraction
of gasoline is 0.91. The specific gravity of neat ethanol (from Table 1) is 0.7939 and
the specific gravity of the gasoline is stated to be 0.74. Hence, the weight fraction of
oxygen can be calculated using equation (4) as follows:
w = O.09x0.7939x0.3473 (6)
° ‘ (O.91x0.74)+(O.09x0.7939)
W ,,=O.O333 (7)
Therefore the weight fraction of oxygen in such a blend is 0.0333 or 3.33 percent:
Question 2: Suppose 1000 gallons of MTBE are blended with 6000 gallons of gasoline
to make 7000 gallons of MTBE blend gasoline. The specific gravity of the gasoline is
0.75. What is be the wei ht percent oxygen in this blend?
Answer 2: In this case, the volume fraction of MTBE is 1000/7000 or 0.1429 and the
volume fraction of gasoline is 6000/7000 or 0.8571. The specific gravity of neat MTBE
(from Table 1) is 0.7460 and the specific gravity of the gasoline is stated to be 0.75.
Hence, the weight fraction of oxygen can be calculated using equation (4) as follows:
34
-------
upper bound (assuming the vast majority of samples lie within this range), a range of
oxygen weight percents can be calculated for an upper end, lower end, and average
gasoline specific gravity using equation (4). Table 2 shows the results of such an
analysis and includes an analysis if one assumes the volume fraction of ethanol and
the weight fraction of ethanol to be equal.
Table 2: Oxygen Weight Percents Based Upon Gasoline Specific gravity
Ethanol: 10 volume %/No denaturant
Description
Gasoline Specific gravity
Weight % Oxygen
W % eth = V % eth
0.7939
3.47
High End Specific gravity
0.7686
3.58
Average Specific gravity
0.7420 .
3.69
Low End Specific gravity
0.7155
3.81
If the assumption is made that 5 percent by volume of the ethanol is denaturant
(i.e., 0.5 percent by volume of the final blend is denaturant) and therefore the ethanol
volume contribution to the final blend is 9.5 percent, the following results apply:
Descnption
Gasoline Specific gravity
Weight % Oxygen
W% eth = V % eth
0.7939
3.30
High End Specific gravity
0.7686
3.40
Average Specific gravity
0.7420
3.51
Low End Specific gravity
0.7155
3.62
Although the Agency believes that little blending of oxygenates other than
ethanol is performed at the terminal, a similar analysis could apply for MTBE and/or
other oxygenates. However, for oxygenates other than ethanol, the denaturant
consideration is not applicable. Table 4 shows such an approach for a 15% MTBE
blend.
Table 3: Oxygen Weight Percents Based Upon Gasoline Specific gravity
Ethanol: 9.5 volume %/Denaturant: 0.5 volume %
36
-------
Table 4: Oxygen Weight Percents Based Upon Gasoline Specific gravity
MTBE: 15 volume percent
Description
Gasoline Specific gravity
Weight % Oxygen
W% MTBE = V% MTBE
0.7460
2.72
High End Specific gravity
0.7686
2.65
Average Specific gravity
0.7420
2.73
Low End Specific gravity
0.7155
2.81
Since the Agency believes that oxygenates blended at the terminal are blended
volumetrically and that most gasolines should be near the average specific gravity
listed above and most ethanol blends do contain 0.5 percent by volume denaturant,
Table 3 is most appropriate for 10 percent ethanol blends. Therefore, utilizing the
average gasoline row from Table 3, the appropriate level of oxygen associated with a
10 percent (by volume) ethanol blend is best estimated to be 3.51 weight percent.
Thus, the Agency proposes that one alternative for determining the oxygen content for
terminal-blended ethanol-gasoline blends is to simply assume a 3.51 weight percent
oxygen based on the above analysis. Likewise, for a terminally blended 15 percent
(by volume) MTBE blend, the appropriate oxygen content would be 2.73 weight
percent. For other volumes of these or other oxygenates, a terminal blender may
simply substitute the appropriate values above for average gasoline specific gravity
and the values in Table 1 in equation 4 to calculate the appropriate oxygenate level.
As mentioned previously, for refinery blended oxygenates, the actual measured
specific gravities should be utilized.
The second alternative available to the terminal blender would be to actually
measuring the appropriate specific gravities. This option would benefit any blender
who feels that he is using a base gasoline which will result in a higher oxygen content
by weight when tested than would be found through use of the above calculations.
Although there has been some comment on the possibility that some blenders may
manipulate this choice in order to always obtain the most favorable oxygen levels, the
Agency believes that the time and money associated with the performance of these
tests should discourage any party from testing every batch of gasoline, then using the
more favorable number in its records. The Agency feels that most parties will opt to
rely on the calculations presented here.
Purity and Oxygen Content
Because many parties in the gasoline distribution network will be relying on the
written records they receive from other parties in the network in order to determine the
amount of oxygenate contained in the fuel they offer for sale, sell, store, or dispense,
the issue of purity is an important one. Fuels must not be represented as containing
more oxygenate than they actually do. The calculations provided above assume that
37
-------
on the average, 0.5% of any 10% ethanol by volume blend is denaturant, making the
ethanol volume contribution to the final blend 9.5%. Therefore, based on the Table 3
calculations, for terminal-blended ethanol gasolines one option is to simply assume a
3.51% oxygen by weight. The terminal operator or Blender CAR would always have
the second option available, which is to actually measure the appropriate specific
gravities. In either case, the purity should be noted on any records and transfer
documents created by the CAR.
Blending Allowance
In order to allow for the dilution of oxygenates during transport and storage and
for the varying nature of the density of gasoline, the Agency is recommending the use
of a blending allowance for the measurement of all oxygenates which fall under the
•Substantially Similar (‘sub sim’) Interpretive Rule.’ 3 The allowance will permit the
blending of gasoline at levels 0.2% percent oxygen by weight higher than allowable
under the ‘sub sim’ interpretive rule. This allowance is desirable from a practical
standpoint since the requirement for program areas and the legal maximum under
‘sub sim’ are the same (2.7% oxygen by weight). It will compensate for the dilution of
some oxygenates during transport and storage, providing some flexibility to gasoline
producers who are likely to blend gasoline at points upstream from terminals and
transport it to the terminal and to gasoline blenders at the terminal level.
It is important to note that this allowance applies only to oxygenates blended
under ‘sub sim.’ The allowance would not apply to oxygenates waived to oxygen
levels above 2.7 weight percent oxygen. (Hence, an ethanol blend could not be
blended to levels higher than that allowed under the ‘gasohol waiver.’)
In order to compensate for the problems associated with dilution and density.
EPA will exercise discretion in enforcing the maximum ‘sub sim’ limit by permitting a
blending allowance of +0.2 percent oxygen by weight for all ‘sub sim’ gasolines. For
example, MTBE or TAME blends containing up to 2.9% oxygen by weight will be
considered acceptable when detected at any point in the gasoline distribution network.
This will allow producers and upstream blenders to blend slightly higher volumes of
oxygenate into their gasoline, thereby anticipating and avoiding the potential loss of
oxygen in the gasoline intended for sale in an oxygenated gasoline program. A similar
blending allowance was announced by EPA in its Federal Implementation Plan for the
Maricopa and Pima carbon monoxide nonattainment areas.’
It is important to note that this blending allowance is an enforcement discretion
only. CARs may neither factor ‘sub sim’ gasolines containing more than 2.7% oxygen
‘ 56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991).
14 56 FR 5458 (February 11, 1991).
38
-------
by weight into control period averages, nor generate credits based on “sub sim’ blend
gasolines containing more than 2.7% oxygen by weight.
This blending allowance will be considered separately from the testing tolerance
which is to be established at a later date by the Administrator.
Aoproved Oxygenates
An oxygenate is any substance which, when added to gasoline, increases the
amount of oxygen in that gasoline blend. It is unlawful to introduce oxygenated
gasoline into commerce unless it is either substantially similar’ to certification fuel in
accordance with 2 1 1(f)(1) of the Act, or permitted under a waiver granted by the
Administrator under the authority of § 2 1 1(fl(4) of the Act. The following oxygenates are
currently approved. Others may be approved by the Agency in the future, at which
time they may be automatically recognized as approved under these guidelines.
Through a series of waivers and interpretive rules, the Agency has determined the
allowable limits for oxygenates in unleaded gasoline. The ‘Subs Oy Similar’
Interpretive Rule allows blends of aliphatic alcohols other than methanol and aliphatic
ethers, provided the oxygen content does not exceed 2.7% by weight. An oxygenated
blend may contain any mix of alcohols or ethers (other than methanol) at levels up to
2.7% by weight. It also provides for blends of methanol up to 0.3 percent by volume
exclusive of other oxygenates, and up to 2.75% by volume methanol with an equal
volume of butanol or alcohols of a higher molecular weight.
The following indMdual waivers pertaining to the use of oxygenates in unleaded
gasoline have been issued by the Agency under the authority of § 211(0(4), and are
available for use by all parties.
1. Blends of up to 10% by volume anhydrous ethanol (200 proof)
(commonly referred to as the ‘gasohor waiver).’ 5
2. Blends of methanol and gasoline-grade tertiary butyl alcohol
(GTBA) such that the total oxygen content does not exceed 3.5% by weight and the
ratio of methanol to GTBA is less than or equal to one. It is also specified that this
blended fuel must meet ASTM volatility specifications (commonly referred to as the
MARCO waiver).”
3. Blends of up to 5.0% by volume methanol with a minimum of 2.5%
by vobsne cosolvent alcohols having a carbon number of 4 or less (i.e. ethanol,
“44 FR 20777 (April 6, 1979).
“44 FR 10530 (February 21, 1979).
39
-------
propanol, butanol, and/or GTBA). The total oxygen must not exceed 3.7% by weight,
and the blend must meet ASTM volatility specifications as well as phase separation
and alcohol pur;ty and inhibitor specifications (commonly referred to as the °DuPont ’
waiver).”
4. Blends of up to 5.0% by volume methanol with a minimum of 2.5% by
volume cosolvent alcohols having a carbon number of 8 or less. The total oxygen
must not exceed 3.7% by weight, and the blend must meet ASTM volatility
specifications as well as phase separation and alcohol purity and inhibitor
specifications (commonly referred to as the Octarnix’ waiver).’ 8
5. Blends of up to 15.0% by volume methyl tertiary butyl ether
(MTBE), which must meet the ASTM D4814 specifications. Blenders must take
precautions that the blends are not used as base gasolines for other oxygenated
blends (commonly referred to as the Sun waiver).’ 9
It is the intent of these guidelines that oxygen content be calculated based upon
the actual content of oxygen of a blend. That is, the actual content of oxygen in a
gasoline blend is determined based upon the volume of the oxygenate, excluding
denaturants or other non-oxygen-containing compounds.
Inability to Produce Conforming Gasoline Due to Extraordinary Circumstances .
Some parties suggested during the Regulatory Negotiation process that EPA
address the situation where extraordinary circumstances do not permit a regulated
party to comply with the requirements of a state oxygenated gasoline program under
Section 211(m). In appropriate extreme and unusual circumstances (e.g., natural
disaster or Act of God) which are clearly outside the control of the refiner and which
could not have been avoided by the exercise of prudence, diligence and due care,
states should consider allowing a refiner, for a brief period, to distribute fuel which
does not meet the requirement for oxygenated gasoline if: 1) It is in the public interest
to do so (e.g., distribution of the nonconforming fuel is necessary to meet projected
shortfalls which cannot otherwise be compensated for); 2) The refiner exercised
prudent planning and was not able to avoid the violation and has taken all reasonable
steps to minimize the extent of the nonconformity; 3) The refiner can show how the
requirements for oxygenated gasoline will be expeditiously achieved; 4) The refiner
agrees to make up the air quality detriment associated with the nonconforming
gasoline, where practicable; and 5) The refiner agrees to pay the state an amount
“See 50 FR 2615 (January 17, 1985), 51 FR 15064 (April 22, 1986), 51 FR 39800
(October31, 1986), and 52 FR 18736 (May 19, 1987).
53 FR 3636 (February 8, 1988).
53 FR 33846 (September 1, 1988).
40
-------
equal to the economic benefit of the nonconformity minus the amount expended,
pursuant to number 4 above, in making up the air quality detriment.
IV. Comment Summary and Response
A. Attestation Engagements
Comments: Several parties submitted comments on the issue of attestation
engagements to be performed by independent CPAs. Some parties felt that outside
CPAs are not necessary and that the attestation requirements may be overly
burdensome, time consuming, and expensive. Some parties suggested random
enforcement audits of selected facilities, it an audit requirement of this type is
necessary. Some parties expressed support for attestation engagements by
independent CPAs as a justified enforcement tool. It was suggested that the cost of
attestation engagements can be reduced if EPA lets the independent CPA rely on
internal work consistent with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’
(AICPA) guidelines.
Response: Due to cost considerations, EPA has revised these guidelines to
allow some flexibility to some regulated parties. EPA has made several changes to
these guidelines in response to comments: a) These guidelines establish specific
agreed-upon procedures; b) the use of internal audit staff will be allowed as
appropriate; C) the guidelines establish a method of audit sampling; and d) the
guidelines now require the attestation report to be submitted in 120 days instead of 60
days after the end of the control period.
B. State Jurisdictional Issues
Comments: Several parties expressed concern about the issue of state
enforcement action against out-of-state parties. These commenters tended to prefer
that EPA take the enforcement iead. Some commenters felt that states should be
permitted to delegate enforcement responsibilities for multi-state CMSAs and MSAS to
EPA.
Response: This issue is not relevant to the scope of these guidelines, and is
therefore not addressed in these guidelines.
C. Inability to Produce Conforming Gasoline Due to Extraordinary
Circumstances
Comments: Most commenters support allowing marketers to distribute fuel
which does not meet the requirements for oxygenated gasoline in appropriate extreme
and unusual circumstances. One commenter noted that relatively small shortfalls in
gasoline supply have historically lead to consumer panic and price increases. Others
pointed out that some companies could be forced out of the market if there were no
provisions for relief. One commenter pointed out that any unfair economic advantage
could be mitigated if fines and fees are applied. A few parties, responding to the July
41
-------
9, 1991 notice, did not support the “variance provisions and noted that, if variances
are available, they should be greatly restricted. Another commenter suggested that
the variance should be limited to 30 days.
Response: EPA agrees that ‘variances’ are an appropriate response to
extraordinary circumstances. These “variances’ should be severely restricted in
scope.
D. Recordkeeoina
Comments: Some commenters expressed concern on the issue of how a CAR
can “assure that oxygenated gasoline is delivered to the intended destination. Also,
several commenters expressed concern about the extent of the recordkeeping
requirements. Most commenters recommended a record retention period of 2 or 3
years.
Response: EPA has attempted to clarify the CAR’s responsibility by stating
that they can rely on the purchaser’s representation provided that they put the
required information on the bill of lading. Moreover, a recordkeeping requirement
equivalent to each state’s statute of limitations will allow the state to effectively pursue
violators. This is especially important for a program where compliance is in large part
based on records kept by the CARs and other regulated parties.
E. The State’s responsibility to monitor and assure the availability of
oxygenates
Comments: Some commenters stated that it is not the state’s responsibility to
monitor and assure the availability of various oxygenates. These commenters felt that
this function should be fulfilled by EPA.
Response: EPA agrees with the position stated in the Regulatory Negotiation
Agreement in Principal that the state should fulfill this function since these are state-
implemented programs and oxygenate-availability problems are likely to be localized.
F. Leadtime
Comments: Several parties commented on the issue of whether EPA should
include an oxygenated gasoline availability leadtime at the terminals of 0, 5, or 30 days
in these guidelines. Comments were received advocating all three time periods.
Commenters who d not support any leadtime at all tended to believe that EPA
should rely on the workings of the market to ensure compliance at the beginning of
the control period. One commenter, who supported a 30-day leadtime, doubted that a
5-day leadtime would lead to conforming gasoline being sold at the start of the control
period.
Response: EPA believes that data collected to support the federal volatility
regulations supports a 5-day leadtime which should ensure that most retail stations will
42
-------
be in compliance at the beginning of the control period. The Agency notes that none
of the currently operating oxygenated gasoline programs utilize a leadtime. Also, the
amount of oxygenates that would be needed to comply with a 30-day leadtime could
adversely impact the availability of oxygenates, especially in 1992. Finally, states could
decide to implement a longer leadtime should they deem that necessary.
G. Blending Allowance
Comments: One commenter suggested that the blending allowance should be
extended to terminals. Some commenters want the 0.2% allowance to be extended to
all ethers and alcohols limited by the 2.7% substantially similar (sub sim 1 ) rule. Some
commenters note that EPA should clearly distinguish between enforcement tolerance
and blending allowance.
Response: EPA agrees that the blending allowance should be available at all
points in the distribution system. EPA also agrees that the blending allowance should
be extended to all sub sim’ ethers and alcohols. EPA will address the issue of
enforcement tolerance in a subsequent action.
H. Availability of Nonoxvgenated Gasoline
Comments: Some parties expressed the opinion that there is not an
availability problem for nonoxygenated gasoline to be blended with oxygenate.
downstream from the refinery. These parties tended to believe that EPA should leave
the availability issue to market forces. Some parties urge EPA to provide specific
guidance to states ensuring adequate levels of clear gasoline at terminals.
Response: EPA believes that the combination of market forces and state
oversight will ensure the availability of nonoxygenated gasoline.
I. Registration Requirements
Comments: Commenters suggested various processing periods for CAR
registration. One commenter suggested that the processing period should be 60
days, but CARs should be allowed to register at a time later than the pre-control
period as long as those CARs refrain from sales until their registrations are processed.
Commenters supported processing periods ranging from one to three months. One
commenter suggested that individual States should determine how long a processing
period they need before the control period in order to process CAR registrations.
Response: EPA has recommended a 30-day processing period. Mid-season
registrations are permitted under the guidelines. EPA encourages states to process
regist tion as quickly as possible, and would not oppose a shorter processing period.
J. Reconciliation Period at the End of Averaging Period
Comments: Several parties suggested that the reconciliation period at the end
of the averaging period for balancing the books on the averaging standard should be
43
-------
increased to 30 days.
Response: EPA has revised these guidelines to allow trading of credits to
occur for 30 days following the close of the averaging penod.
K. Testing
Comments: Several commenters expressed support for ASTM 0-4815 as a
wid&y used, dependable method. However, some commenters were concerned that
the ASTM method includes inadequate precision data. According to some
commenters, the method which has been developed by EPA, the OFID method, has
weaknesses including lack of evaluation, limited availability, and a poor service record.
Some commenters expressed concern over having to switch from one method to
another beginning in 1994 and suggested that both methods be allowed. One
commenter also expressed concern over the proposed quality control provisions.
Response: EPA believes that the ASTM D4815 method currently has the
shortcoming of poor precision (the ranges are too broad for enforcement purposes)
and lacks the ability to quantify certain components expected to be allowed as
oxygenated blending agents, most notably ETBE and TAME. However, ASTM is
currently working on a revision to this method, and it is a procedure that many labs
currently have the capability to perform. Therefore, although the Agency prefers its
OFID method over the ASTM method at this time, the Agency agrees with the
commenters that it would be unreasonable to exclude ASTM 04815.
EPA’s OFID method does not have any of the limitations associated with the
ASTM method at this time, and EPA feels the OFID to be more accurate and easier to
use than the ASTM method. When the OFID method detects a peak, it must be an
oxygenated compound and can therefore be incorporated in the total oxygen
calculation directly. This is possible since the OFID responds only to the percent
oxygen equivalent The ASTM method would simply record an uncalibrated peak as
an unknown, with no additional information as to the oxygen content of the gasoline
blend.
Another major reason for the Agency’s preference for the OFID over the ASTM
D4815 is that the OFID test method will be calibrated to yield its results in terms of the
mass percent oxygenate contained in the fuel blend being analyzed, which is the unit
of measurement required by the statutory requirement. This feature will obviate the
need fnr the rather complex calculations described above, necessary when converting
measurements from volume percent oxygenate to weight percent oxygen.
EPA has knowledge of both methods. Experience with the OFID method had
demonstrated it to be an extremely reliable instrument, requiring no service by the
distributor during the two years it has been operational in the EPA laboratory in Ann
Arbor, Michigan (NVFEL). At this point, EPA has no reason to believe that the
44
-------
instrument will require excessive maintenance.
ASTM is also in the process of certifying an OFID method, arid it is EPA’s
intention to work with them in minimizing the differences between these procedures.
The Agency believes that the industry’s concerns surrounding the OFID will be
reduced as exposure to the technique increases through the parallel efforts of ASTM.
EPA has the task of minimizing the burden to all parties. To this effect, the
Agency believes the least burden would be imposed by currently allowing both
methods as legal enforcement techniques. At a later time, the Agency intends to
establish a federal testing tolerance for all oxygenate tests as mandated by the Act.
This tolerance will most likely be tied to the new OFID method, but the Agency will
continue to work with ASTM in order to allow industry the greatest flexibility in
purchasing and using oxygenate laboratory testing equipment. This route to
enforcement will also allow those industries wishing to acquire an OFID in several
years to plan for and capitalize the expense. The use of both methods will pose no
regulatory problems right now, since no bias exists between thetwo methods.
It is the Agency’s intention to provide the regulated parties with a description of
the quality control provisions that would be employed if the method were being
performed by EPA personnel within the enforcement laboratory at NVFEL These
quality control provisions have been described as recommended practices.
L CARs and Blender CARs
Comments: One commenter requested that EPA-identify who the CAR is when
ethanol blending occurs at the terminal. The commenter notes that there seems to be
a contradiction in the definitions that suggests that a terminal which conducts blending
cannot be considered a CAR but could be a blender CAR. This commenter suggests
that eliminating the distinction between CAR and blender CAR would darify the
guidelines. Also, the commenter notes that EPA should prohibit downstream parties
who are not registered CARs from changing the oxygen content of the gasoline.
Response: EPA has clarified the definitions and the responsibilities of the.
CARs. In particular, blending which results in a change in the oxygen content has
been prohibited by any party downstream of the terminal unless that party is
registered as a CAR.
Comments: Some terminals do not take ownership of product. Many
commenters agreed that the CAR should be the gasoline owner. Non-owners who
simply transfer product to trucks should be able to rely on CAR, purchaser, or carrier
documentation. Some commenters thought that the requirement on CARs to assure
that oxygenated gasoline, once accounted for, is sold or dispensed in the proper
control area may be unreasonable. One commenter suggested that CARs should be
allowed to fulfill the requirements by clearly indicating the control area for which the
45
-------
gasoline was intended on the bill of lading. Another cornmenter suggested that the
purchaser should be required to provide the CAR and terminal owner with a
certification of the destination of the gasoline. The terminal owner should be allowed
to rely on that certification.
Response: EPA agrees that a terminal operator or CAR should be able to rely
on the representations of a purchaser as to the ultimate destination of the gasoline.
The terminal operator or CAR is required to indicate the destination, that is, control
area or non-control area, on the bill of lading. The terminal operator or CAR would not
be able to rely on this representation, however, if he had information indicating that the
representation was false.
Comments: Some commenters thought that owners of gasoline at terminals
should be allowed to assign CAR responsibility to other parties through contractual
agreements.
Response: EPA agrees with this comment and has made the appropriate
changes to the guidelines. A party which owns gasoline (for example, through an
exchange agreement) but wishes to reassign its CAR responsibilities (i.e.
recordkeeping, reporting, averaging, etc.) to another party better-suited to act as the
CAR for the gasoline in question could contractually transfer the gasoline to the
assigned CAR under these guidelines. Thus the assigning CAR would have a zero
volume of gasoline to report.
Comments: Some commenters thought that terminals operators should have
the option of using alternative methods, including LIFO (last in - first out) and FIFO
(first in - first out), to the running weighted average which appears in the guidelines.
Response: EPA believes that with the use of a running weighted average the
information associated with each batch of gasoline will be more accurate than it would
be with the use of the alternative suggested methods. Also, the alternative methods
would make auditing by the states, internal auditors and independent CPAs more
Øifficult and costly.
M. SIP Submittal Dates
Comments: A few commenters felt that EPA should set a date before
November 1, 1992 for submission of SIP revisions. They supported the use of June 1,
1992. One perty suggested that SIP revisions should be due on November 15, 1992,
when other CO submittals are due.
Response: EPA has indicated that due date is November 15, 1992. An earlier
due date would not likely result in more assurance that states would implement the
oxygenated gasoline program in a timely manner since few states would be able to
comply with the earlier date because of the time their regulatory processes take. Also,
46
-------
in order to set a due date prior to November 1992, EPA would likely be required to
use notice and comment rulemaking.
N. Oxygen Content
Comments: In response to the Agency’s approach to oxygen content
conversions, commenters indicated no objections to the basic approach. However,
commenters did suggest some slight changes. Commenters indicated that, in Table 1
ETBE and TAME should have the same oxygen content. It was also pointed out that
the table indicated ‘weight percent oxygen’ when, in fact, the values listed are ‘weight
fractions.’ Some commenters pointed out that the specific gravities in Table I should
be consistent with those being used by the American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM).
Response: The typographical error has been corrected so that both ETBE and
TAME now show an oxygen weight or mass concentration of 0.1566. EPA agrees that
Table 1 should be consistent with the values used by ASTM.
Comments: One commenter suggested that the Agency continue its policy of
allowing up to two percent of unintentionally added MTBE in base gasoline used for
ethanol blending.Z The commenter further suggested that this policy be applied to
other oxygenates as well.
Response: The Agency has previously indicated that its policy allowing the
unintentional existence of no more than two percent MTBE in base gasoline also does
apply to waivered methanol blends (such as the DuPont waiver and the Texas
Methanol waiver 21 ). Other oxygenates, blended at levels up to 2.7 percent oxygen
under the Agency’s ‘substantially similar de1%nition, may contain any mix of
alcohols or ethers (other than methanol). Hence, an allowance for inadvertent
‘contamination’ of one oxygenate blend with other ethers or alcohols is not needed.
Comments: The Agency proposed that terminal blenders be given the option to
either use average specific gravities or to use actual measured specific gravities when
calculating oxygen content. One commenter suggested that a terminal blender be
EPA has previously indicated through the ‘sub sim’ interpretive rule that it would
not consider it to be a violation of the gasohol waiver if up to 10 percent (by volume)
ethanol were added to unleaded gasoline containing no more than two percent (by
volume) MTBE. However, the MTBE in the base fuel must be present only as a result
of commingling during storage and transport and not purposefully added as an
additional component to the ethanol blend.
21 See 51 FR 15064 (April 22, 1986) and 53 FR 3636 (February 2, 1988).
See 58 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991).
47
-------
required to use the same method throughoi.it a single averaging period.
Response: EPA sees no reasons why such a requirement is needed.
0. Quality Assurance for Carriers
Comments: Many commenters opposed the requirement that carriers perform
quality assurance programs in order to provide a defense in the presumptive liability
scheme included in these guidelines. According to the commenters, carriers are
solely concerned with the shipping and handling of oxygenated gasoline; because they
do not own the products the handle, they have little or no incentive to alter the
quantity or quality of individual batches of gasoline. The commenters believe that a
quality assurance program conducted by carriers would increase the costs of an
oxygenated gasoline program dramatically.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenters, and has eliminated the
requirement that carriers perform quality assurance programs as part of a liability
defense. Because carriers have no ownership interest in the products they handle, it
is the Agency’s belief that carriers have little or no incentive to alter the quantity or
quality of the gasoline that they handle. Additionally, the Agency feels that current
industry practice will involve a number of tests and cross-checks on carriers. The
parties that own the gasoline normally will perform their own quality assurance
programs; in many instances this will occur both before and after the product is
handled by the carrier. Therefore, in today’s notice EPA has relieved carriers of the
need to prove defense through a quality assurance program. However, it is important
to remember that if it is believed that a carrier has caused a violation under these
guidelines, it is the carrier’s responsibility to prove its defense in order to avoid
prosecution. The standards of presumptive liability shall remain in place throuQhout
the gasoline distribution network.
P. Presumotive Liability
Comments: Several commenters were opposed to the presumptive liability
proposal. Mother commenter was concerned because a large proportion of their
customers are independents.
Response: EPA’s experience with presumptive liability in the lead
contamination and volatility programs indicates that it is an effective enforcement tool
and that greater quality assurance takes place as a result.
0. Averaging Programs
Comments: Some commenters stated that EPA should strongly encourage
states to adopt averaging programs. One commenter expressed the view that
averaging programs help to neutralize the competitive advantage of large refiners, who
possess MTBE production capacity.
Response: EPA has strongly encouraged states to adopt averaging programs
48
-------
and will continue to do so.
R. Product Transfer Documentation
Comments: Some commenters fe that a requirement to identify the type of
oxygenate ‘s unnecessary and interferes with gasoline furigibilit’y. One commenter
suggested that the documentation show either the oxygen content of the gasoline in
weight percent or the type and volume of the oxygenate in the gasoline.
Response: EPA believes that the transfer document requirements, as written,
are necessary to allow purchasers to ensure that the gasoline they are purchasing
complies with the program requirements. These requirements will also allow
regulators to trace gasoline which is found to be in violation of state requirements.
S. Oxygenated Gasoline ‘Caos ’
Comments: Some commenters stated that caps on oxygen content are
discriminatory and do not allow for competition between oxygenates. Two states are
considering imposing maximum oxygen content limits which would preclude the use of
10% ethanol blends. One commenter notes that unless EPA forcefully rejects caps,
the determination of the ethanol industry to produce and supply fuel ethanol in
amounts previously committed to will be undermined and impeded.
Response: In a separate notice, the Agency addresses these comments and
proposes a finding under section 211 (C)(4)(A)(i) that rio contror on the maximum
oxygen content of gasoline as a component of a winter oxygenated gasoline program
“is necessary.’
T. Oxygenate Purity
Comments: A number of commenters opposed the inclusion of oxygenate
purity in the recordkeeping and reporting sections. The commenters feel that the
purity has little relevance to the program and should not be required.
Response: The Agency disagrees with these commenters. It is be’ieved that
the inclusion of information on oxygenate purity will provide a valuable cross-check to
the states as they evaluate the compliance data submitted by regulated parties at the
dose of every control penod. By knowing the purity of the oxygenate used in each
blend of averaged gasoline, the states will be able to verify the accuracy of the
calculations within the reports submitted by the CARs and blender CARs.
49.
-------
Appendix Oxygenated Gasoline Credit Programs
(a) Scope. This Appendix applies to credit programs employed in state
oxygenated gasoline programs under § 211(m) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (the
Act).
(b) Definitions.
(1) Averaging period - The period of time over which all gasoline sold or
dispensed for use in a control area by any control area responsible party must comply
with the average oxygen content standard.
(2) Blender control area responsible party (Blender CAR) - A person who
owns oxygenated gasoline which is sold or dispensed from a control area oxygenate
blending facility.
(3) Carrier- Any person who transports, stores or causes the transportation
or storage of gasoline at any point in the gasoline distribution network, without taking
title to or otherwise having ownership of the gasoline and without altering the quality or
quantity of the gasoline.
(4) Control area - A geographic area in which only gasoline under the
oxygenated gasoline program may be sold or dispensed, with boundaries determined
in accordance with § 211(m) of the Act.’
(5) Control area oxygenate blending facility - Any facility or truck at which
the oxygen content by weight of gasoline intended for use in any control area is
altered in any manner other than combining two or more fuels complying with the
2.0% oxygen by weight minimum requirement. The quality or quantity of gasoline may
not be otherwise altered, except through the addition of deposit-control additives.
(6) Control area responsible party (CAR) - A person who owns oxygenated
gasoline which is sold or dispensed from a control area terminal.
(7) Control area terminal - A terminal which is capable of receiving gasoline
in bulk, i.e., by pipeline, marine vessel or barge, and/or at which gasoline is altered
either in quantity or quality, excluding the addition of deposit control additives.
Gasoline which is intended for use in any control area is sold or dispensed into trucks
at these control area terminals.
(8) Control period - The period during which oxygenated gasoline must be
sold and dispensed in any control area, pursuant to § 211 (m)(2) of the Act. 2
(9) Distributor - Any person who transports or stores or causes the
transportation or storage of gasoline at any point between any gasoline refinery or
importer’s facility and any retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer’s facility.
‘The boundaries of the control areas are noted in a separate Federal Register
notice published today.
2 EPA is required to determine the control periods, set by §211 (m)(2) of the Act, as
that portion of the year in which the area is uprone to high an bient concentrations of
carbon monoxide. In another Federal Register notice published today, EPA is
establishing lengths of the control periods for the different areas covered by §211(m).
50
-------
(10) Gasoline. Any fuel sold for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle
engines and commonly or commercially known or sold as gasoline.,
(11) Nonoxygenated gasoline- Any gasoline which does not meet the
definition of oxygenated gasoline.
(12) Oxygen content of gasoline blends - Percentage of oxygen by weight
contained in a gasoline blend, based upon its percentage oxygenate by volume,
excluding denaturants and other non-oxygen-containing components. All
measurements shall be adjusted to 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
(13) Oxygenate - Any substance which, when added to ga line, increases
the amount of oxygen in that gasoline blend. Lawful use of any combination of these
substances requires that they be Substantially Similar under 211(0(1) of the Clean
Air Act 3 or be permitted under a waiver granted by the Administrator under the
authority of § 211 (f)(4) of the Clean Air Act.
(14) Oxygenate blender - A person who owns, leases, operates, controls or
supervises a control area oxygenate blending facility.
(15) Oxygenated gasoline - Any gasoline which contains at least 2.0% oxygen
by weight and has been included in the oxygenated gasoline program accounting by a
control area responsible party and which is intended to be sold or dispensed for use
in any control area.
(16) Refiner - Any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or
supervises a refinery which produces gasoline for use in a control area.
(17) Refinery - A plant at which gasoline is produced. -
(18) Reseller - Any person who purchases gasoline and resells or transfers it
to a retailer or a wholesale purchaser-consumer.
(19) Retail outlet - Any establishment at which gasoline is sold or offered for
sale to the ultimate consumer for use in motor vehicles.
(20) Retailer - Any person who owns, leases, operates, controls or
supervises a retail outlet.
(21) Terminal - A facility at which gasoline is sold, or dispensed into trucks
for transportation to retail outlets or wholesale purchaser-consumer facilities.
(22) Wholesale purchaser-consumer - Any organization that is an ultimate
consumer of gasoline and which purchases or obtains gasoline from a supplier for use
in motor vehicles and receives delivery of that product into a storage tank of at least
550-gallon capacity substantially under the control of that organization.
(C) Average oxygen content standard.
(1) All gasoline sold or dispensed during the control period for use in each
control area by each CAR or blender CAR as defined in paragraph (b) of this
Appendix, shall be blended during each averaging period to contain an average
oxygen content of not less than 2.7% by weight. Oxygen content calculations shall be
performed in accordance with paragraph (d).
(2) The averaging period over which all gasoline sold or dispensed in the
control area is to be averaged shall be equal to the length of the control period as
56 FR 5352 (February 11, 1991).
51
-------
established by the Administrator, except that programs with control periods of six
months or longer shall have averaging periods of three months. 4
(d) Sampling, testing and oxygen content calculations.
(1) For the purpose of determining compliance with the requirements of this
Appendix, the oxygen content of gasoline shall be determined by:
(i) Sampling. Use of the sampling methodologies specified in
Appendix A of this Appendix to obtain a representative sample of the gasoline to be
tested;
(ii) Testing.
(A) Use of one of the test methods specified in Appendices B
and C of this Appendix. These methods are used to determine the mass
concentration of each oxy9enate in the gasoline sampled; or
(B) Use of any alternative test method which has been
successfully evaluated and approved by the Agency; and
(iii) Oxygen Content Calculations.
(A) Calculation of the oxygen content of the gasoline sampled
by multiplying the mass concentration of each oxygenate in the gasoline sampled by
the oxygen molecular weight contribution of the oxygenate set forth in paragraph
(d)(2) of this Appendix; and
(B) All volume measurements shall be adjusted to 60 degrees
Fahrenheit.
(2) For purposes of this Appendix, the oxygen molecular weight
contributions of oxygenates currently approved for use in the United States are the
following:
‘ EPA shall determine the length of the control period during the State
Implementation Plan review and approval process.
52
-------
Table 1. Specific Gravity and Weight Percent Oxygen of Common Oxygenates
Oxygenate
Weight fraction
oxygen
Specific Gravity
at 60 deg F
methyl alcohol
0.4993
0.7963
ethyl alcohol
0.3473
0.7939
normal propyl alcohol
0.2662
0.8080
isopropyl alcohol
0.2662
0.7899
normal butyl alcohol
0.2158
0.8137
isobutyl alcohol
0.2158
0.8058
secondary butyl alcohol -
0.2158
0.8114
tertiary butyl alcohol
0.2158
0.7922
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
0.1815
0.7460
tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME)
0.1566
0.7752
diiso propyl ether (DIPE)
0.1566
0.7300
ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE)
0.1566
0.7452
(e) Alternative compliance options. Each CAR or blender CAR shall comply with the
standard specified in paragraph (C) of this Appendix by means of the method set forth
in either paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this Appendix.
(1) Compliance calculation on average basis.
C!) To determine compliance with the standard in paragraph (C), the
CAR or blender CAR shall, for each averaging period and for each control area:
(A) Calculate the total volume of gasoline sold or dispensed for
use in the control area which is the sum of:
(1) The volume of each separate batch or truckload of
oxygenated gasoline that is sold or dispensed:
(2) Minus the volume of each separate batch or
truckload of oxygenated gasoline that is sold or dispensed for use in a different control
area;
(3) Minus the volume of each separate batch or
truckload of oxygenated gasoline that is sold or dispensed for use in any non-control
area.
(B) Calculate the required total oxygen credit units. Multiply the
total volume in gallons of oxygenated gasoline sold or dispensed for use in the control
area (as determined by (e)(1)(A) above) by 2.7 percent.
(C) Calculate the actual total oxygen credit units generated.
The actual total oxygen credit units generated is the sum of the volume of each batch
or truckload of oxygenated gasoline that was sold or dispensed for use in the control
53
-------
area (as determined by (e)(1)(A) above) muftiphed by the actual oxygen content by
weight associated with each batch or truckload.
(D) Calculate the adjusted actual total oxygen credit units The
adjusted actual total oxygen content units is the sum of the actual total oxygen credit
units generated (as determined in (e)(1 )(C) above);
(1) Plus the total oxygen credit units purchased or
acquired through trade; and
(2) Minus the total oxygen credit units sold or given
away through trade.
(E) Compare the adjusted actual total oxygen credit units with
the required total oxygen credit units. If the adjusted actual total content oxygen credit
units is greater than or equal to the required total oxygen credit units, then the
standard in paragraph (C) is met. If the adjusted actual total oxygen credit units is less
than the required total oxygen credit units then the purchase of oxygen credit units is
required in order to achieve compliance.
(F) In transferring oxygen credit units, the transferor shall
provide the transferee with the volume and oxygen content by weight of the gasoline
associated with the credits.
(ii) To determine the oxygen credit units associated with each batch
or truck load of oxygenated gasoline sold or dispensed into the control area, use the
running weighted oxygen content (RWOC) (see (iii) below) of the tank from which the
batch or truckload was received at the time the batch or truckload was received. In
the case of batches or truckloads of gasoline to which oxygenate is added outside of
the terminal storage tank from which it was received, use the weighted average of the
RWOC and the oxygen content added as a result of the volume of the additional
oxygenate added.
(iii) Running weighted oxygen content (RWOC). The RWOC accounts
for the volume and oxygen content of all gasoline which enters or leaves the terminal
storage tank, and all oxygenates which are added to the tank. The RWOC must be
calculated each time gasoline enters or leaves the tank or whenever oxygenates are
added to the tank. The RWOC is calculated weighing the following:
(A) The volume and oxygen content of the gasoline in the
storage tank at the beginning of the averaging period;
(B) The volume and oxygen content by weight of gasoline
entering the storage tank;
(C) The volume and oxygen content by weight of gasoline
leaving the storage tank: and
(D) The volume, type and oxygen content by weight of the
oxygenates added to the storage tank.
(iv) Credit transfers. Credits may be used in the compliance
calculation in (e)(1 )(i)(A), provided that:
(A) The credits are generated in the same control area as they
are used, i.e., no credits may be transferred between nonattainment areas;
(B) The credits are generated in the same averaging period as
they are used;
(C) The ownership of credits is transferred only between CARs
54
-------
or Blender CARs;
(D) The credit transfer agreement is made no later than 30
working days after the final day of the averaging period in which the credits are
generated; and
(E) The credits are properly created.
(v) Improperly created credits.
(A) No party may transfer any credits to the extent such a
transfer would result in the transferor having a negative credit balance at the
conclusion of the averaging period for which the credits were transferred. Any credits
‘transferred in violation of this paragraph are improperly created credits.
(B) In the case of credits which were improperly created, the
following provisions apply:
(1) Improperly created credits may not be used,
regardless of a credit transferee’s good faith belief that it was receiving valid credits;
(2) The transfer of credits in violation of (A) above
constitutes a violation of these requirements, for which the transferor will be deemed to
be in violation; and
(3) Where any credits are transferred in violation of (A)
above, the transferor’s properly-created credits will be applied first to any credit
transfers before the transferor may apply any credits to achieve its own compliance.
(4) Where any credits are transferred in violation of (A)
above, the transferror shall be held legally and financially liable for any penaft es or
damages incurred by the transferee as a result of the invalid transaction.
(2) Compliance calculation on per-gallon basis. Each gallon of gasoline sold
or dispensed by a CAR or Blender CAR for use within each control area during the
averaging period as defined in paragraph (C) shall have an oxygen content of at least
2.7% by weight. In addition, the CAR or Blender CAR is prohibited from selling
oxygen credits based on gasoline for which compliance is calculated under this
alternative per-gallon method.
(f) Minimum oxygen content.
(1) Any gasoline which is sold or dispensed by a CAR or a Blender CAR for
use within a control area, as defined in paragraph (b), during the control period shall
contain not less than 2.0% oxygen by weight unless it is sold or dispensed to another
registered CAR or Blender CAR. This requirement shall begin five days before the
applicable control penod and shall apply until the end of that perioc .
(2) ThIs requirement shall apply to all parties downstream of the CAR. Any
gasoline which is offered for sale, sold or dispensed to an ultimate consumer within a
control area, as defined in paragraph (b), shall contain not less than 2.0% oxygen by
weight. This requirement shall apply during the entire applicable control period.
(3) Every refiner or importer must determine the oxygen content of each
batch of gasoline produced by use of one of the methodologies in the Appendices as
described in section (d). This determination shall include the percent oxygen by
weight, the type of oxygenate and the oxygenate percent by volume.
(9) Registration.
55
-------
4
(1) At least one month in advance of any control period in which a party will
meet the definition of CAR or Blender CAR, such party shall petition for registration as
a CAR or Blender CAR in each state that the party intends to serve. A party may
petition for registration as a CAR or Blender CAR after the beginning of a control
period but should do so at least 30 days before it plans to begin conducting activities
as a CAR or Blender CAR. This petition for registration shall be on forms prescribed
by the state and shall include the following information:
(i) The name and business address of the control area responsible
party;
(ii) The address and physical location of each of the control area
terminals from which the control area responsible party operates;
(iii) The address and physical location of each control area oxygenate
blender facility which is owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised by a
Blender CAR; and
(iv) The address and physical location where documents which are
required to be retained by this Appendix will be kept by the CAR.
(2) Within thirty days of any occasion when the registration information
previously supplied by a CAR becomes incomplete or inaccurate, the CAR or Blender
CAR shall submit updated registration information to the state.
(3) No party shall participate in the averaging program under paragraph (e)
of this Appendix as a CAR or Blender CAR until it has been notified by the state that it
has been registered as a CAR or Blender CAR and has been issued a unique CAR
identification number. This should occur within 30 days of the submission of the
registration application to the state. Registration by a state shall be valid for the time
period specified by the state. The state shall issue each CAR and Blender CAR a
unique identification number.
(h) Recordkeeping and reporting.
(1) Records. All parties in the gasoline distribution network as described
below shall maintain records containing compliance information enumerated or
described below. These records shall be retained by the regulated parties for a period
of time established by the state consistent with its relevant statute of limitations.
(i) Refiners and Importers. Refiners and importers shall, for each
separate quantity of gasoline produced or imported for use in a control area during a
control period, maintain records containing the following information:
(A) Results of the tests performed to determine the types of
oxygenates and percentage by volume;
(B) Oxygenate content by volume;
(C) Oxygen content by weight;
(D) Total volume of gasoline; and
(E) Name and address of the party to whom each separate
quantity of gasoline was sold or transferred.
(ii) Control area terminal operators and CARs. Persons who own,
lease, operate or control gasoline terminals which serve control areas, or where
appropriate, any CAR truck- or terminal-lessee who subleases any portion of a leased
or tank or terminal to other persons, and all CARs shall maintain records containing
56
-------
the following information:
(A) The owner of each batch of gasoline handled by each
regulated facility if known, or the storage customer of record;
(B) Volume of each batch or truckload of gasoline going into or
out of the terminal;
(C) For all batches or truckloads of gasoline leaving the
terminal, the RWOC of the batch or truckload;
(D) Type of oxygenate, purity, and percentage by volume if
available;
(E) Oxygen content by weight of all batches or truckloads
received at the terminai;
(F) Whether the gasoline is intended for use within a control
area or not;
(G) The destination of each tank truck sale or batch of gasoline
a furnished in a written dedaration by the purchaser of the gasoline;
(H) The name and address of the party to whom the gasoline
was sold or transferred and the date of the sale or transfer; and
(I) Results of the tests for oxygenates, if performed, for each
sale or transfer, and who performed the tests.
(iii) CARs and Blender CARs. CARS and Blender CARs must maintain
records containing the information listed in paragraph (ii) above, plus the following
information:
(A) CAR or Blender CAR identification number;
(B) Records supporting and demonstrating compliance with the
averaging standard listed in paragraph (C) of this Appendix;
(C) For any credits bought, sold, traded or transferred, the
dates of the transactions, the names, addresses and CAR or Blender CAR numbers of
the CARS or Blender CARs involved in the individual transactions, and the amount of
credits (oxygen content and volume of gasoline) transferred. Any credits transferred
must be accompanied by a demonstration of how those credits were calculated. Jso
induded must be adequate documentation that both parties have agreed to all credit
transactions within 30 working days following the close of the relevant averaging
period;
(D) The name and address of the auditor, and the results of the
attestation engagement conducted pursuant to paragraph U) of this Appendix;
(E) The name and address of the party from which each
shipment of gasoline was received, and the date when it was received;
(F) Data on each shipment of gasoline received, including:
(1) The total volume of each shipment;
(2) Type of oxygenate, purity, and percentage by
volume; and
(3) Oxygen content by weight;
(G) The volume of each receipt of bulk oxygenates;
(H) The name and address of the parties from whom bulk
oxygenate was received;
(I) Date and exact destination, it available, of each sale of
57
-------
gasoline;
(J) Whether the gasoline was destined for a control area or
not;
(K) Data on each shipment of gasoline sold or dispensed
including;
(1) The volume of each shipment;
(2) Type of oxygenate, purity, and percentage by
volume; and
(3) Oxygen content by weight;
(L) Documentation of the results of all tests performed
regarding the oxygen content of gasoline; and
(M) The names, addresses and CAR or Blender CAR
identification numbers of the parties to whom any gasoline was sold or dispensed, and
the dates of these transactions
(iv) Retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers within a control
area must maintain the following records:
(A) The names, addresses and CAR or Blender CAR
identification numbers of the parties from whom all shipments of gasoline were
purchased or received, and the dates on which they were received; and
(B) Data on every shipment of gasoline bought, sold or
transported, including:
(1) Total volume of each shipment:
(2) Type of oxygenate, purity, and percentage by
volume;
(3) Oxyger content by weight; and
(4) Whether the gasoline is intended for use in a control
area or not.
(2) Reports.
(i) Each CAR and Blender CAR shall submit a self-audit report for
each averaging period as defined in paragraph (C) reflecting the compliance
information detailed in paragraph (e) of this Appendix. Reports are due on the 30th
day of each month following the averaging period for which the information is required.
These reports shall be tiled using forms provided by the state.
(ii) CARs or Blender CARs shall also submit attestation engagement
reports as required by paragraph 0) of this Appendix. Attestation engagements are to
be conducted at the end of the control period, or every 6 months, whichever is
shorter. The report is to be submitted to the state within 120 days following the end of
the period covered by the engagement.
(3) Transfer Documents. Each time that physical custody or title of gasoline
destined for a control area changes hands other than when gasoline is sold or
dispensed for use in motor vehicles at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer
facility, the transferor shall provide to the transferee, in addition to, or as part of,
normal bills of lading, invoices, etc., a document containing information on that
shipment. This document shall accompany every shipment of gasoline to a control
area after it has been dispensed by a terminal, or the information shall be included in
the normal paperwork which accompanies every shipment of gasoline. The
58
-------
information shall legibly and conspicuously contain the following information:
(i) The date of the transfer;
(ii) The name, address, and CAR or Blender CAR identification
number, if applicable, of the transferor:
(iii) The name, address and CAR or Blender CAR identification
number, if applicable, of the transferee;
(iv) The volume of gasoline which is being transferred;
(v) The proper identification of the gasoline as nonoxygenated or
oxygenated;
(vi) The location of the gasoline at the time of the transfer;
(vii) Type of oxygenate; and
(viii) For gasoline which is in the gasoline distribution network between
the refinery or import facility and the control area terminal, the oxygen content by
weight and the oxygenate volume of the gasoline.
çi) Prohibited activities.
(1) During the control period, no refiner, importer, oxygenate blender, carrier,
distributor or reseller may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for
supply, store, transport, or cause the transportation of:
(i) Gasoline which contains less than 2.0% oxygen by weight, for use
during the control period in a CO nonattainment area subject to the requirements of §
211(m) of the Act; or
(ii) Gasoline represented as oxygenated which has an oxygen content
which is improperly stated in the documents which accompany such gasoline.
(2) No retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer may dispense, offer for
sale, sell or store, for use during the control period, gasoline which contains less than
2.0% oxygen by weight in a Co nonattainment area subject to the requirements of §
211(m) of the Act.
(3) No party may operate as a CAR or Blender CAR or represent itself as
such unless it has been property registered by the state(s) involved. No CAR or
Blender CAR may offer for sale, store, sell or dispense gasoline to any person not
registered as a CAR for use in a control area, unless:
(i) The average oxygen content of the gasoline during the averaging
period meets the standard established in paragraph (C) of this Appendix; and
(!i) The gasoline contains at least 2.0% oxygen by weight on a per-
gallon basis.
(4) For terminals which sell or dispense gasoline intended for use in a
control area during the control period, the terminal owner or operator may not accept
gasoline into the terminal unless:
( ) Transfer documentation accompanies it containing the information
specified in paragraph (h)(3); and
(ii) The terminal owner or operator conducts a quality assurance
program to verify the accuracy of this information.
(5) No person may sell or dispense nonoxygenated gasoline for use in any
control area during the control period, unless:
) The nonoxygenated gasoline is segregated from oxygenated
gasoline;
59
-------
I
(ii) Clearly-marked documents accompany the nonoxygenated
gasoline marking it as nonoxygenated gasoline, n3t for sale to ultimate consumer in a
control area, and
(iii) The rionoxygenated gasoline is in fact not sold or dispensed to
ultimate consumers, during the control period, in the control area.
(6) No named party may fail to comply with the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements contained in section (h).
(7) No person may sell, dispense or transfer oxygenated gasoline, except for
use by the ultimate consumer at a retail outlet or wholesale purchaser-consumer
facility, without transfer documents which accurately contain the information required
by section (h)(3).
(8) Unless registered as a CAR or Blender CAR, no person downstream of a
terminai may combine gasoline complying with the 2.0% oxygen by weight minimum
with gasoline not complying with the 2.0% minimum requirement if that gasoline is to
be sold or dispensed in a control area during a control period.
(9) Liability for violations of the prohibited activities.
(I) Where the gasoline contained in any storage tank at any facility
owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised by any retailer, wholesale
purchaser-consumer, distributor, reseller, carrier, refiner, importer, or oxygenate
blender is found in violation of the prohibitions described in sections (1 )(i) or (2) of this
paragraph, the following persons shall be deemed in violation:
(A) The retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, distributor,
reseller, carrier, refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender who owns, leases, operates,
controls or supervises the facility where the violation is found; and
(B) Each oxygenate blender, distributor, reseller, and carrier
who, downstream of the control area terminal, sold, offered for sale, dispensed,
supplied, offered for supply, stored, transported, or caused the transportation of any
gasoline which is in the storage tank containing gasoline found to be in violation.
(ii) Where the gasoline contained in any storage tank at any facility
owned, leased, operated, controlled or supervised by any distributor, reseller, carrier,
refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender is found in violation of the prohibitions
described in section (1)(ii) or (2) of this paragraph, the following persons shall be
deemed in violation:
(A) The retailer, wholesale purchaser-consumer, distributor,
reseller, carrier, refiner, importer, or oxygenate blender who owns, leases, operates,
controls or supervises the facility where the violation is found; and
(B) Each refiner, importer, oxygenate blender, distributor, and
reseller who manufactured, imported, sold, offered for sale, dispensed, supplied,
offered for supply, stored, transported, or caused the transportation of any gasoline
which ic in the storage tank containing gasoline found to be in violation.
(10) Defenses for prohibited activities.
(I) In any case in which a refiner, importer, CAR, distributor or reseller
would be in violation under paragraph (i)(1), it shall be deemed not in violation if it can
demonstrate:
(A) That the violation was not caused by the regulated party or
its employee or agent;
(B) That it possesses transfer documents which support the
-------
oxygen content of all gasoline in its possession These transfer documents are
required to accompany all oxygenated gasoline in the gasoline distribution network
under paragraph (h).
(C) A quality assurance sampling and testing program
carried out by the regulated party, as described in (i)(1 1).
(ii) In any case in which a carrier would be in violation under
paragraph (i)(1), it shall be deemed not in violation if it can demonstrate:
(A) That the violation was not caused by the regulated party or
its employee or agent;
(B) That it possesses product transfer documents required
under paragraph (h) for all the gasoline in its possession, and that the oxygen
contents reflected in these documents are consistent with the oxygen content of such
gasoline.
(iii) In any case in which a retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer
would be in violation under paragraph (i)(2), it shall be deemed not in violation if it can
demonstrate:
(A) That the violation was not caused by the regulated party or
its employee or agent; and
(B) That it possesses transfer documents which support the
oxygen content of all gasoline in its possession. These transfer documents are
required to accompany all oxygenated gasoline in the gasoline distribution network
under paragraph (h).
(iv) Where a violation is found at a facility which is operating under the
corporate, trade or brand name of a refiner, that refiner must show, in addition to the
defense elements required by paragraph (i)(1O)O), that the violation was caused by:
(A) An act in violation of law (other than the Act or this part) or
an act of sabotage or vandalism; or
(B) The action of any reseller, distributor, oxygenate blender,
carrier, or a retailer or wholesale purchaser-consumer which is supplied by any of the
persons listed above in paragraph (i)(1O)(!), in violation of a contractual undertaking
imposed by the refiner designed to prevent such action, and despite periodic sampling
and testing by the refiner to ensure compliance with such contractual obligation; or
(C) The action of any carrier or other distributor not subject to a
contract with the refiner but engaged by the refiner for transportation of gasoline,
despite specification or inspection of procedures and equipment by the refiner or
periodic sampling and testing which are reasonably calculated to prevent such action.
(v) In this paragraph (i)(1O), the term was caused’ means that the
party must demonstrate by reasonably specific showings, by direct or circumstantial
evidence, that the violation was caused or must have been caused by another.
(11) Quality Assurance Program. In order to demonstrate an acceptable
quality assurance program, any party except for a carrier, wholesale purchaser-
consumer or retailer must conduct itself or commission an independent testing service
to conduct periodic sampling and testing to determine if the oxygenated gasoline has
oxygen content which is consistent with the product transfer documentation.
0) Attestation engagements.
(1) The attestation engagement shall consist of performing the agreed-upon
61
-------
procedures set forth in the guidelines in accordance with either the Codification of
Standards for the Professional Practice of Infernal Auditing as promulgated by the
Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc. or the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants’ (AICPAs) Statements on Standards for Attestation Engagements and
using statistical sample design parameters provided by the Agency. 5
(2) The attestation engagement shall be conducted by either an internal
auditor employed by the CAR or a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). This attestation
engagement may be performed by either an internal auditor employed by the CAR or,
if a CAR has no internal auditors available, an independent CPA or a firm of
independent CPAs. Internal auditors must be either Certified Internal Auditors (ClAs)
or members in good standing of the Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc (IIA).
(3) The CPA is required to comply with the general code of conduct and
ethics as prescribed by the state in which he or she is licensed and, if applicable, a
member in good standing of either the AICPA or the IlA.
(4) The attestation engagement shall include the following agreed-upon
procedures, as appropriate, for the CAR’s standardized reporting form(s):
(i) Read the report completed by management and filed with the
state agency.
i) Obtain from tha CAR an inventory reconciliation summarizing
receipts and deliveries of all gasoline, gasoline bleridstocks, and oxygenates for CARs
serving a control area.
(A) Test mathematical accuracy of inventory reconciliation.
(B) Agree beginning and ending inventory amounts to
company’s perpetual inventory records.
(C) Agree deliveries into the control area to state report, it
In performing the attest engagement, the internal auditor or CPA shall determine
the sample size for each population according to the following table:
Number in Population (N) Sample Size
66 or larger 59
41-65 ‘ 41
26-40 31
0 - 25 N or 24, whichever is
smaller
The number of populations from which samples should be drawn will vary
depending on the circumstances. Sample items should be selected in such a way that
the sample can be expected to be representative of the population.
If the CPA agrees to use some other form of sample selection and some other
method to determine the sample size, that agreement should be summarized in the
CPA’s report.
62
-------
applicable.
(iii) Obtain listing of all gasoline, gasoline blendstocks, and oxygenate
receipts during the period.
(A) Test mathematical accuracy of listing.
(B) Agree amounts to inventory reconciliation.
(C) Select a representative sample of individual receipti of
gasoline, gasoline blendstocks, and oxygenates and trace details back to source
documents.
(iv) Obtain listing of all gasoline, gasoline blendstocks, and oxygenates
sold or dispensed during the period.
(A) Test mathematical accuracy of listing.
(B) Agree amounts to inventory reconciliation report.
(C) Select a representative sample of individual batches sold or
dispensed both into and outside the control area.
(1) Agree volumes for the sample items to original bill of
lading or other source documents.
(2) For sales or deliveries into the control area,
determine that oxygenate content is at least two percent by examining bills of lading.
(v) Using the volume of oxygenated gasoline sold or dispensed into
the control area from the inventory reconciliation report, recalculate the number of
oxygen content units required by multiplying volume by 2.7% and agree to state
report.
(vi) Recalculate the actual total oxygen credit units generated by
adding the oxygen content units of each batcPr or truckload of oxygenated gasoline
that was sold or dispensed in the control area as determined in section (v) above.
These units are generated by multiplying the actual oxygen content by weight
associated with each batch or truckload by the volume.
(vii) Recalculate the adjusted actual total oxygen credit units as follows:
(A) The actual total oxygen credit units generated from section
(vi);
(B) Plus the total oxygen credit units purchased or acquired
through trade; and
(C) Minus the total oxygen credit units sold or given away
through trade.
(viii) The following steps apply to the testing of the actual total oxygen
content from section (vi) and are applicable based on method of blending:
(A) For CARs using r k- and splash-blending, recompute
oxygen content by weight for a representative sample of deliveries based on detailed
meter readings of gasoline, blendstocks and oxygenate receipts.
(B) For CARs using in-tank blending of gasoline, blendstocks
and oxygenates, obtain register of running weighted oxygen content by tank and:
(1) Using the individual sample items from sections (iii)
and (iv) above, test calculation of running totals.
(2) Where laboratory analysis is used within the CAR’s
weighted average calculation, select individual analysis reports of oxygenated gasoline
receipts and deliveries during the period on a representative sample basis.
(a) Review laboratory results for consistency with
63
-------
CARs calculations noting oxygen volume and specific gravity.
(b) Recalculate oxygen by weight.
(C) Agree information on lab reports to underlying
delivery and receiving documentation.
(ix) Obtain register of oxygen credit unit purchases and sales and
select separate representative samples of individual purchased credits and individual
sales credits.
(A) Agree selected credit unit transactions to the underlying
contract and/or other supporting documentation noting specific volumes and oxygen
content of the gasoline associated with the credits.
(B) Agree to the underlying contract and/or supporting
documentation that the credits are generated in the same control areas as they are
used (i.e., no credits may be transferred between nonattainment areas).
(C) Agree to the underlying contract and/or supporting
documentation that the credits are generated in the same averaging period as they are
used.
(D) Agree to the underlying contract and/or supporting
documentation that the ownership of credits is transferred only between CARs.
(E) Agree to the underlying contract and for supporting
documentation that the credit transfer agreement was made no later than 30 working
days after the final day of the averaging period in which the credits are generated.
(x) Prepare a report to CAR management in accordance with the
Codification of Standards for the Professional Practice of Intexnal Auditing as
promulgated by the IA or the AICPA’s Statements on Standards lot Attestation
Engagements indicating the results of performing the above procedures. This report
should include, in addition to the information described in Appendix D, a declaration of
the internal auditor’s or the CPA’s professional credentials.
64
-------
Appendix A -- Sampling Procedures
EPA ’s sampling procedures are detailed in Appendix D of 40 CFR 80
Appendix B Testing Procedure
PROPOSED REVISION OF ASTM DESIGNATION: D-4815-89
Standard Test Method for
Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, D [ PE., tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C 1 toC 4 Alcohols
in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography 1
Thzs scandard is issued under the fixed designation D-4815; the number immediately following
the designation indicates the year of ongirial adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of
last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript
epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
t This test method is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D-2 on hydrocarbons and is
the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D.02.04 on methods of analysis.
This test method supercedes ASTM D-4815-89. 2 This test method has undergone extensive
resiviori in order to address current requirements for the determination of oxygenates in fuels.
1. Scope
1.1 This test method is designed for the determination of ethers and alcohols in
gasolines by gas chromatography. Specific compounds determined are: methyl
tert-butylether (MTBE), ethyl -butylether (ETBE), -amylmethylether
(TAME), diisopropylether (DEPE), methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, -propanol.
isobutanol, -butanol. •butanol, ,i.butanol, and -pentanol ( ri.
aznylalcohol).
1.2 Individual ethers are determined from 0.1 to 20.0 rnass%. Individual alcohols are
determined from 0.1 to 12.0 mass%. Equations used to convert to mass%
oxygen and to volume% of individual compounds are provided.
1.3 SI (metric) units are preferred and used throughout this standard. Alternate
units, in common usage, are also provided to increase clarity and aid the users of
this method.
1.4 Alcohol-based fuels such as M-85 and E-85, MTBE product, ethanol product
and denatured alcohol are specifically excluded from this method. The
methanol content of M85 fuel is considered beyond the operating range of the
system.
65
-------
-l
1.5 Benzene. while detected, cannot be quantified using this test method and must
be analyzed by alternate methodology (Test Methods D.3606 or D.4420). 2
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety problems associated with
us use. I: is the responsthiliry of the user of this standard to establish appropriate
safery and health practices and dezermi.ne the applicability of regulatoiv litnuarions
prior to use.
2. Referenced Documents
- 2.1 ASTM Standards:
D3606 Test method for Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation
Gasoline by Gas Chromatography 2
D4052 Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital
Density Meter 2
D4057 Practice for Manual Sampling of Petroleum and Petroleum Products 2
D4307 Practice for Preparation of Liquid Blends for Use as Analytical
Standards 2
D4420 Test Method for Aromatics in Finished Gasolines by Gas
Chro matography 2
D4626 Practice for Calculation of Gas Chromatographic Response Factors 2
D1298 Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API
Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer
Method 5
3. Terminology
3.1 Descriptions of Temis Specific to This Standard:
3.1.1 low volume connector--a special union for connecting two lengths of
tubing 1.6 mm inside diameter and smaller. Sometimes this is referred to
as zero dead volume union.
3.1.2 MThE--methyl tertiarv.butyl ether.
3.1.3 ETBE-ethyl tertiary-butyl ether
3.1.4 TAME—tertiarv-amyl methyl ether
3.1.5 DIPE .-diisopropyl ether
3.1.6 lematy-amyl alcohol—tertiarv-pentanol
3.1.7 Oa ena:e--any oxygen-containing organic compound which can be used
as a fuel or fuel supplement, for example, various alcohols and ethers.
3.1.8 split rruw--in capillary gas chromatography, the ratio of the total flow of
carrier gas to the sample inlet versus the flow of the carrier gas to the
capillary column, expressed by
split ratio = (S + C)/C [ 1]
where S is the flow rate at the splitter vent,
and C is the flow rate at the column outlet.
66
-------
3.1.9 TCEP--L2,3-tris-2-cyanoethoxypropane—a gas chromato aphic liquid
phase.
3.1.10 WCOT--a type of capillary gas chromatographic column prepared by
coating the inside of the capillary with a thin film of stationary phase.
4. Snrnm ry of Test Method
4.1 An appropriate internal standard such as 1,2-dimethoxyethane (ethylene glycol
dimethyl ether) is added to the sample which is then introduced into a gas
chromatograph equipped with two columns and a column switching valve. The
sample first passes onto a polar TCEP column which elutes lighter hydrocarbons
to vent and retains the oxygenated and heavier hydrocarbons. After
methylcyclopernane, but before DIPE and MTBE elute from the polar column.
the valve is switched to backflush the oxygenates onto a WCOT non-polar
column. The alcohols and ethers elute from the non-polar column in boiling
point order, before elution of any major hydrocarbon constituents. After
benzerie and TAME elute from the non-polar column, the column switching
valve is switched back to its original position to backflush the heavy
hydrocarbons. The eluted components are detected by a flame ionization or
thermal conductivity detector. The detector response, proportional to the
component concentration, is recorded; the peak areas are measured; and the
concentration of each component is calculated with reference to the internal
standard.
5. Significance and Use
5.1 Ethers, alcohols and other oxygenates can be added to gasoline to increase
octane number and to reduce emissions. Type and concentration of various
oxygenates are specified and regulated to ensure acceptable commercial
gasoline quality. Drivability, vapor pressure, phase separation, exhaust and
evaporative emissions are some of the concerns associated with oxygenated
fuels.
5.2 This test method is applicable to both quality control in the production of
gasoline and for the determination of deliberate or extraneous oxygenate
additions or contamination.
6. Apparatus
6.1 Chmma:ograph:
6.1.1 While any gas chromatographic system, which is capable of adequately
resolving the individual ethers and alcohols that are presented in Table 2.
can be used for these analyses, a gas chromatographic instrument which
can be operated at the conditions given in Table 1, and having a column
switching and backflushing system equivalent to Fig. 1 has been found
acceptable. Carrier gas flow controllers shall be capable of precise
control where the required flow rates are low (Table 1). Pressure control
67
-------
4
devices and gauges shall be capable of precise control for the typical
pressures required.
6.1.2 Detector--A thermal conductivity detector or flame ionization detector.
can be used. The system shall have sufficient sensitivity and stability to
obtain a recorder deflection of at least 2 mm at a signal-to-noise ratio of
at least 5 to 1 for 0.005 volume% concentration of an oxygenate.
6.1.3 Swiichuig and Back/lushing Valve--A valve, to be located within the gas
chromatographic column oven, capable of performing the functions
described in Section 11 and illustrated in Fig. 1. The valve shall be of low
volume design and not contribute significantly to chromatographic
deterioration.
6.1.3.1 Valco Model No. A 4CJOWP, 1.6mm (1/16 in.) fittings. This
particular valve was used in the majority of the analyses used
for the development of Section 15.
6.1.3.2 Valca Model No. C1OW, 0.8 mm (1/32 in.) fittings. This valve
is recommended for use with columns of 0.32 mm inside
diameter and smaller.
6.1.3.3 Some gas chromatographs are equipped with an awdliary
oven which can be used to contain the valve and polar
column. In such a configuration, the nonpolar column is
located in the main oven and the temperature can be adjusted
for optimum oxygenates resolution.
6.1.4 An automatic valve switching device must be used to ensure repeatable
switching times. Such a device should be synchronized with injection and
data collection times.
6.1.5 Injection System—The chromatograph should be equipped with a
splitting-type inlet device if capillary columns or flame ionization
detection are used. Split injection is necessary to maintain the actual
chromatographed sample size within the limits of column and detector
optimum efficiency and linearity.
6.1.5.1 Some gas chromatographs are equipped with on-column
injectors and autosamplers which can inject small samples
sizes. Such injection systems can be used provided that
sample size is within the limit of the column and detectors
optimum efficiency and linearity.
6.1.5.2 Microlitre syringes, automatic syringe injectors, and liquid
sampling valves have been used successfully for introducing
representative samples into the gas chromatographic inlet.
6.2 Data Presentanon orCalcularion, orBoik
6.2.1 Recorder--A recording potentiometer or equivalent with a full-scale
deflection of 5 mV or less can be used to monitor detector signal. Full-
scale response time should be I s or less with sufficient sensitivity and
stability to meet the requirements of 6.1.2.
69
-------
5
6.2.2 Integrator or Computer--Means shall be provided for determining the
detector response. Peak heights or areas can be measured by computer.
electronic integration or manual techniques.
6.3 Columns, rwo as follows:
6.3.1 Polar column--This column performs a preseparation of the oxygenates
from volatile hydrocarbons in the same boiling point range. The
oxygenates and remaining hydrocarbons are backflushed onto the non-
polar column in 6.3.2. Any column with equivalent or better
chromatographic efficiency and selectivity to that described in 6.3.1.1 can
be used. The column shall perform at the same temperature as required
for the column in 6.3.2. except if located in a separate auxiliary oven as in
6.1.3.3.
6.3.1.1 TCEP Micro-Packed Colwnn 4 , 560mm (22 in.) by 1.6 mm (1/16
in.) outside diameter by 0.38 mm (0.015 in.).inside diameter
stainless steel tube packed with 0.14 100.15 g of 20%
(mass/mass) TCEP on 80/100 mesh Chromosorb P(AW). This
column was used in the cooperative study to provide the
precision and bias data referred to in Section 15.
6.3.2 Non-polar (Analytical) Column—Any column with equivalent or better
chromatographic efficiency and selectivity to that described in 6.3.2.1 and
illustrated in Fig. 2 can be used.
6.3.2.1 WCOTMethyI Silicone Column, 30m (1181 in.) long by 0.53 mm
(0.021 in.) inside diameter fused silica WCOT column with a
2. m film thickness of cross-linked methyl sioxane. This
column was used in the cooperative study to provide the
precision and bias data referred to in Section 15.
7. Reagents and Materials
7.1 Canier Gas—Carrier gas appropriate to the type of detector used. Helium has
been used successfully. The minimum purity of the carrier gas used must be
99.95 mol%.
7.2 Standards for Calibranon and Identification--Standards of all components to be
analyzed and the internal standard are required for establishing identification by
retention time as well as calibration for quantitative measurements. These
materials shall be of known purity and free of the other components to be
analyzed.
NOTE 1: Warning—These materials are flammable and can be harmful or fatal if
ingested or inhaled.
7.3 Preparation of Calibration Blends--For best results, these components must be
added to a stock gasoline, a hydrocarbon blend or petroleum naphtha, which is
free of oxgenates (Warning--See Note 2). Refer to Practice D 4307 for
preparation of liquid blends. The preparation of several different blends, at
70
-------
6
different concentration levels covering the concentration range of interest is
necessary to verify system linearity. For best precision, a multipoint calibration
procedure must be used. To do so. piot ratios of the areas of oxygenates to that
of the internal standard (y-axis) against the ratios of the concentrations of the
oxygenates to that of the internal standard (x.axis). These will be used to
establish the linearity of the component response.
NOTE 2: Warning_Extremely flammable. Vapors harmful if inhaled.
7.4 Methylene Chloride--Used for column preparation. Reagent grade free of non-
volatile residue.
NOTE 3: Warning—Harmful if inhaled. High concentrations can cause
unconsciousness or death.
& Preparation of Column Packmn
8.1 TCEP Column Packing:
8.1.1 Any satisfactory method, used in the practice of the art that will produce
a column capable of retaining the Cl to C4 alcohols and MTBE, ETBE,
DIPE and TAME from components of the same boding point range in a
gasoline sample. The following procedure has been used successfully.
8.1.2 Completely dissolve log of TCEP in 100 mL of methylene chloride.
Next add 40 g of 80/100 mesh Chromosorb P(AW) 6 to the TCEP
solution. Quickly transfer this mixture to a drying dish, in a fume hood,
without scraping any of the residual packing from the sides of the
container. Constantly, but gently, stir the packing until all of the solvent
has evaporated. This column packing can be used immediately to
prepare the TCEP column.
9. Preparation of Micro-packed TCEP Column
9.1 Wash a straight 560mm length of 1.6mm outside diameter (0.38mm inside
diameter) stainless steel tubing with methanol and dry with compressed
nitrogen.
9.2 Insert 6 to 12 strands of silvered wire, a small mesh screen or stainless steel frit
inside one end of the tube. Slowly add 0.14 to 0. 15 g of packing material to the
column and gently vibrate to settle the packing inside the column. When strands
of wire are used to retain the packing material inside the column, leave 6.0 mm
(0.25 in.) of space at the top of the column.
9.3 Column Conditioning—Both the TCEP and WCOT columns are to be briefly
conditioned before use. Connect the columns to the valve (see 11.1) in the
chroinatographic oven. Adjust the carrier gas flows as in 11.3 and place the
valve in the RESET position. After several minutes, increase the column oven
temperature to 120°C and maintain these conditions for 5 to 10 mm. Cool the
columns below 60°C before shutting off the carrier flow.
71
-------
7
10. Sampling
10.1 Every effort should be made to insure that the sample is representative of the
fuel source from which t s taken. Follow the recommendations of Practice
D4057 or its equivalent when obtaining samples from bulk storage or pipelines.
10.2 Upon receivt in the laboratory, chill the sample in its onginal container to 32 to
4OGF before any subsamphng is performed.
10.3 If necessary, transfer the chilled sample to a vapor tight container and store at
32 to 40°F until needed for analysis.
11. Preparation of Apparatus and Establishment of Ccnditions
11.1 Assembly--Connect the WCOT column to the valve system using low volume
connectors and narrow bore tubing. It is important to minimize the volume of
the chromatographic system that comes in contact with the sample, otherwise
peak broadening will occur.
11.2 Adjust the operating conditions to those listed in Table 1, but do not turn on the
detector circuits. Check the system for leaks before proceeding further.
11.2.1 If different polar and nonpolar columns are used, and/or capillary
columns of smaller ED are used, it can be necessary to use different
optimum flows and temperatures.
11.3 Flow Rate Adjustment:
11.3.1 Attach a flow measuring device to the column vent with the valve in the
RESET position and adjust the pressure to the injection port to give 5.0
mLlmin flow (14 psig). Soap bubble flow meters are suitable.
11.3.2 Attach a flow measuring device to the split injector vent and adjust the
flow from the split vent using the A flow’controller to give a flow of 70
mLlmin. Recheck the column vent flow set in 11.3.1 and adjust if
necessary.
11.3.3 Switch the valve to the BACKFLUSH position and adjust the vanable
restrictorto give the same column vent flow set in 11.3.1. This is
necessary to minim 17-c flow changes when the valve is switched.
11.3.4 Switch the valve to the inject position RESET and adjust the B flow
controller to give a flow of 3.0 to 3.2 mLfmin at the detector exit. When
required for the particular instrumentation used, add makeup flow or
lCD switching flow to give a total of 21 mLImin at the detector e,at.
11.4 When a thermal conductivity detector is used, turn on the filament current and
allow the detector to equilibrate. When a flame ionization detector is used, set
the hydrogen and air flows and ignite the flame.
11.5 Deterinme the Time to. Black/lush--The time to backflush will vary slightly for
each column system and must be determined experimentally as follows. The
-------
8
start time of the integrator and valve timer must be synchronized with the
injection to accurately reproduce the backflush time.
11.5.1 Initially assume a valve BACKFL.USH time of 0.23 mm. With the valve
RESET, inject 3,. L of a blend containing at least 0.5% or greater
oxygenates (7.3), and simultaneously begin timing the analysis. At 0.23
nun, rotate the valve to the BACKFLUSH position and leave it there
until the complete elution of TAME is realized. Record this time as the
RESET time, which is the time at which the valve is returned to the
RESET position. When all of the remaining hydrocarbons are
backflushed the signal will return to a stable baseline and the system is
ready for another analysis. The chromatogram should appear similar to
the one Wustrated in Fig. 2.
11.5.1.1. Ensure thai the BACKFLUSH time is sufficient to
quantitatively transfer the higher concentrat ons of the ethers.
specifically MTBE, into the nonpolar column.
11.5.2 It is necessary to optimize the valve BACKFLUSH time by analyzing a
standard blend containing oxygenates. The correct BACKFLUSH time
is determined experimentally by using valve switching times between 0.2
and 0.3 mm. When the valve is switched too soon, C5 and lighter
hydrocarbons are backflushed and are co-eluted in the C4 alcohol section
of the chromatogram. When the valve BACKFLUSH is switched too
late, part or all of the ether component (MTBE, ETBE or TAME) is
vented resulting in an incorrect ether measurement.
11.5.2.1. DIPE may require a BACKFLUSH time slightly shorter than
the other ethers. The system may require reoptirmzation if the
analysis of DIPE is required.
11.5.3 To facilitate setting BACKFLUSH TIME, the column vent in Figure 1
can be connected to a second detector (TCD or FID) as described in
Test Method D4420 and used to set BACKFLUSH TIME based on the
oxygenates standard containing the ethers of interest.
12. Calibration and Standardi7ation
12.1 !denn cadon—Determine the retention time of each component by injecting
small amounts either separately, or in known mixtures or by comparing the
relative retention times with those in Table 2.
12. 1.1 In order to ensure that miminum interference from hydrocarbons, it is
strongly recommended that a fuel devoid of oxygenates be
chromotographed to determine the level of any hydrocarbon
interference.
12.2 Preparation of Calthranon Samples--Several calibration blends of the specific
components being analyzed in an appropriate reference fuel or standard
hydrocarbon blend should be prepared and analyzed to establish whether the
response is linear over the range of concentrations under study. In the
preparation of blends, the total mass percent of oxygenated components in the
73
-------
9
reference fuel or standard hydrocarbon blend, including the internal standard.
must not exceed 30 mass percent.
12.3 S:andardizanon--The area under each peak in the chromatogram is considered a
quantitative measure of the corresponding compound. Measure the peak area
of each oxygenate and of the internal standard by either manual methods or
electronic integrator. Calculate the response of each oxygenate, relative to the
internal standard, according to Practice D 4626.2
13. Procedure
13.1 Preparation of sample—Add a quantity of internal standard to an accurately
measured quantity of chilled sample on a gravimetric (mass) basis. The diether.
1,2- dimethoxyethane, has been found to be an appropriate internal standard. A
diether concentration in the 5 to 7 mass% range has been used successfully.
This corresponds to 1.8 to 2.5 mass% added oxygen.
13.2 Chromatographic Analysu—Introduce a representative aliquot of the sample,
containing internal standard, into the gas chromatograph using the same
technique and sample size as used for the calibration analysis. An injection
volume of 3.0 l with a 15:1 split ratio has been used successfully. Start
recording and integrating devices in synchronization with sample introduction.
Obtain a chroinatogram or integrated peak report or both which displays the
retention times and integrated area of each detected component.
13.3 Ituerpretanon of Chromatogram—Com pare the retention times of sample
components to those of the calibration analysis to determine the identities of
oxygenates present.
14. Calculation
14.1 Mass Concentration of pxygenates — After identifying the various oxygenates
measure the area of each oxygenate peak and that of the internal standard.
Calculate the tnass% of each oxygenate according to equation 2 as follows:
W 5 x Ai x R x 100
X 1 A 5 XWg (2]
where:
Xi = mass% of each oxygenate being determined,
Ws = mass of internal standard (1,2.dimethoxvethane) added,
Wg = mass of gasoline sample taken,
74
-------
10
Ai = peak area of the oxygenate to be determined.
As = peak area of the internal standard (1.2-dimethoxvethane), and
Ri = mass relative response factor of each component (relative to the internal
standard).
14.2 Report the mass% of each oxygenate to the nearest 0.01 mass %.
14.3 Mass % oxygen--To determine the oxygen content of the fuel, convert and sum
the oxygen contents of all oxygenated components determined in 14.1 aocording
to equation 3 as follows:
Xx 16.0 x N ,
X 101 = E M [ 31
or
X 1 x 16.OxN 1 X 2 x 16.0xN
Xt 0 t = M 1 . + M, + [ 4 )
where:
X, = ma.ss% of each oxygenate
X 0 = total mass% oxygen in the fuel,
M 1 = molecular weight of the oxygenate as given in table 2, and
16.0 = atomic weight of oxygen,
N 1 = number of oxygen atoms in the oxygenate molecule
14.4 Report the total mass% of oxygen in the fuel to the nearest 0.01 mass %.
14.5 Volumeuic Concenirwion of Oxygenates--If the volumetric concentration of each
oxygenate is desired, calculate the volumetric concentrations according to
equation 5 as follows:
WI
V 1 = xDf [ 5)
where:
V I = volume% of each oxygenate to be determined.
75
-------
11
W 1 = mass% of each oxygenate as calculated from equation 1,
D = relative density at 60cF(15.56 0 C) of the individual oxygenate as found in
table 2.,
Df = relative density of the fuel under study as determined by Test Methods
D-1298 or D-4852
14.6 Report the volume% of each oxygenate to the nearest 0.01 volume %.
15. Precision and Bias 7
15.1 Precision—The precision of this test method as determined by a statistical
examination of interlaboratory test results is as follows:
15.1.1 Repeasabiity--The difference between successive results obtained by the
same operator with the same apparatus under constant operating
conditions on identical test materials would, in the long run, in the normal
and the correct operation of the test method exceed the following values
only in one case in twenty (see Table 3).
7 Supporting data are/will be available from ASTM Headquarters. Request RR:D02xxxx.
76
-------
TABLE 1
CHROMATOGRAPHIC OPERATION CONDITIONS
flows. mi/mm Canier Gas: Helium
Column Oven 60 to injector 75 Sample size, MLA 1.0-3.0
Enjector, °C 200 Column 5 Split ratio 15:1
Detector--TCD, CC 200 Awailaxy 3 Backflush. mm 0.2-0.3
--FID, °C 250 Makeup 18 Valve reset time 8-10 mm
Valve °C 60 Total Analysis time 18-20 mm
A) Sample size must be adjusted so that alcohols in the range of 0.1 to 12.0 mass % and
ethers in the range of 0.1 to 20.0 mass % are eluted from the column and measured
linearly at the detector. A sample size of 1.0 ML has been introduced in most cases.
77
-------
13
TABLE 2
PERTINENT PHYSICAL CONSTANTS AND
RETENTION CHARACFERISI1CS FOR
TCEP/WCOT COLUMN SET CONDITIONS AS IN TABLE 1
Relati e
Retention Relative Retention Time Molecular Density at
Component Time. Mi ( MTBE = l.00 ( DME = l.00 Weight 15.56115 56C
Water 2.90 0.58 0.43 18.0 1.000
Methanol 3.15 0.63 0.46 32.0 0.7963
Ethanol 3.48 0.69 0.51 46.1 0 7939
Isopropanol 3.83 0.76 0.56 60.1 0.7899
tert-Butanol 4.15 0.82 0.61 74.1 0.7922
n-Propanol 4.56 0.90 0.67 60.1 0.8080
MTBE 5.04 1.00 0.74 88.2 0.7460
‘ ç-Butanol 5.36 1.06 0.79 74.1 0.8114
IPE 5.76 1.14 0.85 102.2 0.730(
Isobutanol 6.00 1.19 0.88 74.1 0.805
ETBE 6.20 1.23 0.91 102.2 0.7452
tert-Pentanol 6.43 1.28 0.95 88.1 0.8170
1,2 .Dimethoxyethane (DME) 6.80 1.35 1.00 90.1 0.8720
n-Butanol 7.04 1.40 1.04 74.1 0.8137
Benzene 7.41 1.47 1.09 78.1 0.8830
TAME -8.17 1.62 1.20 102.2 0.7758
78
-------
14
TABLE 3
PRECISION INTERVAL AS DETERMINED FROM
COOPERATIVE STUDY DATA
R t.it ]iiy
Component MEOH EtCH iPA tB nPA MiBE iBA BA ETBE CAA nBA
WI %
020
0.30
100
2.00
300
400
500
600
1000
12.00
14.00
1600
2000
003
004
006
009
Oil
012
014
0.15
019
021
Rei duab0it
Component MEOH J nPA MTBE E
I L1C.]I
0005
00!
00! 002
001 0Q4
002 OtJ
002 ‘)tY
002 OOd
002
003
003
003
004
004
Thul
00! 00! 001 0002
002 002 002 0003
003 002 003 0004
004 002 003 00!
005 001
006 008
007 009
0.08 009
010 015
0.!! 018
001 0002 002 002 003 005
00! 0004 004 003 005 006
002 001 007 005 007 007
003 001 011 008 011 008
004 011
005 . 014
006 017
007 019
009 028
010 0.32
O Il 0.36
013 0.40
014 047
Wt %
02.0
017
010
007
0.04
002
005
OIl
001
0.19
006
013
020
050
0.29
020
0.17
0.09
.003
012
0.12
004
0.34
0.15
022
0.34
1.00
044
0.35
0.32
018
0.05
0.fl
0.13
0.08
0.54
0.29
0.32
0.30
02b
2.00
0.67
06!
0.39
0.35
007
0.45
0.14
0.18
0.85
0.57
0.47
074
045
300
086
0.83
0.51
0.66
1.12
094
061
400
1.02
105
067
0.87
1.35
110
O 7
500
1.17
125
0.83
108
1.56
12.5
091
6.00
1.31
144
099
1.29
1.76
1.39
10.00
1 79
2.16
1.60
2.10
2.47
1 86
12.00
2.00
2.49
191
2.50
2.78
2.06
14.00
2.21
2.90
308
2.25
1600
2.51
3.29
3.37
2.43
20.00
3.10
4.08
3.90
2.76
79
-------
15
REPEATABIliTY ESTIMATES FOR OXYGENATES IN GASOLINE
Component Repeatability
Methanol (MeOH) 0.06 x 0 • 51 )
Ethanol (EcOH) 0.03 (X 052 )
Isopropanol (1PA) 0.02 x 0 • 25 )
tert-Butanol (tBA) 0.03 (X 0 • 71 )
n .Propanol (nPA) 0.004 (X 0 • 47 )
MTBE 0.02 (X 0 )
sec-Butanol (sBA) 0.005 (XO. 53 )
Isobutanol (iBA) 0.07 (X 0 . 67 )
ETBE 0.05 (X 0 . 75 )
tert-Pentanol (tAA) 0.07 (X 0 . 64 )
n-Butanol (nBA) . 0.07 (X 016 )
TAME 0.01 (XO. 45 )
Total Oxygen 0.02 (X 0 • 88 )
where X is the mean mass percent of the component.
15.1.2 Repmducibility--The difference between two single and independent results
obtained by different operators working in different laboratories on identical
material would, in the long run, exceed the following values only in one case in
twenty (see Table 3).
-------
16
REPRODUCIBILITY ESTIMATES IN OXYGENATES N GASOLINES
Component Reproducibility
Methanol (MeOH) o. . s (X 061 )
Ethanol (EtOH) 0.35 (X 079 )
Lsopropanol (iPA) 0.32 (X 088 )
teriButanol (tBA) 0.18 (X 095 )
n-Propanol (nPA) 0.05 (X 056 )
MTBE 0.23 (XO 96 )
sec-Butanol (sBA) 0.13 (XO 09 )
Isobutanol (1BA) 0.08 (xl . 20 )
ETBE 0.54 (X 0 )
tert-Pentanol (tAA) 0.29 (X 097 )
n-Butanol (nBA) 0.32 (X 0 . 55 )
TAME 0.50 (X 0 • 57 )
Total Oxygen 0.26 (X 078 )
where X is the mean mass percent of the component.
15.2 Bias--The National Institutes of Standards and Technolo ’ (NIST) provides
selected alcohols in reference fuels. As an example the following standard
reference materials (SR 1 M) in reference fuels are available as described in the
NIST Standard Reference Catalog. 8
Nominal Concentration, Mass % of
SRM Type MeOU EtOH MeOH + tHuOH
1829 Alcohols in Reference Fuel 0.335 11.39 10.33 + 6.63
1837 Methanol and tert-butanol 10.33 + 6.63
1838 Ethanol 11.39.
1839 Methanol 0.335
1& Key Words
MTBE (Methyl tert-butylcther)
ETBE (Ethyl tert-butylether)
TA1 vfE (Tert-amylmethylether)
DIPE (Disopropylether)
Alcohols
Ethers
Oxygenates
Gasoline
Gas Chromatography
81
-------
‘.7
LI
FOOTNOTES
1. This test method is under the junsdiction of ASTM Committee D-2 on Petroleum
Products and Lubricants and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D02.04 on
Hydrocarbon Analysis.
Current edition approved October 27, 1989. Published December 1989. Orginally
published as D 4815-88. Last previous edition D 4815-88.
2. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 05.03.
3. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 14.01.
4. Available from Hewlett Packard Company, Avondale, PA.
5. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 05.01
6. Available from Supelco Inc., Bellefonte, PA
7. Supporting data are/will be available from ASTM Headquarters, Request RR: D)2-
8. NIST Special Publication 260; NIST Standard Reference Materials 1990-1991
First Draft, Sub.D02.04L 12/19/91
Second Draft, Sub D02.04L 1/3 1/92
Third Draft, Sub.D02.04L, 2/28/92
Fourth Draft, Sub.D02.04L 7/7/92
Fifth Draft, Sub. D02.04, 8/4/92
Sixth Draft, Sub D02.04, 8/20192
82
-------
::- ‘. vE rr
: - :
‘ . __________
‘ H
‘ _ •\ ‘ _ : ____
U ;
l1 I
1 /
ccCT
1
L..
ccN-r cL.Z?.
A
POLAt
(I ,
L)C
—
PL1’
NJEC r
:ri
?OLA.R (TC )
CCL .L’
C.”.,
_SSPL IT vtrr
PLIT
INJEC CB
j ACK1L ?c itiO
FIG. t Crvqeftate$ ui Gascuns Sd efI ci
, ‘,e
AD ;L TAELZ
c: a’ v rr
e
L
4-
Lb.
A 4
L.....
•,17 . I v e
C.r ffT11OqraCfltC £y3tM
-------
I I III I ••7._ , I • ..i . . • • —..—— I ii.. i •‘ .I•
Iu it • ‘,i .1111 iIui’wliij’ tlxyt tII.it 1 .;
ii
-4
0
C
‘I
in
C
w
C
U,
‘4
4,
I.1
‘I
• I
I.
II U
‘I Ui
H ‘
i
I
i
\, _•
—-I - T1 I 1 TJ v—I—l— 1’v_ I1 J—r-r—1-—r—j— I—,—_,— .._,_., _.,_ 1 ——v—i ,-- I ‘—‘
U U 1 0 2.0 3 0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 10 0
q
0
‘3
C
U
n .
IJ
I..
U,
—1
0
C
U
I.
I ..
U
i -i
0
M I NU , S
-------
Appendix C - Test Procedure
Test for the Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline
1. Scope and application.
1.1. The following single-column, direct-in)ection gas
chromatographic procedure is described in detail to completely
define a single technique for quantifying the oxygenate content
of gasoline. Other procedures with similar capabilities are
allowed provided they comply with the quality control
requirements og section 8 below.
1.2 This method covers the quantitative determination of the
oxygenate content of gasoline through the use of an oxygenate
flame ionization detector (OFID). It is applicable to individual
organic oxygenated compounds (up to 20 mass percent each) in
gasoline having a final boiling point not greater than 220 c.
Samples above this level should be diluted to fall within the
specified range.
1.3 Where trade names or specific products are noted in the
method, equivalent apparatus and chemical reagents may be used.
Mention of trade names or specific products is for the assistance
of the user and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
2. Summa.ry of method.
2.1 A sample of gasoline is spiked to introduce an internal
standard, mixed, and injected into a gas chromatograph (GC)
equipped with an OFID. After chromatographic resolution the
sample components enter a cracker reactor in which they are
stoichiometrically converted to carbon monoxide (in the case of
oxygenates), elemental carbon, and hydrogen. The carbon monoxide
then enters a methanizer reactor for conversion to water and
methane. Finally, the methane generated is determined by a flame
ionization detector (PID).
2.2 All oxygenated gasoline components (alcohols, ethers, etc.)
may be assessed by this method.
2.3 The total mass percent of oxygen in the gasoline due to
oxygenated components may also be determined with this method by
summation of all peak areas except for dissolved oxygen, water,
and the internal standard.
3. Sample handling and preservation.
3.1 Samples shall be collected and stored in containers which
will protect them from changes in the component contents of the
gasoline, such as loss of volatile fractions of the gasoline by
evaporation.
3.2 If samples have been refrigerated they shall be brought to
room temperature prior to analysis.
3.3 Gasoline is extremely flammable and should be handled
cautiously and with adequate ventilation. The vapors are harmful
if inhaled and prolonged breathing of vapors should be avoided.
Skin contact should be minimized.
4. Apparatus.
85
-------
4.1 A CC equipped with an oxygenate flame ionization detector.
4.2 An autosampler for the CC is highly recommended.
4.3 A 60—rn length, 0.25-mm ID, l.0—,. film thickness, nonpolar
capillary GC column (J&W DB—]. or equivalent) is recommended.
4.4 An integrator or other acceptable system to collect arid
pro esa the CC signal.
5. Reagents and Materials.
Note: Gasoline and many of the oxygenate additives are
extremely flamaable and may be toxic over prolonged exposure.
Methanol is particularly hazardous. Persons performing this
procedure must be familiar with the chemicals involved and all
precautions applicable to each.
5.1 Reagent-grade oxygenates for internal standards and for
preparation of standard solutions.
5.2 Supply of oxygenate-free gasoline for blank assessments and
for preparation of standard solutions.
5.3 Calibration standard solutions containing known quantities
of suspected oxygenates in gasoline.
5.4 Calibration check standard solutions prepared in the same
manner as the calibration standards.
5.5 Reference standard solutions containing known quantities of
suspected oxygenates in gasoline.
5.6 Glass standard and test sample containers (between 5 and 100
mL capacity) fitted with a self-sealing polytetrafluoroethlene
(PIFE) faced rubber septum crimp on or screw down sealing cap for
preparation of standards and samples.
6. Calibration.
6.1 Calibration standards of reagent—grade or better oxygenates
(such as methanol, absolute ethanol, methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE),
di-i-propyl ether (DIPE), ethyl t-butyl ether (ETBE), and t-amyl
methyl ether (TAME)) are to be prepared gravimetrically by
blending with gasoline that has been previously determined by
GC/OFID to be free of oxygenates. Newly acquired stocks of
reagent grade oxygenates shall be analyzed for contamination by
GC/FID and GC/OFID before use.
6.2 Tare a glass sample container and its PTFE faced rubber
septum sealing cap. Transfer a quantity of an oxygenate to the
sample container through the septum and record the mass of the
oxygenate to the nearest 0.1 ag. Repeat this process for any
additional oxygenates of interest except the internal standard.
Add oxygenate—free gasoline to dilute the oxygenates to the
desired concentration. Record the mass of gasoline added to the
nearest 0.1 mg, and determine and label the standard according to
the mass percent quantities of each oxygenate added. These
standards are not to exceed 20 mass percent for any individual
pure component due to potential hydrocarbon breakthrough and/or
loss of calibration linearity.
6.3 Inject a quantity of an internal standard (such as
2-butanol) through the rubber septum arid weigh the contents
again. Record the difference in masses as the mass of internal
86
-------
standard to the nearest 0.1 mg. The mass of the internal
standard shall amount to between 2 and 6 percent of the mass of
the test sample (standard). The addition of an internal standard
reduces errors caused by variations in injection volumes.
6.4 Ensure that the prepared standard is thoroughly mixed and
transfer approximately 2 mL of the solution through the septum of
a vial compatible with the autosampler if such equipment is used.
6.5 Based on the recommended chrowatographic operating
conditions (section 7.1 below), determine the retention time of
each oxygenate .component by analyzing dilute aliquots either
separately or in known mixtures. Reference should be made to the
Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number of each of the
analytes for proper identification. Approximate retention times
for selected oxygenates under these conditions are as follows:
Oxygenate CAS Retention time
inut..
where:
R 10 =
R,—
A 0 —
A =
M 0 —
=
oxygen
Dissolved
Water
Methanol
Ethanol
Propanone
2 -Propanol
t-Butanol
n—Propanol
MTBE
2-Butanol
DI PE
i-Butano l
ETBE
t-Pentanol
n—Butanol
TAME
i-Pentano l
7782—44—7 3.85
7732—18—5 4.28
67—56—]. 4.71
64—17—5 5.66
67—64—1 6.29
67—63—0 6.63
75—65—0 7.46
71—23—8 8.60
1634—04—4 9.41
15892 23—6 10.58
108—20—3 11.30
78—83—1 12.30
637—92—3 12.50
75—85—4 13.23
71—36—3 14.40
994—05—8 15.40
137—32—6 17.19
6.6 By GC/OFID analysis, determine the peak area of each
oxygenate and of the internal standard.
6.7 Obtain a calibration curve by performing a least-squares fit
of the relative area response factors of the oxygenate standards
to their relative mass response factors as follows:
Ru,, — b 0 R +b 1 (R. ,) 2
relative area response factor of the oxygenate, A 01 A
relative mass response factor of the oxygenate, LjM
area of the oxygenate peak
area of the internal standard peak
mass of the oxygenate added to the calibration standard
mass of internal standard added to the calibration
87
-------
standard
b 0 — linear regression coefficient
b 1 — quadratic regression coefficient
6.8 Before proceeding with the analysis of samples, the
least—squares regression should be evaluated for goodness—of-fit.
7. Procedure.
7.1 GC operating conditions:
7.1.1 Oxygenate—free helium carrier gas: 1.1 aL/sin (2 bar),
22.7 ca/sec at,115 °C
7.1.2 Carrier gas split ratio: 1:100
7.1.3 Zero—air FID fuel: 370 aL/mm (2 bar)
7.1.4 oxygenate—free hydrogen FID fuel: 15 aL/mm (2 bar)
7.1.5 Injector temperature: 250 °C
7.1.6 Injection volume: 0.5 sL
7.1.7 Cracker reactor temperature: sufficiently high to ensure
reduction of all hydrocarbons to the elemental states (i.e.,
C 1 H ->C+H 2 , etc.)
7.1.8 FID temperature: 400 °C
7.1.9 Oven temperature program: 40 °C for 6 sin, followed by a
temperature increase of 5 OC/min to 50 °C, hold at 50 °C for 5
sin, followed by a temperature increase of 25 OC/mjn to 175 °C,
and hold at 175 °C for 2 sin.
7.2 Prior to analysis of any samples, inject a sample of
oxygenate-free gasoline into the CC to test for hydrocarbon
breakthrough overloading the cracker reactor. If breakthrough
occurs, the OFID is not operating effectively and must be
corrected before samples can be analyzed.
7.3 Prepare gasoline test samples for analysis as follows:
7.3.1 Tare a glass sample container and its PTFE faced rubber
septum sealing cap. Transfer a quantity of the gasoline sample
to the sample container thxeugh the septum and record the mass of
the transferred sample to the nearest 0.1 ag.
7.3.2 Inject a quantity of the same internal standard (such as
2-butanol) used in generating the standards through the rubber
septum and weigh the contents again. Record the difference in
masses as the mass of internal standard to the nearest 0.1 ag.
The mass of the internal standard shall amount to between 2 and 6
percent of the mass of the test sample (standard). The addition
of an internal standard reduces errors caused by variations in
injection volumes.
7.3.3 Ensure that this test sample (gasoline plus internal
standard) is thoroughly mixed and transfer approximately 2 mL of
the solution through the septum of a vial compatible with the
autosaspler if such equipment is used.
7.4 After GC/OFID analysis, identify the oxygenates in the
sample based on retention times, determine the peak area of each
oxygenate and of the internal standard, and calculate the
relative area response factor for each oxygenate.
7.5 Monitor the peak area of the internal standard. A larger
than expected peak area for the internal standard when analyzing
88
-------
a test sample may indicate that this oxygenate is present in the
original sample. Prepare a new aliquot of the sample without
addition of the oxygenate internal standard. If the presence of
the oxygenate previously used as the internal standard can be
detected, then either (1) the concentration of this oxygenate
must be assessed by the method of standard additions or (2) an
alternative internal standard, based on an oxygenate that is not
present in the original sample, should be utilized with new
calibration curves.
7.6 Calculate’the relative mass response factor (R ) for each
oxygenate based on the relative area response factor (R ) and
the calibration equation of section 6.7 above.
7.7 Calculate the mass percent of the oxygenate in the test
sample according to the following equation:
RJ( (l00%)
=
M,
where:
= mass percent of the oxygenate in the test sample
fl = mass of sample to which internal standard is added
7.8 If the mass percent exceeds the calibrated range,
gravimetrically dilute a portion of the original sample to a
concentration within the calibration range and analyze this
sample starting with section 7.3 above.
7.9 Report the total mass percent oxygen as follows:
7.9.1 Subtract the peak areas due to dissolved oxygen, water,
and the internal standard from the total summed peak areas of the
chromatogram.
7.9.2 Assume the total summed peak area solely due to one of the
oxygenates that the instrument is calibrated for and determine
the total mass percent as that oxygenate based on section 7.7
above. For simplicity, choose an oxygenate having one oxygen
atom per molecule.
7.9.3 flultiply this concentration by the molar mass of oxygen
and divide by the molar mass of the chosen oxygenate to determine
the mass percent oxygen in the sample. For example, if the total
peak area is based on MTBE, multiply by 16.00 (the molar mass of
atomic oxygen) and divide by 88.15 (the molar mass of MTBE).
7.10 Sufficient sample should be retained to permit reanalysis.
8. Quality control of precision and accuracy.
8.2. The laboratory shall routinely monitor the repeatability
(precision) of its analyses. The recommendations are:
8.1.1 The preparation and analysis of laboratory duplicates at a
rate of one per analysis batch or at least one per ten samples,
whichever is more frequent.
8.1.2 Laboratory duplicates should be carried through all sample
preparation steps independently.
8.1.3 The range CR) for duplicate samples should be less than
the following limits:
89
-------
Oxygenate Concentration
Upper Limit for Range
mass
p.rc.nt
mass p.rc.nt
Methanol. 0.27 to 1.07 0.010+0.043C
Methanol 1.07 to 12.73 0.053C
Ethanol. 1.01 to 12.70 0.053C
MTSE 0.25 to 15.00 0.069+0.029C
DIPE 0.98 to 17.70 0.048C
ETBE 1.00 to 18.04 0.074C
TAME • 1.04 to 18.59 O.060C
wh•rsz
C — (C 0 +C 4 )/2
Co — concentration of the original sample
Cd = concentration of the duplicate sample
R = Range, CQ—Cdi
8.1.4 If the above limits are exceeded, the sources of error in
the analysis should be determined, corrected, and all analyses
subsequent to and including the last duplicate analysis confirmed
to be within the compliance specifications must be repeated. The
specification limits for the range and relative range of
duplicate analyses are linimum performance requirements. The
performance of individual. laboratories may indeed be better than
these minimum requirements. For this reason it is recommended
that control charts be utilized to monitor the variability of
measurements in order to optimally detect abnormal Bituations and
ensure a stable measurement process.
8.1.5 For reference purposes, a single laboratory study of
repeatability was conducted on approximately 27 replicates at
each of five concentrations for each oxygenate. The variation of
wraE analyses as measured by standard deviation was very linear
with respect to concentration. This relationship is described by
the equation:
standard deviation — O.00784*C+0.0187
where concentration is expressed as mass percent. This
relationship is valid over the concentration range of 0.25 to
15.0 mass percent.
8.1.6 The other oxygenates of interest, methanol, ethanol, DIPE,
ETBE, and TAME, had consistent coefficients of variation at one
mass percent and above: -
Oxygenate Concentration
Coefficient of Variation
mass
p.rcertt
p.rcent
of point
Metnanol 1.07 tO 12.73 1.43
Ethanol 1.01 to 12.70 1.43
DIPE 0.98 to 17.70 1.29
ETBE 1.00 to 18.04 2.00
TAME 1.04 to 18.59 1.62
90
-------
8.1.7 The relationship of standard deviation and concentration
for methanol, between 0.27 and 1.07 sass percent was very linear
and is described by the equation:
standard deviation — 0.Olla*C+0.0027
8.1.8 Based on these relationships, repeatability for the
selected oxygenates at 2.0 and 2.7 mass percent oxygen were
determined to be as follows:
Oxygenate •
sass percsnt
oxyg.n
Concentration
Repeatability
mass p.rc.nt
mass psrcsnt
oxyq.nat.
volums psrcent
oxyq.nat.
fletflLfloi .0 4.00 J.1
Eth.nol 2.0 5.75 5.41 0.16
HTBI 2.0 11.00 11.00 0.21
DIP! 2.0 12.77 13.00 0.32
!TBZ 2.0 12.77 12.74 0.50
2.0 12.77 12.33 0.41
Hithanol 2.7 5.40 5.07 0.15
Sthanol 2.7 7.76 7.31 0.21
MTBE 2.7 14.88 14.88 0.26
DIPS 2.7 17.24 17.53 0.43
ETBE 2.7 17.24 17.20 0.67
TAI 2.7 17.24 16.68 0.55
where repeatability is defined as the half width of the 95
percent confidence interval (i.e., 1.96 standard deviations) for
a single analysis at the stated concentration.
8.2 The laboratory shall routinely monitor the accuracy of its
analyses. The recommendations are:
8.2.1 Calibration check standards and calibration standards may
be prepared from the same oxygenate stocks and by the same
analyst. However, calibration check standards and calibration
standards must be prepared from separate batches of the final
diluted standards. For the specification limits listed in
section 8.2.3, the concentration of the check standards should be
in the range given in section 8.1.3.
8.2.2 Calibration check standards should be analyzed at a rate
of one per analysis batch or at least one per ten samples,
whichever is more frequent.
8.2.3 If the measured’concentration of a calibration check
standard is outside the range of ’l00.0±6.0 percent of the
theoretical concentration for a selected oxygenate of 1.0 mass
percent or above, the sources of error in the analysis should be
determined, corrected, and all analyses subsequent to and
including the last standard analysis confirmed to be within the
compliance specifications must be repeated. The specification
limits for the accuracy of calibration check standards analyses
are minimum performance requirements. The performance of
individual laboratories may indeed be better than these minimum
requirements. For this reason it is recommended that control
charts be utilized to monitor the variability of measurements in
order to optimally detect abnormal situations and ensure a stable
91
-------
measurement process.
8.2.4 Independent reference standards should be purchased or
prepared from materials that are independent of the calibration
standards and calibration check standards, and must not be
prepared by the same analyst. For the specification limits
listed in section 8.2.6, the concentration of the reference
standards should be in the range given in section 8.1.3.
8.2.5 Independent reference standards should be analyzed at a
rate of one per analysis batch or at least one per 100 samples,
whichever is mqre frequent.
8.2 • 6 If the measured concentration of an independent reference
standard is outside the range of 100.0±10.0 percent of the
theoretical concentration for a selected oxygenate of .1.0 mass
percent or above, the sources of error in the analysis should be
determined, corrected, and all analyses subsequent to and
including the last independent reference standard analysis
confirmed to be within the compliance specifications in that
batch must be repeated. The specification limits for the
accuracy of independent reference standards analyses are minimum
performance requirements. The performance of individual
laboratories may indeed be better than these minimum
requirements. For this reason it is recommended that control
charts be utilized to monitor the variability of measurements in
order to optimally detect abnormal situations and ensure a stable
measurement process.
92
-------
Appendix D - Illustrative CPA Report
(Address to the CAR’S management and state regulatory agency]
I/We have applied the procedures enumerated below to the
accompanying (title of the CAR’s oxygenated fuels report(s) filed
with the state] for the (control area(s)] for the (averaging
period(s)]. These procedures, which were included in (describe
the applicable ,state regulations] and agreed to by (the CAR’s
management), were performed solely to assist (the CAR and the
state agency] in evaluating (name of CAR)’s compliance with
reporting on oxygenated fuels distribution under (applicable
state regulation(s)]. This report is intended solely for the
information of (the CAR’S management) and (the applicable state
agency] and should not be used by others.
(Include paragraph to enumerate procedures and findings.]
These agreed-upon procedures are substantially less in scope than
an examination, the objective of which is the expression of an
opinion on (the CAR’S report]. Accordingly, we do not express
such an opinion. Had I/we performed additional procedures or had
we made an examination of such data, other matter might have come
to our attention that would have been reported to you.
(Signature) (City, State] (Date]
Note: This report is for illustrative purposes only and is based
upon reporting Statements on Standards for Attestation
Engagements of the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants °1989, which were applicable at the time of issuance
of these guidelines. The CPA issuing such reports under the
applicable state regulations should revise it, as necessary, to
reflect any additional guidance issued and changes subsequently
made to those reporting standards.
93
-------
Appendix.E - Illustrative CIA or Internal Auditor Report
(Address to the CAR’s management and state regulatory agency]
I/we have applied the procedures enumerated below to the
accompanying (title of the CAR’s oxygenated fuels report(s) filed
with the state] for the (control area(s)] for the (averaging
period(s)]. These procedures, which were included in [ describe
th applicable state regulations] and agreed to by (the CAR’s
management] and (the applicable state agency], were performed
solely to assist (the CAR management and the state agency] in
evaluating [ name of CAR)’s compliance with reporting on
oxygenated fuels distribution under [ applicable state
regulation(s)]. This report is intended for the information of
(the CAR’s management] and (the applicable state agency] and
accordingly is not addressed to and should not be used by others.
(Include a section to enumerate procedures and finding in
accordance with Codification of Standards for the Professional
Practice of Internal Auditing; Std. 430: Communicating Results.
This section should include the following elements:
Criteria:The standards, measures or expectations used in making
an evaluationand/or verification (what should exist).
Condition:The factual evidence which the internal auditor found
in the course of the examination (what does exist).
Cause:The reason for the difference between the expected and
actual conditions (why the difference exists).
Effect:The risk or exposure the auditee organization and/or other
encounterbecause the condition is not the same as the criteria
(the impact of the difference) .3
[ Signature] (Credentials] (Address]
[ Title] (Date)
94
-------
R. Sanctions/FIPs
-------
R. Sanctions and FIPs
R.l. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act Deadlines - - Oct. 28, 1992 memo from
John Calcagni
R.2. Impact of Conditional Approvals on Sanction and Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) Clocks - - July 14, 1993 memo from
D. Kent Berry
** Findings of Failure to Submit I/M SIPs - - Jan. 1994 memo
from Philip A. Lorang
R.3. Imposition of Statewide Sanctions on California Under Clean
Air Act Section 110(m) for Failure to Submit a Complete SIP
Revision for an Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program, 59 FR 3534 (Jan. 24, 1994)
R.4. Federal Highway Funding Assistance Limitations and Emissions
Offset Requirements; Illinois, 59 FR 3540 (Jan. 24, 1994)
R.5. Federal Highway Funding Assistance Limitations and Emissions
Offset Requirements; Indiana, 59 FR 3544 (Jan. 24, 1994)
R.6. Criteria for Exercising Discretionary Sanctions Under Title
I of the Clean Air Act, 59 FR 1476 (Jan. 11, 1994)
R.7. Selection of Sequence of Mandatory Sanctions for Findings
Made Pursuant to Section 179 of the Clean Air Act, 59 FR 39832
(Aug. 4, 1994)
R.8. Notice of Areas Potentially Subject to Sanctions Based on
Findings Issued Under Section 179 of the Clean Air Act, 59 FR
39863 (Aug. 4, 1994)
R.9. Revised Guidance on the Treatment of Federal Implementation
Plan Clocks Following Section 179 Findings -- Apr. 24, 1995 memo
from Sally Shaver
P I0 N °IZ - £ e/I. . p i ric -fcii’ i LS
-------
Zi -v
‘ ri !Io(?)( t)
L ’ , ’ ’
-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I”
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
______ Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
4( DQQ
OCT 28 1992
MEMORANDEJI4
SUBJECT: State Implementation Plan (SIP). Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act , A 5 t) D ,jt1ines
F ‘ - ‘ • 7
FROM: John Calcagni, Director ‘..Ze’Cd
Air Quality Management D vi1ion,OAQPS P0—15)
•1 /
TO: Director, Air, PesticIdes and
Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation, and toxic ! visivn,
Region III
pirector, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The purpose of this meaorapdua is to clarify issues related
to redesignation requests and SIP actions submitted in response
to Act deadlines, and specifically address SIP elements that are
due November 15, 1992. The follbwing topics are addressed below:
completeness determinations on commitment subaittals; requests
for parallel processing to meet Act deadlines; effect of
redesignation requests on mandatory Act subaittals; completeness
determinations on emission inventory subatttals; and issuing
letters to the States making a finding of failure to submit a
required SIP, or SIP element.
Completer1 a Determinations on Commitment Submittals
In anticipation of commitment SIP’S being submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as authorized by section
11O(k)(4) of the Act, my staff are working with the Office of
General Counsel (OGC) to revise the completeness criteria in
Appendix V of 40 CFR Part 5l. Specifically, it is our intent to
include specific completeness criteria for committal SIP’s.
A July 22, 1992 memorandum from Michael Shapiro identified a
number of statutory requirements for which EPA is inclined to
accept committal SIP’s. (A clarification of that memorandum was
issued by Michael Shapiro on September 16, 1992.)
-------
2
The current completeness criteria do not address comait nts
submitted under section L10(k)(4) of the Act. However, we are
interpreting section 11O(k)(4) as allowing EPA to accept commit-
ments from a State as complete submittals even though commitments
will lack some of the substantive elements required under the
current completeness criteria. Consequently, committal SIP’S
submitted to EPA should be reviewed against only those elements
of the completeness criteria that are directly applicable to
commitments in order to be determined complete. The elements of
the completeness criteria that are applicable to commitments are:
1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his
designee requesting EPA approval of the commitment.
2. The commitment was subject to a public hearing pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.102.
3. The submittal contains a schedule for the adoption of
the statutorily required measures.
Additionally, States should be encouraged to submit documentation
and a justification explaining the need for a commitment.
If a Regional Office receives a submittal that contains one
or more commitments in association with other rules or control
measures, the Region should consult with the responsible
Headquarters program office to determine if a commitment is
acceptable in that specific circumstance. (Please refer to my
July 9, 1992 memorandum entitled “Processing of State
Im )le1nentation Plan Submittals, 0 specifically the part n
cc ditional approvals.) ‘ If EPA 4etermines that it vi ]. consider
tI a commitment under the conditidnal approval process, the
commitment should be reviewed only as to the criteria that would
be applicable for commitments. However, if EPA determines that a
commitment cannot be used to meet the statutory requirement, the
submittal should be reviewed against all elements of the
completeness criteria.
Requests for Parallel Processing to Meet Act Deadlines
The EP .xpects a number of States to request parallel
processing of draft rules as a way to meat Act deadlines. A
State request for parallel processing is not an official
submittal satisfying a statutory deadline since it is a draft
rule (i.e., the State has yet to adopt the regulation).
When the completeness criteria were promulgated with an
exception for parallel processing, EPA was not anticipating
submittals subject to statutory deadlines. The intent was to
continue the timesaving concept of parallel processing State—
initiated actions. However, the exceptions in the completeness
criteria could be interpreted as requiring EPA to accept draft
-------
3
rules in order to meet statutory deadlines. As noted above,
draft submittals are not considered plan submittals under the Act
because they have not been adopted by the State. Consequently,
EPA is not precluded from making a finding of failure to submit a
required SIP element when a State submits a draft rule.
If a request for parallel processing is submitted to EPA
before the statutory deadline, EPA may agree to parallel process
the action. However, EPA will not make a completeness finding
under section 11O(k)(1) since that section applies to official
plan submittals and not draft rules. However, if the statutory
deadline passes and a State has not submitted the fully—adopted
regulation, the Regions should make a finding of failure to
submit under section 179(a)(1). This will initiate the sanctions
time clock.
Subsequently, if a State submits a fully—adopted rule or
maintenance plan, EPA will review the submittal against the
completeness criteria. The EPA will commence rulemaking action
if the submittal is complete. If the completeness criteria are
met, a finding of completeness will stop the time clock for
sanctions. If the completeness criteria are not met, EPA should
make a finding of incompleteness, thereby maintaining the
previous time clock for sanctions.
Because the parallel processing exception could be
interpreted to require EPA to accept draft rules as meeting a
statutory deadline, we are presently revising the completeness
criteria to remove the parallel processing exception. It should
be noted, however, that although parallel processing subaittals
are not official plan submittals 1 EPA will continue to use
parallel processing as an effective avenue for approving State
rules expeditiously.
Effect of Redesignation Requests on Mandatory Act Submittals
It has come to our attention that some States plan to submit
redesignation requests prior to November 15, 1992 with the
understanding that this will exempt them from implementing
mandatory k t programs due to start in November (e.g., oxygenated
fuels program, stage II vapor recovery rules, etc.). The -
approvability of a redesignation request is based on the
requirements applicable as of the date of submittal of a complete
redesignation request. a States, however, are statutorily
2 For a redesignation request to be complete, any portions of the
redesignation request that are SIP revisions (e.g.,
maintenance plans and any additional control measures) must meet
the completeness criteria for SIP revisions. Redesiqnation
requests submitted for parallel processing will not be considered
official submittals; therefore, they will not be treated as
complete submittals.
-------
4
obligated to meet SIP requirements that become due any time
before an area is actually redesignated to attainment. Such
redesignation occurs when EPA has taken final rulemaking action
to approve a redesignation request.
Hence, if there is a failure by the State to meet a
statutory deadline for an area (before EPA has redesignated the
area as attainment), a finding o failure to submit should be
made. This, in turn, begins the sanctions process under section
179(a) (see September 4, 1992 memorandum, entitled “Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment”).
The f lings letter should recognize any pending redesiç ton
reques , note the State’s statutory c gation toimple - any
mandatcry requirements that are due, - indicate that f the
sanctions will be imposed after 18 nor :s unless EPA ap as the
redesignation request before the 18-nor h period has enc
Thus, the Regions should make all reasonable attempts to ensure
that the redesignation approval process does not take over 18
months.
Completeness Determinations on Emission Inventory Submittals
In a September 29, 1992 memorandum from William Laxton and
myself addressing public hearing requirements for emission
inventory subaittals, it was stated that EPA was providing a “de
miniinis” deferral of the public hearing requirement for emission
inventory submittals. In that memorandum, it was also stated
that if emission inventory submittals do not meet the
completeness criteria (except for the deferred public hearing
requirement), EPA should make a finding of incompleteness.
However, that memorandum did not specify the process for making
completeness determinations on eáission inventory subnittal.s that
only lack the public hearing element.
After discussion with OGC, we have de1 ermined that for the
emission inventory subaittals that a e only lacking evidence of a
public hearing, EPA should make a finding of completeness
contingez ,upon the State fulfilling the public hearing
requireaá a. The completeness letter to the State should
indicat. the completeness determination is contingent upon
the Stat’ fulfilling the public hearing requirement by the time
identified in the September 29 memorandum. If the public hearing
requirement is not met by the time specified, then EPA will make
a finding of incompleteness on the original emission inventory
submittal. The completeness letter should further state that t e
public earing requirement must be met before or at the tin. of
submitt £ of a rate-of-progress or maintenance plan, or at th.
time the inventory takes on regulatory significance such as
providing a basis for banking or trading.
-------
5
As noted in the September 29 memorandum, EPA also is
providing a “de minimis” deferral of the requirement for EPA to
take action On the emission inventory submittals. The 12-month
statutory timeframe for approving or disapproving the emission
inventory submittal will start at the time the public hearing
requirement is met. If EPA has found the submittal incomplete,
EPA will not be required to take approval action on the
submittal.
Issuing Letters to the States Making a Finding of Failure to
Submit a Required SIP or SIP Element
The Regional Offices should be planning to issue findings of
failure to submit to States not meeting the November 1992 (and
other) statutory deadlines. The Agency has taken a strong stance
that such findings should be made soon after a due date baa
passed. Notice that a State has failed to submit a SIP, or SIP
element, is made in the form of a letter from the Regional
Administrator to the Governor of a State. Please refer to the
July 22, 1992 Shapiro memorandum, entitled “Guidelines for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Subaittala Due November 15, 1992,” for
further information. Further guidance will be made available on
the schedule and format of the findings.
If you have any questions on this memorandum, please contact
Denise Gerth at (919) 541-5550.
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
John Cabaniss
Jeff Clark
Denise Devoe
Tom Helms
Steve Butte
Steve Hoover
Ed Lillis
David Mobley
Rich Ossias
Joe Paisie
Lydia Wegman
-------
S7 4 ,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
4 L qQ
JUL 14 1993
MEL4ORANDUM
SUBJECT: Impact of Conditional Approvals on Sanction and
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) Clocks,,,
FROM: D. Kent Berry, Acting Director 1) (< i’5 .
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Managemen
Division, -Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the Impact of
conditional approvals on the sanction and FIP clocks initiated by
findings of failure to submit a State implementation plan (SIP)
or complete SIP under sections 179(a) and 11O(c)(l),
respectively, of the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended.’ A July
9, 1992 ..memorandum from John Calcagni to the Air Division
Directors entitled “Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Submittala” provides guidance on how the sanction and FIP clocks
functIon t does not address the effect of conditional approval
on the sä$ tion and YIP clocks. The July 1992 guidance indicates
that to s the sanction clock following a section 179(a)
finding, the State must correct the deficiency prompting the
finding. A finding of failure to submit a plan or complete plan
is corrected when. the State submits a plan the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) finds complete. Regarding the PIP clock,
section 11O(c)(1) requires that the EPA promulgate a FIP
LThis memorandum does not address the effect of conditional
approval on sanction and PIP clocks initiated by SIP
disapprovals, which will be addressed in future guidance.
-------
2
within 2 years of findings of failure to submit a plan or
complete plan unless two conditions are met: the State corrects
the deficiency, and the EPA approves the plan.
The Effect o Coridicional Approval on Clocks Initiated by
Findings of Nonsubmittal
S&nction Clock Permanently Stops, FIP Clock Temporarily
Stops
As indicated in the July 9, 1992 guidance, when the EPA
finds that a State i is failed to submit a plan or complete
plan, 2 the sanction nd FIP clocks start on the date of the
finding. If the EP.\ subsequently finds the late plan submittal
complete, the sanct:on clock will permanently stop. If the EPA
then takes final rulemaking action to conditionally approve the
same plan, the FIP clock will temporarily stop.
The sanction clock 1 iii permanently stop because the
submittal of a SIP that the EPA finds complete corrects the
finding of failure to submit. 3 The FIP clock will temporarily
stop because both conditions for stopping the PIP clock will have
been met. The complete SIP submittal correcting the deficiency
prompting the finding satisfies the first condition for stopping
the PIP clock, and the EPA taking final rulemaking action
approving the plan satisfies the second FIP clock condition.
The EPA believes that the FTP clock should only stop
temporarily because the Act does not require the EPA to take
duplicative FTP promulgation action to address the SIP’S
inadequacy during the time intended for the State to meet the
commitment of the conditional approval. However, the FTP clock
does not permanently stop because a conditional approval can
convert to a disapproval if a State fails to meet the commitment
by submitting a plan revision that the EPA can fully approve.
Thus, although the State has met the second condition, it is
tempor r , and if the conditional approval converts to a
disapproval, the FTP clock resumes where it stopped and a new
sanction clock starts.
2 Note that plan or complete plan refers also to any
submittal which we have indicated explicitly in guidance or
elsewhere that we could accept as a committal SIP.
3 For guidance on finding committal SIP’S complete, see
memorandum entitled “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions
Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines” from John
Calcagni to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October 28,
1992.
-------
3
Following Conditional Approval, When Does FIP Clock Stop or
Resume?
The FIP clock w!ll stop permanently if the State fulfills
its commitment and the EPA takes final action fully approving the
plan. The clock will resume where it stopped (and the EPA will
remain under its FIP obligation) and a new sanction clock will
start if any one of three events occurs where the conditional
approval converts to a disapproval. (See attached flowchart for
graphic representation of how this process works.)
One, if the State fails to submit anything to meet its
commitment, the clock will resume on the date of the letter from
the EPA to the State finding that it had failed to meet its
commitment and that the SIP submittal has now been converted to a
disapproval. The letter will be sent shortly after the final
date for the State to meet its commitment. Two, if the State
submits an incomplete SIP to meet its commitment, the clock will
resume on the date that the EPA sends a letter of incompleteness
to the State. If the EPA finds the SIP incomplete prior to the
final date for meeting the commitment (i.e., in the case where
the State submits the SIP before the due date), the YIP clock
will resume on the final date for meeting the commitment if the
State has not remedied the incompleteness finding by making a
submittal the EPA finds complete. On that date, the EPA will
notify the State by letter that the plan remains incomplete and
that the PIP clock resumes.’ Three, if the State submits a SIP
for which the EPA takes final disapprovalaction, the clock
resumes on the effective date of the final action. (The Ju].y’9,
1992 guidance explains in detail how conditional approvals
function.)
‘The guidance provided here clarifies the discussion in the
July 9., l992 guidance of how conditional approvals may be
converted to disapprovals in the event the State fails to submit
anything ajid/or where the State makes a submittal that EPA finds
incompl tØ. In the first case, if the State fails to submit
anything the sanction and YIP clocks start on the date of the
letter from E A to the State finding that it had failed to meet
its commitment and the SIP has been converted to a disapproval.
The letter is sent shortly after the final date for the State to
meet its commitment. In the second case, if EPA finds the SIP
incomplete, the sanction and YIP clocks start on the date of the
EPA letter making the finding of incompleteness and notifying the
State that it, therefore, failed to meet its commitment.
However, if EPA finds the submittal incomplete before the date
the submittal is due under the commitment, the sanction and YIP
clocks do not start until the final date for meeting the
commitment shortly after which time EPA will notify the State by
letter that the SIP remains incomplete.
-------
4
General questions on this clarification should be directed
to Chris Stoneman of the Sulfur Dioxide Particulate Matter
Programs Branch (919/541-0823). Questions regarding application
to spe if Ic programs should be directed to the appropriate
program branr h within OAQPS.
Attachw nt
cc: Jane Armstrong, OMS
William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
Phillip Lorang, OMS
Rich Ossias, OGC
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Regional Air Counsel, Regions I-X
-------
Attachment (page 1 of 2)
Yes
(continued on Page 2 of Attachment)
-------
Attachment (page 2 of
2)
CFIP_Clock Temporarily Stops
State Fuffihls commitment as L
Scheduled?
FIP Clock Resumes
and New Sanction
Clock Initiated
(Continued From Page 1 of Attachment)
$
).
No
Yes
EPA Finds Submittal complete?
1 No
yves
EPA Finally Fully Approves Submittal?_F
$Yes
No
Clock Permanently stops)
(
)
-------
534 Federal. Register I Vol. 59. No. 15 1. Monday. January 24. 1994 I Proposed Rules
vever. the NAS report concluded AppFOUCd Octobcr 22. 3993 -. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
the expoSure of many participants JeSSC BIOW 2 . AGENCY . -
haniber and field teStS WaS ScaetaiyofVe(cmfl5AfIaI . -
equivalent to that of soldiers in World . 40 CFR Part 52
War I; and therefore the NAS report For the reasons set out in the (CA—47 2—6O9-4 FH1-4826—43 -
concluded that the World War I and preamble. 38 CFR part 3 is proposed to
chronic exjosure studies were relevant be amended as set forth below: Imposi on of Statewide Sanctions on
to thoexpcrieflce in the chamber and - California Under Clean Air Act Section
field tests. Since the NAS report only PART• AOJUDICA ON 110(m) for Failure to Submit a
cxinsidered studies involving full-body Complete SIP Revision for an
exposure. we believe that the NAS Subpanl A—Pension. Compensation. Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection
findings regarding specific diseases are and DependenCY and IndemnitY and Maintenance Program
‘cnked only to lull:body exposure. and CompensatiOn - AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Lot to patdi or drop tcsting 1. TheaüthorilY citation for part 3. AgenCy. . - ‘
We also propose to amend 38 CFR _______________________________
.316 bj! ad .ling a fequirement that subpart A. continues to read as follows: ACT1ON: Notice of proposed rulemaking .
rvloe connection will not be . Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a ). unless - -. SUMMARY: The Environmental Pro(ection
stablishéd if there is affirmative - -. otherwise noted. . . .. . - Agency (EPA) is proposing !his actionto
vid iioe that establishes a nonservice- .. .
Iatcd supervening condition or event 2.38 CFR 3.316 is revis&i to i’ead impose sanctions on California udder j
. .. .. : the discretionarY sanction authority:i
Is ( -- —“ med condition.. . follows:. - provided the Agency under the Clean
IsbasedupoUa .
S.316 - Claims based on ch oflic effects of Air Act, as amended in 1990, (CA.A or
of the Immediate and ‘ expdsure to vesicant . -.. Act) for failure ythe S%eteto r
ffed s.f fStadgu 5 .. -.. . .- v r, ..’- ’ ’
j Veterans Health (a Except as pm d d inpa aji ph. . complete SIP revision loran c i
..motor vehide Inspection imd
wbt la revealed that , S... (b) of this ddion ’eXiIosUre to the . ‘ maintenance (I/MI program esi
tornuitard gas result specified vesicsnt agents durln ,g ad-Lye . . by the Act for certain ozone ón
- it was also military service idatth ,: .. nonoxide (CO) nonattaininel%t erei
ability ‘j.: drcumstences described below 1n . ‘ November13, 1992. the California
xposure should - paragraphs (a)(1) throu gli (3) ol this Resources Board (CARE). i
exposure and section together withtbe subsequent - governor’s designee. subm
L. The HAS :deve lopment of any of the, iiidicaLcd.. . commitment (committal SIP)lo.edopt
id that delayed; conditions Is sufficient to establish . - .;an llMprogrefli by November15, 1993. ,
exposure may service conned-ion for that condition: The committal SIP provides foitho ::
apear even though no acute ciTed-s . (1) Any vèrilied full.body exposure to adoption and Implementation clan
were noted. Bealuse of this delay ifl nitrogen or sull *r mustard during active enhanced JIM prograni meeting all . . ;
manifestatiOn of effects of mustard gas military service together with the requirements of EPA’s JIM regulations -
e*posure reported by Ihe NAS. during subsequeni development of chronic .. ,and Includes an implementation i i-
,whk.h time the veteran may have been conjunctivitis. keratitis.torfleat . . - schedule. On June 28 ,1993, EPA -
- .e Posed to other jo rvice ated . opacities. scar formation, or the . - proposed to conditionally upprovéthis
causative conditions or events, we have following cancers: nasoph iyngeab committal SIP or alternatively to
:.detennined that It Is reasonable to laryngeal; lung (except mesothelioma) disappro ie it if certain milestones V..
which may exist, just as we do for other or, squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, contained in the schedule were miss d..
consider evidence of Intervening cause
A full SIP revision Induding stateS.
preswnptlve conditions (See 38 g (2) Any verified It il-body exposure to legislative authority to implemetit the.
3.307(b)). . - - nitrogen or sulfur mustard or Lewis jte program was required by November 15,
The Secretary hereby certifies that during active military service together 1993. The State Legislature adjourned..,,
this regulatory amendment will not with the subsequent development of a on September 10. 1993 without having
havo a significant economic impad chronic form of laryngitis. bronchitis, enacted legislation providing authority
a substantial number of small entities as emphysema. asthma or chronic for implementing the enhanced l/M
they are defined in the Regulatory obstnjctive pulmonary disease. program.
FlexibilitY Act (RFA). 5 U.S.C. 601—612. (3) Any verified full-body exposure to On November 15, 1993, the State
- The reason for this certification is that nitrogen mustard during active military submitted a document entitled ‘VehicIe
this amendment would not directly service together with the subsequent Inspection and Maintenance Program
affect any small entities. Only VA development of acute nonlymphocytic SIP Revision” (the “proposed SIP
beneficiaries could be directly affected. leukemia. revision”). The proposed SEP revision
Therefore, pursuant to S U.S.C. 605(b), ( Se ce connection will not be was missing critical elements required
this amendment is exempt from the established under this section If the for compliance with section 182(c)(3) of
initial and final regulatory flexibility - claimed condition is due to the the AcL On December 30.1993. EPA
analysis requirements of sectionS 603 veteran’s own willful misconduct (See -Region 9 issued a letter finding that the
and 604. § 3.301(C)) or there is affirmative State had Jailed to submit a complete
SIP revision required under sections 110
(The Cetalcg of Federal Domestic Assistance evidence that estaJ lishes a nonservice- and 182 of the Act. The letter dated
program numbers are64.IOO and related supervening condition or event December 30,1993. notified the State -
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 3 as the cause of the claimed condition that the proposed SIP revision was
(See § 303).
Administrative practice and incomplete because it had not been
procedure. Claims. Handicapped. (FRD0c. 94-1484 Filed 1 21—94: 10:00 *.in.l subject to public notice. Due to the
Health care. Pensions. Veterans. iwi G cooc 53 20 -O1-U failure of the State to submit a complete
-------
Federal l egister / Vol.59, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 1994 / Proposel RUleS -35 5
1P revision fulfilling either the - - Under section.s 182(c)(3) and 187(b)(1) . or other legal authority and adoption of
equirements of the Act or its of the Act. areas designated as serious final regulations. Aaeptance of IIM
ommitment to adopt and implement an and worse ozone nonattainment areas committal SIPs in lieu of full SIPs was
mhanced 1/M program as promised in with 1980 populations of 200,000 or- - justified by the fact that S(ates could not
ts committal SIP, EPA proposes to more and CO nonattaijunent areas with •have been expected to begin
xercise its disaetionary authority design classificotions above 12.7 ppm development of an I/M program meeting
inder the Act to apply a statewide and populations of 200,000 or more, in the requirements of the Act and the If
iighway funding limitation sanction addition to metropolitan statistical areas M regulation until the IIM regulation
md a 2 for I offset sanction in all areas with populations of iOO .000 or more in was adopted as a final rule, which did
uquired to have a permit program - the northeast ozone transport region. are not oxur until November 5. 1992. A
inder the new source review provisions required to meet EPA regulations for complete SIP revision which contained
f the AcL - - - - ‘enhanced” I ’M programs. These areas all of the elements identified in the
)ATES: Comments must be received on were required to submit a SIP revision - adoption schedule, including the
r before March 15, 1994. EPA will hold to incorporate an enhanced I/M program authorizing legislation and - -
public hearing on this proposed action into the SIP by November 15, 19 2. In implementing regulations, was required
n Thursday, M h 3,1994. . :. California. the State must adopt and - to be subnutted no later than November
WDRESSEs. EPA welcomes càmments implement enhanced IIM programs for 15.1993. . . . -
an all aspects of this proposaL Written the followmg uth fl1ZOd areas . . B IIMPi-ogram in Cdlifornio ‘
aornmentsshoulcLbeaddressedto:U.S. Bakersfleld, - .. - -. -. -.-,.“ ..-.-.... . .
• - - - -. . . - -1. 0mm COmnuIEU SIP. The.State
EnvaronmenwiProtection Agency. ,. - Fresno -. • . - •. -.. - fCalifornia ub TILi . ” - . -.
an 9 Air and Toxics Division (A— Los Angeles .. .-‘ ‘ - “ £
Attentiorn Docket No. CA—93- 1M— OV i -. - - . • flim .,u-:
.Rivcrside-San Be
; 5 Q 5fl1Pfl
will be]
‘th LosAngelei . -
and Power : - - - minimum perfonnan standards:
Los Angeles. basic and enhancedI/M.pr -
e:(415) 744— .well as requirements for
pn.and from.”-- - Network
- •. ‘ adecp.iatéi
adion.A copy of the dxkei Is available
for publi Inspection during normal . - and
business hours at U’A Region S office
at the above address. A reasonable fee
may be chaz ged for copying portions of
the docket . - . -- . .• ‘ -
FOR FURThER INFORMATtON CONTACT
David O 1kmnc amief,41r Planning- -
Brandi (A-2). U.S. Environmental-
Pmt ction Age icy. Region 9.75 --
Hawthorne Street. San Francisâo;-
California 94105, (415) 744—1500. -
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L Requirements for Inspection and -
Maintenance Programs
A. Applicability of the Enhanced IIM
Program in Califqrnia
As amended in 1990. the Clean Air
Actrequires states to make changes to
improve existing IIM programs or to
implement new ones for certain
nonattainment areas. Section
182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed EPA to
publish updated guidance for state l/M
programs, taking into consideration
findings of the Administrators audits
and investigations of these programs.
The Act further requires each area -
required to have an I/M prograinto
inporpôrate this guidance into the SIP.
Based on these requirements. EPA
promulgated IIM regulations on
November 5. 1992 (57 FR 52950).
Lfl .
whI& a c
‘ l iieldby lhe
T, 3 d
4—.
esolutióa dii ect theEkedith o Officer
:tosubnilt th Uiifletter EPA as
revision to Uio SIP,rThe sub dttA1 - .
‘: 1nduded avomeniUnentby th$ :.
control; waivers -jrnO designee, tlui C4RB -
gnostiC - - Executive Officer, to the timnel y;:. -
inspecthn; znotoristcornpliance’ - • adoptiOn and implementation of l/M
• -enforcement; motorist compliance - -
programs mOeting all requlrementsj
enforcement prograznoversight quality - the I’M regulation and the Act In ll
assurance enforoenientagainst-. ... noñWnmentereasTin California when
- contractors, stations and inspectoin; uiredA stheduI
data collection; data analysis and of doption was i duded in hotter en
reporting; inspector training and- bylbe CARB Exealtive Officer to EISA
- licensing or certification; public, -. - on January 15.1993 clarifying certain
information a dconswner protection; . d taiis of the November 13. 1992,IIM
improving repair effectiveness; - committal SIP submittaL In the
compliance with recall notices; on-road schedule California committed to
• - testing; SIP revisions; and passing legislation authorizing an I’M
implementation deadlines. For program by September 10.1993. The
• enhanced I’M programs, all - committal SIP lists October 10.1993 as
requirements must be implemented by the deadline for the legislation to be
January 1,1995 except that areas signed by the governor.
switching from an existing test-and- -2. EPA Proposed Approval: On June
repair network to atest-only network 28,1993(58 FR 34553) EPA proposed
may phase in that change between — to conditionally approve the committal
January 1995 and January 1996. • - SIP wider section l10(k)(4) of the Act.
Each State required to implement an in the altematfve, however, EPA
I’M program was required to submit by -proposed that, if the State failed to
November 15, 1992, a SIP revision (here adopt legislative authority or meet
and after referred to as the “I/M - certain other applicable interim
committal SIP”) including two milestones in the commitment prior to
elements: (1) A commitment from the - EPA’s final action on the submittal, EPA
Governor or his/her designee to the would disapprove the commiti al SlP-
timely adoption and implementation of The basis for such disapproval would be
an l/M prog*um meeting all a determination that California could
requirements of the I’M regulation and not meet the November 15, 1993 SIP
(2) a schedule for adoption of the revision submission date if it failed -
program with interim milestones meet the interim milestones Theref
including passage of enabling statutory since the State could not meet ith
-------
annnhitnient, final approval under -The Act irovides that each state :.. -- -ihan projects org ants for safely aiid - - ‘
sedion 110(k)(4) would not be which all or part of an ozone andlor CO - oertain ’other à(egories of pmject - j
appropriate. nonattain nent area nm located -. - n section ‘17g(bXl). The offset sanctjoij
3. State Legislative Action: On required to provide an attainment :. requires that, when States apply the -
vembcr iS. 1993 California failed to demonstration showing that its SIP,’as emission offset requirement of section
weet its commitment to EPA. By letter revised, Will provide for attainment of 173 to new or modified soura s, the
dated Dccomher 30,1993, EPA Region 9 the ozone andlor (X) NAAQS by the ratio of emission reductions to increased
notified the State that the proposed SIP apolicable attainment date(s). emissions must be at least 2 to 1.
‘revision submitted on November 15, the.Act further requires that each Section 179(a) of the Act sets forth the
1993. did not contain the critical state in which all or part of a serious, findings 1 which provide EPA with : , -
elements required by statute and that severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment discretionunder section 110(m) to : , -
the State had failed to submit a area is located shall submit SIP ‘. impose one or both of the sanctions’
complete SIP revision as required by the revisions that will reduce VOC - . - . specified undei section 179(b). -The foul,
Ad. For example, the proposeciSiP - emissions by November15, 1996 by at findings am: (1) A state has failed, for
revision did not centain legislative - least 15% of the 1990 biseline •g nonattainment area, to submit aSIP or
authority for the State to implement the emissions. If the reductions identified in, an element of a SIP, orthat the SIP or
proposed SIP revision. In addition, EPA the SIP revisions am less than 15% of•• ‘ SIP element submitted faili ’to meet the’:
Region 9 notified the State that the , . the beeline emissions, the State may, dompleteness criteria of section llO(k);
proposed SIP re’iision was an obtain a waiver under section ‘ . ‘ . . (2)EPA disapproves a SIP submission.’. ’•’
Incomplete SIP submittal because it was 182(b)(1)(A)(’ii); this requires the State to - for a nonáttaimnent area based on the’
not subject toe publiC hearing. . “ - make several demonstrations,’including . submission’s faIlure to nieet qne orinore
r, Further the State faile4 to meet the one that the plan reflecting the lesser , :Y.plan elem ntstiiluired by the Act: (3) :, ,
Interim deadlines in f commnittal_SW. .. amount indudes all measures that -“- , -eState I -
alifq ía was required to obtain - -
. ---
iurba mid
ill’.’— -.
.:Jinotaiidwed..
of enhaii èd IIM;howoer.-are
, ‘aeditnble towards meeting the of the t.vo ” ’
T am sp • : . .requhniit1nhan edUMIsc_ niusf
tegislaturo’adjOunied. hâwever.On-; most owerfu1toolsM ilab äare ibelmp( - is’
SeptenibèrlO. 1993 without baying : tem ’ ns of providing x bditioi S . “ rne e; a d ’ ed
adoptaii I/M legislation. Fai um to . ‘ reductions In both VOCand$Ox,both 6 mánths a an Is
providesuch authorit J)roventéd -. ‘of which are treated in mgst California imposed irme’aefide ‘iemains ‘--:
California from submitting a complete plans as precursors of ozone.; - . una,we ‘2 1n addition. both
SIP revision by November 15 1993.’. Finally. a federallja provab ,: On hiiIIpp1y after 18 mónthiif
‘Eai1icr this year. EPA anticipated the ‘enhanced 11M program represents one of. M tor dse lack of good:.
possthilit tbat the California legisLiture . the most (X)St -effedIVO air quality faith oil th pait of the State.L..
would fail to adopt necessamy legislation control strategies available. Without an ‘ Although section 179(a) establishei
during the’1993 legislative session. On effective ElM program.’attninment of the -: mandatory deadlines for th application
April 13.1993; EPA and the U.S ‘ . ozon&andCO air quality standard is’ of saudions at oertainpointsaftoie
Depaitmènt ofi aspostatian sent a virtually impossible.’Without - - -: -- ding of defidency. section 110(m)
joint letter to Govemor,Wilson advising appropriate enabling legislation, an - provides EPA with the discretion to
him that EPA would exeroise its enhanced IIMpro ram cannot be . , section 179(b) sanctions at any
discretionary authority under section implemented. . - time (or at ny time after) a section -
110(m) of the Act to impose SanCtionS IL Sanctions Under the Clean Air Act 179(a) flnding.Likewise, although -
if the legislature failed o adopt - mandatory sanction s under section ‘179
adequate legislation. On November 24. This sanction action is being ‘ -. ied to the area wili the
1993, EPA issued a press statement proposed under EPA’S discretionary. .defidency, section 110(m) authorizes
indicating that EPA would temporarily authority contained in section 110(m) of EPA to apply discretionary sanctions to
halt thç process of imposing sanctions the Act. The predicate fmdings and any portion of the state that EPA deems’
to permit discussions betw en the tlrPes of sanctions are described in , reasonable and appropriate (a ensure
parties to resolve the issue. - section 179 of the Act. The two , .... ... - -.
4. Importance of Timely - sanctions available to EPA for - 17 )t fct to Agency findingi.
Implementation of Appropriate IIM application under section 110(m), as d instioia Than will all be
Programs: Beyond being a specific provided in section 179(b)’ath: (1) A - referred to by the one term ‘iiad nge?
mandate of the Act, enhanced LIM pmhibi ion on the funding of certain On October 1.1993, ‘A proposed male
programs play an important role in’the highway projects; and (2) an increase in so ernins the order In which the sanctIons shalt
- apply under sedk,n 179 of the Ad. 58 FR 51270.
ability of California areas to comply the emission offset requirement for new, . tint the offset sanctions apply —
with the CAA requirements for and modified major stationary sources,’ sanctions apply second.
achieving the National Ambient Air The highway funding sanction prohibits - According to the proposed rule, ‘A any diangs
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone approval b ’ the Secretary of - thofeaaxogb’andfvidual
nouen end comment ruhmiakiu&-This proposed
and CO. as weU as the Act’s Transportation of’ any projeds or the. - u ngeppin Iy to mandauxy undions
requimments for reasonable further, awarding by the Secretary of any grants. tint ly . cti i ’g ajaai does act govern
progress (RFP) reductions for ozone. under Title23 of the U.S. Code, other sanctions imp aeed under sodioc 110(m).
ve
19921!
-------
hat the requirements of the Act re inet . required tIM programs by the November controls for
ee 57 FR 44534 44536—44537. . -; -.‘ -15 1993 date. California has al onow any nbinition of political- -
lowever. the Act requires EPA to - failed to adopt and submit such - :-. subdiviiioni creát d b orpursuant to:
stablish by rule criteria to ensure that pr 7 ams . - - - ‘- Federal or-Staie law, if i opo1itica
;uch sanctions are not applied on a - ufficient progress has not been subdivision meets ali 5 criteria. EPA
;tatewide basis where one or more made by California toward the• may use its iiscre(ion to determine
oliticat subdivisions covered by the implementation of an approvable l/M - - whether it-is reasonable and appropri
ipplicable implementation plan are program to be operational on or bef re to apply san tioris ona statewide basis:
,rincipally responsible for the -. ‘ January 1. 1995. EPA hereby announces In this notice. EPA is proposing to use
leficiency. .. its intention to impose sanctions on the above proposed criteria to determine
On September.28. 1992. EPA . - . May 15. 1994. - - . - - ‘. . . if it may impose the highway sanction
proposed criteria under section 110(m) B. Ration !e and Approach J6r Section - statewide for California because of the
States failure to submit a complete SIP
ihat it would use when proposing - •. o j Sanctions •-‘ - - - - -.
itatowide sanctions to determine if one - . revision complying with the IIM - -
r more political subdivisions is - - - Section 110(m) of the Act allows EPA committal SIP revision. -. -
principally responsible for a SIP -. to apply the highway and offset -‘- - - ‘EPA believes that the first criterion.
cleficiency.57 FR 44534. These ’ ---. sanctions at any’time (or at any time.: - - has ‘notb eiimet by any jclitical . -.
proposed criteria are discussed later in .. after) it makes a,’findingunder section - - ubdivision Onlythe California .c.; :
this notica. .’; . ..: -. - -. i..- 179(a). Based on its finding dated . legislátür has the-authority to revise.
r .ithreg to California; EPA is - : December 30.-1993.EPA is proposing to : .the sate atutetoprovidefor,an- i - -:
using its discretionary authority under: impose both the highway and offset- ‘ . enhanced]
sectionil0(m) to propos eariy: \ , ‘- sandions. EPA believes that the c.f -
janctionsa-lased on Califomiasjailure ‘imposition of highway
. 5.
to adopt le is atf ri io I !because -
IWO
tiçlyiubmf nhaiic
programs as a measure central I
allowing the, tate ’s m trápo1
tdmeet CAA dcadlines,,and
legislative:dèlay threatens the.
ability to meet those 4eadli
enhanced lflb( is th single iiu - ,;
effective air pollutionvönt.rol measure ‘-available i
available. l)elayed legislaiiveipproval .approval ofane “ ;*a iae
of -an aaeptable Il! -progm’pla s a 4 ’ furtherburdens i rde ’: nh ncéd AA
disproporti nat&burden for clàning the ofait pollution vfth responsllility foi -_ ‘endEPA’re I I
air on the State’s major industrial - - cleaning ihe air:-- “ . - - -.- .- - M program :1
sources—additional burdens which Under section 110(m). ‘A may apply.. within the . -
especially problematic ‘given -: - - sanctions toiny poition of the state itt , p o uni- .- .
California’s current ecãnomit ‘ - . determines is reasonable end — - -- .‘. - Since nq political-subdivision within
difficulties. . ‘ - ... . appropriate. During the 24 months - the state has met the first criterion. EPA -
- ‘- - following the finding. EPA may not - believes that-no political subdivision is
111. Propose4 Sanctions.. .. . - impose the sanctions statewide if bne or, - piinapally responsible for the failure to -
A Finding Under Section i3’g(i) . - - moxe political subdivisions within the Shave an e nheno d UMprogram..’
As stated previously, on December 30. - state is principally responsible for the - Therefore, EPA is not prohibited from
1993. EPA Region 9 issued a letter - deficiency that is the ba is for sanctions. imposing lil ,hway sanctions statewide.
notifying the state of its failure to EPA has proposed criteria for - - As noted above, the state legislature
submit a complete SEP revision on determining when a political ‘: beaIs the ultimate responsibility to
subdivision is principally responsible adopt the requisite legislative authority
Novethber is; 1993. as requir d by the (57 FR 44534, September 28, 1992). The and CARB,. not the individual air quality
Act. EPA ’s letter constitutes a finding
under section 179(a) that triggers EPA’s criteria provide that a political districts, must subsequently adopt -
discretionary authority to impose the subdivision is principally responsible if: adequate regulations. Since the state
sanctions proposed in this notice under (i) ft has the legal authority to perform ‘bears ultimate respon ibility,EPA
section 110(m). Further, on June the required activity; (2) it has - believes that it is reasonable and.
1993, EPA proposed to conditionally traditionally performed. or has been - appropriate to impose sanctions on the
approve California’s t /M committal SIP delegated the responsibility to perform. entire State::. - -: -
for both basic and enhanced the required activity; (3) it has received, The offset requirements apply only to
programs. EPA also proposed, in the - where appropriate, adequate funding, or new or modified major stationary
alternative, to disapprove this - authority to obtain funding, from the sources located in or tobe located in
commitment if the state failed to adopt state to perform the required activity; (4) areas that are required to have a permit -
it has agreed to perform (and has not program pursuant to section 173. Thus,
authorizing legislation and to submit the revoked that agreement). oris required the offset sanctions are limited tg thg a
3 EPA cd by state law to accept responsibility for areas which ate raquir d to have a -.
finding that the slate’s proposed SIP revision was - performing. the required activity; end - permit program. Le., the ozone and CX)
a failure to submit a SIP revision as required by the -(5) it has failed to perform’the required’ nonattainment areas. Porozone, those
Act and. In addition, was an Incomplete SIP - activity. A “political subdivision” is - areas are: Monterey Sai]ta Barbara, San
submittal. Mandatory sanctions were tnggered
undcr Section ‘179(a) by issuance of the letter - defined as the representative body that Diego. San Francisco Bay Area, So -
nct fying the stale of the finding of deficiency, is responsible for adopting and/or Coast, Ventura, Sacramento, San
-------
‘oaquin Valley. and the South East however, if the disapproval is the final President’s p onti : the principles,
)esert. The offset sanction would apply basis for imposing the sanctions, such - set forth in the Executive Order.
.o all new or modified major stationary sanctions would not be completely ‘ - Pursuant to (he terms of Executive -
-ources for VOCs and NOx that are lifted until EPA formally approves an Order 12866. it has been determined
Lating o or located in each of these enhanced IIM program for tbe State of - that this rule is a ‘significant regulator ,
rreas and for such sources of CO that are California. In such a case, EPA would action”. Nevertheless after reviewing
located in or locating to the following take action to lift the sanctions at the information regarding this action, 0MB
X) nonattainment areas: Chico, same time as EPA took final action has waived review.
Sacramento. San Diego. San Francisco. approving the State’s IIM program. Re !atozyFlcxibilily Act
San Joaquin. and South Coast. EPA EPA’s action imposing or (oiling the
proposes to impose the offset sanctions . section 110(m) sal ctions will in no Under the Re uLatory Flexibility Act,
in the manner described in the proposed manner affect EPA’s obligation to-: - 5 U . S.C. 600 el seq., EPA must prepare
action on the sequencing of sanctions - impose mandatory sanctions under- - a regulatory flexibility analysis
(58 FR 51270,51275—51277 (October 1. section 179(a) where one mandatory. - assessing the impact of any proposed or -
1993)). . : - . sanction shall apply 18 months after - fInal nile on small entities..’ . - . -
EPA s finding of incompleteness and (ho Alternatively. EPA may certify that the
C L Removal of Dir relionoiy Sanc4ons . ‘ second mandatory sanction shall apply . rule will not have a significant impact
EPA s proposing to temporarily lift’ . - 6 months later: Sanctions under section . on a substantial number of malI -
Le., 4 the highway and offset .f : . . 179(a) apply to the area for which the entities. SmalFentities include small
sanCtions impased.under section 110(m) deficiency exists. If the State does nct . - - businesses .small not-for n-ofit -
upon passage by the CalifornIa z : ado t and submit to EPA a cómple(e .. :enterpnses. and government entities -
with jurisdiction .ovei populations of.
- submittal providing for an llMpmgrazn’ . -.
EPA- ’; -withinthe18-monthjnJadditionaI6 -,
1ictthe .
periods. thesanctions wil! - because f.
x - • th
to have init -
related tomess ( aüsi
iEPA .
tolJ “ th keiended.
thefl (Octotier 1
Iin’the i EPA4akesfinalact oud i sppi ving ,. bpi e cii
whether.ar not
aIRaghter ’ .Tbei ‘i’sUMamimittalS lP,aseoor
110(m) senctiãns would clock will be tziggër d arid
co pletelj1 ih d (intil’thi must hat only submit an -IIM
a corn Ioto submiüal of Its enh n ed U ‘pro grám , but EPA must alsO jiprov ” propos -Ihe 2 to I emissions offset .
Mprcgram fai theSpfuda.:’. thht program within the èiei,ant (line: . u iernent4vilIap ly tômajornew’..
sources,pd unbjàrmbdificaiionito the
EPA will tñke iionftidiii iIetely Hft ,frames to stop the aictions. existing sowvesofvolatilejolganic
edion 110(m) csnt iiois at the time It - dock and avoid saüctiãns on the fine mponi (VOC). bxid s dfniuogen
determines theStato ’ssubmi(ta ltobe .
compleieoritinde med complet e .A’ ‘. .. . . (NOxJ.andcarbonjnonoxide(OO)in the
‘-complete submittal is one that contains v. R ulatory itequirenituts. • . . California ozdno and caibon monoxide.
.. areas sub jec&tosedion 173(c) offset
aUihoaiticalelementhlistedintheU - 4 ExecutiveOrderll866 ‘ ,.
- requirement.: -.
-M regulation es determined through the - Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR’ :‘ Major stationary sources of VOC.
completeness ailozia in section - •51735 (Oc ber.4. 1993)) the Agency, NOX. and CO me generally Aol small -
iiO(k)(i). ‘ ‘ must determine whether the regulatory entities, Also, thea to I emission offset
- As an alternative, if EPA takes fluial action is “significant” and, therefore. - requirement does not prevex t growth
action disapproving California’s . - subject to Office of Management and and modification but sets a higher offset
committal SIP prior to taking final - Budget (0MB) review and the - s(andard than the current offset
action imposing sanctions, EPA requirements of the Executive Order. required. It Is not expected that a large
proposes that such disapproval be the The Order defines “significant - - number olsinall entities will be affected
basis For imposing the discretionary regulatory action” as one that is likely by the emissioneffset requirement. In
sanctions. In such case, the sanCtiOnS to result in a rule that inay- - the past, when EPA has made efforts to
would be tolled in the same manner• (i) Have an annual effect on the quantify the impact of the Act’s mles on.
economy of $100 million or more or the amstruction and modification of
- a general rule. Agency g° adversely affect in a material way the sources, EPA has been unable td do so
rulcznaking to temowe or sites a requirement
Impo od thzua8h While U.S. EPA economy, a sector of the economy, due, in part, to the. need to obtain -
Intends to issue a neuce tolling the iio(ml sanction productivity, competition. jabs, the information on future plans for business
UPOn the o srreues of the events d 5cnbcd. U.S environment, public health or safety, or growth. This information is difficult to
EPA will use tho good ceuse oxceptiin tothe
otherwise eppliceble requirement State, local, or tribal governments or obtain, as budn ess are understandably
nuleniaking. EPA halirve there is good cense to wit communities; reluctant to make their plans public.
the sanctions ones the state taken die action which (2) Create a serious Inconsistency or EPA is proposing to impose Federal
cw s the defficiency that resulted in the imposition otherwise interfere with an action taken highway funding assistance limitations
of sanctions. Sce 5 U.S.C-S 553( 1 ,1 (8 ). Therefore, DO or planned by another agency; statewide. This limitatiOn could aff t a —
pooposod action (orresnoval will be issued.
Consistent with u.s. EPA’s Intent to ose (3) Materially alter the budgetary number of government entities with
diseredonary sanctions only on those areas that lack impact of entitlements; grants, user fees,. popu ations of less than 50,000 since -
legislative authority, EPA believes that it is In the or loan programs or the right and government entities often apply for and
public Interest to remove, at least temporerily. these obligations of reapients thereof; or receive federal funding under Title 23. -
dlsa-etionaiy sanctions esexpeditiously as possible (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues United States Code, for road
ones the State of California has enacted legislative
authority, arising out of legal mandates, the impfovement projects. Although a great
-------
federal Registe- 1 Vol. i. A u.
many prolects z re exempted under
ect 19(b)(1l(B). a numi erof
prcpects are expected to be affected if
EPA lakes final action.
For the reasonS stated abo . e. EPA
cannot further analyze the econc iic
impacts o 1 this action on small ei tjt1es.
The stacemenis in this package
COflSi!IU(C EPA s full regulatory
flexibility analysis.
C. Reporting and Reconl keeping
Requirements
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
which require 0MB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Should the highway
sanctions become effective, the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Thnsportation (USD01’) is required to
determine which projects or grants
should not be affected by the sanction
end which, therefore, are exempt. This
detanuinalion will be based on
Information readily available in existing
documentation gathered for the purpose
of evaluating the environmental, social.
and economic impacts of different
alternatives for transportation projects.
These analyses are already required for
the preparation of environmental
assessments and impact statements
under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPAl. Historically.
exemption determinations by USD01’
for sanctions have been based on such
4EPA documentation and have not
necessitated additional infonna Lion
gathering and analysis by the Stales. In
addition. since under NEPA final
environmental documents must be
approved by USD01’. in most cases the
NEPA documentation will already be in
USDOT’s possession. Therefore. EPA
does not believe that the high y
sanction, when applied. will impose an
additional information collection
burden on the states.
When the offset sanction applies.
sources subject to it will not incur an
addjtional information collection
burden because sources are already
required under the section 173 offset
requirements to obtain an emission
offset from between I to 1 and 1.5 to I
(depending on the classification of the
nnnattainment area in which they are
located). Should the offset sanction
apply, it would not impose an
additional information collection
burden because sources will not have to
provide additional information in the
application beyond that which they
would already have to provide in [ lie
absence of the sanction. (For the
information collection burden of new
requirements of the amended Act for
nonattainment new source review (NSR)
and prevention of significant
deterioration, an information collection
reqt.est is being prepared to support
rulemaking changes to parts 51 and 52.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental orotecton. Air
pollution cont.rol,Carbon monoxide.
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxide. Ozone.
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: January?, 1994.
Canit P,t Rro r,
Adznini t,utor.
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
I. The authority citation for past 52
continues to read as follows:
Aidhorfty 42 U.S.C 7401-7671q.
Subpart A .—(Aznended]
•2. Subpart A Is proposed to be
amended by adding a new § 52.32 to
read as follows:
§52.32 .crstionary sanceoo under
sectIon 110(m) of the Clean Air Act.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this
section is to Implement 42 U.S.C. 7410
(m), with respect to the application of
discretionary sanctions following a
finding that has been made pursuant to
42 U.S.C.. 7500 (a) (1), (2). (3), and (4).
(b) Definitions. All terms used in this
section. but not specifically defined in
this section shall have the rn ning
given them in § 52.01.
(1) i Amendments means the 1990
Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Pub.
Law 101-549.104 StaL 2399).
(2) Act means Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 ct
seq.3.
(3) Criteria pollutant means pollutant
for which the Administrator has
promulgated a national ambient air
quality standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7409 (e.g.. ozone, lead, sulfur dioxide,
particulate matter, whoa monoxide.
nitrogen dioxide).
(4) Findings or Finding refer(s) to one
or more of the findings, disapprovais.
and determinations described in 42
U.S.C. 7509 (a) (i). (2). (3), and (4).
(s) Part D means part 0 of title I of
the Act.
(6) Pert D SIP or SIP revision or Plan
means a slate implementation plan or
plan revision that states are required to
submit or revise pursuant to part D.
(C) Avaikibie sanctions and method
for implementaLion. (I) Q(fsel sanction.
(i) As further set forth in paragraphs
(c) i(ii) through (iii) of this section. Ic;
the following areas, on the loliowing
dates, the State shall apply the
emissions offset requirements. in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7503 and
7509(b)(21, at a ratio of at lezst 2-to-I for
emission reductions to increased
emissions of the following pollutants
and their precursors for which the
findings under 42 U.S.C. 7409 are made:
Date
If ed en
A ed as
sanG-
tian ap-
e 5
Pollutant(s) at-
fected
State of
CaiIon
0 o o_-
..--_.
CO
Monterey
. . ___
VOC, NO’
Sacramento —
VOC, NO’. Ct)
San Dle o —
VOC. NO’, 00
San Fmnnsoo
VOC. NO., 00
Bay Are&
San Joaq n
VOC, NO., CO
Valley.
Santa Barbara
VOC, NO., CO
SOLth Coa -
Soffi East
VOC, NO.. CO
VOC, NO.
Ome
Vetlisa —
VOC. NO.
(ii) For purposes of applying the
emissions offset requirement sot forth in
42 U.S.C. 7503. at the 2-to-i ratio
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this
sedion, the State shill comply with the
provisiona of a State.odopted new
source review program that the EPA bar
approved under 42 U.S.C. 74l0(k)(3)
meeting the nonattainnient area new
sour review requirements of 42 USC
7501—751.5. as amended by the 1990
Amendments, or, (foe audi plan has
been approved, the State shall comply
directly with the nenattainment area
new source review requirements
specified in 42 U.S.C. 7501—7515. as.
amended by the 1990 Aniondineats, or
cease issuing permits to sfruot and
operate major new or modified sour .
For purposes of applying the offset
requirement under 42 U.S.C. 7503
where the EPA has not folly approved
a State s new source review program as
meeting the requirements of part 0, the
specifications of those provisions shall
supersede any state requirement that is
less stringent or inconsistent.
(iii) For-purposes of applying the
emission o et requirement set forth in
42 U.S.C. 7503. any permit required
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7503 issued on or
after the date the offset sanction applies
shall be subject to the enhanced 2 to 1
ratio under paragraph (cgi) of this
section.
(2) Highway funding sanctiofr. For the
following areas, on the following dates,
the highway sanction shall apply as
provided in 42.U..SC 7509(b)(1)
-------
3340
I eucrul • A I
- -
Dale
Attecled area sanction
apotiOS
kteoCa1dO m a
IFRD0C g 4 l128FiICd 1—21—94. iocoarnl
000€ ‘ tflt
40CFRP3v 152
(IL.83.-1-615 5 FRL-4826-31
Federal Highway Funding Assistance
Limitations and Emissions Offset
Require(nentZ Illinois
AGE? CY United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ACflON: Notice of proposed rulemaking
SuMMARY: The u.s. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) is
proposing this action to impose
sand ons on Illinois under the
discrelionari authority provided to the
Agency under the Clean Air Act, as
amer.ded in 1990. (CAA or Act) for
failure by the state to meet its
commitment to adopt a basic and
enhanced motor vehide inspection and
maintenance (IIM) program as required
by the Act For certain ozone
nonattainment areas. On November 11.
1992. the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA). acting as the
govemor S designee, submitted a
commitment to adopt (Committal SIP)
an l/M program to meet the
requirements of the Act and the l/M rule
by November 15. 1993. The committal
SIP provides for the adoption and
implementation of a basic and enhanced
I/M program meeting all requirements of
US EPAs tIM regulations and includes
an implementation schedule. On
December 2. 1993. US EPA proposed to
disapprove this SIP revision based on
the failure by the State to meet
milestones contained in the committal
sIP s implementation schedule
pertaining to the enactment of necessary
legislative authority. A lull SIP revision
including State legislative authority to
implement the program was required by
November 15. 1993. Tht Illinois General
Assembly aø 1 ourned on November 4,
1993. for the second time this year
without taking necessary action to
provide for implementation of the basic
and enhanced IIM programs.
On December 30. 1993. EPA Region 5
issued a letter finding that the State had
failed to submit the SIP rev zion
required under sections 110 and 182 of
the Act. Due to the failure of the State
to submit a complete SIP revision
fulfilling either the requirements of the
Act and its commitment to adopt and
implement the required IJM programs as
promised in its committal SIP. USEPA
proposes to exercise its discetionary
authority under the Act to apply a
statewide highway funding limitation
sanction and a 2 [ or I growth offset
sanction in all areas required to have a
permit program under the new source
review provision of the Act
DATES: Commefll.S on this proposed
action are to be submitted by March 15.
1994. The USEPA will hold two public
hearings on March 2 and 4. 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed
rule should be addressed to J. Elmer
Bortzer. Chief. Regulation Development
Section. Re d!z.LiOn Dcvelcpmeflt
Branch (5AR—1SJl. United States
Environmer.tal Protection Agency.
Region 5. 77 West Jackson Boulevard.
Chicago. Illinois 60604.
The hear ngs will be held in illinois
as follows: March 2. 1994 in Chicago. at
the Harold Washington Library on 400
S. State Street in the multipurpOse room
at 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.: and March 4,1994
in Collinsville. at the Holiday Inn on
1000 Eastpoit Plaza Drive at 10a.m. to
4 p.m.
Copies of Illinois tIM Committal SIP
submittal. USEPA’s proposals and
rulemakings. and other documents
pertinent to this proposed rule are
available at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division.
Regulation Development Branch. 77
West Jackson Boulevard. Chicago.
Illinois 60604.
FOR PJRThER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francisco j: Acevedo. Environmental
Engineer. Regulation Development
Section. Regulation Development
Branch (SAR—18J). United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 5.77 West Jackson Boulevard.
Chicago. IlLinois 60604. (312) 886—6061
Anyone wishing to come to Region 5
offices should first contact Francisco J.
AcevedO.
SIJPPt.EMEP4TARY INFORMATIOtI:
I. t/M Program requirements
Pursuant to the 1977 amendmentS to
the Act, vehicle IIM programS were
mandated for certain areas with long
standing air quality problems. The 1990
amendments to the Act expanded the
role of IJM programs as an attainment
strategy and required USEPA to develop
different performance standards for
‘basic ” and “enhanced” I/M programs.
The performance standard is the
minimum amount of emission
reductions a program must achieve.
based on a model or benchmark
program design. In addition, the
amended Act directed USEPA to
address requirements for specific des.gri
elements and program implementation
issues for both basic and enhanced I/M
prcgramS. The amended Act requires
states containing nonattailiment areas to
make changes to improve existing l/M
programs or implement new ones.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act direcied
USEPA to publish updated guidance fur
state lJM programs. taking into
consideration findings of the
Administrators audits and
investigations of these programs. The
Act further requires each area required
by the F ct to have an l/M program to
incorporate this guidanr.e into the SIP.
Based on these ruquirernentS. US FA
promulgated an lIM reg.ulalian on
November 5, 1992. (57 FR 52950)
Under section 182(c)(3) of tIme Act.
areas designated as serious or worse
ozone nonattainment areas with 1980
populations of 200.000 or more, in
addition to metropolitan statistical areas
with populations of 100.000 or more in
the northeast ozone transport region. are
required to meet USEPA requirements
for “enhanced ’S I/M programs. These
areas were required to submit a SIP
revision to incorporate an tIM program
by November 15. 1992. In Illinois. the
State must implement I/M programs in
the urbanized areas of the Chicago and
East St. Louis ozone nonattainment
areas.
The I/M regulation establishes
minimum performance standards for
basic and enhanced I/M programs as
well as requirements For the following:
Network type and program evaluation:
adequate tools and resources: test
frequency and convenience; vehicle
coverage: test procedures and standards;
test equipment: quality control; waivers
and compliance via diagnostic
inspection; motorist compilance
enforcement: motorist compliance
enforcement program oversight; quality
assurance; enforcement against
contractors, stations and inspectors:
data collection; data analysis and
reporting; inspector t.raining and
licensing orcertificatiofl public
information and consumer protection;
improving repair effectiveness;
compliance with recall notices; on-road
testing: SIP revisions; and
implementation deadlines.
For enhanced I/M programS. all
requirements must be implemented by
January 1. 1995 except that areas
switching from an existing test-and-
repair network to a test-only 0 t work
may phase in that change between -
January 1995 and January 1996.
Each state required to implement an
IIM program was required to submit by
November 15. 1992. a SIP revision (here
and after referred to as the “I!M
-------
3540
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 15!_Monday, January 24, 1994 F Proposed Rules
Date
Affected area sancton
applies
—
IFR Doc. 94—1328 Filed 1—21—94; 10:00 amj
coos _ ---- r
40 CFR Part 52
(1L83—1-6155; FRL-4826-33
Federal Highway Funding Assistance
Limitations and Emissions Offset
Requirements; Illinois
AGENCY: United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ACI1ON: Notice of proposed rulemaking .
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental
.Pz tection Agency (USEPA) is -
proposing this action to impose
sanctions on illinois under the
discretionary authority provided to the
Agency under the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990, (CA.A or Act) for
failure by the state to meet its
commitment to adopt a basic and
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (IIM) program as required
by the Act For certain ozone -
nonattainment areas. On November 11,
1992, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA), acting as the
governor’s designee, submitted a
commitment to adopt (Committal SIP)
an J/M program to meet the
requirements of the Act and the J/M rule
by November 15. 1993. The committal
SIP provides for the adoption and
implementation of a basic and enhanced
I/M program meeting all requirements of
- US EPA’s tIM regulations and includes
an implementation schedule. On
December 2. 1993. US EPA proposed to
disapprove this SIP revision based on
the failure by the State to meet
milestones contained in the committal
SEP’s implementation schedule
pertaining to the enactment of necessary
legislative authority. A full SIP revision
including State legislative authority to
implement the program was required by
November 15, 1993. The’ Illinois General
Assembly adjourned on November 4,
1993, for the second time this year
without taking necessary action to
provide for implementation of the basic
and enhanced I/M programs.
On December 30. 1993. EPA Region 5
issued a le”er finding that the State had
failed to s mit the SIP rev .on
requireth Aersectionsll arid 182 of
the Act. D e to the failure i the S:ate
to submit a complete SIP revision
fulfilling either the requirements of the
Act and its commitment to adopt and
implement the required IIM programs as
promised in its committal SIP, USEPA
proposes to exercise its discretionary
authority under the Act to apply a
statewide highway funding limitation
sanction and a 2 for 1 growth offset
sanction in all areas required to have a
permit program under the new source
review provision of the Act.
DATES: Comments on this proposed
action are lobe submitted by March 15.
1994. The USEPA will hold two public
hearings on March 2 and 4.1994. -
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed
rule should be addressed to: J. Elmer
Bortzer, Chief. Regulation Development
Section, Regulation Development
Branch (5AR—18fl, United States
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5.77 West Jackson Boulevard.
Chicago. fllinois 60604.
The hearings will be held In Illinois
as follows: March 2,1994 in Chicago. at
the Harold Washington Library on 400
S. State Street in the multipurpose room
at 10a.m. to 4 p.m.; and March 4.1994
in Collinsville, at the Holiday Inn on
1000 Eastport Plaza Drive at 10 am. to
4p.m.
Copies of Illinois’ IIM Committal SIP
submittal. USEPA’s proposals and
rulemakings, and other documents
pertinent to this proposed rule are
available at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 5. Air and Radiation Division.
Regulation Development Branch. 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago.
Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Engineer. Regulation Development
Section. Regulation Development
Branch (5AR—18J), United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region 5. 77 West Jackson Boulevard.
Chicago. Illinois 60604, (312) 886—6061.
Anyone wishing to come to Region S
offices should first contact Francisco J.
Acevedo. -
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATiON:
I. JIM Program requirements
Pursuant to the 1977 amendments to
the Act, vehicle JIM programs were
mandated for certain areas with long
standing air quality problems. The 1990
amendments to the Act expanded the
role of I/M programs as an attainment
strategy and required USEPA to develop
different performance standards for
“basic” and “enhanced” I/Mprog ns.
The performance standard is the
mInimum amount of emission
reductions a program must achieve.
based on a model or benchmark
program design. In addition, the
amended Act directed USEPA to
address requirements for specific design
elements and program implementation
issues for both basic and enhanced J/M
programs. The amended Act requires
states containing nonattainment areas to
make changes to improve existing JIM
programs or implement new ones.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed
USEPA to publish updated guidance for
state JIM prog ms. taking into . - -
consideration findings of the
Administrator’s audits and -
investigations of these programs. The
Act further requires each area required
bytheActtohavean l lMprogramto -
incorporate this guidance into the SIP.
Based on these requirements, USEPA
promulgated an JIM regulation on
November 5. 1992. (57 FR 52950) -
Under section 182(c)(3) of the Act,
areas designated as serious or worse -
ozone nonattainment areas with 1980 -
populations of 200.000 or more; in
addition to metropolitan statistical areas
with populations of 100,000 or more in
the northeast ozone transport region. are
required to meet USEPA requirements
for “enhanced” J/M programs. These
areas w re required to submit a SIP
revision to incorporate an I/M program
by November 15. 1992. In illinois. the
State must implement IFM programs in
the urbanized areas of tho Chicago and
East St. Louis ozone nonattainment
areas.
The JIM regulation establishes
minimum performance standards for -
basic and enhanced J/M programs as
well as requirements for the following:
Network type and program evaluation;
adequate tools and resources; test
frequency and convenience; vehicle
coverage; test procedures and standards;
test equipment; quality control; waivers
and compliance via diagnostic
inspection; motorist compliance
enforcement: motorist compliance
enforcement program oversight; quality
assurance; enforcement against
contractors, stations and inspectors;
data collection: data analysis and
reporting; inspector training and
licensing or certification; public
information and consumer protection;
improving repair effectiveness;
compliance with recall notices; on-road
testing; SIP revisions: and
implementation deadlines.
For enhanced JIM programs, oh
requirements must be implemented by
January 1, 1995 except that areas
switching from an existing test-and-
repair network to a test-c ly network
may phase in that change beiween
January 1995 and January 1996.
Each SIP’ - - equired to implement an
IIM progr .‘as required to submit by
Novembei * 1992. a SIP revision (here
and after referred to as the ‘tIM
-------
Federal Register! Vol. 59, No. 15 / Monday, Januery 24, 1994 !PI’oposed Rules
committal SIP’) including two -
elements: (a) A commitment from the
Governor or his/her designee In the
timely adoption and implementatton of
an IIM program meeting all the
requiremer.ts’of the MM regulation; and
(2) a schedule for adoption of the
program, with interim milestones
induding passage of enabling statutory
or other legal authority aod adoption of
final regulations. Aoc# pLance of A/M
committal SIPs in lieu of lull SIPs was
Justified by The fad that states could stot
have been expected to begin
development of an MM program meeting
the requuementsof the Ad and (hell
M regulation until the MM regulation
s adopted as a final n ile, which did
act eccer until November 5.1992. A
complete SIP gevimoa which contained
eli of the elements identified In the
adoption schedule, including the ..
aithoziziag legislation and
implementing regulatloon. was to be
subuti*led no later than November15,
1993. -
On November11, 1992, the State of
Illinois submitted a committal SIP to
LASEPA. A public bearing on this -
submittal was held by the State on
October27, 1992. in Springfield.
Illinois. The submittal included a
schedule of Implementation and a
commitineatto the timelyadoption and
Implementation of an MM program in
the Oucagoand East & Louis ozone
nonattainnient areas meeting all the
requuemeets of the A/M regulation and
the amended Ad by November 15,, 1993.
On July 13. 1993. the i llinois General
Assembly adiourned without taking the
necessary action to enable lihincis to
adopt and implement the tIM provisions
mandated by the amended Act and the
final MM rule in Chicago and East St.
Louis ozone aonattainznent areas.
Failure to provide such authority
prevented the State from submitting a
complete SIP revision containing all the
required elements of the program by
November 15. 1993. On September 28,
1993. USEPA sent a letter to Illinois
Governor Edgar advimag him that
USEP.A had decided to exercise its
discretionary authority under section
110(m) of the Act to impose sanctions
at any time once a finding of SIP
deftö eizcy is made if necessary -
legislation was not adopted during the
October 1.993 veto session of the Illinois
General Assembly. The Illinois General
Assembly reconvened on October12,
1993. forth. Call veto s on. During
this session which adjoumed November
4. 1993 .tbe legislature failed for the
second lime to enact the legislation
needed to implement the requlred MM
program meeting the requirements of
the Act In theStateoflllinois. After
review of the committal SIP. USEPA
proposed to disapprove the commitment
on December 2, 1993 (58 FR 6354?).
based on the failure by the Stale to meet
interim and final milestones in the
schedule contained in the SAP submittal
pertaining to the enactment of necessary
authority to implement tiM
requirements during the 1993 illinois
General Legislative session. On
November15,, 1993. the State of Illinois
failed to meet its commitment to USEI’A
by failing to submit a full SIP revision
for tiM program implementetion.
Beyond being a specific mandate of
the Act. A/M programs play en hnpoitant
role in the ability of the Chicago end
East St. Louis ozone nonattainment
areas to comply ‘with the requirements
of the Act for echieving the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’ -
(NAAQS) forozone, asweflestheAct
requirements for reasonable further
progress (RW) reductions for ozone.
The Act provides that each state in
which all or pelt of certain
classifications for ozone rienaltainment
areas are located Is required to provide
an attainment demonstration showing
that its SIP, as -revised, will provide for
attainment of the -ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date(s). The Ad
further requires that each state in which
all or part of a serious, severe, or
extreme ozone nonattainnient area is
located shall submit SIP revisions that
will reduce VOCemissionsby
November15. 1996 by at least 15% ci
the 1990 baseline emissions, if the
reductions Identified in the SIP
revisions are less than 15% olbaselme
emissions, the Slate may obtain a waiver
under section 182(b)(ll(AXiThthls.
requires the State to make several
demonstrations, Including one that the
plan reflecting the lesser-amount
includes .11 measures that can feasibly
be Implemented in the area in light of
technological echievability. The Chicago
and East St. Louis ezone nonatteinmont
areas in Illinois will have difficulty
meeting the applicable RFP -
requirements because audit for curtain
pre-1990 C&A programs, such as the
federal motor vehicle control ylug dm
and basic t/M is not allowed. The -
additional benefits insulting freer
implementing an MM program that -
meets the requirements of the final
November 5.1992. MM regulation.
however, are fully a’editable towards
meeting the BFP requirement. An MM
program is one of the most powerful
tools availableto areasintennsof.
providing expeditious reductions In
both VOC and NOx, both of which are
precursors of ozone. . . -
Finally,, a federally epprovaiJe basic
and enhanced i/U ossannmsup ta
- one of the most cost.effective air quaIi1y
control strategies available. Witho
effective I/U program. attaimnenti
ozone air quality standard isvirtu
impossible, and without nppropdate
enabling legislation, an I/U program
meeting final US ’A IIM regulations
cannot be implemented. - -
IL Sanctions Under the C1 n Air Ad
Thisemotion action isbaing -
proposed under USEPA’s dimtionary
authority contained in section 110(m) of
the Act. The predi e findings and’
types of sanctions are in section 119.
The two emdians available to USEPA
for application undersection 110(m), as
provided Ins i ium 179(b),arer. (1) A’
prohibition on-the funding of ontain -
.higbway projects and (2) an inaunse In
the emission offset ma n1 for new
and modified uiaor stationary noweas.
The highway funding sanction prohibits
the approval by the Seeretary of - -
Transportation of any project. or
awarding by the Semelary of any grants,
under Title 23 of the US. Code, other
than projects or grants for safety and
certain other categoilesof projects listed
in section U9(bXt).Th offset sanction
requires that, when states apply the
emission offset requirement of section
173 to new or modified sources, the
ratio of emission reductions to 1n
emissions must be at least 2 to I.
Section 179(e) of the Ad eats
findings I which provide USEPAwIIh
discretion under sectIon 110(m) to
Impose one or both 0 f the sanctions
specified under section 179 (b). The four
findings are: (1) A state has felled, for
a nonattainment area, to submit a SiP or
an element of the S W. or that the SIP or
SIP element submitted fails to meet the
completeness criteria of section 110(k);
(2) USEPA disapproves a SAP
submission fore nonattainment area
based on the submission’s failure to
meet one or more plan elements
required by the Ad; (3) a state lies not
made any other submission required by
the Act or has made a submission that
does not meet the completeness aitoria
or has made a required submici iom that
Is disapproved by USEPA for not
meetingthe Ad’srequlrementsor (4)a
requirement of an approved plan is not
being implemented.
Under section 179(a), unless the state
corrects the deficiency, one of the two
sanctions listed in seøion 179th) must
be imposed 18 months -after a finding Is
made, and the second must be Imposed
6 months after the first sanction is
Imposed. If the deficiency zemains
‘Sediaa 17e(sjra(ustaAgeacy ‘ 14 ’tg
ditap ossls, d , , .I.—...--— ibeeenili.vae
refined to by the
-------
3542
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 15 / Monday, January -24, -1994 / Proposed Rules
uncorrected.2 In addition, USEPA may
apply both sanctions after 18 months if
the Administrator finds a lack of good
Iaith on the part of the state.
Although section 179(a) establishes
mandatory deadlines for the application
of sanctions at certain points after a
finding of deficiency, section 110(m)
provides USEPA with the discretion to
impose section 179(b) sanctions at any
time (or at any time after) a section
179(a) finding. Likewise, although
mandatory sanctions under section 179
are limited to the area with the
deficiency. section 110(m) authorizes
USEPA to apply discretionary sanctions
to any portion of the state that USEPA
deems reasonable and appropriate to
ensure that the requirements of the Act
are met. See 57 FR 44534, 44536—44537.
However, the Act requires USEPA to
stablish by rule criteria to ensure that
uch sanctions are not applied on a
tatewide basis where one or more
rolitical subdivisions covered by the.
ipplicable implementation plan are
)rincipally responsible for the
feficiency.
On September 28, 1992, USEPA
,reposed criteria under section 110(m)
hat it would use when proposing
itatewide sanctions to determine if one
r more political subdivisions Is
rincipally responsible for a SIP
leficiency. 57 FR 44534. These
proposed criteria are discussed later in
his notice. With regard to Illinois,
LJSEPA is using its discretionary
iuthority under section 110(m) to
propose early sanctions based on
Illinois’ failure to submit a complete 1/
vi program. USEPA Is taking this action
For two reasons: (1) Congress required
timely submittal of I/M programs as a
neasure central to allowing the State’s
metropolitan areas to meet CA/i
deadlines and any legislative delay
threatens the State’s ability to meet
those deadlines, and (2) enhanced I/M
is the single most effective air pollution
control measure available. Delayed
legislative approval of an acceptable LI
M program places a disproportionate
On October 1, 1993. U.S. EPA proposed a rule
governing the order in which the sanctions abel!
apply under sectIon 179 of the Act. 59 FR 51270.
The rule proposes that the offset sanction apply first
and the highway funding sanction apply .eaind.
According to the proposed rule, U.S. EPA may
change this sequence of sanctions through
individual notice.and.ccrnment rulemaking. This
proposed sequencing applies only to rn’idatoiy
n t&ons that apply under section r .) and does
net go .ern sancttons imposed unde: tion
1lO(in l.
‘U.S. EPA issued a letter on D. “ er 30.1993,
fizxIingthatth.state’s dtoe eSIP
rovisionasruq .imdbycteAct - •ry
sanctions under aectioO 179( 5 )’ triggered by
Issuance of the lettir notifying the stale of the
finding of the deficiency.
burden for cleaning the air. on the States
major industrial sources. . -
UI. Proposed Sanctions
A. Finding Under Section 179(a)
As stated previously, on December 30,
1993, USEPA Region 5 issued a letter
notifying the State of its failure to
submit a complete SIP revision on -
November 15, 1993, as Pequired by the
Act. USEPA’s letter constitutes a finding
under section 179(a) that triggers EPA’s
discretionary authority to impôse the
sanctions proposed in this notice under
section 110(m). Further, on December 2,
1993, USEPA proposed to disapprove
the l/M committal SIP containing
Illinois’ commitment to adopt and
submit both basic and enhanced I/M
programs meeting the requirements of
the Act and USEPA’s I/M regulation by
November 15, 1993. Illinois has now
failed to adopt and submit such
programs. . .
If sufficient progress has not been
made by Illinois toward the
implementation of an approvable I/M
program to be operational on or before
January 1, 1995, EPA hereby announces
its intention to impose sanctions on
May 15,1994. -
B. Rationale and Approach for Section
110(m) Sanctions
Section 110(m) of the Act allows
IJSEPA to apply the Federal highway
funding assistance limitations and the
2:1 emission offset sanction at any time
(or at any time after) it makes a finding
under section 179(a). Based on its
finding dated December 30, 1993,
USEPA is proposing to impose both the
Federal highway funding assistance
limitations and 2:1 emission offset
sanctions. USEPA believes that the
imposition of both sanctions is
appropriate because of Illinois’ failure to
submit a complete SIP revision to
enhance its existing s ehicle l/M
program. In the absence of improved
vehicle IIM, the ability of the State’s
metropolitan areas to meet the CA / i
deadlines for attaining healthy air
quality is severely compromised. As
previously noted, I/M programs are the
single most effective air pollution
control measures available and delayed
legislative approval of an acceptable
program further burdens major
industrial sources of air pollution with
responsibility for cleaning the air.
Under sectIon 110(m), USEPA may
apply sanctions to arty portion of the
state it determines Is reasonable and
appropriate. During the 24 months
followini, the finding. USEPA may not
impose the sanctions statewide if oi.e or
more political subdivisions within the
state is principally responsible for the
deficiency that is the basis for sanctions.
USEPA has proposed criteria for
determining when a political -
subdivision is principally responsible
(57 FR 44534, September 28, 1992). The
criteria provide that a political
subdivision is principally responsible if:
(1) It has the legal authority to perform
the required activity; (2) it has , -
traditionally performed. or has been
delegated the responsibility to perform,
the required activity; (3) it has received,
where appropriate, adequate funding. or
authority to obtain funding, from the
state to perform the required activity: (4)
it has agreed to perform (and has not
revoked the agreement), or is required
by state law to a pt responsibility for
performing, the required actIvity; and
(5) it has failed to perform the required
activity. A “political subdivision” is
defined as the representative body that
is responsible for adopting and/or
implementing air pollution controls for
any combination of political
subdivisions created by. or pursuant-to.
Federal or State law. If no political
subdivision meets all 5 criteria, USEPA
may use its discretion to determine
whether it is reasonable and appropriate
to apply sanctions on a statewide basis.
In this notice, USEPA is proposing to
use the above proposed criteria to
determine if it may impose sandiens
statewide for Illinois because of the
failure to comply with the l/M
committal SIP revision adopting an l/M
program. USEPA believes that the first
criterion has not been met by any
political subdivision. Only the Illinois
General Assembly, composed of
representatives from all portions of the
State of Illinois, has the authority to
revise the state statute to provide for a
basic and enhanced I M program
meeting the C / iA and USEPA
requirements. Once the legislature has
acted, only state government agencies
can adopt any implementing
regulations. While individual air
pollution control districts or air quality
management districts may request
implementation of the state l/M program
within their districts once that program
is adopted, this authority is meaningless
unless the State has first established an
appropriate program through legislation
and regulations. Since the State -
legislature has not enacted the
legislation required to provide the legal
authority for an IJM program meeting
the C / iA and USEPA requirements an 1/
M program meeting such requirements
is not available to areas within the State
that require the program.
Since no pult.. tI subdivision within
the State has met the first criterion,
USEPA believes that no political
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 15 / Monday. January 24, 1994 / Froposed Rules
3543
subdi ision is principally responsible
for the failure to ha e an l/M program
that, meets final USEPA regulations.
Therefore. USEPA is not prohibited
from imposing sanctions statewide. As
noted pbc e. the State legislature bears
the ultimate responsibility to adopt the
requisite legislative authority and [ EPA.
not the indi idual air quality districts,
must subsequently adopt adequate
regulations. Since the State does bear
the ultimate responsibility. USEPA
believes that it is reasonable and
appropriate for USEPA to impose the
highway sanction on the entire State.
The 21 offset sanction requirements
apply only to new or modified major
stationary sources located in or to be
located in areas that are required o have
a permit program pursuant to section
173. Thus, USEPA is proposing to
impose the 2:1 emission offset sanction
only in those areas in which it will have
an effes.t, i.e., the following ozone
nonattainment counties: Cook, Lake.
Kane. DuPage, Will, McHenry. Madison.
Monroe, St. Clair, Grundy (Aux Sable
and Cooselake Townships only), and
Kendall (Oswego Township only). The
2:1 emission offset would apply to all
new or modified major stationary
sources of VOC and NO. that are
locating to or located in each of those
areas. USEPA proposes to impose the
offset sanctions in the manner described
in the proposed action on the
sequencing olsanctions (58 FR 51270.
51275—51277 (October 1, 1993)).
C. Removal of Discretionary Sanctions
USEPA is proposing to temporarily
lift (i.e.. toll) the highway and offset
sanctions im,osed under section 110(m)
upon the passage by the Illinois General
Assembly and signature by the Governor
of legislation which USEPA preliminary
determines provides legal authority for
a basic and enhanced l/M program
meeting the requirements of the CAA
and the IIM rr gulations. USEPA
proposes to notify the State of this
tolling by a letter to the Governor and
As a ger.erai nh’. an ienc must go through
rulemaking to remo e 0; .ili”r a requirement
ir.’pesed :¼ni.gh .u! making While USEPA
intends to issue a force lolling the 110(m)
‘ nctiona upor’ i’ e o..r.’jrvence of the e enrs
aesr.:ibed. LSEPA wi’l use the good cause
eaception to the ot”.erwise applicable requirement
for propos.ed rulemai.ng EPA believes there is
good cause to toll the sanctions once the state takes
the act,on hrch cures the deficiency that resulted
n Imposilion of sanctions See S U.S C. S 553(bltB).
Therefore, no proposed action for removal will be
issued. Consistent with USEPA’. intent to impose
discretionary sanctions on!v on those areas that lack
tegislati eeuthoritv. USEPA believes that ii is in
the public interest to remove, at leasi temporarily,
these dusaetionary sanctions as expeditiously as
possible once the Sute ci Illinois has enacted
legisfanve authority.
the public by a notice published in the
notice section of the Federal Register.
The section 110(m) sanctions would not
be completely lifted until the State
submits a complete enhanced IJM
program. USEPA will take action to
completely lift section 110(m) sanctions
upon a determination that the State has
submitted a complete enhanced I/M
program.
As an alternative, if EPA takes final
action disapproving Illinois’s committal
SIP prior to taking final action imposing
sanctions, EPA proposes that such
disapproval be the basis for imposing
the discretionary sanctions. In such
case, the sanctions would be tolled in
the same manner; however, if the
disapproval is the final basis for
imposing the sanctions such sanctions
would not be completely lifted until
EPA formally approves an enhanced 1/
M program for the State of Illinois. In
such a case, EPA would take action to
lift the sanctions at the same time as
EPA took final action approving the
State’s I/M program.
USEPA’s action imposing or tolling
the section 110(m) sanctions will in no
manner affect USEPA’s obligation to
impose mandatory sanctions under
section 179(a) where one mandatory
sanction shall apply 18 months after
USEPA’s finding of failure to submit a
complete SIP and the second mandatory
sanction shall apply 6 months later.
Sanctions under section 179(a) apply to
the areas for which the deficiency
exists. lithe State does not adopt and
submit to USEPA a complete submittal
providing for an I/M program within the
18-month and additional 6-month
periods, the sanctions will
automatically apply on those areas of -
the State that were required to have but
do not have such a complete l/M
program under the amended Act. See 58
FR 51270 (October 1. 1993). Moreover,
if EPA takes final action disapproving
Illinois’s IJM committal SIP,a second
sanctions clock will be triggered and
Illinois must not only submit an IIM
program, but EPA must also approve
that program within the relevant time
frames to stop the mandatory sanctions
clock and avoid sanctions based on the
final disapproval.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866. (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is “significant” and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (0MB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines “significant
.‘egulatory action” as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(i) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely effect 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;
(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 1286 , it has been determined
that this rule isa “significant regulatory
action.” Nevertheless, after reviewing
information regarding this action. 0MB
has waived review,
B. Regulatoiy Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
assessing the impact of any proposed or
final rule on small entities.
Alternatively, USEPA may certify th
the rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of sn
entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities
with jurisdiction over populations of
less than 50,000.
The USEPA cannot reliably predict
the impact of these restrictions because
of the exemptions authorized for certain
highway projects related to mass transit,
public safety, and those that have
beneficial air quality impacts. Careful
review and evaluation of each project is
necessary to determine whether or not
a project is exempt.
If USEPA takes final action on this
proposal, the 2:1 emission offset
requirement will apply to major new
sources and major modifIcations to
existing sources of VOC and NO., in the
Illinois ozone areas subject to the
section 173 offset requirement.
Major stationary sources of VOC and
NO. with emissions are generally not
small entities. Also, the 2:1 emission
offset requirement does not prevent
growth and modification but sets a
higher offset standard than the current
offset required. It is not expected that a
large number of small entities will be
affected by the emission offset
requirement. In the past, when USE
has made efforts to quantify the im
-------
3544
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 15 / Monday. January 24, 1994 1 Proposed Rules
of the Act’s rules on the construction
nd modification of sources, USEPA has
een unable to do so due, in part. to the
need to obtain information on future
plans for business growth. This
information is difficult to obtain, as
businesses are understandably reluctant
to make their plans public.
The USEPA is also proposing to
impose Federal highway funding
assistance limitations statewide. This
limitation could affect a number of
government entities with jurisdiction
over populations of less than 50.000
since government entities often apply
for and receive federal funding under
Title 23. United States Code, for road
improvement projects. Although a great
many projects aie exempted under
section 179(b)W(B), a number of
projects are expected to be affected if
the USEPA takes final action. For the
reasons stated above. USEPA cannot
further analyze the economic impacts of
this action on small entities. The
statements in this package constitute
USEPA’s full regulatory Flexibility
analysis.
C. Reporting and Record keeping
Requirements
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
- rhich require 0MB approval under the
aperwork Reduction Act (44 U.s C.
...501 et seq.). Should the highway
sanctions become effective, the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) is required to
determine which projects or grants
should not be affected by the sanction
and which, therefore, are exempt. This
4etermination will be based on
information readily available in existing
docume ptation gathered for the purpose
of evaluating the environmental, social.
and economic impacts of different
alternatives for transportation projects.
These analyses are already required for
the preparation of environmental
assessments and impact statements
under the Nat:onal Environmental
Policy Act (NEPAJ H:storically.
exemption determinations by USDOT
for sanctions have been based on such
NEPA documentation and have not
necessitated additional information
gathenng and analysis by the states. In
addition, since under NEPA. final
environmental documents must be
approved by USDOT, in most cases the
NEPA documentation will already be in
UsDors possession. Therefore, USEPA
does not believe that the highway
sanctions, when applied. will impose an
qddi ionaI information collection
urd. n on the states.
Uben the offset sanction applies.
sources subject to It wilt not incur an
additional information collection
burden because sources are already
required under section 173 offset
requirements to obtain an emission
offset from between Ito 1 and 1.5 to 1
(depending on the classification of the
nonattainment area in which they are
located). Should the offset sanction
apply, it would not impose an
additional information collection
burden because sources will not have to
provide additional information In the
application beyond that which they
would already have to provide In the
absence of the sanction. (For the
information collection burden of new
requirements of the amended Act for
nonattainment new source review and
prevention of significant deterioration,
an information collection request Is
being prepared to support rulemaking
changes to parts 51 and 52.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection. Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen made,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated. January 7, 1994.
Carol P4, Browasi’,
Adminisfrvitor.
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
I. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401—767 1q.
Subpalt A—(Ama.,ded]
2. Section 52.32. as proposed to be
added in a document published
elsewhere in this Federal Register. Is
amended by adding entries for the State
of Illinois in the tables In paragraphs
(c)(IXI) end (c)(2) to read as follows:
§52.32 D etlanary sanction under
section 110(m) of the Clean Al, Act,
a a a S
( a a a
(1)
(i) * S a
Date
Affected area sanction
applies
Pollutant(s)
State of Ulinois.
Cook
DuPa9e -
Gru’idy
—Aux Sable
T oea sNp
Affected area Polk n s)
—Goosetake ... VOC, NO
Tcwnchip.
Kane VOC, NO,
Kandol
. .—Oswego VOC, NO,
TownsNp.
Lake voc, NO
Ma5son voc, PiO,
McHen iy ......_ VOC, NO,c
Monroe .... ......... VO , Nox
St. Qair VOC, NOx
Will ........ ... .. VOC. NO
S • • • S
(2) • a
Affected ama
Date sanction applies
State of Iflinols
(FR Doc. 94—1129 Filed 1—21—94; 1000 aml
swio cons an
40 CFR Pelt 52
( 1N33-t-6049; FRL-4826-5]
Federal Highway Funding Assistance
Umitatlons and Emissions Offset
Requirements; Indiana
AGENCY: United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ACtION: Notice of proposed rulemaking .
SUMUARY The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) is
proposing this action to impose
sanctions on Indiana under the
discretionary sanction authority
provided under the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990, (CAA or Act) for
failure by the State to submit a complete
SIP revision for an enhanced motor
_____ vehicle inspection and maintenance (TI
M) program as required by the Act for
certain oaone nonattainment areas. On
December 2, 1992, the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEIvfl, acting as the
_________________________________ governor’s designee, submitted a
commitment (Committal SIP) to adopt
an I/M program to meet the requirement
of the Act and the T/M rule by November
15, 1993. The committal SIP provides
for the adoption and implementation of
an enhanced TIM program meeting all
requirements of USEPA ’s T/M
regulations and includes an
implementation schedule. On
September 9, 1993, USEPA proposed to
disapprove this SIP revision and on
.— ,VOc o
VOC, NO,
VOC, NO,
-------
Federal Register I..Vol. 59, No: 15 I Monday, January 241994 /J’i oprssed Rules “ 3545
lisapprove this SIP revision and on West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, - The J/M regulation establishes
November 29, 1993, USEPA Illinois 60604. . . ‘ minimum performance standards fo
lisapproved this 511’ revision based on FOfl FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: .‘ basic and enhanced JIM programs
the failure by the State to meet Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental well as requirements for the folloi
milestones contained in the committal Engineer, Regulation Development ‘Network type and program evalw
SIP’s implementation schedule Section, Regulation Development . - adequate tools and resources; test
pertaining to the enactment of necessary Branch (5AR—18J), United States frequency and convenience; vehide
legislative authority. A full SIP revision Environmental Protection Agency, coverage; test prâcedures and standards;
including State legislative authority to “ Region 5,77 West Jackson Boulevard,- -. lest’equipment;quality control; waivers
kuplementibe program was required by Chicago, IllInois 00604, (312) 886-6061 and compliance via diagnostic -.
November15. 1993. The Indiana - - Anyone wishing to come to Region 5 inspection;’motorist compliance
legislature adjourned on June 30. 1993. offices should first contact Franciscoj. enforcetñent; motorist compliance.
without taking necessary action to . - Acevedo. ‘ :. ‘ . enforcement program oversight; quality
assurance; enforcement agaInst -
provide forimplementation of an - ‘ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ,. ,L. t... contractors, stations and inspectors;
enhanced tIM program. On December. . ... -. ,
30,1993, USEPA Region 5 issued a, - : I. ift i .- ‘ ,‘.data collection; data analysis and -
letter finding that the Stats had failed to Pu to the ig7 amendments to• ‘reporting; inspector training and -.
licensing or certification; public
subJilIt the SIP revision required under-, the Act, vehicle I/Mpregrai is were Information and consumer protection;’,.
sections 110 and 182 of the Ad Due to mandated for certain sreas with long:’ f
the failure of -the State to submit a -- standin illrqdality Iroblem The repair effectiveness;
complete SIP revision fulfilling either ., to 1he ct iecall noticns;on ’road
the requirements if the Ad or its ‘role of JIM programs isan att ,i1nI t r.
commitment to adopt and ftnplemei t tiategjv -ano requlied USEPA tdd€
nhnn , .d IFM program as promised In , “diUeTOqt performance standards lot..
jts iiinittel SIP. US PA proposes to’S-’ ,“liaaid” and “en nc 3”ll!v1 progr’ I by,
e’xerase Its discretionary auThority “-. m performance standard Is the
under the’Ad to apply a statewide ‘ ‘ - minimum amountofemisslon- -
hlghwayiunding limitatIon sanction ‘ “ reductions.e ,prcgrain must achie
önda2for lgrowthoffsetsanction lñ ‘ ‘,bas e done od ilorlenrhmn --
all areas required to haveapennit’ ‘ . d ij ddi l i o n the - nplementon
program under the iiew source revIew amended Act directed USEPA was r qtl1red Ia submit by
provisions of the ACL4 - ‘‘ ‘ ‘:- , addr s UU fl1entS for i 1992,a SIP revjsion (here
4ts’ eiitioá his p p éd.’ elements and prcg Irni. a to :iitA cinimittal
iition are to be submitted by March 15, Issues for both basic and_111thflO d I/M f SIP”) including two elements: (1)
j9 4. The USEPA will hold three public ‘- Jnograms. The amended Ad requires “ ‘coi tment from the Govejnor o
heáriiigson February 16; 18, ánd.22. ‘. states containing nonati ment areas to her -deslgnee’to the timely adoptia
make changes to Improve e dsting t/M .,.. Implementation of an I/Mprogrem.’
‘Aoceassas: Comments on this proposed’
rule should be addressed to: J. Elmer - programs or implement new ones. • - meeting all the requirements of the I/M
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed regulation; and. (2) a schedule for.’ - —
Bortzar; ChIeI.Regulatlon Development - USEPA to publish updated guidance for adoption of the program. with interim
Section. Regniation Development
Branch (5AR-18fl, united States - state JIM programs, -taking into - milestones including passage of
consideration findings of the”, . - . ‘‘enabling statutory or other iegal -
Environmental Protection Agency. -‘ Administrator’s audits and ‘ authority and adoption of final
RegIon 5,77 West Jackson Boulevard, bv igati of these programs. The - ‘regulations. Accepta ce of J/M ‘
Chicago. Illinois 60604. Act fluither requires each area required committal SIPs in lieu of full SIPs was
The public hearings will be held in ‘by the Act to have en t/M program to justified by the fact that states could not
Jndiana as follows: February 16,1994 in
Valparaiso. (Porter County) at the Porter B 0mt s guidance into the SIP, have been expected to.begin
on these requirements. USEPA development of an JIM program meeting
Coonty Administration Center on 155 promulgated an IIM regulation on - ‘ the requirements of the Act and the 1/
Indiana Avenue in Suite 205 at 11a.m. Noveml 5, 1992. (57 FR 52950) -. M regulation until the I/M regulation
to 4 p.m.; February 18,1994 in New “.‘ Under section 182(c)(3) of the Act, - was adopted as a final rule, which did
Albany (Floyd County) at the New areas designated as serious or worse’ not oxur until November 5, 1992. A
Albany Courthpuse on West First and . ozone nonattainment areas with . complete SIP revision which contained
Spring Streets In the third floor ‘ populatiolis of 200,000 or more, In’ - all of the elpments identified in the -
assembly roam at 11 am. to 4 p.m.; and ,addition to metropolitan statistical areas adoption schedule. induding the
February 22.1994 in Indianapolis with populations of 100,000 o more in authorizing legislation and
(Marion County) at the Indiana the northeast ozone transport region, are implementing regulations, was to be
Government Center South on 402 West required to meet USEPA requirements submitted no’later than November15,
Washington Street in the auditorium at for “enhanced” J/M programs. These 1993.
11 am. to 4p.nL - areas were required to submit a SIP On December 2.1992, the State of-
Co nes of Indiana’s JIM Committal SIP revision to incorporate an enhanced J/M Indiana submitted-a committal SiPto
submittal, USEPA’s proposals and program by November 15, 1992. In USEPA. A public hearing on this
rulamnekings, end other documents Indiana, the State must implement a submittal was held by the State on
psstinent to this proposed rule are basic J/M program in the urbanized October 22.1992, in Gary, Indiana. The
available at the following address: U.S. areas of Clark and Floyd counties: it submittal included a schedule of
Envireaunental Protection Agency, must implement an enhanced J/M implementation and a commitrac
Region 5. Air and Radiation Division, program in the urbanized areas of Lake the timely adoption and implem
Regulation Development Branch, 77 and Porter counties, of an JIM program in the Lake, P.....,
-------
546 . Federal Register F Vol. 59, No. 15 1 Monday, January 24. t994! Proposed Rules.
Clark, and FloydCounty owne dëmonstrations .including.onethatthe submission ra ’neiiatatarea’
attainment areas meeting all the plan reflecting the lesser amount ‘ based on the sübmissfon’ failure to-
lrements of the I/M regulation and includes all measures that can feasibly meet one or moreplan elements
amended Act by November I5 1993. be implemented in thearea in light of” required by the Act-(3) a state has not”
u June 30.1993, the indiana technological achievabflity. The Lake made any other submission required by’
legislature adjourned without iak ng the and Porter areas in Indiana will have’ the Act or has made a submission tbet:
rieoessuy action to enable Indiana to difficulty meeting the RFP requirements does not meet the completeness a ’iteri&
rdopt and implement the JIM provisions because aedit for ceitain pre-1990 CAA . or has made a required submissiçn that
nandated by the amended Act and the programs, such as the federal motor ‘ ‘is disapproved by-USEPA for t
mel IIM tub in Lake and Porter vehide aintrot prograin’and ba ic J/M is meeting the Act’s requirements: or(4ja
Counties. Failure to provide sudi not allowed. The additional benefIts of ‘.requirement of ea approved plan is not
authodtyprevented the State frouL . enhancedilM. howerer . are fully:’ •‘ being i plem.nled.. ‘ - .‘ ‘ .
iubmltthig a complete SIP revision ‘aeditable towards meeting.thó RFP. -. Under section lT9ta); unlessthe - state
c ontalning all the required elements of ,equi pLPnh nr 4UM iioiieof corrects the defidency otmof th, two::
ihe program by November15. 1993. On most powerful tools available to areas in bstedin section 179(b)-must.
august 17. 1993. USEPA sent a ester to - terms of providing e pe4itieus ..: ‘ Imposed 18th ’ aft a find1n Is
overnor Dayhof Indiana and to the . j iA both voc . nd NOx, both - . :mede. and the second must he imposed:
Regional MnIIIIIStIUIOt of th ”e Federal of which. are precursors of ozone. •. ‘6 months after the EIst eandi m.is
Highway Adndniztration advising them’ Finally..a federally approvable. .... .“ Imposed. if the defid m1
that USEPA hart decided to exercise its • j - of
cliscretionory ’ authority under section,’.. the most a -. ‘ . months
1i0(m)bftheAd .toimpos,st nn :
at ny.thneoncea finding of SIP .r: : . effective JIM
Ismade . After review of the: -.
SIP, USEPA ”proposrd to
disappr thácommih mentofl ‘
Septethber 9.1993(58 FR 47415), and
on November29. .1993 USEPA ‘ : “
di áDprôvedthI Sll’.revlsion ba ed en I Und I
thefailumb,the:Statetonmeetlnterim . /iiiis
ixdflnatruilostvnes In the schedule . ‘;
ooutained n the SIP submittal ‘: - ‘ . ‘ utho& tined In
— tainhigto thoenathnento1ne essazy. the Act. the predicate IindIñgihnd - -are
brityhefmple rnentW - . - ‘ -‘ typesofsanctforeection179. L dafi
Liirementsduting the 1993 Indiana - ‘.‘ The two sanctions available to USEPA - -USEPA
rreritt egislativesession.On ‘r . :forappflcationbnd&s eètIan ’ufl(m3;as - ’ toanyp
November iS 1993; the State ofludjana’ provided In section 179(b),ara - deems reasonable and appropriate to’
lailed to eet its commitment I0USEPA orohibition on.the funding of rtnin: ensure that thaxequlkements otthe A
b felling tesubinit a-full SIP revision highway pro jects: and(2) an Increase 11 ‘are met. See S I Fa44534,44536-44 3?.
Io IFM program Impiernentetion. ’ - the emission offset.requlrement for new Ho iveveztheAd requires USEPA to:’ -
Beyond being.a specific mandate of and modilled major .Statfnh*,y sources. establish. by rule criteria to ensure that:
the Act, enhanced JIM ograms play an’ The highway fnntiing sanition prohibits such sanctimis.are notappliedon a.-.
importantrole in the ability of Lake and the approval by the Secretary of statewidahesiswher one or more .-‘,
Porler Counties to comply with the CAA Transportation of any proJects or the political subdivisions covered by the-
requirements fur achieving the National awarding by the Secretary of any grants, applicable Implementation plan are
AmbientAirQuahtyStandards . underTiffez oftheUS.çode ,other principally responslbleforthe.
(NAAQSk for ozone, as well as the Act’s than projects or grants for safety and deficiency. - - -
requirements for reasonable further certain other categories of projects listed Oii September 28, I9923JSEPA
progress (RFP) reductions for ozone. in section i7g(b)(i). The offset moction proposed criteria under section 110(m)
The Ad provides that each state in requires that, when statesapply the that It would use when proposing
which allot pad of certain emiision ofl ’set requirement of section statewide sanctions to detamm1n if one -
classifications lo t ozone and/or - 13 to new or mhdified sources, the or more political subdivisions Is
nonattainment areas-ale located is ratio of emission reductions to Increased principally responsible for a SIP
required to provide an attainment emissions must heat least a to-i. - deficiency. 57 FR 445 4. These-
demonstration showing that its SIP, as section 179(a) of the Actsets forth the proposed criteria axe discussed later In
reviseä. ,wiU provide for attainment of uiings1 which provide uzru ’A with his notice. .
the NAAQS by the ipplicable. dim mion under section 110(m) 10 With regard to lndlina, EPA is using.
attainment date(s). The Act further Impose one or both of the sanctions itS discretionary authority wider section
requires that each state in which llor specified under section 179(b). The four - - - -
part of a serious, severe, or extreme fi in U) A state has failed, for sOn October 1.1993, U.S. EPA pu)posed a rule
ozone nonattainment area is located a nonattafnment area, to submit a SIP or s°” ° ’u the order In which the erections shall
apply under .w1i 179 of the Ad. SIFR 5l27O
thall submit SIP revisions, that Will en element of the SIP, or that the SIP or The rule pinpi that the offset eanctton apply first
reduce VOC emissimis.b November 5, Sn’ element submitted fails to meet the and the highway fnnding eractionapply sernird. --
: 6 by at least 15% of 1990 beselin.- compldteness critp -ia of section tio(k) . cou11ng to th rroposed nile. U.S. EPA may
sissiiais.if the ied mctions identifi --l Ifl (2) USEPA di pproves a SIP. thu se” ‘ of sanctloii ’ through -
Individual or •d- ,s t - naking. Th.
SW revisions ar ’ • than 1!% ________ - proposed m c ‘gapplim c
L :4l i nee ism , . State L voh - ‘Section l79(c)rcfersIoA e 7fln 1ogs . - sanctIo oath . ,‘ undetsecti, , )and does
waiver uzzdersection. 182(b)(1)(AXi J; d b , d d h i m. wIlt .11 be not govern san. u Imposed en ctlon
this requires the State to make several - referred to by the one term ‘flndlnp . ’ 110(m). - - - - - -.
-------
- - . Federal. Register I Vol. 59, No. 15 I Monday. January 24, 1994 I Proposed Rules
- 3547
110(m) to propose earlyianctions.3. - -•. Stat&Irnetropolitan areas to meet the-•• management districts may request
based on Indiana’s failure to submit a - Clean Air Act deadlines for attaining•. Implementation of the state I/Mprogi-am
complete SIP to improve its I/M healthy air quality is Severely - within their districts once that progran
program. EPA is taking this acthn for - compromised. As previously noted, Is adopted, this authority is meaningle
two reasons: (1) Congress required enhanced vehide inspection and unless the State has first established an
timely submittal of enhanced tIM maintenance is the single most effective appropriate program through legislation
programs as a measure the State’s air pollution control measure available and regulations. Since the State -
metropolitan areas to meet CAA and dela ed legislative approval of an - legislature has not enacted the
deadlines, and any Iegislati9ó delay acceptabl e program further burdens legislation required to provide the legal
threatens the State’s ability to meet : major industrial sources of air pollution authority for an enhanced t/M program
those deadlines, and (2) enhanced IIM with responsibility for cleaning tbe aIr. meeting the CAA and USEPA
Is the single mod effective air pollution Under section 110(m), USEPA may .. requIrements, the program Is not
control measure available. Delayed . apply sandoi c to any portion of the- available to eieas within the State that
leg lslative8pproval of an acceptable I! :- state it determines Is reasonable and require the program.
Mprogram places a d spro onat.: appropriate. During the 24 months... . . . since uGpolitical Subdivision within
burden for cleaning the air on the State’s following the finding. USEPA may not the State has met the first aiterion. EPA
major Industrial sources. :• impose the sanctions statewide if one or believes that no political subdivision Is
nore political subdivisions within the principally responsible forthe failure to
• -: --state Is principally responsible for the. bave anenlianced tIM pmgram.
A. Finding Under Section 170(a) - --. deflcienc that Is the basis for ‘ ons. Therefore, EPA Is not prohibited from
- aItezIafor ‘ ‘ fj statewide,M noted-
beitwthe.
j993,USEP - -
pt the .
sub nr ltacc andJD 1,
November
Ad.USEPA’s letter (i) It has
under s ctIon 179(a) That triggers -;
USEPA dlsoniryaiØiorItjTtó !1 orhas i p 1sib 1utv,usE!A:
Impose th ctIon&propdsed In tins.: t uuvv uiaI It 1smasona lè md
aeiegarqa me responsibility toperfonn, appropriate for USEPA to Impose the -
noticO under section 1lO(i4,PWihCt Ofl ‘the required aCtlVity (3) it as received; on the entire State. .
No ber29, 1993.1JSEPA ‘- where appropriate, adequate flmci fs anctIon i quirements.
disapproved Hem ommlUal Sfl’ -euthontylo obtain fimdmg,• from to new or modified major -
revision because the State had failed to - - sthte to perform the required -aotI
meet its çnmm 4 tnnent. -. A. -: has agreed to perform (and-hesnot’ -: located or thW. -
r If sufficient esm* been - . ievokod the agreement), orisi - - to hay
to section
madeby Indiana toward the .r1 -.- - y g • law to ecoept
Implementation of an approvable I/M;. perfo ____
offset ‘côiàn -
pro iremtobeoperát lona lonorbefore:. (5)ft et ui d -:lnthefolloudj zqiienonattalnmiit
Januaiy 1, 1995, EPA hereby announces subdivision” IS -. count as: L ke Porter, Uark, Floyd,
Its Intention to Impose sanctions on ye body that
May 15,1994. - . - . •.• . - - - ‘Is respondible for adopting and/or - . MSflOfl St. Joseith. i}hjirt , and -
B. Rationale andApproach for Section Implementing air pollution coAtrols Vanderbuigh. The 2:1 emissIon offset
any combination of nolitical — would apply to all new or modified
110(m) Sanctions . -.. . . :- - . su6divislons aeateJ by, or pursuant to; major stationary sources for volatile -
Section 110(m) of the Ad allows -. Federal or State law. If no politlcal- - organic compounds and oxides of
USEPA to-apply the Federal highway - subdivision meets ailS aiterla, USEPA nitrogen that are locating to or located
funding assistance limitations and 2:1 - may use ks discretion to determine - In each of these areas. USEPA proposes
to Impose the offset sanction In the
emission offset sanction at any time (or whether It Is reasonable and appropriate manner described iz 1 the proposed
at any time after) it makes a finding to apoly sanctions on a statewide basis.
under section 179(a). Based on its In ibis notice, USEPA Is proposing to -. action on the sequencing of sanctions
finding dated December 30, 1993, - use the above proposed criteria to (58 FR 51270.51275—51277 (Oct. 1,
USEPA Is proposing to Impose both the determine If it may Impose hIghway 1993)).
Federal highway funding assistance sanction statewide for Indiana because C. Removal pf Discretionar, Sanctions
limitations and 2:1 emission offset of the failure to submit a complete
USEPA Is piopo ing to temporarily
sanctions. USEPA believes that the enhanced l/Mp
Imposition of both sanctions is - - - USEPA believ 5 the first criterion lift (I.e., tollJ the highway and offset
appropriate because of Indiana’s failure has not been met by any political - . -
to adopt legislation to enhance Its subdivision. Only the Indiana - Ma general rula an Agency must go thinugh
ru1 aklng to remose or alter a lequlrnuani
existing vehicle Inspection and - legislature, composed of representatives wei through roleatiaking. While US EPA
maintenance program. In the absence of from all portions of the State of Indiana, Intends to lena a nodes lolling the 119(m)
an Improved vehicle inspection and has the authority to revise the state s n lons upon the oemtyenes of the events
nustvstemmaiia program, the ability of the -statute to provide for an enhanced I/M - desa1bed. Us. EPA will use the good cause - -
esceptlon to the otherwise applicable requirement
_______ - - program meeting the CAA and EPA for proposed rulemaking. WA believes there Is
3U.S. EPA leaned a litter es so. moos, requirements Once the legislature has good cause to toll the sanctions onca the state takes
s..a.etIm the State’s eoposed SIP revision acted, only state government agencies . the action which cures the deficiency that resulted
•leiIuroteanImit aS 1P revisIon as required by can adopt any implementing In the Imposition of sanctions Sees uSC
Act. I4nA. .y sa lons under section 179(a) were
______ S553(bRB) Therefore no propaied action for
t -o tiie laster nou ytng tiia regulations While individual air removal will he issued Consistent with U.s. SPA.
! c(tbs deficiency. poLlution control districts or air oualitv Cont lm . e
-------
3548
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No.. 15.! Monday, January 24, 1994.1-Proposed Rules
sanctions Imposed under section 110(m) the amended Act. See 58 FR 51270 :‘. small entities. Also, the 2:1 emissjo —’
upon the passage by the Indiana (October 1, 1993). .. - offset requirement does not prevent.
legisIature and signature by the
Governor of legislation which USEPA - I V Regulatory Requirements . - growth and modification but sets a
higher offset standard than the current
preliminary determines provides legal A. Executive Order 22866 offset required. It is not expected that a
authority for an enhanced IIM program Under Executive Order 12866. (58 FR large number of small entities will be
meeting the requirements of the C 51735 (October 4. 1993)) the Agency affected by the emission offset
and the I/M regulations. USEPA must determine whether the regulatory requirement In the past, when USEPA
proposes to notify the State of this - action is “significant” aüd therefore - . has made efforts to.quantify the impact
tolling by a letter to the Governor and subject to Office of Management and ,oflhe Act’s rules on the construction
the public by a notice published in the• Budget (0MB) revIew and the p-....- and modificatiqii of sources, USEPA has:
notice section of the Federal Register.’ mqulrements of the Executive Order. . - been unablelo do so due, In pith, to the
The section 110(m) sanctions would not The Order defines “sIgnificant’ need to obtain information o future -.
be completely lifted until the State of regulatory action” as one that is likely ’ plans for business growth. This
Indiana submits a complete enhanced ‘ to result In a rule that ma r --‘--. :. infornistion Is difficult to obtain, as
M program to USEPA. USEPA will take: . (i) Ilavean annual effect &i’the - -, businesses ré undâstandably reluctant -
action to completely lift section .110(m) economy of S100 million or more or -. - tO make theIi plane public. . - ‘
sanctions upon its (leternnnatien that . ‘.adversely effect In amatenal way the : The USEPA is also proposing to —.: -
the Stale has submitted a cornplete. . economy. i sector of thOeconotny. : ‘P° Ee4
ehhanood IFM program — . . .. ossistance This;
-.As an alternative, EPA proposesf affect a number of -
the-basis for the disetion iysanc entitià vIth jurisdiction .
is EPA’sdliapprovalofIndiana’s ., lof less then 5o ooo . ‘ .
omrnlttal SIP: If the t:eiUUes often apolyf
of ih in mfttal I receive federal fuidIn unàer.
disaion rysinttioii iuch ajctiops, Title 23, UnIted Statei Code, for road
would lie tolled hi the semé mam&as a greal
If the finding of failure to submit ir -
theba. is ho ev ff the ‘
hebasisforImposing boaftecledif?.
such sanctions would action: ‘
ifted until EPA (orma]l approves ‘the reasoni stated above EPA ‘ ‘
enhan çd IIM program for the State of or further analyze the economic .
Indiai a In sãcha case, EPA would f in lire Executive s’ofthi action on small entities.
action to lift the sanctions Et the same - - - Pursuant to the terms of Executive .. The statements I
time as EPA took final action appruvln( ‘ Order 12866, it has been determined ... -constitute EPA s full regulatory
the State’s UMpro rani. . - -- . that this rule isa “significant regulatory .. flexibility lj,sls.: - -‘ . - . - -
USEPA’ action imposing or tolling action.” Nevertheless, this action .C. Reporting dndRecordkeepin,g .
the section 11O(m) sanctions will In no’ - been Informally submitted to 0MB for: i . Requ rnen
manner affeá EPA’sobligation to review. - . :- . -
impose mandatory sanctions under . This rule does notcontain any
section 179(a). The mandatory sanctions RegulatoiyFjexibilityAct ‘. .. lzforznationcol1 ction requirements
clock for Indiana was triggered on- Under the Regulatory Flqxibility Act, which reOulre 0MB approval under the
NoveMber 29,1993 by EPA’s 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must Paperworlr Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
disapproval of Indiana’s committal SIP. prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis - 3501 et seq.). Should the highway -
Theraforeone mandatory sanction shall assessing the impact of any proposed or sanctions become effective, the
apply 18 months after USEPA’s final final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 . Secretary of the U.S. Department of
disapproval of the committal SIP and and 604. Alternatively. USEPA may - Transportation (USDOT) is required to
the second mandatory sanction shall certify that the rule wifi not have a - determine which projects or grants
apply 6 months later. Sanctions under significant impact one substantial ,. should not be affected by the sanction
section 179(a) apply to the areas for number of small entities. Small entities end which, therefore,-are exempt. This
which the deficiency exists and until - include small businesses, small not-for- determination will be based on
such deficiency has been corrected, profit enterprises, and government Information readily available in existing
Moreover, lithe State does not adopt entities with jurisdiction over documentatio i gathered for the purpose
and USEPA does not approve populations of less than 50,000. For of evaluating the environmental, social,.
regulations providing for an I/M . reasons cited below, USEPA has not and economic impacts of different
program within the 18-mohth and completed a regulatory flexibility alternatives for transportation projects.
additional 6-month periods following analysis for this nile: ‘ These analyses are already required for
the effective date of EPA’s disapproval, The USEPA cannot reliably predict the preparation of environmental
the sanctions will automatically apply the impact of these restrictions because assessments and Impact statements
on those areas of the State that were - of the exemptions authorized for certain under the National Environmental
required to have but do not have such highway projects related to rn ”- transit, Policy Act (NEPA). Historically. -
a USEPA-approved I M pr: ram under public safety, and those that l . exemption determinations by USDOT
_________ beneficial air quality impacts. Careful - for sanctions have been based on such
- - ‘o impi ediacreticnay eanctiont only on review and evaluation of each project i” NEPA dotument ion anc have not
e a that hek 1e 51.Iative au: -.-f ’y US. ‘. necessary to determine wheth not ‘iecessitated additional i rmatio1
k .vesthtubikinte . remo%e.
at &eui teinp aiiIy. thea. di th, a oroject is exempt. ‘athering and analycis by the states. In
ibi. on the State of Ind Iana ‘Major stationary sources of ‘ut. and addition, since under NEPA. final
bs tgIaI 7e aulbozfty. NOx with emissions are generally not environmental documents must be
-------
• Federal Register.! VoL .59; No. 15! Monday, January 24, 1994 / Proposed Rules • . 3549
(j) * * *
of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control. Carbon monoxide,
Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide.
Volatile organic compounds.
- Dated: January 7.1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Adminisb’ctor. -
40CFRpart52 lsproposedtobe
amended as follows: -
approved by USDOT, in m ist cases the.
NEPA documentation will already be in
USDOTs possession. Therefore, USEPA ______________________
does not believe that the highway
inrtiOnS, when applied, will impose an
additional information collection __________________________
burden on the states. - -
.Wben the offset sanction applies,
sources subject to it will not incur an
additional Information collection
burden because sources are already - _____
isquired under section 173 OffSet • PART 52—APPROVAL AND ____ _____
requirements to obtain an emission • PROMULGATION OF ____ _____
offset from between 1(01 and 1.5 to I IMPLEMENTATION PLANS _____ _____
(depending on the classification of the. . - . -
nonattainment area In which they are. 1. The authority citation for part 52 _____
located). Should the offset sanction . continues to read as follows:
apply. If would not Impose an -. - • . * then. 42 usc 7401-7671q.-
idditlonal Information collection - • :. - . S-.. - .
burden becausó sources will not have to Subpart A—jAznendedj ____________________
provide additional informatlonin tb. •.
application beyond that which they; 1 d ° ’° ___________________
•wouldalreadybavetoprov ldelnUie-- • -. I. . .._, • . _________________________-
- • 11- - - L - • ., .a , t. . . I - e . Vwuore .. IW LI 1 5i54 . I - . •. ;‘-. . . . _ - . -.
es uw ‘ ‘ufl . tror r . .. — I .L - - -
Information - Uectl burden f w • ..;. b. - . .. • . .
n?u E si 1 and(cX2)toread o° , _______________
ndpreennofs1gn1fi” nt - 623 Dlacrellena,yeanctlonunder. • . “. . .-. • -
deterioration, an Infonnatloncollqctlon section 110(m) of UIOCioSA Air ACL• - - - - :‘--- •
maui sta1ie ln p r eparedtosup iort -. . * . RDaC O4- l lSlFflOd l-2144.10000nd
nifenialclngchan estoparts51and52.J ( J * * .. - ‘.“acocjmeo, r - -
Date
Affected area sancton
applies
S - • • ._ S
State of Indiana:
- — VOC, NO.
Elthart —. - -__ - VOC. NO.
Royd- .
Lake__— - . VOC. NO.
- Mai lan — - • VOC,NO .
P 0 , 1ev VOC. NO.
St. Joseph — ...._ _.... VOC. NO . 1
Vendeiburgh - VOC. NO,
• — -
• ••, • . ... 3
1,.
:
. - -•,_..•
-------
I —
1478 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 7 I Tuosday, January 11, 19 4 / Rubs and Regulations
before exercising this right. CNMA will
attempt to have the Mortgage assigned
to another eligiblo coinsuring lender
(unless GNMA dotorminos, with (ho
agreement of the Commissioner, (hot the
attempt would prove ineffectual because
of market conditions or other factors).
This attempt will be undertaken by
soliciting offers to assume (ho defaulting
lender-issuer’s rights and obligations
under the Mortgage from those eligible
coinsuring lenders that are also CNMA
Issuars and that are Indicated on a
periodically updated listing furnished to
GNMA by the Commissioner.
(b) For any Coinsu red Mortgage that is
In default and held by a defaulting
lender-Issuer. GNMA will have the right
to perfect an assignment of the
Coinsurod Mortgage directly to itself
before extinguishing the Mortgage by
completion of foreclosure action or
acquisition of title by deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure.
(c) GNMA. as assignee, will give the
Commissioner written notice, within 30
days after taking a Mortgage by
assignment in accordance with this
section. in order to allow an appropriate
endorsement and necessary changes in
the Commissioner’s records.
(d) The Commissioner will endorse
any Mortgage assigned to CNMA as
provided by this section for full
insurance, effective as of the date of
assignment in accordance with the
appropriate provisions of 24 CFR part
207. Any future claim by GNMA. or any.
assignment of the fully insured
Mortgage. will be governed by the
appropriate provisions of 24 CFR part
207, except that any payment will be
made in cash instead of debentures.
Dated: December 16, 1993.
Nisebas P. Retsinas.
Assistant Secretoryforilousing-Fedeml
Housing Commissioner.
IFR Dec. 94—35 Filed 1—10—94; 8.45 uml
IUWNO CODE 4210-87-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26CFR Part I
[ T.D. 8474)
fIN 1545-AQ99
Removal of Finat and Temporary
Regulations Relating Primarily to
Provisions of Prior Law; Correction
AGENCY: internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to the removal of
flnal regulations.
SUMMARY: This document contains a
correction to the final and temporary
regulations (T.D. 8474) which was
published in the Federal Register for
Tuesday. April 27. 1993 (58 FR 25556).
The regulations relate primarily to
provisions of prior law for which action
is taken in response to the Regulatory
Burden Reduction Initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
C. Feinbeig, (202) 622—3325 (not a toll-
free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The final and temporary n ulations
that are the subject of this correction
amended the Code of Federal
Regulations by removing regulations
under parts 1. 5. Sc, 12. 54 and 602.
Need for Correction
As published. T.D. 8474 contains an
error which is misleading and is in need
of correction.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of the
removal of final and temporary
regulations (T.D. 8474), which was the
subject of FR Dec. 93—9694. is corrected
as follows:
PART 1—(CORRECTEDJ
On page 25557. column 2. in part 1,
in the table at the end of the column,
third entry following the column
headings, the language
Section Description of amendment
Section Description of amendment
Jacquelyn B. Burgess.
Alternate Fedeml Register Ljaison Officer.
Assistant Chief Cou nsel (Corporate).
IFR Dec. 94—454 Filed 1—10—94; 8:45 8mb
BLUNO CODE 4830-01-U
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
4OCFR Part 52
LF RL-4822-4 1
fIN 2060-4t010
Criteria for Exercising Discretionary
Sanctions Under Title I of the Clean AIr
Act
AGENCY: Environmental Pmotci.tion
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule. -
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
The EPA Is promulgating criteria
under section 110(m) of the Act to
ensure that, during the 24-month period
Following a finding, disapproval, or
SUMMARY: This rulemaking sets forth
Background criteria that EPA must (:nhlsi(ll’r when
exon:isitig its (Iiscrotionnry nul hority In
1 c 1 050 snnt:Iiu,ia on a hituwIih, basis
pursuant to the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (Act). If EPA makes
one of the findings of State
implementation plan (SiP) defIciency
described in the Act. EPA may iinposo
an emissions offset or highway funding
sanction on any portion of the State that
the Administrator determines is
reasonable and appropriate for the
purpose of ensuring (hat the
requirements of the Act relating to plans
are met. This nilemaking establishes the
criteria EPA shall use in exorcising its
discretionary authority during the 24-
month period following a finding of a
plan deficiency to ensure that these
sanctions are not applied on a statewide
basis when one or more political
subdivisions are principally responsible
for such deficiency. In addition. EPA
describes the discretionary sanctions
provision and EPA’s anticipated
application of those sanctions “at any
time” alter the Agency makes a finding.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be
___________________________________ effective February 10. 1994.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant In this
• • • • • rulemaking are contained in Docket No.
A—91—66. A reasonable foe may be
charged for copying docket materials.
• ‘ The Docket Is located at time following
address end may be Inspected from 8:30
a.m. until noon and from 1:30 p.m. until
3:30 p.m.. Monday through Friday:
Room M—1500 (LE—131), Waterside
_________________________________ Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington. DC
20640.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted
Creekmore. U.S. EPA, MD—IS, Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711.
• . (919) 541—5699.
1.48-1(e) Removed and Reseived.
Is corrected to read
• . . •
1.48- 1(I) Removed and Reseived.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
1477
rklerminalinn (hereinafter “finding”)
referred to iii section 179(a), sanUions
1 I(irSIILIIIt to section 110(m) are not
on a statewide basis where one
or inoic politkal subdivisions are
lrincipally responsible for such
deficiuiu.y. Thus, these criterid apply
only in the limited circurnslan(.e in
luitii EPA is considering the
i iii posit ion of statewide sanc.tions under
section 110(m) within 24 months after
the Agency makes a section 179(a)
liiicliiig.
(lii September 28, 1992 (57 FR 44534),
EPA prapoi ud criteria that EPA will use
to deturinind if sanctions imposed
pursuolit to section 110(m) of the Act
may not be applied statewide. The
lireatitbie to the proposed rule contains
a detailed discussion of the background
o1th AU, of the proposed criteria, and
of the provisions of section 179 and
section 11(1(m) (see 57 FR 44534—
44535).
New § 52.30(c) of the rule provides
five criteria that EPA will use to
determine if sanctions imposed
pursuant to section 110(iii) may not be
imposed statewide. If at least one
political subdivision meets all five of
the criteria, then that political
subdivision will be considered
principally responsible, and EPA will
not iuiposo sanctions on a statewide
basis. Rallier. EPA will impose
satictians only on the areas of the State
for whk.li EPA determines it is
icasonable and appropriate to impose
sanctions. If all of the criteria are not
unit by at least one political subdivision,
ilwii no politic:al subdivision is
pruicipally responsible, auid EPA will
use its tlist.iution to determine whether
to apply statewide sandions. Howevçr.
if EPA, using its discretion, initially
determines that less-than-statewide
sanctions should be applied, the Agency
will not need to consider the criteria;
EPA will impose sanctions on those
political subdivisions the Agency has
determined to be reasonable and
approprhite. Such decisions will he
iii,ido on a t.aso-by-caso basis and each
action will be subject to the notice-and-
.ouiimetit rulemaking procedures of thu
Adumiiiiistnstive Procedure Act.i
‘As notud iii El’As proposed rule. ihe A cncy
wilt Follow nutii.e .and.conimcnt rulemaking in
every Instance that LPA anticipates Imposing
suciiors 110(m) sanctionS (57 FR 44534, September
26. 1992) In each rulemaking action, the public
will have an opportunIty to comment on the
proposed geographic scope of the Sanctions, the
timing of die sanciions. and the order in which the
two available sanctions will ho imposed le the
extent die public has commented on these Issues as
a general mailer in this rulemaking action. EPA has
responded by suggesting that the issue is more
.ippropriaiuly raised In independent rulemaking
.1(1 unit. Iii wlik Ii sULIiofl 1 1o(inl sant tiun , are
ir i , Pi i .,uiil
In the final rule, EPA has changed
four provisions from the proposal based
on comments received regarding
spu(.iIlC details of the regulatory text.
l’huy are as follows:
1. In § 52.30(a)(2), the definition of
“required activity” was revised in two
ways. First, the phrase “may include,
bitt is not limited to” was deleted from
the definition. Second, the phrase
“adequate SIP or SIP element” is
replaced by the phrase “plan or plan
item.” These two changes were mado in
order to follow more clearly the
ldnguage of section 110(m). Since
section 110(m) refers only to actions
required with respect to a “plan or plan
item,” EPA agrees that the phrase “may
include, but is not limited to” is
unnecessat’y because it appears to imply
EPA has authority to impose sanctions
with respect to findings other than those
For a plan or plan item. Furthermore,
since section 110(m) uses the phrase
“plan or plan item,” EPA believes it
would ho more consistent to use that
phrase in tile regulatory language rather
(hart the phrase “adequate SIP or SIP
element.”
2. The terms “plan or plan items” are
added to the definitions section of th
rule, § 52.30(a)(4), and are defined as
follows: “For purposes of § 52.30, the
terms ‘plan’ or ‘plan item’ mean an
implementation plan or portion of an
implementation plan or action needed
to prepare such plan required by the
Act, as amended in 1990, or in response
to a SIP Call under section 110(k)(5) of
the amended Act.”
3. In § 52.30(c), “criteria,” as defined
in the proposal, provides: “The EPA
will use tIm following lIve criteria, all of
which must be met, to determine
whether a political subdivision is
principally’responsible for the
deficiency.” This section is clarified by
revising it to read as follows: “For the
purposes of this provision, EPA will
consider a political subdivision to be
principally responsible for the
deficiency on which a section 179(a)
finding is based, if all live of the
following criteria are met.” Thus, the
nile clarifies that all five criteria are to
be met, not merely used by EPA to
dutorrnimw how sanctions will be
imposed.
4. In its proposed rule, § 52.30(d)(1),
EPA provides: “If all of the criteria in
paragraph (c) of this section bave been
met through the action or inaction of the
‘same’ political subdivision, EPA will
not impose sanctions on a statewide
basis.” Although no comments were
received from the public on this
language, a review by the Agency
suggested that tile phrase “same
political smihilivislon” niay be confusing.
By including that language in the nile,
EPA was attempting to Indicate that one
political subdivision must meet all five
of the criteria before EPA’s authority to
impose sanctions on a statewide basis
would be constrained (see 57 FR 44536).
For example. if a State has two
nonattainment areas and a rule, which
was past due under the Act, was not yet
adopted and submitted to EPA for either
area, EPA would look at each
nonattainment area independently to
determine whether the five criteria were
met. If the first three criteria were met
by one nonattainment area and the last
two by the second nonattainnient area,
then EPA’s authority to impose
statewide sanctions would not be
constrained. However, ii one
nonattainmen area met all five of the
criteria, EPA could not impose
statewide sanctions based on the finding
for that area. The EPA is replacing the
word same with the word one in the
rule in order to alleviate any confusion,
This provision will be implemented in
accordance with the interpretation
above.
II, Background
In general, the preamble to the
proposed rule notes that the Act
contains two sanctions provisions:
1, Section 110(m)? provides the
Administrator with discretion to impose
sanctions at any time on any portion of
the State that she determines is
reasonable and appropriate:
2. Section 179(a) 3 requires the
Administrator to impose sanctions after
specific timeframes if the deficiencies
on which the sanctions are based are net
correctod.
This rulemaking considers the
application of sanctions under section
110(m). However, because section
110(m) and section 179 are interrelated
the preamble to the proposed
rulemaking discussed sanctions under
section 179 (a) and (b) in order to clarify
what is required by section 110(m).
The specific types of sanctions which
may be imposed under section 110(m),
or must be imposed under section
179(a), are listed in section 179(b). Tile
two sanctions provided are a highway
242 USC. seCtion 7410(m).
‘42 U S C. section 7509(a).
Ii is necessary, for clarity’s sake, to understand
that seCtion 179(a) performs two very distinct
functions It defines several types of findings, and
requires EPA to bnpose sanctions if one of these
findings has been made. Section 179(a) (i) through
(4) sale forth the four type. of findings which may
lead to the imposition of. sanction. The
introduction and latter pail of section 179(a)
mandate that at least one sanctIon must be imposed
18 months after a finding has been made with
ruapoct to curtein types of plane If the dufk.ienr.y is
1101 corruc,iod
-------
1478 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 7 / Tuesday, January11 , 1994 / Rules and Regulations
‘unding sanction and a 2:1 offset
anction. Those two sanctions are
lescribed in more detail in the preamble
othe proposed rule (see 57 FR 44535).
Section 179(b) sanctions may be
applied pursuant to section 110(m)
when the Administrator makes a finding
under section 179(a) (1) through (4),
provided that the Agency has followed
all procedural requirements for
imposing a sanction. The Administrator
has no authority under section 110(m),
nor any mandatory duty under section
179(a). to impose sanctions until she has
mod o a finding. The types of findings
providod under section 179(a) are
discussed in more detail in the
preamble to the proposed rule (see 57
FR 44535).
Section 110(m) may be divided into
two distinct parts (see 57 FR 44535).
The first part of section 110(m) contains
four distinct elements:
1. The timing of the imposition of
section 110(m) sanctions;
2. The availability under section
110(m) of the sanctions listed in section
179(b):
3. The reference to a finding.
disapproval, or determination under
section 179(a) (1) through (4); and
4. The geographic scope of
application of sanctions under section
110(m).
The second part requires the
Administrator to propose criteria to be
used when considering the application
of sanctions on a statewide basis under
section 110(m) within 24 months of a
section 179(a) fInding. Although not
central to the purpose of this
rulemaking, EPA presented a detailed
discussion of the four elements referred
to in the first part of section 110(m) in
the proposed rule. The purpose was to
explain how sections 110(m) and 179
provisions are interrelated. As shall be
evident In the “Response to Comments”
section. the preamble language
discussing those four elements was the
basis for numerous comments. The
criteria, which are the basis of this
action, seemed 10 generate significantly
lower comments.
HI. Development of Criteria
The second sentence of section
110(m) requires the Agency to establish
criteria that EPA must apply if the
Agency considers applying sanctions
under section 110(m) one statewide
basis with In 24 months of a section
179(a) finding. These criteria should
enable EPA to determine when a
political subdivision, 5 rather than the
‘In § 52.30(aXI), EPA defines the term political
subdivision as” • the representative body that
Is responsible for adopting endlor implementing air
entire State, is principally responsible
[ or a section 179(a) deflciency. Whore
the political subdivision is principally
responsible, EPA may not impose
sanctions on a statewide basis.
The EPA recognizes that an
understanding of (ho term “principal
responsibility” was integral to the
development of the criteria. l’lso
preamble to the proposed rule contains
a detailed discussion on how a political
subdivision may be held “principally
responsible” fore section 179(a) failure
when the EPA recognizes that the States
have primary responsibility for meeting
the requirements of (ho Act (see 57 FR
44535—36). The EPA believes that the
criteria promulgated today will clearly
indicate when the political subdivision
carries the principal burden of carrying
out an activity.
The EPA is promulgating five criteria
(summarized below) that it believes will
enable a determination of when’n Slate
has relinquished its primary control
over an activity to a political
subdivision and the political
subdivision has failed to perform that
required activity. The EPA believes that
the political subdivision is principally
responsible when the political
subdivision:
1. Has the legal authority to perform
the required activity;
2. Has traditionally performed, or has
been delegated the responsibility to
perform. the required activity;
3. Has received, where appropriate.
adequate funding or authority to obtain
funding from (ho State to perform the
required activity;
4. Hasagreed to perform (and has not
revoked that agreement) or is required to
accept responsibility for performing the
required activity: and
5. Has failod to perform the required
activity.
If one or more political subdivisions
each meet all five of the criteria, EPA
will consider those subdivisions
principally responsible, and EPA may
un pose sanctions only on those political
subdivisions and on other areas (short of
the entire State) for which the Agency
determines reasonable and appropriate.
The EPA would not impose sanctions
statewide. However, if all of the criteria
have not been met by at least one
political subdivision, EPA will use its
discretion to determine whether to
apply sanctions on a statewide basis.
pollution controls for one, or any combination of
one or more of the following: city. town, borough.
county, parish, district, or any other geographical
subdivision created by. or pursuant to. Federal or
State law. This will include any agency designated
under section 174.42 U S.C.. section 7504. by the
State to cari y out the air planning responsibilities
under part 0.”
These five criteria are intended lobe
applicable to SEP failures relating to
stationary, area, and mobile sources.
The EPA believes that the criteria
developed here will enable it to
successfully determino when a political
subdivision is principally responsible
for a deficiency.
IV. Limits of ‘I’hig Rulemaking
Nothing in the Act precludes EPA
from applying sanctions pursuatit 10
section 110(m), without examining the
criteria. ii the Agency ele ts to impose
a sanction on a less-than-statewide basis
or where EPA imposes statewide
sanctions more titan 24 months after a
finding. Furthermore, this rulemaking
does not affect the situation where each
of a group of political subdivisions.
whose combined area comprises the
entire State, suffer a deficiency. The
EPA could impose a sanction on each of
those political subdivisions as an
independent area without applying the
criteria, even though this may appear to
be a statewide sanction. All decisions to
impose section 110(m) sanctions will be
made on a case-by-case basis, and will
be subject to notice’and.comment
rulemaking.
This rule is not intended to identify
which sanction EPA will apply in a
particular circumstance, nor the type of
deficiency for which EPA might use its
discretion to apply sanctions.
Furthermore, it is not intended to
describe the notice and comment
procedures EPA will ultimately use to
impose a sanction pursuant to sect ion
110(m).
V. Response to Comments
The EPA received comments from 15
sources including business associations,
and Federal, State and local govornment
entities. The following section providos
a summary of the responses to major
comments.
A Tire EPA’s interpretation of the
Statutory flequirentents of Section
I iO(nr)
Under this category. the commenters
expressed concern with respect to the
timing of sanctions and the application
of sanctions beyond a nonattainment
area. Although, as stated before, these
issues are not central to the criteria
being promulgated. EPA has responded
to these comments below.
1. Imposition of Sanctions Earlier TItan
18 Months
Comment. l’he Illinois EPA (IEPA)
and the Virginia Department of
Transportation (DOT) believe section
110(m) does not give EPA the authority
to impose sanctions earlier than 18
-------
Federal Register 1 Vol. 59, No. 7 I Tuesday. January 11, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
1479
months after a finding under section
179. These commonters believe it is
incorrect to impose any sanctions
during the 18-month period
immediately following a finding
because section 179 clearly states that
EPA may not impose sanct ions if the
deficiency Is corrected within 18
months. The IEPA believes Congress
Included this 18-month period in
recognition of the magnitude of the
State’s responsibilities under the Act as
well as the limo involved in the
legislative and rulemaking processes.
Also, the Illinois DOT states that
because section 179 is the more detailed
sanctions provision, under established
principles of statutory construction and
interpretation, it must prevail over
section 110(m).
The IEPA suggests that if EPA
determined to impose sanctions earlier
than the 18-month period specified in
section 179. EPA should develop
5l)u(;iIic: criteria for when these early
sanctions will be imposed, and provide
notice and opportunity for potentially
affected parties to comment prior to
Imposing sanctions. The IEPA also
indicates that those criteria are
necessary to avoid placing industries
that are located in States that meet
deadlines In a timely manner at a
competitive disadvantage.
Response. Section 110(m) provides
that the Administrutor ‘ may
apply any of the sanctions listed in
section 179(b) (at any time or at any
tirno after) the Administrator makes a
finding. “ under section 179(a).
ibis language plainly authorizes
sanctiuns without regard to a waiting
period after a finding is made.
The EPA believes that section 179 is
phrased to require sanctions after 18
months not, as the commonters say, to
prohibit sanctions before 18 months.
Section 179 states “for any
hnpleinunt.ation plan or plan revisi4n
required under this part (or required in
re ponsu to a finding of substantial
Ina(loquacy as described in section
I W(kft5)), ii the Administrator linakes a
findangi, unless such doficiwu.y has
boon corrected within 18 months after
the finding ‘one of the sanctions
referred to in subparagraph (b) shall
apply. ‘This provision
intindatorily imposes sanctions at 18
months if the deficiency lies not been
corrected, but does not prohibit
sanctions earlier. Because i.oct ion 179
does not prohibit the earlier application
of sanctions, it does not conflict with
suction 110(m). which provides that
sanctions may be imposed earlier than
18 months. Therefore, there is not a
statutory construction issue of whether
section 179 needs to prevail over section
110(m).
Regarding the request by the IEPA
that EPA develop specific criteria for
when an early sanction wilL be imposed,
the EPA does not believe such criteria
are statutorily required; however, since
EPA will provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on any
sanction action under section 110(m)
through notice-and-comment
rulemaking prior to imposition of the
sanctions, the public will have the
opportunity to comment on EPA’s
rationale for the application of sanctions
earlier than 16-months following the
finding. Although EPA does not intend
to develop specific criteria, Section A(4)
of this preamble provides further
discussion on application of sanctions
earlior than 18-months following a
finding.
As to IEPA’s concern about
competitive disadvantage, imposition of
sanctions under section 110(m) should
benefit sources located in those areas
that make timely submittal of plans and
plan revisions. Rather than delaying
sanctions until 18 months after a
finding, under section 110(m) sanctions
may be applied much earlier than,18
months. ilieroforo, delinquent areas
may be burdened much sooner than the
18-month period under section 179.
Imposition of section 110(m) sanctions
should inhibit any advantage achieved
through delayed submittal of required
plans and revisions.
2. Application of Sanctions Beyond
Nonattainment Areas Commont
Five commonters believe highway
sanctions should not be imposed
outside of a nonattainment area. The
Texas DOT, New York DOT, Illinois’
DOT and IEPA are concerned that EPA
has not extended the nonattainment
limitations of section 179 (a) and (b) to
the imposition of sanctions under
section 110(m). These commentors
indicate that sanctions should apply
only to nonattaininent areas. The
Virginia DOT believes that suction
1i0(iiij sanctions should not extend
beyond a nonattainmnent area, except in
extreme cases (such as where lack of
good faith exists) and after a 24-month
correction period has passed.
The New York DOT and IEPA believe
that EPA’s position regarding the
geographic applicability of offset and
highway sanctions is Inconsistent, and
that the reasoning that is applied to
make the offset sanction applicable to a
specific area should benefit the highway
sanction as well. The IEPA feels that
section 110(m) refers to the section
179(b) sanctions without exempting the
Administrator from complying with the
geographic limitations specified In
section 1 79(b). -
The illinois DOT comments that
section 110(m) allows EPA to sanction
an area less than a whole nonattainment
area if a unit of local government is
really to blame.
The New York and Illinois DOT also
state that since the statute is clear and
understandable on its face, no reference
to legislative history is required or
allowed. The Illinois DOT believes that
section 110(m) should be viewed in
conjunction with section 179(b)(i), and
if Congress had not meant to limit the
use of highway funding sanctions to
nonattainment areas, it would not have
placed that limitation in section 179(b).
The Illinois DOT comments that
Congressman Anderson had prefaced
his remarks as expressing the intent o 1
only four members of the House Public
Works and Transportation Committee.
The commenter noted that in May 1990
the House Energy and Commerce
Committee sent out a version of the
Amendments with no limit in section
179 (h) on the area for sanctions (see H.
Rap. No. 140. 101st Cong., 2d Sess., Part
1). The House Public Works Committee
responded with a report of Its own at
that time amending section 110(m) and
repeating almost the same words quoted
by EPA in the proposed rulemaking.
Congressman Anderson’s words may
have been on the point then, but they
did not agree with the language of
section 179(b) the way it was finally
passed by Congress.
Also, the Illinois DOT cites the House
Conference Committee Report which
accompanied the final version of the Act
as evidence that sanctions are to be
limited to nonattainment areas (H. Rep.
No. 952, 101st Cong.. 2d Sess. 335—6;
Cong. Rec. H1310 1, 13197; Oct. 26,
1990; 1990 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm.
News 3385, 3867—8 (Discussing
tmposition of sanctions” in an
area that falls to prepare or implement
a plan to attain air quality
standards.
fle ponse. To address the concerns of
all five comnmentors. EPA believes that
section 110(m) and section 179,
although interrelated, do set up two
distinct sanctions processes. In general,
section 179 provides for mandatory
sanctions with respect to failures uneer
part D (in general, the nonaltainmont
area provisions). As provided in the
proposed rule, section 179 focuses on
nonattainment areas in several respects
(see 57 FR 44536—37). First, the general
in)roductory language of section 179(a)
provides that sanctions must be
imposed for a failure with respect to
* any implementation plan or
plan revision required under this
-------
1480 Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 7 I Tuesday. January 11, i o4 I Rules and Regulations
* “ Tho provision is referring
part D of title I, (lie portion of the Act
ding with nonattainment area
luirements. While some part D
requirements may also apply to
attainment areas in Iinhitc(l
.iruiinstances, the primary focus of part
I) is nonat(ainiiient areas. Second. the’
highway sanction language expressly
limits the application of sanctions under
sm.tion 179(o) to nonottainineni areas.
Finally. the offset sanction requires new
or modified sources in complying with
the requirements of section 173 to
increase their offsets to 2:1. Typically.
only sources in nonattainnient areas
need to comply with section 173 and.
therefore, in most instances (lie offset
sanction will only affect sources in
nonotlainment areas. For the above
reasons, EPA believes that section
179(n) does not require statewide
imposition of sanctions.
On the other hand. section 110(m)
clearly provides for the imposition of
sanctions beyond nonottainment areas.
The express language of section 110(m)
provides that the Administrator may
impose sanctions on” • any portion
of the State the Administrator
determines reasonable and
_.oppropriate. “ Ueyond that.
:tion 110(m) provides for the
;crctioiiary imposition of sanctions for
inding that an area has failed to meet
any requirement with respect to any
‘plan or plan item” under the Act. Such
requirements could apply to
nonattainment, attainment, or
unclassified areas. Although section
110(m) refers to the sanctions
established in section 179(b). there is no
language stating that the geographical
limitations in section 179 override
section 1 10(mis express authorization
for sanctions on any part of the State
that EPA determines reasonable and
appropriate. Section 110(m) refers only
to the sanctions themselves, not the
accompanying limitations. For the
above reasons, EPA believes that section
110(m) does establish Its own
geographic scope.
The Virginia DOT suggests that EPA
should limit application of section
110(m) sanctions beyond the
nonottainment area to circumstances
where there is a lock of good faith.
While EPA may take good faith into
consideration in determining the
geographic scope of section 110(m)
sanctions. EPA does not agree that it
should establish lack of good faith as a
prerequisite for imposition of section
_1 10(m) sanctions beyond the
iottalnment area.
Vith respect to the comment of
nois DOT that EPA can sanction less
than on entire nonattainment area, the
Agency agrees that under section
I 10(n l)’s broad grant of authority for (lie
imposition of discretionary sanctions,
EPA may select an area smaller than (lie
nonottainment area.
The IEPA cutnmnwits that EPA is
treating the geographic limitations of the
highway and offset sanctions dilferwitly
and that EPA should s y that highway
SHIR.tiolls are also liiiiik’d in s oi n. ‘Ilto
El’A disagrees. First, we believe that
both sanctions may be imposed Ofi ally
portion of the Slate. However, by its
method of applical ion, the offset
sanction will emily have effect in those
areas that must apply (lie emission
offset requirements of section 173.
Therefore, the offset sanction would
have no effect in certain areas. The
highway sanction is not self-limiting;
therefore, it will have a broader effect.
Second, the EPA did not rely Oil
legislative history to override statutory
language, hut rather to support statutory
language that grants EPA discretion to
apply sa.:ctions to other than
nonattainment areas. The Illinois DOT
bases its argument that the legislative
history does not support the imposition
of sanctions beyond the nonattainmnent
area on an assumption that section
110(m) does not provide an
independent grant of authority to
impose sanctioi s. However, the Act
does provide two separate grants of
sanction authority with different.
geograpjiic scopes; this is supported by
the language of the Act, as described
above, and by the legislative authority.
The language from H. ConE. Rep. No.
101—952 that references the imposition
of sanctions on on area that fails to
attain (lie air quality standard appears to
refer to the imposition of sanctions
under section 179 because it discusses
the required imposition of sanctions.
The language cited by EPA in the
preamble to the proposed rule addresses
a different grant of statutory authority to
impose sanctions, namely. that
authority under section 110(m). In
additIon, Illinois DOT cites Ii. Rep. No.
101—490, which clearly provides that
EPA may impose sanctions beyond
nonattainment areas by stating that EPA
a •isempoweredtoapply
sanctions to any portion of a State.” Time
committee goes on to clarify how it
believes EPA should use this broad
grant of authority, indicating that EPA
should impose sanctions on the
governmental entity that is “primarily
responsible.” and noting that a State
legislature’s failure to adopt an
inspectionlmaintenance program is a
circumstance where statewide sanctions
are appropriate.
3. Section 110(m) Docs Not Estahli 5ll
Independent Authority to Sand ion
comiiicnr. The Virginia DOT bclie ’es
section 179 is the basis for im losiIlg
smi tions H 1 1(1 is hot u’ persodei I l ’
section 11(1(1 ,,) Furthiernmore, tlui
Virgiuuin I )t)1 uouiuui,’nts that c m” tiotu
1 10(m) exi lamiulS mm scct ion I7 by
m u:qii i ri ill; that au mu hI it tonal i ii iii iI’! 11111 6-
llUi!llhI gracn lieriwl must be lisi i v .’d
nrtr.r the initial 18-month period (i e . 24
muiwitlis) before samictions may be
impose(l n a statewide basis where a
political Sul K 1 ivision is principally
responsible for the deficiency. The City
of Chicago comments that EPA’s
proposed imposition of statewide
sanctions under section 110(m) as an
altemajive to section 179 would vitiate
section 179. Once EPA determines none
of the political subdivisions meet the
criteria, and tilus the entire State is
principally respotlsihlo for a section
179(n) deficiency, EPA is bound by tIme
Tequiroments of section 179.
Rm’spoiise. ‘rile EPA agrees that
sanctions cannot be imposed stalowide
within the first 24 months following a
finding where a political subdivision is
found principally responsible for the
deficiency. However, EPA disagrees that
section 179 provides the solo authority
for inlposing sanctions and, In doing so.
allows for the imposition of statewide
sanctions. As discussed in the responsu
to Comment 2 above, section 179 does
not refer to the imposition of statewide
sanctions and, in fact, focuses on the
imposition of sanctions In
nonattainment areas. In fact, tile EPA
believes the reference to statewide
sanctions under section 110(m) makes it
clear thet section 110(m) establishes a
different authority to sanction States
and that statewide sanctions are not
required under section 179. Section
110(m) provides that statewide
sanctions shall not ho applied within 24
months of the time a finding is made if
a political subdivision is principally
responsible for the doficiency; this
provision means that statewide
sanctions may be imposed earlier than
24 months if no political subdivision is
found principally responsible. If section
179 required statewide sanctions after
18 months, it would be contrary to the
section 110(m) provision that sanctions
shall not apply within the 24 months
following the finding if a political
subdivision is principally responsible
for the deficiency. Therefore, EPA
believes that its ability to impose
statewide sanctions during the 24-
month period following a finding is
based on a determination under section
110(m) that a political subdivision is not
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
1481
principally responsible for the
deficiency.
Suction 110(m) does not vitiate
section 179 because section 179
sanctions are not statowidu but are
imposed on the spe.ific area for which
thu deficicacy arises, in most instances
iunuitlaiiinluilt areas As state l
pni iuiisl y. set:tlnn I Yfi ,naii&Ldos that
;iou.tItiiis ho iinpo uil lii months dl i i i a
finding is made. Whale the imposition of
sanctions earlier under section 11(1(m)
could remove the need to impose
sanctions under section 179 sanctions in
that area, section 179 has continued
force and effect in areas where section
110(m) sanctions are not imposed. The
EPA does not believe that imposition of
sanctions under section 110(m) conflicts
with section 179 sanctions. Application
of sanctions earlier than 18 months is
not inconsistent because EPA believes
the purpose of section 179 was to ensure
that EPA did not delay sanctions
beyond the periods proscribed in that
action.
4. Regulatory Limitation on Early
Imposition of Sanctions
Comment. The United States
Department of Transportation (U.S.
DOT) recommends adding a statement
to the rule that EPA expects to impose
sanctions on a statewide basis earlier
than 18 months only In limited
circumstances, after notice-and-
comment rulemaking.
Response. This statement was not in
the proposed rule and EPA believes it
should not be included in the final rule.
The EPA stated in the preamble to the
proposed rule that It would only apply
sanctions eariy in “unusual
circumstances where the State has
indicated explicit resistance to working
to resolve a plan deficiency” (see 57 FR
44534). The final rule revises this
preamble language because EPA
believes the term “unusual
circumstances” provides little guidance
as to when EPA intended to use its
discretionary sanction authority.
While EPA does not intend to use the
section 110(m) authority in all
situations where a finding is made, the
Agency needs to ascertain that it has the
floxibility to use this option when
necessary. In order to develop some
plans or plan items, States must perform
certain steps that EPA can track to
determine whether the State will meet
deadlines In the Act. When a State
believes that EPA can impose sanctions
only after a deadline is missed and 18
mouths have goiiu by. then there is little
incentive for the Slate to take the
necessary actions to complete
authorization end implementation of
politically-difficult rules and
regulations. The EPA needs to maintain
its flexibility to respond rapidly to
situations whore it appears a State will
not moot a deadline, and to assure the
State that it does not, in fact, have an
extbnded grace period for
nomu:mnpliauace. The certainty and
swiftness of imposition of tho Act’s
los BrU i Ii ical to tiniuly
toiiiplut lou of the SiP’s. consequently.
the revised language, clarifies EPA’s
position concerning when discretionary
sanctions may be appropriate while
retaining EPA’s flexibility to use such
sanctions to ensure compliance with the
Act. Thus, EPA will exercise section
110(m) sanctions earlier than 18 months
only in cases where:
1. The State has indicated an explicit
resistance to resolving a plan or program
deficiency or to making a requiredplan
or program submittal; or
2. Where special circumstances, -
particular program needs, or time
constraints dictate the need for use of
such sanctions.
Thus, the rule retains the
Administrator’s discretion to apply
sanctions at any time after a finding ia -
made; however, EPA will provide potlc
and opportunity for comment on the
basis for all section 110(m) actions.
B. EPA Discretion to Del ennine the
“Reasonable and Appropriate” Area for
Imposition of Sanctions
1. Comment. The City of Chicago
believes the discretion in § 52.30(d)—
that ii the criteria are met EPA may
Impose sanctions on a less than
statewide basis to the area It determines
is reasonable and appropriate—was not ,r
Congress’ intent In enacting section
110(m). The City of Chicago believes
EPA’s only discretion is whether to
apply sanctions to political subdivisions
that meet the criteria. Thus, the City of
Chicago believes EPA has no basis to
apply sanctions when the criteria are
not met (i.e., to apply sanctions to
political subdivisions that were thought
to be principally responsible, but did
not meet the criteria, an4 to any other
surrounding political subdivisions EPA
determines is reasonable and
appropriate) and that to apply sanctions
to these areas is arbitrary and
capricious.
Response. Section 110(m) states that
sanctions may be applied to any portion
of the State the Administrator
determines reasonable and appropriate,
with one exception. If one or more
political subdivisions are principally
responsible for the deficiency, sanctions
may not be applied statewide.
Therefore, if the criteria are met, i.e., a
political subdivision is principally
responsible, then EPA may not impose
sanctions on a statewide basis.
However, if no political subdivision is
principally responsible, the text of
section 110(m) expressly authorizes
EPA to move forward and impose
sanctions an a statewide basis. The EPA
would make a determination, however,
concerning what area of the State for
which sanctions would he reasonable
and appropriate. Furthermore, EPA is
not required to establish criteria to
determine the area of the State for
which it is reasonable and appropriate
to apply sanctions under section
110(m).
2. Comment. Four commenters, New
York DOT, the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA), the
City of Chicago, and the U.S. DOT,
requested clarification of how EPA will
determine the “reasonable and
appropriate” area to apply sanctions.
The City of Chicago and the U.S. DOT
assert that the statute requires su h
clarification. The New York DOT
believes that the lack of adequate
guidance on what area is “reasonable
and appropriate” will create confusion -
and continual uncertainty on the part of
States as well as Federal agencies. The
New York DOT suggests that the prime
consideration should be whether a good
faith effort has been made to bring the
nonattalnment area Into compliance.
The New York DOT believes that if this
Issue Is not addressed in this
rulemaking, it should be the subject of
another rulemaking.
The OCT/i cites the example of
California, which consistsof several
regional authorities, which, in turn,
each consist of several local
jurisdictions. The OCTA is concerned
about how EPA would Impose sanctions
in the case where a regional authority
contains several Local jurisdictions and
where a local authority failed to do
everything mandated by a regional plan.
The commenter believes it would be
more reasonable and appropriate to
apply sanctions to the single local
jurisdiction, not the regional authority.
In addition to assuring that the State
does not suffer sanctions if one political
subdivision Is principally responsible
for the deficiency, the commentor
suggests that EPA assure that regions
within a State would not be subject to
sanctions if one or more local
Jurisdictions is/are principally
responsible for the deficiency.
The U.S. DOT comments that in
situations where a nonàttainment area
contains multiple political subdivisions,
none of which are principally
responsible according to the five
criteria, the rule must clarify how EPA
will determine whether to apply
sanctions to the specific responsible
-------
1482 Federal Register I Vol. 59,No . 7 / Tuesday, January 11, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
political subdivision(s) rather than the
entire nonattainmont area.
The City of Chicago and U.S. DOT
assort thai the statutory mandate to
promulgate criteria is not limited to the
determination of principal
responsibility. These commenters argue
that EPA must also develop criteria to
determine when the imposition of
sanctions would be reasonable and
appropriate, and the criteria should be
sufficient to put potentially affected
political subdivisions on notice of the
activities or agreements which may put
them at risk of sanctions.
Response. SectIon 110(m) specifically
provides that EPA may impose
sanctions on any part of the State that
EPA deems is reasonable and
appropriate. Section 110(m) then
requires that EPA “ establish
criteria for exercising (this) authority
a a a to ensure that I a a such
sanctions are not applied on 8 statewide
basis where one or more political
subdivisions covered by the applicable
implementation plan are principally
responsible for such deficiency.” The
EPA believes this language strictly
limits the required development of
criteria to those necessary to determine
if a political subdivision is principally
responsible for the deficiency. There is
no requirement that the criteria must
guide EPA’s further decision of which
area is ‘reasonable and appropriate” for
the imposition of sanctions. At this
time. EPA does not have experience
with Imposing these sanctions and,
therefore, does not want to constrain the
Agency in the exercise of this
discretion. The variety of circunisthnces
would make it difficult to develop
criteria that would be applicable in
every instance. As to the comments of
the City of Chicago and the U.S. DOT
that EPA needs to establish criteria for
when it will impose sanctions under
section 110(m), EPA does not beliçve
that such criteria are mandated. The
public will have an opportunity to
comment on EPA’s determination of the
area on which it will Impose sanctions
and the timing of sanctions during each
specific section 110(m) rulemaking
action.
C. Selection and Design of Criteria
Under this category, the commenters
focused their particular concerns on the
sanction criteria.
1. Comment. The OCTEt suggests that
the rule clarify that all five criteria are
to be met, not merely used, by EPA to
determine if a subdivision is principally
responsible for the deficiency. The
OCTEt suggosts the following language;
“Criteria. The EPA will use the
following five criteria, all of which must
be met, to determine whether a political
subdivision is principally responsible
for the deficiency.”
Response. The EPA agrees with this
comment but determined that language
other than that suggested would be
clearer. Therefore, EPA has revised
§ 52.30(d)(1) to read as follows: “For the
purposes of this action, EPA will
consider a political subdivision to he
principally responsible for limo
deficiency on which a section 179(n)
finding is based, if all five of the
following criteria are met.”
2. Comment. The Now York DOT
comments that the necessity for all five
criteria to be met is overly strict and
biased toward imposition of sanctions
statewide, and it may be difficult to
establish that all five have been met.
Therefore, the New York DOT suggests
that only a majority (three out of five)
be met.
Response. The EPA believes a lJive
criteria are needed to determine
whether a political subdivision is
principally responsible. The EPA sees
no compelling reason to weaken this
requirement. In addition, the failure to
determine that one or more areas are
principally responsible does not
presuppose the imposition of statewide
sanctions: the EPA must determine that
the area sanctioned is the reasonable
and appropriate area.
3. Comment. The U.S. DOT requests
clarification of what State actions are
necessary to provide adequate legal
authority under time proposed Criterion
1. Criterion I states that the Stato must
provide adequate legal authority to a
political subdivision to perform the
required activity.
Response. The EPA does not bçlievo
that there is a single distinct definition
of the term “legal authority.” What
constitutes adequate legal authority may
vary from State to State. This should be
handled on a cnse.by.caso basis.
4. Coinnment. The Now York IXYI ’
comments that under the proposed
Criterion 2 l 52.30(c)(2)j, there must be
a very clear agreement in the SIP or
some other document as to which
functions are to be performed by which
agencies. For example, functions
traditionally performed by local
agencies may not be performed that way
under the intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
Response. The EPA agrees with the
commenter and encourages States to
develop clear agreements as to which
functions are being performed by which
agencies. Note in particular that section
174 of the Act requires States to jointly
review and update, as necessary, their
planning procedures that woro in effect
before the Act was amended in 1990 or
to develop new procedures as
appropriate. In preparing such
procedures. State end local eleued
officials must dotormino which
elements of a revised SIP will ho
developed, adopted, and imnplenmentwl
by the State. and which elements will be
carried out by local or regional entities.
The EPA has provided guidance on this
and other section 174 requirements in a
document entitled “1992 ‘l’ransporlntion
and Air Quality Planning Guidoliumes”
(July 1992. EPA 4201R—92—O01). The
EPA will work with the State and the
political subdivision to ascertain if this
criterion has been met. In addition, any
comments raised as to this issue during
tIme rulemaking process on a specific
sect!pn 110(m) action will be properly
considered by EPA.
5. Comment. Concerning Criterion 4
I 52.30(cJ(4)I, the U.S. DOT also
comments there should be a prbvision
included to provide against “State
failure.” If a local agency cancels aim
agroement to perform a certain functiom ,
it might leave the State without the time
or resources to peujonn the function.
Thus, the State, instoad of the local
agency, would become principally
responsible. Time U.S. DOT believes it
would be inappropriate to apply
statewide sanctions In such a case.
Response. If the local agency cancels
its agreement to perform a function.
EPA would take this into consideration
when determining whether the political
subdivision is principally rospumisilila iii
causing time deficioncy. Moreover. Ibis
factor may be considered in determumiumiuig
the area to which it is reasonable and
appropriate to apply sanctions. The EPA
can consider all factors In determining
what area is reasonable and appropriate.
6. comment. The Massachusetts DOl
believes the rule should contain a
specific provision for State consultation
in determining principal responsibility
because many factors such as regional
demographic trends, changing local
traffic patterns, amid land-use decisions
in adjoining areas have a larger impact
on emissions than institutional
arrangements for air quality planning.
The proposed criteria may be the best
way to evaluate whether the State or time
political subdivision is solely
responsiblo for time emissions
requirements, but it may not bo relevant
in targeting the actual source of the
problem or in defining solutions.
Response. To the extent it determines
appropriate, EPA will consult with the
State when evaluating the criteria under
section 110(m). In any event, tim Stato
will havo ndcquato opportunity to raise
aimy such omicurmis in time conmument
period following the notice of proposed
-------
- Federal Register / Vol. 59. No;- ? I Tuesday, January ‘ -ii; 1994 1’ RUlo s’ii d Regülat1on “‘1483
rulemaking for imposition of section
110(m) sanctions.
D. Other Relevant Comments
1. Comment. The State of Vermont
comments that it is the only State in
attainment with the ozone national
ambient air quality standards and also
located within the Northeast Ozone
Transport Region. Vermont requests
clarification in the rule of whether
attainment status or Inclusion in the
ozone transport region (OTR) is the
deciding factor with respect to
applicability of these rules.
Response. Neither attainment status
nor inclusion in the OTR Is the deciding
factor. Under suction 110(m). EPA may
impose sanctions on a statewide basis or
on any area of the State deemed
roasolml)lo and appropriato l)asod on the
failure of the State or a political
gubdivision of the State to meet a
requirement of the Act with respect to
a plan or plan element. If a requirement
is applicable to a political subdivision
of the State, Ei’A will determine
whether that political subdivision was
principally responsible for the failure,
using the criteria established in this
rulemaking. The EPA’s ability to use the
section 1Iti(m) sanctions is not limited
to nonattainment areas or areas that
must meet the title I, part D
nonattaiiinient requirements.
2. Conimciil. The City of Chicago
comments that the term “required
activity” contravenes the definition of
required activity in section 179 and
permits EPA to sanction ontitios without
providing ally prior notice that EPA
considers a particular action to be
sanctionablo. The City of Chicago also
comments that since section 110(m)
inc.orporatus section 179(a). EPA is not
permitted to create a second, conflicting
definition. Ftii tliermore, the proposed
deli ni tioii h Ii ’S uiot identify covered
, t iv it ins. miii ii tines m it give ulit ii mus
P °” ulutu u of baulctl000blu activities?
Finally, the City of Chicago is Loncorned
about (lie ambiguity of the defluition
and that it may moan EPA is expanding
tho definition from section 17 9(u).
Response. Section 179(a) does not
define ruqiiirod activity. Rather, EPA
believes this introductory phrase under
soc.tioii 179(a) refers to submittals
required under part D of thu Act. Thu
four general categories of activities
listed in section 179(a) are the four
possil)lo typos of State failure with
respect to the required activilios under
part D. The typus of failure are not
synonymous with required activities
undor the introductory language of
section 179(a). Finally, the City of
Chicago contends that the definition of
“required activity” is too opon.ended
because of the language “may include,
but Is not limited to.”
The EPA interprets the term “required
activity” for purposes of section 110(m)
in a manner similar to that for section
179(a); however, EPA recognizes that for
section 110(m), “requIred activity”
refers to any plan or plan item
requirement under the Act, not just
those required under part D. Finally,
EPA agrees that the language “may
include, but is not limited to” may
provide broader authority than that
granted under section 110(m).
Therefore. EPA has changed the
definition in the final rule to provide:
“The term ‘required activity’ refers to
the submission of a plan or plan item or
the implementation of a plan or plan
item under the Clean Air Act.”
3. Conunent. The OCI’A and the U.S.
DOT request clarification of the term
“political subdivision.” Both
commenters appear concerned about
whether EPA in making a determination
of “principal responsibility” may’
consider less than (ho entire
nonattainmant area. The OCTA notes
that California has several regional
authorities that each are composed of
numerous local jurisdictions. These
local jurisdictions often have the
responsibility for “adopting and
implementing air pollution controls.”
Response. The definition of”political
subdivision” set forth in § 52.30(a)(1) -
includes all types of governmental
entities, including local jurisdictions.
The EPA could sanction less than an
entire nonattainment area based on a
determination that a local jurisdiction
was principally responsible for the
deficiency on which the sanction is
based
4. Corn :pent. The OCTA comments
that the proposed rule should include a
definition of “plan item.” The OCFA
notes that sw.Iiwi 1 lt)(mn) roads iii part
in relation to any plan or plan
item (as that term IS defined by the
Administrator), a a a” The OCTA cites
the example of the California SIP, which
is partially composed of regional plans.
Some regional plans require local
jurisdictions to take certain actions,
which to the ommuntor appear to be
plan items.
Response As discussed earlier, to
make this clearer, EPA replaces the
phrase “adequate SIP or SIP element”
under § 52.30(iI)(2) with the phrase
“plan or plan item.” Although EPA
intorpreted the phrase “adequate SIP or
SIP element” to essentially mean the
same as the phrase “plan or plan item,”
this roplacement is more consistent with
the language of section 110(m) which
refers to “plan or plan Item.” “Plan and
plan item” are also defined under
§ 52.30(a)(4).
E. Comments on Policy Stated In
Preamble to Proposed Rule
1. Choice of Sanctions
Comment. The Texas DOT, the
Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA), and the Northwest Indiana
Regional Planning Commission (N!RPC)
asked EPA to Ideptify which sanction
will be applied for various types of SIP
deficiencies. These commenters all state
that the sanction should be tied to the
underlying deficiency. For example, the
commenters state that highway
sanctions should only be applied when
there is a SIP deficiency relative to
mobile sources and the offset sanction
where the deficiency Is relative to
stationary sources. The CMA
recommends adding extra language to
the rule as follows: “The EPA will
assess the nature of the deficiencies and
take this into account when determining
which sanction to apply.”
The NIRPC further asserts that only
those projects which have the potential
for increasing emissions should be
targeted; withholding highway funds
which may correct a problem is
inappropriate.
Response. The type of sanction to be
applied and the selection procedure are
not part of this rulemaking. Sanction
determinations will be made on a case-s
by.case basis. The EPA will go through
notice.and-comment rulemaking on
selection and imposition of sanctions
under section 110(m). The notice will
propose for comment which sanctions
or sanction wlli be applied. in addition,
the Ad sets forth those projects
exempted from the highway funding
restrictions. The EPA will act
consistently with the requirements of
the Act In imposing the highway
Itimiding restrictions.
2. Iinpac.t of Rule on Title 23 Funds
Comment. The American Public
Transit Association is concerned about
how EPA’s sanction determination
process could affect the process and
procedures of transferring flexible funds
(i.e., certain title 23 program funds)
fm -em highway to transit purposes. The
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority requests
clarification of how any imposed
restrictions on highway funds would
affect funds previously flexed to transit
as provided for in the ISTEA.
Response. This rulemaking Is not
intended to address how the highway
sanctions will be implemented. The
EPA is in the process of developing
procedures with the U.S. DOT to
-------
1484 Federal_Register/Vol. 59, No. 7 I Tuesday, January 11, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
provide for the coordinated
iniplcinontaiion of the highway
sanction. The EPA and the U.S. DOT
will develop procedures consistent with
the specifications in section 170(b).
3. Authority to Sanction For Failure to
Implement
Comment. The Massachusetts DOT
comments that EPA’s authority to
sanction a State il” a a a requirement
clan approved plan is not being
implemented is too broad, given the
large number of agencies, regulatory
authorities, and group interests which
can prevent a planned project from
being implemented.” Instead, a State’s
eood faith effort to implement an
approved project should be identified as
an exception to this policy.
Response. The types of findings that
may lead to the imposition of sanctions
are specified in the Act; they are not
being developed by this rulemaking.
Therefore, once a finding of failure to
implement a plan has been made,
section 179(a) requires that (he 18-
month mandatory sanctions clock
begins. Furthermore, any finding made
under section 179(a) provides EPA with
discretion to impose sanctions under
section 110(m).
4. Clarification of Offset Sanction
Comment. The Massachusetts DOT
requests clarification of the requirement
for a 2:1 emissions reduction from
existing sources to offset emissions from
major new facilities. The Massachusetts
DOT believes it is not reasonable to
require reductions from existing. older
or congested facilities before major new
improvements are made.
Response. The procedure by which
facilities offset emissions is noL the
subject of this rulemaking. Those issues
must be resolved in regulations adopted
by the State pursuant to the
requirements of section 173.
VI. Miscellaneous
A. Relationship to Permit Progmm
The Act includes specific sanctions
provisions for permitting requirements
in section 502(d) and (i), 42 U.S.C.,
7661a(d) and (i). The section 110(m)
sanctions procedure does not apply
with respect to findings regarding
permit program failures.
B. Exccutive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) the Agency
must determine whether the regulatory
action is “significant” and Lhereloro
subject to 0MB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines “significant
regulatory action’ as one that is likely
to result iii a nile thai iiiav:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
ec.onomy of $100 million or more or
adversely affuict in a material way the
economy. producii vity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities;
(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 thoreof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
sot forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866,0MB has notified EPA
that this action is a “signifitant
regulatory action” within the meaning
of the Executive Order. For this mason,
this action was submitted to 0MB for
review. Changes made in response to
0MB suggestions or recommendations
will be documented in the public
record.
G. Regu!otoiy Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C
605(b), the Administrator hereby
certifies that tho attached rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Since the rule requires EPA to consider
criteria before applying sanctions on a
statewide basis, it potentially could
result in a reduced burden on small
entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain
any information collection requirements
subject to review by 0MB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Oione. Carbon
monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur
dioxide, PM—la, Sanctions.
Dated December 29. 1993
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATiONS PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follo ’s:
Aulhoriiy: 42 U S.C 740 l—7671q
2. I ’arl 52 is ninemled by adding a
iiew § 52 3(1 to suilqmrt A to tu’a(l as
fullot ’s’
§ 52.30 Criteria for limiting application of
sanctions under section 1 tO(nij of the Clean
Air Act on a statewide basis.
(a) I .)i2fiuI.tions For the purpose of this
sodion:
I) ‘lime term “political subdivision”
refers to the representative body that is
responsible for adopting and/or
implementing air pollution controls for
one, or any combination of one or more
of the following: city, town, borough,
county. parish, district, or any other
geographical subdivision created by. or
pursuant to, Federal or State law. This
will include any agency designated
pnder section 174.42 USC. 7504. by
the Slate to carry out the air planning
responsibilities under part D.
(2) The term “required activity”
means the submission ole plan or plan
item, or the implementation of a plan or
plan item.
(3) The term “deficiency” means the
failure to perfonn n required e.tivity as
defined in paragrnph (a)(2) of ib is
sect ion.
(4) For purposes of § 52.30. the terms
“plan” or “plan item” mean an
implemnentetion plan or portion olan
implementation plan or action needed
to prepare such plan required by the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1000, or
in response to a SIP call issued pursuant
to section 110(k)(5)of the Act,
(b) Sanctions During the 24 months
after a findirg, determination, or
disapproval under section 179(n) of the
Clean Air Act is mado, EPA wilt not
impose sanctions under section 110(m)
of the Act en a statewide basis if the
Administrator finds that one or more
political subdivisions of the State are
principally responsible for the
deficiency on which the finding,
disapproval, or determination as
provided under section 179(a)(1)
through (4) is based.
(c) Griteria. For the purposes of this
provision, EPA will consider a political
subdivision to be principally
responsible for the deficiency on which
a section 179(a) finding is based, if all
five of the following criteria are met.
(1) The State has provided auieqnate
legal authority to a political suludivisiomi
to perform the required activity.
(2) ‘Ike require(l activity is une which
has traditionally been performed by the
local political subdivision, or tim
responsibility for performing t lie
required activity has been delegated to
the political subdivision.
(3) ‘The State has provided adequate
Funding or authority to obtain funding
(when funding is necessary to carry out
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 11. 1994/Rules and Regulations
1485
the required activity) to the political
subdivision to perform the required
activity.
(4) Thu political subdivision has
iq n,iiil to imrloriii (and luis not revoked
lhiit agiuuiiient). or is required by State
law to u(:cupt responsibility for
performing, the required activity.
(5) The political subdivision has
failed to perform the required activity.
(d) Imposition of sanctions. (I) If all
of the Criteria in paragraph (ci of this
section have been met through the
action or ina(.tion of ono political
subdivision, EPA will not impose
sanctions on a statewide basis.
(2) If not all of the criteria In
paragraph (c) of this section have been
mel through (lie action or inaction of
Gnu political subdivision, EPA will
determine the area for which it is
reasonable and appropriate to apply.
sanctions.
1FR Dec. 94—551 Filed 1—10—94; 8.45 anil
SILUNG CODE 6 5 10-60-P
40 CFR Part 52
(ND4—1-6670 , UTS—I-5842; FRL-4823-eJ
Clean Air Act Approval and
Promulgation of Title V, Section 507,
Small Business Stationary Source
Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Programs for
the States of North Dakota and Utah
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AC11ON: Final rulemaking.
SUMMARY: On August 25, 1993 EPA
published the notices of proposed
ruloma king to approve the Stale
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the States of North Dakota
and Utah for the purpose of establishing
a Small Business Stationary Source
Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program
(PROGRAM) in each State. The
implementation plans were submitted
by the States to satisfy the Federal
mandate, found in section 507 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). to ensure that
small businesses have access to the
technical assistance and regulatory
information necessary to comply with
the AA. The rationale for the approval
was sot forth in thu proposals. NI)
coiuhiieuils were received pursuant to
these proposed actions. Therefore, EPA
is proceeding with its approval of the
revisions to the North Dakota and Utah
SIPs for establishing a PROGRAM In
each State.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become
effective on February 10.1994.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are available for
public inspection dining normal
t)usiness hours at: Air Programs Branch.
Envlrounwiital Protection Agency,
Region VIII 990 18th Street, Suite 500,
Denver, Colorado 80202—2405.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Farris, Mail Code—8ART-AP,
USEPA Region VIII. 999 18th Street.
Suite 500. Denver, Colorado 80202—
2405, (303) 294—7539.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background of Revisions
Implementation of the provisions of
the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in
1990. will require regulation of many
small businesses so that areas may
attain and maintain (lie National
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and reduce the emission of air toxics.
Small businesses frequently lack the
technical expertise and financial
resources necessary to evaluate such
regulations and to determine the
appropriate mechanisms for
compliance. In anticipation of the
impact of these requirements on small
businesses, the CA.A requires that States
adopt a Small Business Stationary
Source Technical and Environmental
Compliance Assistance Program
(PROGRAM), and submit this
PROGRAM as a revision to the federally
approved SIP. In addition, the CAA
directs the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to oversee these small
business assistance programs and report
to Congress on their Implementation.
The requirements for establishing a
PROGRAM are set out In section 507 of
title V of the CAA. In February 1992,
EPA Issued Guidelines for the
Implemeqtotion of section 507 of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, in
order to delineate the Federal and State
roles In meeting the new statutory
provisions and as a tool to provide
further guidance to the States on
submitting acceptable SIP revisions.
The States of North Dakota and Utah
submitted SIP revisions to EPA in order
to satisfy the requirements of section
507 of the CAA. In order to gain full
approval, the State’s submittals must
provide for each of the following
PROGRAM elements:
(1) The establishment of a Small
Business Assistance Program (SBAP) to
provide technical and compliance
assistance to small businesses required
by section 507(a);
(2) The establishment of a State Small
Business Ombudsman to represent the
interests of small businesses in the
regulatory process which is required by
section 507(a)(3); and
(3) The creation of a Compliance
Advisory Panel (CAP) to determine and
report on the overall effectiveness of the
SBAP required by section 507(e).
II. Summary of Submiltals
The State of North Dakota has met all
of the requirements of section 507 of the
CAA by submitting a SIP revision that
implements all required PROGRAM
elements. N.D.C.C. sections 23—25—02
and 23—25—03 grants the Department the
authority to undertake the elements of
the PROGRAM. The Governor, through
Executive Order 1992—5, established the
Small Business Compliance Advisory
Panel. The North Dakota State
Department of I Icalth and Consolidated
Laboratories (the Department) formally
adopted the SiP revision on October 23,
1992, which identifies a plan to
implement the PROGRAM. This SIP
revision Is being added to the North
Dakota SIP as section 12. The North
Dakota PROGRAM was submitted to
EPA by the Governor of North Dakota on
November 2, 1992, and was initially
reviewed for administrative and
technical completeness. In a letter dated
December 15. 1992. EPA requested
additional Information from the State in
order to make a positive determination
on the submittal. After receiving the
additional information on January 18,
1993, EPA notified the State In a letter
dated February 2, 1993, that the
submittal was administratively and
technically completes The submittal
then underwent review by EPA
headquarters, and received a
concurrence from all reviewers.
The State has met the first PROGRAM
element by committing in its SIP
revision section 12.5 to meet the six
requirements set forth in section
507(a)(3J for the Small Business
Assistance Program. The State has met
the second PROGRAM element by
locating the position of the Small
Business Ombudsman in the Office of
the Chief of the Environmental Health
Section effective AprIl 6, 1992, as stated
in its SIP revision section 12.3. The
State has met the third PROGRAM
element through Executive Order 1992—
5 dated May 21, 1992, issued by the
Governor of North Dakota, which
established a Small Business
Compliance Advisory Panel in the State
of North Dakota. and by outlining in its
SIP revision section 12.4 the functions
of the CAP and how the members will
be determined, which is consistent with
section 507(e). Additionally, the State of
North Dakota has established a
mechanism for ascertaining the
eligibility of a source to receive
assistance under the PROGRAM,
including an evaluation of a source’s
-------
ThuNday)
August 41994
EnvlrónméñtàJ
Protéctioñ; Agency -
4&CFR Part 52
Clean Air Act Sanctlàns FInalRuI ànd. -•
Notice’:
—
-..
— - —
—
a
-------
39832 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regul tions
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON. B. Coosequeaoesof State Failure . ‘ requirements of the Act. Under section
AGENCY . 1. Section 179(a) Scope and Fimilings 179(a) of the Act, for any plan or plan -
2. Section 17 9 (b) Sanctions . . .. revision required under-part D of title I
40 CFR Part 52 3. APPl cat1 ns and Tuning of Section or required in response to a finding of
C. Notice of Pro d RuIem t ” - substantial SIP inadequacy under
(AD-FRL-5023—3] . . - . --• section llo(k)(5) (42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5)),2
Selection of Sequence of Mandatory 2. Rationale for Sanction Order - Act sets forth four findings that
Sanctions for Findings Made Pursuant 3. Sanction Effectuation EPA can make, which may lead to the
to SectIon 179 of the Clean Air Act 4. Opportunity for Comment . - apphcation of one or both of the
II. Today’s Action - sanctions specified under section 179(b)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection A. Final Action :(42U.S.C. 7509(b)). The four findings
Agency (EPA). B. Siimmi.ry of Comments and Responses me (1) A finding under section
AcTioN: Final rule. 1. Sanction Sequence and Rationale . iig( j (i ) that a State has failed, for a
___________________________ 2. Sanction Effectuation ‘nonattainniont area, to submit a SIP or
su ARV: The EPA is promulgating a 3. Sanction Clock Policy . an element of a SIP, or that a submitted
rule governing the order an which the Ol 5! m Rule - SIP or SIP element fails to meet the
emctions shall apply under the -. . ‘ ° - . completeness criteria established
man Ory san 011$ provision 0 2. Section 52.31(b)—Definitions - - . - . pursuant to section 110(k) (42 U.S.C.
Clean Air Act (Act), as amended, after 3. Sectlcm 52.31(c)—Applicehility . 7410(k)); (2) a finding under section
EPA makes a finding of failure specific 4. Section 52i1(d —Sanction A licetion ’ 179(aX2) where EPA disapproves a SIP -
to any State Implementation plan (SIP) . Sequencing . - suhmls -qion for a nonattainment area.
or plan revision required under the 5. Section 52.31(e)—Available ‘ ‘1)S baàed on Its failure to meet one or more
Act’s nonatt%lnment area provisions, and Methods for Implenenatieri.. . . pl elemesats required by the Act (3)
This final rule provides that the offset a Iinpllcatläns of Todaft Pn1ini Mng a finding under section 179(a)(3) that
sanction shall apply in an 18 A. Implementation of theS nciIours . .‘ the State has not made any other
months afler the date on which EPA B. Areas Potenuany Subject to Sonctious .: IhmicaiØfl required by the Act -.
maIm 5 such a finding wi regard to t A. Executive Order 12890 - (Includ1ng an adequate maIntenaiir
area and that the highway sanctions B. Regulatory Flexibility ct . - plan) or has lade any other sitinnindon:
shall apply Inihat area B months i , -p ( ( ai . . that fails to meet the COmpIS* -.
following application of the offset .2. ( “ents -. . . - or has made a requlred
Once thu rule Is-effective,- 3. E iuaa . — - . submuss1on that Is disapproved by EPA
nrflons will apply automatically in C. Paperwork Reduction Ad for not meeting the Act’s requirements
the sequence prescribed in all instances i - - - - ;•.• (4) a finding under section 179(a)(4)
In which sanctions are required;. - - -. . - . that a requirement of an approved plan -
following applicable findings that EPA. A. IntrOdUction :- .. is not being Implemented ,. - .
has already made or that EPA will -On Octther 1; 1993 EPA prm o d* . - - 1 A makes sectIon 179(a) .
• in the future, excent whenEPA.. .# .::.,. &seo)go ai ifindings of failure to submit and
determines through a at iatory u aii - ‘findings of Incompletanasa via letters
rulemaking to r hange the sanction - - sectioni79(a)142.u.s.a . from EPA Regional Admlni ators to
sequencefarioiusermiorejpecthc - ad , State governors or other State officers to-
- dEcumstanens..Theipublic will have-an’ - ext mive , whom authority has beendelegated. 4
oppoitunhtytocominent.on any - - of which ii hy Ia marIzedin1b1s:i 0 letter itself tngprs the enflctIOns -.
separate rulemaking. - . sectiom because it lw ..: . clock. To make flnwngs of failure to -
EFFECTIVE na1 s This action will ‘ .. ,. 01 submit and flndlnp of Incempletaiimn
beC0 flSOPt0flib 1994 ’L The onnation net repeated concerns annlar section 179 a)(1) and sedIon...., -
ADORESS(ES): The public docket for this’ the overview atpeges 5127 2 ofthL t . 179(a)(3)(A), EPkis not required togo.,,
action, A—93-28, is available for public ..proposal provided on the Clean AIvA .tthroiigh notice-and’omment - ..
inspection and copying between 8:30:’ Amendments of 1990(1990 . - railarnaking.s For section 179(a)(2) and. -
a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Amendments), title I requirements thon 179(a)(3)(B) finuaugu )f
- Friday. at the Air and Radiation Docket the Act, and EPA action on su’s Isapproval. the Federal Register
- - and Information Center, Room M—1500, background section uo ume it in wui .u EPA nuns ..
Waterside Mall, U.S. EP& 401 M Street, proposal and the rationaie. actIpn disapproving the submittal (after
SW, Washington, DC 20460. A. . . . :-- — . . . notice and comment) i ntiates the.
reasonable fee may be charged for - . , -B. Consequences of State Fail we ‘ .uwlinns clock. FQr sectioni79(aR4)
- cOpying .. - - .-. ‘ - -:., .-1.Secüon179(a)ScopeandFindin ___
FOR fIRmER INFORMATION CONTACT: - The 1990 Amendments revised . : cti iitL5)—lurown ,asa SW or 11”—Ispiade 1
Mr. Qlnstopher Stoneman, Sulfur - . vheuever EPA finds that _ fur any — - j • •
Dio,ddelParticulate Matter Programs - . . A ’aubstanttaliy.lnadequate to attain urni i,itat . th,-
Branch, Mail Drop 15, Office of Air State failures to comply with . — ed atlonal ambient air quality standard
- Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. •fl asso Amendments also rect .- - - ‘Section i79(a refersto findings. dIsappmvalL
EPA. Research Triangle Park. North F l is conorri Ing Federal implementation -nnd detennlnatlons. Th se will all be referred to by
Carolina 27711. telephone (919) 541— plain (FIFe). Under section 11O(dlll). tim F ilheoiie term “findings.” - — ‘ -. -
0823.. - - guquizunient Is triggered by an EPA flndiu 5 tl ,ta > ‘7-ar.Finding of Failure to Submit a Requited
- - - State has failed to make a requited subinittnierthat ’ 3State7niplementatian Plan orAnyOtherRequired-
oaai iori: The . a received submittal d0e3 001 satisfy of the/ict. Clean Air Act. Delegations
- content of today’s preamble is listed in - completeness criteria established underi lo .; ‘ 1 12/23/91. , -.... .- . —
-the following outline:. - - - iiO(k)l1)(AL oran EPA disapproval of a g1!Notlco and c mtnont consijerations vie-a-vie.
- - - -. - . submittal in whole c c In past. Howevee.slnce PIP’s- ;I5ndinga of failure to submit and Incompleteness are
• - -- I. Background. - .. - - . - - are not the subject of this notito. these provlslons- ’ discussed In the proposal at page 51272. footnote -
— A. Introduction -- - - - , - - - are nosaddiassedhere. - - - - - - : -, 7. and in section IV.C. of this document -
-------
Federal Register / Vol; 59, No. 149 I Thursday, August 4, 1994 / RuIes and Regulations 39833
- r, 1*aHdtheSthtedoei
ierect ih.defidencyLit is. not “ In the proposal at page 51275. for asmp1dly:aposethb Thns, by
djate. Instead . sectIon 179(e) ‘. - three EPA propesedlbat. asa applying’the offset sanction at 18
piuvtdee we c iivthon “cto&” winch general matter, the offset sanction appLy men MthnStateccx iects the- -.
j riih j th proposal pegs at 18 months followed by the highway defidencypxompthig thifindin pno
51274, Cenerally, nader 179(a) s sanctjon6uw , ths theseefter.First, EPA ., t:i1I iig i n .y
sanot&th.sanctiosnr e Iby stated thatow Iu. 1 llytheoffset ‘ n *ia would notapptya d EPA and
EPA applim Uths defldenq that” -. sandlenwIll ,in ui J,provide a more other affec dagoncIes nost notably
prompted.the$ndii iglsn ot*orrected ontaIn qoa11tybenefit inihe shorter the Depastment of TxanspétnIL -.
before Ihsiaw tlon cock exphe& 1The. and loogerterm thanlh&highway ‘‘ ‘. (DaE))wouldnoEbe ltfrIta. . ‘r
sanction clock Is further disaissei}m- - senctiou. .: L’ oomparatively npL.mc. 1ad ow
section H .3 oft rd’ ”-) -‘- :- - Seonnd ,theinopom lstatedtheoff set - , -.
C. M 1PThde,nJ&n sanctionpwvi lss eaterpo1enfiaIforT. -. The EPA, therefore, proposed, as a
• .‘. ., - • fl Scadt.fruBhtyP!0t0Cti0fls ‘ general matter, that the m t sondinn
1opmail . - -i ; :‘r ’ - - ‘r i bn 4tpot ntiaIlyaffactsall-? - ..: - apply before thehlghway.fwidieg
that - W ‘ sanction folio vlngasection -179(a) —: .
the a c t179(b)(2) offset sanction !WhIla ___ • uaatiihameat - .fiuidlng.The EPAiocomdhawever,
would applyinneareal8inoIthsfrom- thatin s edficcases the particular
the detewben EPAin esa finding - ____an ti.i r io e t • - c cum noosmay1edE A1n-
noderw179fp -Fhennore EPA s NOT5I,avhtch conclude that kismozo appiOpthate for
; 9 1 1 ,L .&m a s tic a nd tfew thehighwnv asini4nn to.anplv first
r ‘ “ ‘ • - .- ‘ —r na . —4i — -
higbwuyiaiidlon would ap )y in on -& Therefme 1 A basspeciflca1Iy noted
area 6-months following applic cit of p eamb t on of - that it maygo tnrougn notboo-and-
the-offset eancfion.’The EPAproposed sOesa RfrA’ oIi95W ’ comment nhn king for theliighway
to sequen the applicatkiniofsanctkms tp #n 7 wfthln sanction to apply after 18 months and-
• 4 .,,g L . _______- eo o . Slatm.may an lq at . . / iwttnn
UQUCS In w niu w - Zfl nonattalntnent. the Statesman miboiit reutsions w
all eesesemt EPA determines. - -.: - their Str.iiy on ni eapifl ri rte.I .lni (The santlonsequence YnhnnalA $ - -
throoghindMdualnolice-and -comment apecific put D aanrSS £z thee. urees ( g.. - ferthér dIScusse&iasectiQLflAI. of I
nihtmakin&that bighways . - : - this document .) -
Iy- __ OQun ctionEffoctuatioa •
ihith sanctionashall apply as -. d isaetlonsiy anthartty toapply either eanction - At pages 51 275-51277 of the -
ired under section 179(a) with - any time Cm at any time pwpO .l . EPA describes howihe offset
led tea Ending made under- - sanction-applies-mid notes-that, under
- - - • • - Stancttnontainllmitadons(57FR4453L the highwaysanction.EPA amposesa
•IeectIe )proutdes kxawair Sept. 28.119* action of sanctions being -. prckb Uonon ue pwva1 bytho Secretary -
peil. —- -- th pplies .togtan the- - ee byiheection. besect apply (a the of IXYF &qertain highwuyprojetsand
EpA.m mande,w 4i niO6. If cver.s&me imponIdonci .rtI .by A.und ecUoia - . ‘K jh ,i 1½i -
- ft (a sanction provided aectioa i?9(b).. tiO(ee3J ote that ..• grim - US, 0 - y Sai l 0015 -
it Is ontone 6 ? the sanctionsthatanromatim y -- ilotmi findings will be made thzougbiiotlce-and- • not dmactly imptemautedbyEPA.
apply under . . ,a,..179(e). - - - - - -- - tn.T.— - --&tngiodepevdent bection. lowever, EPA iloted’ that it isinthe
flndingsofnonimplementation.the - subsections -(4)sleciflctoany
saw tions.doth- Marts when EPAinakes implementation plan or plan revision
a finding of nonimplementation in the required underpart Botany -
Federal Register through nolile-and- implementation plan or revision -
comment rulemaking. Fox-both required under pert Dfound
disapprovals and flndingsof substantially inadequatepursuant-to
noniniptementation. the-clock actually section iio(k)(5). In general, part I)
starts. onihe date the final Federal plans and plan revisions are requiredior
Register actiuus are effective. - - areas designated nonattaimnent under
section 1O7. Th, proposal did not
2. Sedi”n 1Z9(b Sanctions - - - - encompass Endings EPA t n make
Under section 179(b). two sanctions under section 179(a) regarding SIP lIs
are available for v.lnrtion by EPA for non-part D plans or plan revisions or
followingremlinil 179(a) findIng. 6 One the sancticnprovisions in-section -
aailab&Ee IAuiS a zestridiomon -. -. - 110(m) cT-the Ad It also does not
highway-funding, as provided tn-section encoanpose any findings EPA may make
179(bXl) ( 42 U.&C.7509(bXl)). which under other 6tIes of the Act (eg..
Is pages - section 502(d) for operetingpermitting
51V3—51274.Th eother available -
sat onIsthe.ff sanction-as — -
provided 1u . 4 ou 179(b)(2) (42TU.SC. 2 Rat 1A Ice a ider -
7509(b)t2fl. wbfthIs.abodiscuseodIa Mpages 51274-51 VS-If the -
the proposal at page 51274. - - - - . : propesal ,EPA desalbedihe pinpose
sanctions can serve. Onelunction isto
3. App lisatlon.andTiiningoLSedion -. tliehct’s -.
179(b)S . . ‘ --- -- - :- - requiieanente.Asecoodfw ic t icuoT -:
Although-application of-section ‘- -• ew ictio n s4&b posted end preserve air
179 (b)sandio u is.may become quality hi weds until thedeficiency -
mandatw,wbeoEPA *1iat a finding: - nrmant e s thansiwtiuiw ..Itht1attee
categories 6! stationarTsources and.
depending-onthepollutant(s) addressed
in the deficiency promptingihe finding.
may affect all criteria pollutants (i.e.,
pollutants for WhIChEPA has
promulgated national ambient air
quality standards. (NAAQS) such as
carbon monoxide (CO), PM-b
(particles with an aerodyu-wuic diameter
less than ox-equal to-a nominal 10
m u ters), etc.). By wutjnnt , the
highway sanction would affect onLy
mobilersourcesand pollutants emitted
by mobil,sources (Mobile sources-are
• not, for-instance, regeecled as significant
emitters of lead and su}fer -dio,dde -
(SO 2 ).) -
Third, in addi lon ioalrquality
considerations, the 2-to--I othet sanction
is less-complicated teimplement and’
adininisterthan the; highway sanction-
by its-very natwennd ecause of the -
inanne ,- In-wh lchEPAlutendsto - -
effectuate It, as . iff sod1n the - - - -
proposa latpages ’ 51275-61277.- -. -
- Inadd ltion ’EPknotsdinthe
-proposal that ftdeesu iitpead -.
sanctionsasaierig4erm solution to air-
ounlit - - - -
-------
39834 Federal Register 1 Vol. 59,- No. 149 / Thursday. ‘August 4, 1994 1 Rules and Regulations -
process of developing procedures with . - applie4to both types of SIP’s; a - - - - sanction applying first; (2) commenters
DOT to provide for the coordinated r.: - discussion of why the latter type of who believe that.EPA should determin(
implementation of the highway -. . ‘ SIP’s—commonly known as part D “sIP sanctioxi order on a case-by.case basis
sanction. (Sanction effectuation is calls”—are not covered by the final rule (3) commenters who believe that the
further discussed in section II.B.2 of this is in section ILC.3. This rule also has the nature of the deficiency should be
document.) - immediate effect of applying the offset considered in determining sanction
sanction on September 6, i g in - - sequence. and (4) commenters who
4. Opportunity for Comment affected areas for which the . . . -. support the sequence as pronosed.- -•
As discussed above, under section Administrator has not determined that t our cominenters stated that the.:..
179(a). the Act requires that sanctions the 18-month sanction clock has expired sequence in which sanctions apply
apply if the deficiency that prompted - by that date and for which the. should be reversed with the highway”
EPA’s finding is not corrected within -. deficiency prompting the finding has .. sanction generally applying flt. x’
the timeframes prescribed. The not been corrected by that date. -. .. - - ..- Several of the oommenteis contend that
discretion afforded EPA is which of the Specifically, in the notice section of - - the highway sanction will be more
two section 179(b) sanctions applies at today’s Federal Register, EPA is’ - ..e’. - effective at compelling State correction” -
l8monthsandwhichfimonths . providinga listofareasthatwillbe. .ofSWdefldendesboceueftwould
thereafter. The proposal noted that if in’ potentially subject to sanctions gn .. have greater economic impact, and it ‘ i.
the future EPA thakes-exceptions to this Seotember 6.1994. t - will be more effective at add sing t
rule, then in Individual notice .and-.; ‘ .- f lote that the proposedrule did .. political and statewide failures. One
comment rulemafring, EPA will -- include tables in which EPA ln nded to commenter disagrees with EPA’r vi2 ’
comment on whether the highway - .‘ list areas subject to sanctions. In the i-- . rationale that the offset sanction ismore
sanction shall apply after 18 months ; finahule, EPA has removed thetebles -- likely to produce a greater air quality’ .
and the offset aai ion shall apply 6 from thirule and decided to urovide --: benefit, arguing Initead that thec ’-
months thamafter given the Infonnathm on areas that iiif be.i t4 highway sanction b encouziges
ditwiistanomat h d.A. . potentially subject to sancttoniln they” early State complianr, I5 y p 4 J
The proposal also noted that the’? -: separate notice mentioned abovi .- - - commenters t4 a1k g EPA’s rationale
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) -- ..(Sections ILC.5. and IILB. below Include’ that the offset sanction potentially -,
provides dHa ma withameans that -. --a discussion of whythe tableswere-. .‘‘ applies to all criteria pollulants the i ’ --
could be used t netition EPA to.’.:: removed from the proposed rule and -. ‘commenter argue that the fact that
pronose that the fiighway s nuction ... .‘. why such removal does not carry any . stationary sources emit more.types of”
app’y first. The APA, 5.U.&C. 553(e) . ‘ ib s tanfi fince.) -- - ’ , pollutants is Irrelevant since In the - ‘ ‘ -
provides that ‘Each egmry (including • Sunimo’ofCnthents’aM. ’ ProDosed rule, the offset sanctlOn. ’.
EPA) shall give an Interested person the Responses- - - ,. -. ,. ... applies only to the pollutant(s) In the- ’
right to petition for the Issuance, • - - ; .. .. - - deficiency. The commenters also raLca
amendment, or repeal of a rule “This - With one exception, this section an argument that EPA’s proposed .
.provjsi ji could conceivably be invoked of a brief sununary of the - sequence unfairly burdens industry
by a citizen to petition EPA to propose ‘commentsrecelved on the pronosal and when the SIP deficiency Is Stato-c
that the highway sanction apply fi ? -- EPA’S espOflse& A more detai’ed. , and that-sources wifi be unfairly . -
with respect toa section 179(a) finding of commants and EPA’s - - penalized due top lo alien and; -
covered by tiis action.. , .t - . Sp 5O5 can be found-In the docket In timing. s-. ‘- - . . - , ,
a document entitled ‘L’ Selectioniof. Four commenters believe thit EPA-
fl• ‘ S ftA - ‘ . - -:- -“ Sequence of Mandatory Sanctions for should determine sanction order on a
A. Final Action - - - - Findings Made Pursuant to SectIon 179 case-by case basis. These commenters
of the Clean Air Act: Detailed Summary express concern that EPA’s streamlined
By this document, EPA is of Comments and EPA’S Respothes” - approach provides Insufficient notice of
promulgating a rule which provides that (herein referred to as !‘Detailed - snnøions and leaves many sanction,
the section 179(b)(2) offset sanction Summary of Comments”), The one - application details unclear. One -
shall apply in an area 18 months from - exception is for the sanction dock commenter argues that EPA should
the date when EPA makns a finding -- -policy: a detailed summary is provided streamline its own rulemnicing processes
under section 179(e) with regard to that here, as well as in the companion rather than deny notice to affected
area if the deficiency prompting the d unent, in order to y explain in parties. These commenters were also
finding is not corrected within such the Federal Register the changes EPA concerned that general application of -
period. The final rule also provides that has made to the final rule in this area the offset sanction would negatively -
the section 179(b)(1) highway sanction and because of the comple dty of this impact stationary sources. One -
shall apply in an area 6 months - - issue. — - - - - - - .‘ commenter argues economic
following application of the offset
1. Sanction Sequence and Ratiânale, competitiveness and air quality will -
sanction in cases where the deficiency . - deteriorate under the offset sanction..
has still not been corrected within that a. Surnmazyof Comments. The EPA’s Fwo coinmenters were concerned that
period. The section 179(b) sanctions ‘pro ’posal for the sequence of mandatory because of the length of the EPA -
shall be sequenced in this manner in all sanctions and the rationale are provided rulemaking process stationary sources
cases unless EPA proposes the high iay in sections I.C.1. and LC.2. of this will bear the brunt of the sanction:..
sanction to apply first through separate document, as well as In.the pro iosál at burden.
notice-and.comment rulemaking. This pages 51274-5. The EPA received 14 Two oommenters believe that the
final rule applies to plan or plan. - comments on this part of the proposed nature of the SIP deficiency should be,
revisions required under part U but does rule. Comments on the sanction . considered lndetermining sanction
not apply to plans or plan revisions- - — sequence and rationale can generally be sequence. One comnienter believe
required under part D found . considered in fdur groups: (1) - the sanction chosen should be lin
substantially inadequate pursuant to Commenters who believe the sequence the SIP deficiency and that EPA in
section no(k)(s). The proposed rule. should be reversed with the highway conduct notice.and.coinment
-------
S
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No 149 1 Thursday, August 4. 1994 I Rules and Begulationi
rtdemalcingto determinewhether the
ghway.enction applies first .as to
e flctypesof SIP deficiencies. The
corn eris-concerned that stationary
souzcesi ill bear &brunt of the
auctions burden,and that this result
x xLd stifle economic develnpment.
ThTeea Inmenters support the_
)roflfl4i sequence-of sanctions. One
ommen rsupports theposibon that
he link between the.highway sanction
nid airquality benefits is uncertain and
moth teragreos that the-offset
anction provides a quantifiable.aud
nore likelyairqualitybeneflt Another
anmentermq pomited.EP.As conce s
egardüigtI administraUve and .
inpleseentation b&dens of the highway
andion as a basis for the offset nrti-
pplying first.. ‘•.
-b. )laspuuw’to Comments. InIhfs flnal
rule, A be IIPI taiii d the proposed:
o —- wlththeoFset-’
anotioitgeoersflyepplying andthe
Iiigbwsysenthonseee &The-
esie%es.eqoeniM&’
reppo Ied by4he proposed rationales
that’the o et sanction l(cornpssed b-the
iighway.andioir)wfll: .
.ti Pr ld.ainorecsataã i -and direct
mirqveli$yt.-. t, -C ___
(2) P ’b a$i 1Iy at fact more it aia
___ -
(3)Beeasterbimplenient.and.
Thilniaaotiflie EPA disagrees with the
k (nus wihl
always.ases iveiyddressS1P -.
rehated.d M iw aad should,
beinfore. be.generally.appbed first. i :
ulooLdoesbehieve ihat the
)ffset sandia vhlmoreilikely produce
nst ak q a1ityb mAfit4n some.cases,
offsat ” tion way-be
ffectiv.at ei noies .
cvei pIe an uea that s
andergoingcigniet nit n, zni
rowth, tb,o -on could help
bring paessuzeLthzougb .stational!y
sources wishingto.expand locate in
Lhe aroa snd whL4i are faced wath the
need for UL*Mifinnal ennssionoffset
mahermere,dfsets
schieved by such a sanction would
benefit air quality in the affected area.
FfOwev In -parPicularinstances,the
EPA does-not deny that the-offset
sancthmrey not be as effective
because, for WLle.the reea may be
e c onomn tllTdepres 5ed and i iot
experiencing growth. ‘In-such ase.
there-may be ! airqnality benefit and
perhaps less pressure to correct the
deficiency in applying the offset
sanction first.
Nonetheless, overall EPA continues to
éliovethat iinr ptuaUy the offset
unction (compared-to the highway
sanction) providesa more certain, direct
ir quality benefit in The near and long
ources arguably applicalioneflhe
offaet ’s mr$ionimey j t r cg the
more .si uificant soin-conenetributhig to
39835
term andpotentially covers more olItheiofftersanction
pollutants. An increased new source to produce a rality beneflL 1
review (NSR) offset ratio necessarily - - than thel iighu ysanctienbecaue.asj;
reduces airiollutaiit emissions as sources locateinaunrea, dir
sources modify or locate-in an area emission reductions will be achiev 4-
under the offset sanction.By contrast, through the 2-to-i offset!ar,patentiilly’-
the highway-sanction may not directly any of the aiteria pollutants. - : .
reduce overall motorvéhideemissions - With respect to imp ngsanctions n
in the nearterni and any-afrquolity -- a case-by-casebasis. EPA believesfhere-
benefits zesulthig’from the lngh’way are two main disadvages-tothls’ 2 -
sanctionwould be-indirect, as - approach whidhhave iedEPA4orreiect
application of thel iighway sanction - it. Fhst . ’the individual notice - nd- 4
would not wily1entIuotoTis* - cominentruleinekings thldbe ka’- ’-
from driving.noreven necessarily result needed for implementing the sanc6dñs
inverahIeniissions eductions, at best on a case-by-case basis-wouldithpose :
in th nit.tenn. The EPA incognims - signiflomt d nikne-
thatin some fa ces - Thesereso nldthe b
appropriate for theiilghwaysanciionto spent on-actlvflieslhat more dhectlj
apply to .add ssapolith l failuieand servethe-gcml-of the htct a y.dean
believes there are adeauate merh .nimus air. Second. s-a ts h! ?jnThe
provided under the rüIebo address these - final nile w wvd h :
it an c -’ . - - . - - - — -- - suffldet-ut1Con1u °*,
The PA did ndtl d’t isu egin- -
thepraposallhauhie o ’ffsetsandion will - pplçdionm Iw ,
app’ly.ln eveq áse,’to afl o fle ia - ‘ -. ImpIemonf euiThá ae .
pollutants.il ’be offset a* -ictinn will 2 details a e1urthi discussed hf ictIu i?i
appl r only to afl dita& ,poThitanliland IRA. and inthe detaøeduunma f
their pro orsUorwliich the areals - - comw hi.dü iwuant ’
subjectiothe:ssctfon 173 I4Z US C.
7503) offsatreqnlramant when lhaSlP on-
defldency Isgeneralin T 5IIITP When - the sañdion e ai ’-
the nR ngic dflc to - -. - appioathfabto áth * -
pofl ’kthhefrpecurso4 - impO D considerations-with iesp e4
thran ib n plies onlyto those- - -- ____ousIuc3rIS di onis ’ ‘-
poll. nh (az/or precunsods)3. The more likely to yield th- ,
staternentin the proposal intAn led that quality benefit. The “A%e eves,asa - -
____ matter, thatlhesanctianlhat
itemia pollutants. atfhar:becausa of _____ _______
pollutant-specific finAingcorganarnl ‘ n w iiu1t 4 C
flndJnej t, dJemaf selectiugtha d sa rn.ibaSeU
whether the flnA1qg1s I1iifse .aneci& the LMS 1UWOI C :
________________ deficiency. - - - --
a1 y a &y4t least te th. pollutants
of direct amoern, and sometimes to . . ,. - -
lua aawelL h&Wul, the approp e myw uL5I Way
i . k - sandion-suai uivcn-Cums ces -vr
uuW8y. . ’.-’uu.wns poinuusw.y WLOLA nod!the- - .- -;
only tlmse-pdllutantsmobdo sow-ens
emit a flcntlyandaicLfor kidsei
- tmeniuIvJtfWdGso.
!P
air quality benefits. TheEPMuehiewes —
rule-provides TT - -
Additionall WA wzu(prelict - - -
isedue.nriinnaitv.io,mobile aci’oss all saictlen findiogs, whic a - - --- -
sactionwfhIm: .:;
____ State inaction and ’thus-could net-base’
the gsnera ____. _ __ __ . sal
on that factor.Fnndmnentaly, A ’has
based
apphiee.toWiorasn a ttainmentNSR - -
puspesesand thus will affect soun s
sub t-tot1aiianentNSRthat ‘ greaterair-qusilty benefl is :- - - -
ninme aroa,which would the unpacts ince te
provide some arr sanctienedand orwhatdurationbe -
area underthe offset . than. - - - not known - - -
ThereforejPAsn’thnuestobelieve-that m. oes not eJthatlbe -.
offset sanction has the potentiahe -
‘hs .-nste tin section LC otthismiti . under . ‘ -. i. .
the APLritI -san petition the EPtiir impact 1fl ti 1 , -
iuIemaking propone the highway sanction t maybe greater-onnidestry thanan the
-epp lyt irn. - transpo rtatiorrsector.’Howevec.by -
n?-
nw iueo wa , awdn
-------
19836 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 149 /_Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
ncluding the offset sanction in the Act, offset ratio for NOx until EPA grants an
ongress clearly intended that certain exemption.
ources, by virtue of the timing and (2) Highway Sanction. One - -
[ ocation of their projects, would be cominenter requests that the rule
nipacted. indude a requirement that EPA notify.
several government entities of highway
1. Sanction Effectuation sanctions to focus multi-agency
A discussion of EPAs approach for resources n resolving SIP deficiencies.
effectuating th offset and highway Another cominenter believes that the
ianctions is provided in section LC.3. of flow of flexible funds for certain
this document and at pages 51275-7 of programs (e.g., congestion mitigation air
the proposal. The following is a brief quality improvement program) should
summary of major comments and EPA’s continue to flow if sanctions apply
responses. because the funds are important for
a. Major Comments. (1) Offset achieving the Act’s goals by improving
Sanction. Comments on offset sanction transit.
effectuation addressed both the source b. Response to Co’mments. (a) Offset
and pollutant applicability aspects of Sanction Applicability. Regarding offset
EPA’s proposaL One commenter objects sanction source and pollutant -. -
to the timmg of the applicability of the applicability, in the final rule, EPA has
offset sanction and believes EPA’s maintained the approaches in the
proposed approach is contrary to past proposal.
EPA practice. The comnienter argues On soui applicability. EPA believes
that applying the increased offset ratio it is important to maxhith’i the air
to all sources that have not received a quality benefit of the offset sanction by
permit as of the date the sanction begins requiring that sources whose permits are
wouldstopmanysourcosduringthe - .. issuedaftqrthedatetheoffsetsanction
permitting process for reasons beyond applies comply with a 2-to-I mni ion
thóir control The commenter believes, offset requirement. Contrary to the
that in the past EPA hasavoided these ..comment, the source applicability -.
problems by applying tighter NSR . - definition Is not a departure from all -
requirements only where permit . past EPA practices because historically
applications were not complete when EPA has not always used the “complete
the requirements became effective. The application” definition. (The different
commenter recommends EPA continue source applicability definitions EPA has’
with this approach. - -. . used in the past are discussed in the’
• Two c mments conoarn the poIbit nt. detailed response to oomments
appllcability.of the offset sanction. One document.) Iherefore, EPA b.lIé Yes that
commentercb eds to the application of past practice does not constrain It from
tl e ffsetrequirement to both ozone: .• determining today’tbat It Is Important to
precursors (nitrogen oxides (NOx) and . & nh nc thó effectiveness of the offset-
volatile organic compounds (VOC)) even sanction by n1ng source
when the deficiency relates only to one applicability on apernut Issuance basis.
of the pollutants. In support, the: - - Môreová, EPA believes that once the
copimenter notes the broad nature of ,- offset sanction applies, It would be a
section 179 and the manner in which - ,violation of the sanction fo a permit to
NOx emissions are treated under the Act be Issued with an Pmi.Qon offset of less
vis-a-visVOC emissions. Regarding PM— - than 2 o.1. -The plain latiguaga oI..:.-
10 precursors, the commenter argues. . - section 179(a) and section 179(b)(2)
that the offset sanction should apply to . does not provide for nor contemplate
precursors only in those areas where-- . any grace period besed.on whether a -;
EPA has approved a PM-b SIP control - - source has submitted a complete
strategy imposing the offset ’requirement applicationP .
on PM—b precursors. . - . ., .. ... - Regarding pollutant applicability of
Another commenter believes that . the offset sanction, EPA believes the
regardless of the SIP deficiency the - - proposed applicability Is reasonably
offset sanction should apply to all supported andwill have the potential to
criteria pollutants and precursors. In - effectively protect air quality. Section - -
support, the commenter argues that - 179(b)(2) generally zeferencea the offset
section 179 references section 173, requirements of section 173 and does
which applies to all offset requirements- not restrict EPA’s ability to base the
in title I of the Act, and that this reflects applicability of the sanction on a -.
a clear Congressional intent to apply the pollutant or pollutants (and its/their
offset sanction to these pollutants. The precursor(s)). Moreover, pollutant-
àommenter also believes that areas that specific application of the offset - ‘
have not yet received a section 182(f) sanction is consistent with the.. -
(42 U.S.C. 7511a(f)) NOx exemption - - requirements of section 179. Section
from the section 173 offset requirements - 179(b)(2)’s language providing that “the
should remain subject to the increased ratio of eniissipn reductions to iiu?eased
emissions shall be at least 2 to 1” iS
general enough such that EPA can
determine the most reasonable method,
to apply the sanction. While section -
-179(b)(2) references the broader section
173 requirement, EPA believes it is
more reasonable, with one caveat,’ 0 to
apply the offset sanction to the criteria
pollutants specifically related to the SIP
deficiency in question. Pollutant-
specific application of the offset -
sanction will encourage the State to.
correct its SIP deficiencies and will
provide reductions in emissions of the
relevant pollutant in the interim,
without tinnecessarily pimkhing
stationary sources in cases where the
State’s program for other pollutants is
adequate. . -
Regarding ozone and PM—i0
precursors, EPA is maintaining the
approach In the proposal that the
sanction applies to and PM—b -- -
precursors. The caveat to that general
rule has expanded In one minor respect
with respect to the ozone precursor.
NOx. As provided in the proposed rule.-
sources will need to achieve the
increased Offset ratIo for VOC and NO,
when the finding concerns anozone.
requrement unless EPA approve
section 182(f) demonstration tha
Act’s NO* nonattainment NSR ‘ —
requirements should not apply. in
addition; EPA has added the exception-
that if the area otherwise Is not subject -
to the section 173 offset requirement lot- -
ñonattalnment areas) then soürom in
that area wouldnot be subjeot to that-
re4ulremant under the oibet sanction
(see sections-182(f) a d 182(b)(2)) This,..
exception is neces eiy In light of the-’
specific language of the offset provision,
which ties, the offset sandlo iw -‘
specifically to offsets required ânder
section 173. For PM-lU precursors, EPA
has retained the caveat for cases in 1r
which EPA hasmadeasection 1.89(e) ‘
(42 U.S.C. 7513a(e)) determination for’
an area that PM—b precursors are’not’
significant. ‘ .— -.,•:.
(2) HghwajSanctionEffectuation.
The issues raised by the commenters are
not a subject of this rulesnnkng. The
DOT has primary responsibility for - - -
implementing the highway sanction and
EPA is coordinating with DOT on the
development of procedures for that
purpose. - -‘ - -
‘°Where the SIP deficiency is geaetal,
sanction applies to the thteria poUutact
therprecunor(s)rwhichthearais i
meet the sectIon 173 NSRrsqulrnnent& (ThIS
pollutant applicability definition gunesal SIP
deficiencies is also discussed in section ILC.5
below) - - - - -
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 39837
r. Sanction Clock Policy implementing the approved plan or part
a. Summw’y of Proposal. In the of a plan.
proposal. EPA described its proposed b. Summary of Comments. Two
policy with respect to the sanctions coinmenters raise both practical and
lock at pages 51272—51273.” Under legal issues With respect to the
hat interpretation, once the sanctions proposal’s sanction clock policy where
lock has started upon EPA making a it indicates that EPA must hilly approve
inding under section 179(a). in order to SIP submittals before sanctions clocks
top the clock, EPA must determine that that are started by disapprovals can be
he State has corrected the deficiency stopped.
hat prompted the finding. Similarly, to The first commenter’s practical
emove section 179(b) sanctions applied concern Is time. With respect to a
inder section 179(a), EPA must sanctions clock started by a disapproval,
letermine that the State has come into because of the length of the State’s
ompliance by correcting the deficiency regulatory development, approval and
hat prompted the finding that resulted adoption processes end EPA’s review
ii the application of one or both period, the interpretation in the
unctions. . j)1’Oj)OS d rule could result in sanctions
ForafindingthataStatehasfailedto . bo I nifaStetehadfulIy
rnbmit a SIP or an element of a SIP, or adopted and submitted the corrective
hat the SIP or SIP element submitted rule. Sanctions would remain In effect
rails to meet the completeness criteria of-.. until EPA finished Its rulemnkfng
iection 110(k), the’proposal provided’ approving the corrected rule. l ’be
hat EPA will stop the c nctions dock commontw Is concerned that the rule
r remove any s”nct ons auplied upon could have an adverse Impact solely
EPA’s determination that a 10 State has because EPA had not had time to act on
rubmitted the missing plan or plan SIP rei lsIons that are fully approvable.
alement and that the submittal meets . The commAnter further believes that
the completeness criteria established EPA’s policy Is not suppor ed by the
pursuant to section 110(k)(1). Note that language of the Act. lite commenter-.
EPA’s July 9. 1992 SIP processing argues that the Act elsewhere explicitly.
guidance indicated that if the 18-month (Iimjflg% shØ5 between correcting the..
ianctlon clock elapses during a (liflci and EPA’s process of
rompleteness review, sanctions would approving a SIP. Section 11O(c)(1)(B)
iiot be hnposed unless and until EPA - g ta that the MmIn(strator must
determined the plan tobe incomplete.’ 2 promi lgñte Federal Implementation
lii, such a case, the 18-month dock . plan (EIP) within two years of SIP -
would continue to run so that If EPA . . u*- the stato: . . -
determined the olan to be incomplete -- correctith def ciency, and the
after 18-months)iad elapsed, sanctiofl Administrator approves the plan or plan
would Immediately mmlv. - - - • • • “ SectIon 179(a), though.
The proposal provi 6that if EPA merely provides that srinlliona shall..
disapproves a SIP submission based on apply “ unless such deficiency has been
its failure to meet one or more pbm - • •,- “ and doesnot Include
elements zequired by. the Act, to correct p g y jj g EPA plan approvaL
the defidency for urposes of stopping The commenter believes that EPA .. -
the sanctions cloc or removing the
sanction, the State must submit a - cannot Ignore the difference betwien
sections 110 and 179 because to do so
revised SIP to EPA and EPA must would constitute “reading out” or ”;. -
approve that submittal pursuant to - _____
section ,110(k). For a finding that a - .. - rendering meaningless the additional - -
requirement of an approved plan is not phrase of section 11O(c)(1)(B).-. r ’
being implemented, the proposal .. To support its legal argument, the
provided that the sanctions clock wouid cnmmenter states that principles of ‘
stop or sanctions would be rernoi(ed - jtatutory construction provide that
through noticé-and.conunent . ftffect must be given to each word in a
rulemaking determining that the State is hu1tory provision, and that every effort
must be made to avoid an interpretation
which renders other provisions of the -
“For general guidance on EPA s.lntorpcetation.at
the tim. ofp posal.ofhówth. ClOck same statute lnrnnaintent, manningless,
functions and what Is neensaiy tosthp ft. see the or superfluous (Boise Cascade Corp. v.
memorandum entitled Processing of State United States Environmental Protection
Implementation Plan (SIP) SubmittaW ’ from John
Calcagni to Air Division Directors. Iteglons i-x. July Agency. 942 •F.Zd 1427,1432(9th Ci i.--
9.1992. A copy al this memorandum 1991)). The commenter also notes that
placed In the docket icr this rulemaking, an agency cannot ignore or “read out”
“The policy also provided that, following part of a statute (Natural Resowves
findings of nonsubntjttal and in pleleness . - Defense Council v. United States - - -
sanctions which had applied would continue to
apply upon Slate submittal until the submittal - - Environmental Protection Agency. 822
determined to be complete. - F.2d 104, 113 (D.C. Cii’. 1987)):
As an alternative to EPA’s proposal. -
the commenter recommends that the
sanctions clock policy for disapproval
follow the process in the proposal for
findings of nonsubmittal and -
incompleteness. The commenter states
that under that alternative policy the
clock would be stopped if a new
submittal is received, pending EPA’s
determination of whether the deficiency
has been corrected. The commenter -
urges EPA to adopt a consistent policy
to stop sanction clocks in all cases upon
receiving a revised SIP submittaL IF -
EPA’s preliminary review indicates the
deficiency has been corrected, then the
clock would remain stopped and EPA
would proceed to approve the plan
through rulemaking. If the deficiency
was not corrected initially, the clock
would restart via a letter to the State.
A second commenter raised similar
concerns with EPA’s proposal that
actual approval was needed to stop a
sanctions dock started by a disapproval.
According to the commenter, the dock
should be suspended with the submittal
to EPA of a completed riilmnaklng and.
remain suspended unless EPA:
disapproves the SIP. The commenier --
notes that EPAhasthe opportunity to
participate in the State’s rulennafring-.
processtoensurathedeficiencyls
corected. •:. • -. - ::
c. Response to Comments. In response
to the comments received, EPA . ;. .
reevaluated its proposed sanction clock
policyandma etwothanges.’3 ’ .’
(1) Overview of Cluanga One. For the -
reasons stated in subsection (4) ofthla ’.
section ILB:3.c., EPA does not adopt the .
exact approach set forthby the-..
commenters, which would actually stop.
a sanctions clock.started by a -.
disapproval upon State submitta’ of a
SIP. However, EPA has determined that
it is reasonable totemporarily defer . . -
and/or stay the application of sanctions, -
as appropriate,’ 4 following SIP.. -
disapprovals, where EPA proposes to
hilly approve a SIP revision or proposes
to conditionally approve a SIP.’ In
“The EPA Is also m I,I!a clatificadonts the-
sanction clock policy which Is db”. .ed in section
ll ,C.4.- . ,... i ..•‘..
“Asdiscussed bi ow under change two, the
proposed sanction clock policy specifically
provided for the defarial of sanctions during
completeness reviews of SIP’s submitted following’
nonsubinittal and incompleteness flodk s. but net
staying the sanctions. The concept set forth here for
Initial disapprorals end fl wlIngs of failure to -
implement is carried forth from this process -.
developed in the proposal fti Initial findings of
failure to submit or of Incompleteness, In currying -
this concapt over. EPA believes that it is logical and
necessary that If the effect of sanction application”
is tobe deferred that sanctions actually applied
shou ldbestayed. r . ” , - --
“Note that a proposed paillalor limitea approval,
‘would not result In the,defezral and/or staying of ‘;
cantievad
-------
39838 Federal-Register t VoL. 59; No 149 tThursday ,August 4, 1994 1 Rules and Regulations
the preposedruleat page 51273 -
iootnote9j where EPA indicated that if
the sanction clock started by a finding
of failure to submit or Incompleteness
expires h1TingaomnpIeteness review
for a subsequent SIP submittal, the
sanction would not apply unless and -
until EPA found the submittal
incompletL In this Instance. EPA
intended that the anwHp clock would
not temporarily stop but instead would
continue to run. During that time. EPA
would simply defer the application of
the sanction while it reviewed the SIP
submittal to determine whether or not
I The EPA’s -a Jannditka } approval wouht
m&ely can unis. an stayer def l Ini’ by
EPA’s pcup.sedmndfflonal approval and EPAs
simultansoas bs ,rfm final detenithisUon th
deficiency baa bena -coire e L -. -- --
the State had corrected-the defidency
prompting the finding. Thus, ii and
when EPA found the SiP incomplete
after expiration of the 18-month dock.
the sanction would apply on the date
EPA found the plan incomplate °
After further analysis of this aspect of
the sanction clock policy in the context
of addressing commnnts , EPA has
determined that it is inappropriate to
defer and/or stay sanctions when
sanction clocks elapse during review for
completeness of plans submitted by
States following findings of
nonsubanittal and incompleteness..
Therefore, EPA’ s rule provides that the
temporary deferral and staying of the
application of sanctions occursonly -
when EPA. takes an affirmative action in
which it th. Agency’s belief
that the State has corrected the
• deficiency prompting the finding te.g., -
that the State has ouftected the finding
ofnoasutsnittai arfrwinarpleteness .The
EPA believes this rhnngu . 1sne . ’naus ’
csnre , upon fluztherzeflectiou EPA -
realizes that In such. situation there.
has been no prforafflrmative action by
EPA prelimmnarilyorfinally - -
-determfn i ngthattheSta t ehu,fn fact,
corrected the deflthncy A proposed
approval of. revised SIP following a
disapproval ciwactitutes such an actlo
as does a proposed finding that a Stati
is implementing Its SW following.
finding of nnnhnplemsutation. -
• However. mere EPA receipt of a SIP
submittal from a State following.
ngvtenhmittal or fncanpleteâess finding
does not constitute such an iction, since
EPA takes noafflnnativ.adfou
preliminaril ’ fndlouthrgthat the State
has submitted i complete SIP and there -
isnothfngtogfverisetoanlntethuflna l -
dretinatiOrt that the Stat ha& ‘. s,.-
corrected thedefidency’.
Under this thnnge, sanctions Will
apply if a sanction clock expizesduring
a completenessrevfewofáSlP
submitted fbllowin è iioiisnbmfttal or
Incompleteness finding. An example
illustrates the implications of this
change. Suppose EPA finds that a State
failed to submita SIP and thenatmonth.
- l7theStatesubmitsaSlPwhichthe, - .
Agency then starts reviewing for -
completeness. Month 18 arrives and -
EPA is still reviewing the submittaL.-
Under the approach in the proposal,
application of the offset sanction at
month lB would be deferred unless and
until EPA found the plan incomplete
Under the final rule, the sanction ‘
apply at month 18 and only be lift
“Ntwthasthfa ricaspecPorth. 1 .. 1 . ....n
sanaicn clock polky waa not actuaflysafl edIa
the regulatoty longea e bf the prop wd rulebiat
was discussed in thepreamble only. - - - - -
addition, EPA has determined that such Interim final determination that the
deferral and/or staying of sanction deficiency bad been corroded would be
4pplication is reasonable following rescinded or reversed. -
flnding at noniinplementation” where For initial flnding of
EPA proposes to find that a State is noniinplemeutadon. sanctions would be
implementing its SIP. Simultaneous deferred and/or stayed unless and until
with such proposed approval or finding EPA reversed its proposed finding that
of SIP implementation. EPA will issue the State was implementing its SIP by
a separate, interim final determination proposing to find or finally finding that
that the State has corrected the - the State was not implementing its SIP
deficiency that prompted the finding or by withdrawing its proposed finding
that started the sanctions clock. In that Lbs State was implementing its SIP.
- these cases , whether sanctions are -At the point of that subsequent action,
- defirred and/or stayed depends on the the interim final detirmination that the
timing of EPA’s proposed action vis-.-- - State had corrected the deficiency -
vis the çi i 00 clocks., . , would be rescinded or reversed.
- For initial SIP disapprovals where (Exactly how the application of
EPA subsequently fully approves the - sanctions would be deferred and/or
revised SIP, oanrtionswouklbe stayed following SIP disapprovals and
deferred and/or stayed unlmc* and until nonimplenientation finsihigais
EPA’, proposed full approval was disnissed in greater detail below in this
reversed by a proposed disapproval or section. ( lienge one is reflected in the
final disapproval of the revised SIPin rule in 552.31 (dX2L (dX3L and (dK4).)
• whole or in put At that point, thó - - The rationale for the defèningand
- interim final dot 1 vn ....Hs w , staying of sanctions in is
deficiency had been ãoarected would be that the proposed full or smiAitfonal
- resanded or reversed . For initial sir-- apProval orproposed flndingthat the
disapprovals where EPA subsequently State Is implernenthig its SIP would be
proposes to êlondltionally approve the thebasis fovEPA’s Interim final
i ed SIP, i -ti wa be - determination that the Stats hal - -
deferred and/orstayed nileasazutunifi OjirudsUl the deficiency.” When EPA-
EPA reverses its proposed ainditionair issues this proposal, the A 5 eMcy
approval by a proposed disappuvJ or indicates that ft believes It Is more likely
final disapproval of the revised SIP In than not that the State is complying
- whole or in part. For Initial S W - with the relevant requirements of the
• disapprovaIswher EPA q g y Act The EPA bsllevre it would be
• conditionally apprqves the s vioadSIP inequitable for sanctions to apply in
in final. annsnierrs would be defined - sduatlcns where EPA hal mad. such an
md/or stayed unless and until the ‘• • a ithe finding. even though it Is
-. condit icna lapp rova lco nverts tea ‘ - Only prelianinary . Moreoem EPA - -
s disapproval, orEPA proposes to— ‘• believes it iMbeim toepp!y
disapprove La whole cnn pert the - -smrction,mer* because the clock bad
revised Sip the State fafflfl BA 1 JIIndbeIOIe EPA Is able to tak, final
- the commitment n its conditionally— ctIOfl on the submittal In these --
-;.-approved sw ° Where any ofnihes. si 1ons ven th. length of the -
- events oocur with respect to a proposed -
-, seconddiangetothesulecomtcernsthe
_____ - - . - euidaocedlarnqnad in the oreambleto
jlz. application d ..—iIL _ . b.u.. .mth Iç ’
- - -
diaippronl& IPeraft.c onoIpertIaInrá
- - li t -
UI IW JI ilUU W UUCU WW
• Implementation Plan (SIP) Subniittals”frcmlohir
- Cakagni to Air- isSo Dhectora, Regions P-X, July
51992.) - - - - -
- - - “Although the cnansnento Focused one clock
- Vastedbya d .p ,. . .’ ...L EPA bnsextsnded Ito
- changes-toadock stoted bye finding of Whiz. to-
inaplement. Boding nozemon to treat findings of
Wluzeto implement di rentfy. -- -
“On July. 9, 1992, EPA fuuedapolfcy that
Included a of hoe , nou4jtInTh taDDcOVa1s
- “.- Plan (SIPI
Su ” ’ &omJohnC fragnito Air Divisl a
Dfresors.Rcgjonsl-X. July 9.1992) Dai note that.
by thI acdon. EPA law lthdrawlngth. pest ot the
july is9Zguldanan that addresans how m&a l
approvals nonvert to disapprovals. Is- the uoa
- future. EPA intends to Issue addftionalguidancu to
- address this aspect of the coiulitioual approval
policy. .- - --- - -
-------
Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 149 I Thursday,_August 4, 1994 I Rules and_Regulations 39839
o EPA takes affirmative action (3) Scenarios Ulustrating First Change.
finding the plan complete. The following five scenarios illustrateS
For EPA to continue with the how sanctions can be deferred and/or
proposed policy of deferring sanctions stayed following SIP disapprovals and
following nonsubmittal and noniinplementation findings. 22 They are
incompleteness findings, EPA would provided to clarify change one
have to view mere receipt of a submittal discussed above, (Section IJ].A.
from the State as a preliminary discusses how the States and the public
correction of the deficiency. However, will be kept informed of the status of
EPA’s view is that receipt of a State p ) sanction a lication.)
does not constitute an affirmative EPA First, if, fore month 18, EPA
determination that the revised SIP is proposes to fully or conditionally
corn p ete.ne Therefore, it is approve a plan or proposes to find that
inappropriate to defer and/or stay a State is implementing its SIP and that
saiictions following nonsubmittal and action is reversed 24 or more months
incompleteness findings. lurtliermore, after the findins. at which tinie.the 18-
once EPA has affirmatively determined month clock has expired, application of
the plan Is complete, any sanctions the offset sanction is deferred until
clock or any applied sanctions would be EPA’s proposed approval or proposed
permanently stopped. Therefore, it is that the State is implementing
inappropriate to defer or stay sanctions, its SIP is reversed. 23 For both tyises of
following nonsubmittal and Offset sanction applies on
incompleteness findings until EPA has the date EPA reverses its preliminnry
affirmatively determined the plan finding. Following disapprovals, where
complete. 2 ’ The EPA beli . EPA proposed to lly approve the SW .
change. as well as change one, makes- _____
Ncte that In tb. five cases di.r. a..,,4 below In.
the Agency’s approach in deferring and g j p , .j t - ..
staying the application of sanctions would apply errespply when corn (lanai
ore consistent with the requirements ap toa ppreval Just U th ydO
the Act. . -. when a proposed full approval Is reversed tea
- diiSPr...,.... Note also thai, unlike full approve1.
_________ a the mandatory sanctions promsa would not orase
•A,guably. EPA could make an Inlerlsñ’Rnal upon final arnd1tlonal provaL Following a
uetarminatlon that the Slate’s sulanittal is complete. ppro Lai l dIcat above. UEPA proposes
suth.n interim determination Is P °” 1 of the Slate’s revised plan, resulting
Impractical and Inappropriate for at least._ In the feeral andlor staying of sanction
reasons. One, the short time period provided under appl ‘eand thin takes final, full approval
the Act for EPA to make completeness the - I Iory n’ik ,
determInatIons (I.e.. 60 days) indicate that Congress lk .. If the acanado were one where EPA was
did not Intend for EPA (no, contemplate For EPA) . conditionally approving the plan. thdfin l
th make preliminary completeness determinations, conditional approval does not stop the manalaffi,y
Two, the nature of the completeness review does : sanction proc.becauae It done not relnesent
net land Itself to EPA making preliminary and final” EPA’s final determination that thi SIP Is adequate.
determinations. The completeness review Is - The EPA will make that deter, , .b..ik.. when It
- Intended asa straightforward exercise to determine reviews the revIsed the State r . n,nit.t 0
iLthe SIP revision Indudes the enbinittingas part C the con approval.
warrant further review for overall adequacy. .. Ultimately, of course. If the State to Its
commitment and EPA approves the S .s plan
Therefore..there Is no room fore preliminary’.’ -. revision. then any sanction clocks are l i ei
detenninatlom any review sufficient to make such stopped and no sanctions are applied or reapp
a pralinilnary determination would be sufficient for that EPA p p
EPA’s final completeness determination. - -
21 A clarification Is being made In the final approval prior tote months and that EPA’. positive
finding Is reversed after 24 months. In that Inslanca.
which was not specifically addressed In the - after 24 months, only the ia-month dock has
proposed rule. Following nonsubinlttal and . expired (and not the a-month dock) because thes.
lntx,mpletenes , findings, the final rule effectively month clock Is not triggered until the offset
provides that sanction docks can be stopped (and sanction applies. (Section lILA. below discusses.
sanctions lifted) only when EPA makes an how the sectIon 79 sanctIon clocks function.)
affirmative completeness finding, and not when Therefore, In this sconarlo. the a-month dock does
- SW’sbeconscon iplete by operation of law not start until EPA reverses its positive finding after
pursuant to section iiO(k)(1IW) of the Ant. This 24 months. The neat paragraph and Figure 1 give
change is Further discussed in section ILC.4. below, an example of how this fniwi3t
the reversal would be either a proposed
or final disapproval in whole or in part,
whichever occurs. Following
disapprovals. where EPA proposes to or
finally conditionally approves the SIP.
the reversal would occur as described in
subsection (1) above of this section
I1.B.3.c. Following findings of
nonimpleinentation. the reversal would
be either a proposed or final finding.
whichever occurs, that the State was not
implementing its SIP. For both
disapprovals and noniinplementation
findings, the highway sanction applies 6
months from the date the offset sanction
applies, unless EPA determines within
that period that the State corrected the
deficiency prompting the finding. (This
scenario is provided for in the rule in
§ 52.31 (d)(2)(i), (d)(3)(i), and (d)(4)(i).)
The following discussion and Figure
I provide en example of how this’
process functions with respect to a
sanctions dock started by an initial
disapproval. The process would
function in the same manner where the
initial finding was a finding of failure to
implement Suppose EPA Issues a SIP
disapproval, initiating the section 179”
sanction process. Suppose that the State
submitsarevisedSlPtoEPAwhich
EPA proposes to ly or conditionally
‘approve, prior to 18 months from the
date the sanctions dock started. The
EPA would simultaneously issue.an
interim final rulermfiklng a finding that
the State has corrected the deficiency. In,
that case, the application of the offset
sanction would be’deferred. Now
suppose that, at month 25. EPA reverses
its preliminary determination. The
-reversal would be a proposal to -
disapprove the SIP in whole or in part
or a final disapproval of the SIP in -
whole or in part. At month 25 (or. for
final actions, on the action’s effective
date), the offset sanction applies. The
highway sanction then applies 6 months
-later at month 31 (or, for final actions,
shortly thereafter, as appropriate). if
Within that period EPA has not -
determined that the State has corrected
the deficiency. - - -
-------
39840 Federal Register F Var. 59, No 149 1’ Thursday, August 4, 1994 F Rules andRegurations
Figure
1:
I
Case 1 for SIP Disapprovals
S.
I
WUD coca iei .
At. month 25 - (or
shortly thereafter
toUoving final
actianal. offset
sanction. applies
Per disapproval.
-, Stat. i hoita
rewired SW to EPA-.
• prior to month i
‘I ,
4.. -’
At month 31;
highway sanction 1 .
applies (or shortly
thereaftex
following final
acttonal. imleea
EPA dstzahisa-.
State corrected.
deficienCy’
Prior to month 10.
EPA. proposer to
fully, or -
conditionally . -
approve SW and
make. lnten’j final
doterminak.ion
,def.ioiency
corrected . .
— ‘
1E- nth semotlom .
.cloch expires and•
app1i -tii n. of.
- offset semctlon !
deferred
I . -
- -At month 2S. full
or conditional.
approval becomes —
disapproval and EPA
determines
deficiency not
corrected
-------
Federal Register F Vol. 59, No. 149 / Thuxsday &ugust 4, 1994 ‘ 1 Rules arid è f ions . 39S41 -
Second, if EPA proposes (before
expiration of the 18-month sanctions
clock) to fully or conditionally approve
a plan or proposes to find that a State-
is implementing its SIP and that
proposal action is reversed before the 6-
month clock expires that would have
followed upon application of the offset
sanction, application of the offset
sanction is deferred until such reversal
of EPA’s proposed finding. The offset
sanction applies on the date EPA’s
proposal finding is reversed (or, for final
actions, on the action’s effective date).
The highway sanction then applies 6
months later if EPA has not determined
during that period that the State has
corrected the deficiency. (This scenario
is piovided for in the rule at § 5231
(d)(2)(i), (d)(3)(i) and (d)(4)(i).)
The following discussion and Figure
2 provide an example of how this
process functions for a finding of
nonimplementation. 2 The process
would be the same for an initial
disapproval. Suppose EPA makes a
finding of nonimplementation. initiating
the section 179 sanction process.
Suppose that EPA, prior to the end of
the 18 month sanctions clock, proposes
to find that the State is implementing its
approved SIP. At the time of the
positive finding, EPA would
‘ ThIs exampla Is given bra finding of Failuie
to Implement. while the othur four esamples aze
gtven for SIP d sappesvaIs. for iIIust athe purposes
only. -
simultaneously issue en interim fiuial
rule, finding that the State has corrected
the deficiency. -
In this case, the application of the
offset sanction would be deferred unless
and until EPA reverses its proposed
positive finding. Now suppose that EPA.
at month 22, reverses its proposed
positive fInding by withdrawing its’
proposed finding that the State is
implementing its SIP. At month 22 (or,
for final actions, on the action’s effective
date), the offset sanction applies. The
highway sanction then applies & months
later at month 28 (or, for final actions,
shortly thereafter; as appropriate), ii
EPA has not determined that the State
has corrected the deficiency.
-------
. 39842 - Federal Register / Vol. 59, No.. 149 / Thursday. August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
Figure 2: Case 2 for’Findings of Nonimp1ementation
- - At month 22. or
EPA makes finding ________________________ shortly thereafter
of following final
noninipeiaentation actions), offset
- sanction applies
1 . . ____
Prior to month 18, . . Ac month 28 (or
EPA proposes that . shortly thereafter
State is following final
implementing SIP actions) • highway
and makes Interim sanction applies
final determination unless EPA
th t deficiency determines the
corrected State corrected
deficiency
- 18-month sanctic&
clock e ires and
application of -
offset sanction,
deferred.
At month 22. EPA’ - -:
proposes or- finally
finds that the
State is not..
implementing the-
SIP and deficiency
has not been
- corrected -. -
onLmG coos meo c -.
-------
Federal Register 1. Vol. 59. No. 149 I Thursday, August 4. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 39043
Third, if EPA proposes (altec month
18 but before expiration of the
subsequent 6-month sanctions dock) to
fully or conditionally approve a plan or
proposes to find that a State is
implementing its SIP, application of the
offset sanction is stayed unless and until
EPA’s proposed positive finding is
reversed. (This scei rio assumes thai
EPA’s reversal oocurs before expiration
of the 6-month sanction clock.) For both
types of findings, the offset sanction
reapplies on the date EPA’s prelimii ary
positive determination is reversed. The
highway sanction applies 6 months
from the date the offset sanction
initially applied. If EPA has not
determined that the State has corrected
thedeficiency prompting the findin&
(This scenario is provided for in the rule
at § 52.31 (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(ii) and
(d)(4)(ii).)
The following discussion and Figure
3 provide an example of how this
process functions for a SIP disapproval.
The process is the same where EPA hes
made an initial finding of failure to
implement. Suppose EPA makes a SIP
disapproval, initiating the section 179
sanction process. Suppose that the State
submits a revised SIP which EPA, after
18 months but before the subsequent 6-
month clock expires, proposes to lly
or conditionally approve. The EPA
would simultaneously issue an interim
final rule. Fmding that the State has
corrected the deficiency. In that case.
applicationof the offset sanction would
be stayed unless and until EPA’s
proposed approval is reversed. Now
suppose that, at month 22, EPA reverses
its proposed approval. The reversal
would baa proposal to disapprove the
SIP in whole ca’ in part or a final -
disapproval of the SIP in whole or in
part. At month 22 (or, for final actions.
on the action’s effective date), the offset
sanction reapplies. The highway
sanction then applies at month 24.6
months after the offset sanction
originally applied, unless EPA
determines that the State corrected the
deficiency within that r-
-------
39844 FederaL Register I Vol. 59, No. 149 I Thursday,
August 4, 1994 I Rules and Regulations
Figure 3:
Case 3 for SIP Disapprovais
At month 22, (or
shortly thereafter
following final
actions), offset
sanction re-applies
18-month sanction
clock expires and
offset sanction
applies
At month 24,
highway sanction
applies, unless EPA
determines that
State corrected
deficiency
Per disapproval,
State submits
revised SIP to EPA
after ionth 18 but
before month 24
1.
After á th 10 but
before month 24. EPA
proposes to fully or
conditionally approve
SIP and make, Interim
final d eterminat ion
that deficiency
corrected
‘I,
On date of EPA
interim finar
• determination,
• application of
offset sanction
- . stayed -
J’.
At month 22,
approval becomes
disapproval and EPA
determines
deficiency not
corrected
BiLLING CODE 1660.40-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 149 I_Thursday, August 4, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 39845
rourth. if EPA proposes (after month
18. but before the subsequent 6-month
sanctions clock expires) to fully or
conditionally approve a plan or
proposes to find that the State is
implementing its SIP, and EPA does not
take action reversing such positive
action until after the subsequent 6-
month clock expires, application of the
offset sanction is stayed and application
of the highway sanction is deferred
unless and until EPA’s proposed
positive finding is reversed. The offset
sanction reapplies and the highway
sanction applies on the date EPA’s
preliminary deteiinination is reversed.
(This scenario is provided for in the rule
at § 52.31(d)(2)(ii). (d)(3)(ii) and
(d)(4)(ii).)
The following discussion and Figure
4 provide an example of how this
process functions for a SIP disapproval.
The process functions in the same way
for an initial finding of failure to
implement. Suppose EPA makes a SIP
disapproval, initiating the section 179
sanction process. Suppose that EPA.
after 18 months (but before the
subsequent 6-month clock expires).
proposes to fully or conditionally
approve the SIP. The EPA would
simultaneously issue an interim final
rule, finding that the State has corrected
the deficiency. In that case, application
of the offset sanction would be stayed
and application of the highway sanction
deferred at the time EPA makes its
positive finding. Now suppose that, at
month 26, EPA reverses its positive
finding. The reversal woqld be a
proposal to disapprove the SIP in whole
or in part or a final disapproval of the
SIP in whole or in part. At month 26 (or.
for final actions, on the action’s effective
date), the offset sanction reapplies and
the highway sanction applies.
u c coca -_ --- r
-------
39846 Federal Register / Vol. 59,. No. 149 / Thursday, August
Figure 4: Case 4
Per disapproval.
State s fts
revised SXP to EPA
after month 18 but
before month 24
After month 18 but
beforo month 24. ‘A
proposes to gully or
conditionally approve
sIP-and sakes interim
final determination
tMt deficiency
corrected
4, 1994 i Rules. and.Regulations
for SIP Disapprovals
1
At month 26,
approval beconea
disapprovaL and EP&
determines
deficiency nor -
corrected
18-month sthcttcn
clock expires and
offset sanction
applies
At month 26. (or
shortly thereafter
foiloving final
actions), offset
ancLio re—applies
and highway
sanction applies
On data of EPA
thterii. final
determination,
application ot
offset sanction
stayed
6-month sanction
clock expires and
application of
highway sanction
deferred
- muj Q COOS M
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 149 I. Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 39847
Lastly. the rule also provides that.
following a SIP disapproval or a finding
of failure to implement, if EPA proposes
after both sanctions clocks have expired
to hilly or conditidnally approve a plan
or proposes to find that a State is
implementing its SIP, application of the
offset and highway sanctions is stayed
unless and until EPA’s proposed
positive finding is reversed. The offset
and highway sanctions reapply on the
date EPA’s preliminary determination is
reversed. (This scenario is provided for
in the rule at § 52.31 (d)(2)(iii), (d)(3)(iii)
and (d)(4)(iii).)
The following discussion and Figure
5 provide an example of how this
process functions (or a SIP disapproval.
The process functions the same for an
initial finding of failure to implement.
Suppose EPA disapproves a SIP,
initiating the section 179 sanction
process. Suppose that the State submits
a revised SIP which EPA, at 25 months,
proposes toiully or conditionally
approve. The EPA would •. -.
simultaneously issue an interim final
rule, finding that the State has corrected
the deficiency. In that case, the
application of both sanctions would be
stayed on the date of the positive action.
Now suppose that, at month 30, EPA
reverses its proposed positive finding.
The reversal would be a proposal to
disapprove the SIP in whole or in part
or a final disapproval of the SIP in
whole or in part. At month 30 (or. for
final actions, on the action’s effective
date), both sanctions reapply.
BWG COOS 6560.60.P
-------
39848 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 149 / Thursday. August 4, 1994 1 Rules and Regulations
Figure 5:
Case 5 for SIP I isapprova1s
2
1•
At month 30,
approval becomes
disapproval, and EPA
determines
deficiency not
corrected
18-month unction
clock expires and
of feet unction
applies
At month 30. lot
shortly thereafter
following final
actions), both
sanctions re-apply
6-month sanction
clock expires and
highisy sanction
applies
Prior to month 25;
per disapproval,
Stat submits
revised S P to EPA
At month 25 EPA -
proposes to fully
or conditionally
approv. SIP and EPA
- determines
deficiency
corrected
On date of EPA
interim final
determination,
application of both
sanctions stayed
• mu o coon =c
a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No . 149 / Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 39849
In all cases following disapprovals
and findings of nonirnplementation, the
sanctions dock stops permanently and
any sanctions applied are permanently
lifted only when EPA completes final
notice-and-comment rulemaking action
fully approving the SIP revision or
finding that the State is implementing
its SIP.23
(4) Legal Basis and Rationale for
Change One. The EPA believes that its
policy darification is consistent with
the statutory language of section 179
and that it is a reasonable interpretation
of that language. The EPA believes this
policy is consistent with the legal
requirements of section 179 of the Act
end section 553 of the APA. Section
179(a) of the Ad requires sanctions to
apply 18 months after a deficiency
finding “unless such deficiency has
been corrected ,“ and requires that
‘sanctions apply “until the
Administrator determines that the State
has come into compliance * .“ The
EPK interprets this language to require
that EPA make a determination that the
State has corrected the deficiency before
permanently stopping the sanctions
‘ock or lifting ganctjw s. In the e of
lock started by a disapproval, such a
btermination would be represented by
- final, full approvaL However, EPA
does not believe that sectIon 179(a)
requires a final approval in order to
defer or stay the application of
sanctions, since the statutory language
-speake generally in terms of
•‘ ectjnr’defldendee and
“determining” compliance without -
explicitly lhildng those events to finaF
ap ruvalactlons.
SIP disapprovals. EPA
recognizes the first onnunanter’s
qonomn over timing and believes that
this policy clarification eliminates the
potential for sanctions applying in an
area when EPA has a submittal in house
for which EPA has determined that it is
more likely than not that the State has
corrected the deficiency that prompted
the original disapproval. Extending the
approach For disappmvals to findings of
nonimplementaticu also serves to avoid
applying sanctions when EPA has
proposed that a State is implementing
its approved SIP.
- Consequently, EPA believes it is
consistent with section 179 to treat
proposed full approvals following
isapprovals 2 ’ as the basis for deferring
These aOloc, p anoSly stop the senstioas
xk and p manently iweie sanctions became
such actions repesuent a ’Aa 5naI detseminaflon
that the State has inst the requirements of the Act
and thus has anrrected the deficiency that Initiated
thew aL i. process.
The IoHowh ig diacusefon on EPA’s legal
rationale and basis Sr staying and def . g
or staying the application of sanctions, State’s failing to submit a complete
while not permanently stopping the revised SIP to which it committed or by
sanctions clock or permanently lifting EPA s disapproval of the State’s revised
sanctions. The EPA also believes it is- SIP. -.
consistent with section 179 for proposed The EPA believes that this approach
and final conditional approvals to be the is similar to the method courts
basis for deferring andJor staying the traditionally use to grant interim
application of sanctions. 27 The proposed equitable reliet Courts may grant
full or conditional approval then forms preliminary injunctions to parties that
the basis ForEPA to issue an interim the court determines are likely to
final determination, which EPA would succeed on the merits of their case.
publish in a separate action in the . where there i no adequate legal remedy
Federal Register contemporaneously available, and where the public interest
with the proposed approval notice, that would not be served in not granting the..
the State had corrected the deficiency injunction. Such injunctions may
and come into compliance with the - typically last until the court has finally
requirements of the Act 28 While this decided the merits of the case, either for
interim final determination would have or against the narty granted the
the effect of deferring or staying injunction. Deterring or staying the
sanctions, it would not have the final application of sanctions upon proposed
effect of either approving the submitted .approval of a SIP revision is analogous,
SIP revision, or permanently stopping a in that an EPA proposed approval
sanctions dock or permanently lifting represents EPA!s view that it is more.
sanctions. The Interim final- likely than not that the State has
determination would be subject to corrected the disapproval deficiency
notice and comment and would have and come Into aunp )iavHw with the
effect only until either EPA made a final requirements of the Act. Also, as SIP
determination that the deficiency was approval actions generally require
con-noted at the time of a final approval notice-and-comment rulemaking before -
- of the S W revision, or EPA rev od Its they can become final, ifa sanctions
interim final determination at the time clock is due to expire after proposed
EPA reverses its proposed full or -. approval but before the Agency can
conditional approval Uan EPA practicably fulfill Its notice and
• proposed full approval were by commcpt duties and g fl
• pwposeud disapproval, the Agency appmvc1,tb e Is no other “remedy”
would publish a separate action In the available to rei!eva the State from the
Federal Register withdrawing the ‘ - piininhment of sanctions, even though it
interim £nal determination (that the isprobable that the State hati Vuuade4
• State has corrected thu deficiency) ‘- the defl .iiaum.v. •• .. - .
contemporaneously with the notice of - - Moreover, PA does not believe,’-
the proposed disapprovaL If en EPA following proposed appróvals,that-it”
proposed approval were reversed bya - WOuld beu the public Interest for
final disapproval. EPA would take final sanctions to remain-In effect; as at that
action finding that the de icy lass - point the Agency believesthat therein
not been corrected in fi nothing further that the State need do to
disapproval action. For an EPA :‘ come into compliance, end thus there is
proposed conditional approval, a - no fwihar heed for the deterrent effect-.
reversal could occur by a proposed or. -. of sanctions. The EPA also believes that
fiUl disapprovaL For an EPA final • • in these tUStIOBS ft would be -.
- conditional approval, a 5(fl 5} 3 especially unfair to States to begin the .
occur when the conditiOnal approval - applicationof sanctions where the only
converts to a disapproval through the reason the sanctions clock has not -.
______ - perittanently stopped is that the Agency
addresses SIP cannot comPlete its rulemaking process-
disapprovalsbmt applies equally tn Endbigsof to finally approve the S W before •.• -.
sanctions apply. Finally. EPA notes that
nra NRDC a. EPA. N c 92-s 53 5 alIp op ailS like the judicial preliminary injunction.
(D.C. Cir. Maya. 1994), theCourt struck down
EPA’s policy of conditionally approving model, this approach provides that-
SIPs (La., SIPs coeislsttng solely olaccenmltmeei). upon reversal of EPA’S preliminary.
Howesur, the Cowl provided that the conditional assesnnent that the SIP revision i
approval . p.lrnnI,, , , wee Intended to provide A approvable. and that, therefore. the
with an altesiestive to disapproving substantive, but
Itot entirely satisfactory. SIPs ’’ ‘.“ The EPA will deficiency has not been corrected,
beI*IO)ndItlOflal ftPPIO al3 Consistent with that sanctions Would be in effect if the
• interim final determination that the
wslncea final conditional approval has the effect State had corrected the deficiency bad
of continuing di sbylngandlo - never been made.’- •. •- . - .
sanctions. upon final conditional approval. EPA..:. - - The EPA also believes that this •
buId not publish a second Inturim fins)
detormlnation that the State hes .,,cte1 the approach is consistent with the --. . -.
deficiency bee footnote 15). . - - : . - .- : iuim of section 553 of The APA.. -’
-------
39850 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules . nd Regulations
Generally, under the APA, agency the State’s SIP revision and publicly
rulemaking affecting the rights of stated its belief that the submittal is
individuals must comply with certain approvable and that the State has
minimum procedural requirements, corrected the deficiency, but due to the
including publishing a notice of procedural requirements of the Act the
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Agency has not yet been able to issue a
Register and providing an opportunity final approval. The EPA believes
for the public to submit written sanctions coming into effect following
comments on the proposal, before the proposed approvals would
rulexnaldng can have final effect. The unnecessarily risk potential dislocation
EPA wiU not be providing an in government programs and the
opportunity for public comment before marketplace. The EPA also believes that
those deferrals or stays are effective, the risk of an inappropriate deferralor
Consequently. EPA’s approach may stay would be comparatively small,
appear to conflict with the requirements given the limited scope and duration.
of the AM. However, EPA will provide deferrals and stays would have and
an opportunity to comment on the given the rule’s mechanism for making
proposed approval that was the basis for sanctions effective upon reversal of its
the Interim final decision and will initial determination that the State had
provide an opportunity. after the fact, corrected the deficiency. Consequently,
for the public to comment on the EPA believes that the “good cause” -
Interim final decision. Thus, an exception under the APA allows the
opportunity for comment will be - Agency to dispense with notice and
provided before any sanctions clock is• comment procedures before deferrals
permanently stopped or any already. and stays of sanctions become effective,
applied sanctions are permanently and that it is thus appropriate to
lifted. In the context of the SIP approval respond to the commenters with the
‘rul in’i1dng, and with respect to the approach adopted In today’s rule. ’
Interim final rule, the public would P° ° Other Cominents.
have an opportunity to comment on the The EPA does not support the
appropriateness of EPA’s interim alternative proposed by the commenters
determination that the State had that EPA temporarily or permanently
corrected the deficiency and on whether stop the sanction docks started by
the Stale should remain sub jec disapprovals upon EPA receipt of a
sanctions, even though tb” ia e aI or submittal that the State believes corrects
stay Is already effectiyC ” the deficiency.
The EPA cannot determine whether
-The b , asis far Uowing such an iiiterim the State has wrm tød the deficiency
flnal tlon stems from section 553(bXB) until it reviews the plan for adequacy.
-of the APA which provides that the If the senr*ion clock were temporarily or
notice and opportunity for comment permanently stopped upon mere
requirements do not apply when the submIssIon of a pran following any
Agency finds that those procedures . section 179(a) disapproval (or finding of
“impracticable, unnqcessary. or contrary nonimplementatlon) and not started
to the public interest.” In the case of again until subsequent disapproval,
sanctions, EPA believes it would be - mandatory sanctions would then take
• both Impracticable and contrary to the- that much longer to have the effect of
public interest to have to propose and ‘encouraging State compliance and -
provide an opportunity to comment ..• protecting air quality in the area.,-
before any re ’ ief is provided from the Temporarily or permanently stopping
effect of sanctions. First, until EPA - the dock upon mere submission of a
proposes approval of a SIP revision, the plan could result in abuse of the system
Agency’s first step in determining- by States knowingly submitting SIP’S
whether a State’s SIP submittal meets that EPA cannot approve in ôrder.to
the requirements of the Act. EPA is not defer the application of sanctions. By
in a position to propose that the State allowing such abuses, such an approach
has corrected the deficiency; thus, there would also be unf i , to States which,
is no point in the process before . despite a good faith effort at developing
proposed approval at which EPA could a corrective rule, aie unable to avert
propose that the State has corrected the sanctions following disapproval. In —
deficiency and provide an opportunity sum, under the revised policy, the
for meaningful public comment on the underlying requirement for stopping the
issue. Second, as discussed above, EPA sanction dock is maintained: EPA must
believes it would be unfair to the State take final action to fully approve a
and its citizens, and thus not in the submitted SIP revision or find that a
public interest, for sanctions to remain - State is implementing its SIP in order to
in effect following an EPA proposed - permanently stop the sanctions clock
approval, since at that point the Agency and permanently lift any sanctions. As’
- has completed a thorough evaluation of discussed above, EPA will defer and/or
stay the application of sanctions when
it proposes a positive finding that forms
the basis for EPA to determine through
an interim final action that the
deficiency has been corrected; but in
these cases EPA will not temporarily or
permanently stop the underlying clock.
The EPA also believes that its
interpretation is legally supported under
the Act. Generally, section 179 states
that, “ * * unless such deficiency has
been corrected within 18 months after
the finding, disapproval, or
determination * * “ one of the
sanctions shall apply, as selected by the
Administrator. Section 11O(c)(1) of the
Act requires EPA to promulgate a FIP at
any time within 2 years after the
Administrator finds that a State has not
made a required submission or has
made an incomplete submission, or.
disapproves a plan submission, “unless
the State corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision, before the Administrator
promulgates such Federal
implementation plan.”
The running of the sanctions dock is
tied to the particular deficiency at issue
For example, if the clock was triggered
by a finding of failure to submit or a
finding of incompleteness, the dock
will stop if EPA determines that the
State submits a complete plan; it Is not
also necessary for the plan to be actually
approved to stop the dock. If the - -
complete submission is later
disapproved, then anew 18-month -
dockwillbegintorun,asprovidedin .‘ -
section 179(a), and will continue to run
untilthatdeficiencyiscorrectedwith
an EPA approved plan. For the PIP -
dock, in addition to the deficiency
being corrected, section 11O(c)(1).
includes an additional a’iterion—EPA,
SIP approval—that must be satisfied.for
EPA not to have to promulgate a FIP
within 2 years of a finding of .. -i
nonsubmittal or incompleteness. The -
explicit reference to an approval as an•
added prerequisite—beyond “conectin
the deficiency”— makes clear that. in
the context of failures to submit or
submission of incomplete plans, plan
approval is quite distinct from . -
“correcting the deficiency.” Therefore.
the Administrator’s approval is distinct
from “correcting the deficiency” for’
failure to submit and incompleteness.
Therefore, the fact that the “SIP ‘- - -
approval” language is redundant for
disapprovals. where SIP approval is par
of correcting the deficiency, does not
render that clause superfluous.
This interpretation of the section 1
sanction dock does not “read out” the”
section iO(c) requirement, but rather
merely illustrates that-following . .•‘.
disapprovals what is necessary to stop
-------
- Federal Register I Vol. 59, No.- l49fThursday,AugUst 4, 1994 / Rules and Régulétions 39851
- .... sanction and FIP clocks is the same
EPA approval of the SIP. (See EPA’s July
9.1992 SIP processing guidance. page
10.) However, as discussed above, this
is nOt the case for sanction clocks
started by a finding of failure to submit
• ore findingof incompleteness. There,
the Stale can correct the deficiency
merely by submitting a SIP EPA finds
complete. This would stop the sanctions
clock. In these situations, the additional
step of EPA approval is required to stop
the Fl ]’ clock, under the plain language
of section 11O(dlll).
• Therefore. EPA’s interpietationuf
section 179(a) does not render the
previsions of section 1l0(c)(1)(8)
inconsistent, meaningless or
superfluous. The Boise Cascode case
-cited by the commenter addressed a
situation in which one word.
“promulgation:’ wan argued by
petitioners to have the anne meaning an
another. ‘npproval (942 F.2d at 1342).
The cowt rejected that argument
because failing to distinguish between
the terms would have resulted either in
a conflict between two subsections of
.h Clean Water Act or made
,erfluoustheuse of ’approval In
ther subsection ( Id ) . Here, EPA’S
erpretadon of what is required to
- binect a defidency under section 179(a)
• does not nfl1d with the requirement
TotEM approval to stop a PIP clock, ft.
logically follows that approval is-
impflddy7e4uiiedtocorrecta
- deficiency based one disapproval, since
a State cannot be considered to have
remedied the underlying flaw that led to
• a disapproval until EPA has determined
that the State’s attempt to do so Is
approvable. 29 The explicit language In
section Z10(cX1XB) Is necessary because
FlPclocks also may be started by a
finding of failure to submit or SIP -
disapprovaL Congress was explicitly.
providing that in both these thstant
EPA approval is required to stop a FIP
• dock. Therefore, the reference in
section 110(c) to the need for EPA
approval still has meaning when the
initial failurewasa failuretosubmitor
an Incompleteness finding. Thus, EPA’S
interpretation does not render
Asd1scuasedaboia. E PAbe l ievesftIs
appropriate sub. point otp . . ,d approval to
contetnporeneonaly Issue as Interim final
determination that the State has corrected the
‘laSdency icr pudngorstayütgth.
imilon of any sanctions that are due. Again.
Interim final determination would be aubject to
ondition that EPA grant Irnal approval to the
and would not have any final effect on the
.....alapproval action, lithe subsequent condition
Is not met (i.e.. If m ’ A . aopossd . p rn ..l is
reversed b a proposed or Snal disapptpvalL from
thai pOint on the interim final determination would
have no effect and any-sanctions vequired to be
applied would be applied. - -• -
superfluous the explicit language in
section 110(c)(1)(B).
Moreover, EPA’s interpretation does
not ignore or “read our of the statute
section 110(cXl)(B) (NRDC v. IJS EPA
822 F.2d at 113). That case addressed a
petitioner’s attempt to ignore a specific
condition of the Clean Water Act’s
applicability provision, which the court
viewed as an wiacoeptable method of
construing statutes (Id). here, rather
than disregarding the requirement that
EPAapprova l lsnecessarytostopaFlP
clock. EPA is interpretIng section 179(a)
to implicitly require that same element
to be satisfied before a sanctionsilock
stailed fore disapproval can be stopped.
This in no way Ignores the section
1lO(c)(l)(B) language for purposes of the
FIP clock, nor represents an attempt to
interpret the Ad such that the 1angu ge
-of section 1.lO(c)(1)(B) does not have full
effact. As stated above, the reference to
EPA approval in that section still has
meaning where the clock was started by
a finding of failure to submit or
incompleteness. ‘ - ‘
(5) AdditloimI Comments Regurding -
the Sanctions aock.’-
Ia) Comments. Another commenter
believes that the final rule should
provide Toe resetting the sanctions clock
wh ’inever a State that had failed to
submit a timely SIP submits one, even
iftheSlP lslsterfoundtobe.
incomplete. The commenter notes that
section 179 provides for en 18-month
period following one of four diff r 0 nt’
types of findings of Inadequate State
action before sanctions can be imposed.
The commenterergues that EPA
fflllyihorteisth lspeiiodby
combining Into one, two types of - - -
inadequate action under the same 18 -
month period , and that the final rule
should provide for separate docks for’ —
each type of Inadequate action. -
Another commeuter Is concerned that
States may be tempted to view the 18-
month sanctionsciock esadditiouaI
time in which to meet a deadline. The
cornmenter believes that Congress did
not intend t iat States that failed to•
submit a timely SIP and later submitted
en inadequate SIP wouldbave more
time.belore facing sanctions than States
that submitted a ‘complete but
unappmvable SIP on time. While the.
commanter agrees with EPA’S policy
that incomplete submittals cannot
temporarily stop the ’sauctions clock, the
coimnenter believes the overall policy
rewards delay in completing programs.
The coinmenter believes that the final
rule should state that only EPA approval
of a finil rulestops the clock. -
(b) Responses. As noted above,
section 179 indicates that sanctions
- apply within-certain timeLdIfl , unless
EPA determines that the deficiency that -
prompted the finding starting the
sanctions clock has been corrected
within those timeframes. Therefore,
EPA believes the Act requires that
sanction clocks stop for findings of
failure to submit and findings of
incompleteness when EPA finds a
subsequently submitted SIP complete
(i.e., finds that the deficiency has been
corrected).
The EPA disagrees that a clock started
by a finding of failuie to submit should
stop based on a mere submittal that may
or may not be complete The Act
provides under section l1O(k)(IXC) that
where the Administrator determines
that a plan is incomplete the State is
treated an-not having made the -
submission. Based on this, EPA believes
that an affirmative finding that a SIP is
complete is necessary to cure a . -
nonsubmittel or Incompleteness
deficiency and stop sanction clocks
Initiated by such findings.’°This . -
inteipietation is further supported by -
the factthata findingoffailureto’
- submit end Incompleteness are
provided forunderthesanreprovision -
of sections 179(aXl) and 179(aX3)(A).
Ontheotherhand,EPAdoesnot
believe that it is appropriate to allow’’
only EPA approval to pcnu nentIy atop
thesanction clock for all types of
flndings. 3 ’ It is conceivabl, that a Stale
could abuse th, system under the - -
predess established in the final rule by
- submitting a complete but inadequate -.
SIP at 17 months that stops.a sanctions
dock that started based an a finding of
• fallwetosnbmitoraflndlngof -
incompleteness. Such an area could face
sanctions later then the State that;
submitted a timely. complutebqt - -
tmepprovable SIP. iIows r, as b’ -
discussed above, EPAbelieves the’ -
reference tosuth eflc1ency”
immediately following the list of the -
types of deficiency findings insection
179(a) indicates that sanctions docks
will stop ii and when the State corrects
the specific deficiency that prompted
the finding. Consequently, the running
and stopping of the clock is tied to the
particular deficiency at issus, and EPA,
believes that it lacks the statutory -
seAs noted.above in this section. this change is
reflected In the rule and is ‘ wd In-section
this document.
“As noted above, the nte Indicates that -
It agrees with EPA’. proposed policy that
incomplete aubminals cannot temporarily stop the
sanctions clock. The EPA’ . proposed policy did not
state that incomplete sulunittels cannot temporarily
stop the sanctions clock. Rather. EPA’S proposed
policy stated that Incomplete submhtale cannot’
permanently stop the unction. c1 ckinit1atsd bye
finding of failur, to submit c c Incumpletenes&
Thus, in responding to the cummeat permanently
atop ha, been substituted fottexnporarily stop.
2’
-------
9352 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 149 I Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
ithority to apply mandatory sanctions
nder section 179 upon those States that
titially failed to make a submission
hrough failure to submit or by virtue
fan incomplete submission) but which
ave subsequently submitted a complete
lan. The submission of a complete plan
sufficient to stop a clock started for
failure to submit any or a complete
lan because at that point the State has
orrected the specific earlier deficiency
f not having submitted a complete
plan. Following this correction, the
lain language of section 179 does not
how application of mandatory
anctions due to the original deficiency,
ut if the complete submission is later
lisapproved, a new sanction clock will
egin to run and will continue to run
Lntil that specific deficiency is
orrected. 32 The EPA believes that
verall its policy is consistent with the
anguage of sectIon 179 and rational in
hat it recognizes that what the State
nust do to correct a deficiency relates
Iirectly to the nature of the finding, and
bat overall this policy will encourage
omplianse with Act requirements.
Finally, the Act contains due dates by
vbich the State Is required to submit
ertain SIP’s. The EPA does not believe
hat Congress established the 18-month
ieriod before mandatory sanctions must
pply is a grace period in which States
save a legal right under section .179 to
ubmit SIP’s after the relevant statutory
tue date. Iniact, EPA Interprets section
110(m) of the Act as providing EPA with
he authority to’? . * apply aiy of he
anctions listed in section 179(b) at any
ime (or at any time after) the
dministrator makes a finding, -
lisapproval, or determination wider
section 179(a) *
PA is not precluded from taking mole,
Iggressive action than required under
action 179 when States fail to correct.
leficient Pl8 &.’:.
1. Other Areas of Comment
This ectioniddre eithe remaining -
ireas of the proposal where comment
as received. . -
a. Lack of Good Faith Deteimination;
Under section 179(a), both the offset and
iighway sanctions shall epply after 18
nonths if the Administrator finds a lack
fgood faith onthe part oftheState. In
heproposa latpage5 lz74.EPA’
ndicated that any finding of a lack of -
ood faith EPA makes under section -
‘ Funhezmore. It appears that the appnach
irticulated by this cominenter (Le.. that sanctions
locks and PIP clocks are both stopped by EPA
ipproval of a revisedSIP) would present the
,roblegns recognized In reading out of section
liO(c)(1) the clause ?the Administrator approves
he pun or plan revision” (Boise Coscode, 942 F.2d
it 1432. and NIWC.v. EPA. 822 F.Zd at
179(a) will be subject to notice-and-
comment rulemaking.
One comnienter believes that the final
rule should define a “lack of good faith”
and require appLication of both
sanctions as a default where it exists.
The commenter believes that some
situations may require fact specific
judgment, while others are so extreme
that they presumptively prove the State
has decided not to make a good faith
effort at complying. The commenter
believes that EPA need not undertake
nàtice-and-comment rulemaking with
respect to findings of a lack of good
faith. Another coinxnenter believes that
the phrase “if the Administrator finds a’
lack of good faith on the part of the
State” is subjective and ambiguous and
needs defining.
In response to the comments. EPA
still believes findings of a lack of good
faith under section 179(a) must be
subject to notice-and-comment since it
is a discretionary action which requires
exercise of a substantial degree of
judgment on EPA’s part. The public
should have an opportunity to comment
on the basis for these actions. Further,
EPA does not yet have a policy on how
to further define the Act’s language, or
when and where It plans to make
findings of a lack of good faith other
than the case-by-case approach
described above. The notice-and-
comment rulemaking will provide an-
opportunity for the public to comment
Ofl EPA’s interpretation of a ‘lack of good
faith in each caso-specific circumstance.
• b. Sanction Timing. The proposal at
page 51272 IndIcated that since section
179(a) provides for automatic sanction
application once EPA has made the
selection, under this sanction sequence
rule sanctions will apply automatically
- in the-orderprescribed herein in all
in zewes in which sanctions are
applied.following findings under -
section 179(a) (1)—(4) that EPA has
already made or that EPA will make in
the future, except when EPA takes a
separate action to select a different
sequan of sanction application.
However the proposal indicated that
where the sanction clock expires for any
ndingsbeforethisactionisfinaland
effective and EPA has not taken
independent sanction selection action.
EPA interprets section 179(a) to provide
that sanctions shall not apply until EPA
makes the sanction selection through
notice-and-comment rulemaking, such
as this action.
At page 51272 of the proposal EPA
also indicated that EPA intends to notify
States of the automatic sanctions by
• letter and publish a document in the
Federal Register in which EPA amends
the language of the rule to indicate areas
subject to the applicable sanctions. The
proposal provided that if removal of
sanctions is warranted, EPA would
notify the State that sanctions are being
removed and amend the rule to reflect
that.
One commenter believes that EPA’s
interpretation of section 179 is incorrect
and that section 179 unambiguously
requires sanction application within 18
months of a finding. The commenter
believes that Congress did not condition
EPA’s mandatory sanction application
duty on completion of notice-and- -
comment rulemaking.
The plain reading of settion 179(a) is
that sanctions, “as selected by the
Administrator,” apply within certain
prescribed timeframes. The section does
not provide any guidance to EPA on
sanction application sequence. Given
this wide discretion, EPA believes that
ft Is necessary for sanction selection to
be subject to notice-and-comment in
order to provide for public comment.
The EPA interprets thepbiase “as
selected by the A Iininictrator” as words
of condition that must be met before
mandatory sanctions apply.. Indeed.
EPA is undertaking this rulemaking to
• satisfy the conditional duty so that
sanctions may apply automatically
when sanctions clocks expire.
The EPA is also conducting this
rulemaking to eliminate the future neea-
(except to reverse the prrn ion -
sequence) for IndMdual ruldmnldngc
for every finding with respect to part D
requirements. The EPA believes in the
long run this actionwill facilitate.’
smooth applicatlonof sanctions to
encourage State compliance and protect
air quality. • -
C. Notice and Coñiment for
Nonsubmuttal and Incompleteness
Findings. In the proposal at page 51272.
EPA’s view was that notice-and-
comment is not required for findings of
failure to submit because of insufficient
time provided by the statute. Since EPA
has lessthan6Odaystodetermine - -
whether a State’s submittal is complete,
and it is impossible to provide notice-
and-comment in 60 days, EPA believes
that Congress clearly intended that EPA
shouLd not go through notice-and-.
comment rulemaking prior to making
findings of failure to submit.
Additionally. EPA argued that even if
EPA’s findings of failure to submit were
subject to APA rulemaking procedures,
EPA believed that the good cause
exception to the rulemaking
requirement applies (APA section
553(b)(B)). Section. 553(b)(B)of tIn
provides that EPA need not pmvh . . -
notice and an opportunity for comment
if EPA determines that notice and
comment are “impracticable,
-------
Federal Register! Vol. 59 , No. 149 /_Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules .and Regulations 39853
innecessary, or contrary to the public Congress appears to have adopted EPA’s
interest.” The EPA argued that notice established process of making
and comment for findings of failure to completeness determinations by letter. -
submit does not require any judgment Moreover, EPA does not believe that the
on the part of EPA and, therefore, is - completeness determination is highly
unnecessary. discretionary, but instead is a
One commenter states that under the straightforward exercise to assure a
APA, burdens such as sanctions cannot State’s submittal has all the basic
be imposed without notice-and- elements to warrant further review for
comment. The commenter argues that overall adequacy.
EPA provides no defense of its denial 91 Regarding the APA, EPA continues to
public comment for findings of believe that even if EPA’s findings of
incompleteness and cannot defend such failure to submit and incompleteness
denial for findings of nonsubmittal and were subject to rulemaking procedures
incompleteness. The commenter further - under the APAP the good cause
argues the judgment of whether a SIP exception applies to such findings for
meets the SIP completeness criteria is - the reasons discussed above. It would
often debatable and discretionary. not be practicable to subject every -
Therefore, the commenter argues, the. . completeness review to notice and
public should be able to comment. comment because of the limited time
Another commenter believes that afforded by the statute. It would also not
EPA’s proposal contradicts the spirit be in the public’s interest because it
and letter of the notice-and-comment would impose a tremendous burden on
provisions in the Act. The commenter -
argues the proposal is contradictory on the Agency and divert resources from
when it allows for public comment in more important substantive SIP reviews.
sam, instances but not others. Regarding the consistency comment..
• In tesponse to the thmments, EPA - EPA believes that it is adhering to
maintains that notice and comment is notice-and-comment pràvisions of the
ot necessary for findings of failure to amended Act and the AM. Where it is
ubmit and incompleteness. The 60 . appropriate.: because The determination
ays the Act provides EPA to determine requires EPA judgment, EPA provides
whether a State submittal is complete’S for notice and comment (i.i, for SIP
does not provide sufficient time to. •- disapprovals or findings of •
conduct notice-and-comment.. .-• - - .. . nonimplententation). Additionally, as
rulemaking prior tomaking dis L- EPA has aone via this action, when EPA
failure to submit or findings of’. - make a andi 6 n selection notice and -
incompleteness. The EPA contintiis Ic. comment am also provided. On the
believe that the impossibilify other hand, as discussed above, in othei
conducting notk e-and-comment . ‘ ; ce ses sufflciönt time does not exist to
rulemaking within the 60 days prvided.. provide for nOtice and comment ai,d the
for cdmp lèteness decisions is itself -‘: -. determinations themselves require little,
compelling evidence that Congress did - if any; judgment. Finally, as discussed
in section ILC.3.,-tho final rule does not
not intend such rulemaking.:
Additionally, EPA does not believe that - cover findings of substantial inadequacy
notice and comment are necessary for. under section l1b(k)(5) for part D SIP’s
findinl of incompleteness because - .(so-called SIP .calls), which were
section iiOtk)(i)(B) does not ‘- ,- - Covered by the proposed rule, because
specifically require it. Byinacting ;s Qf concerns about adequate notice and
section iiO(k)(i) on completeness, - . . comment befór sanctions are applill
Congress was codifying an EPA practice:: for State failur to respond to a SIP call. -
created in late 1989 in which PA did ;.c.:fhe EPA intends to develop an - - -
not provide notice-and-comment alternative approach for applying
mandatory sanctions for State failure to
rulemaking before makingS
inconipleteness findings. 3 By î 1 i respond to SIPcalls thaiprovides for - -
that practice and by not specifically. - - notice and comment. .
requiring anything more than the -. - - d. PM—b Waivers. The proposal did .
process EPA already established; ¼, - not a4dress the PM—b waiver -:
_________ - . provisions in semion 188(Q of the Act. -
• Note that in prwnulg.tntgthe completeness The commenter expresses a frustration.
criteria. EPA noted that the purpoá of the with the definition of PM—b -
mpteteness procedure is to ‘keep incomplete ‘- “significance” and argues that in the -
packages out of the more extensive review S fstom West, PM—b levels above the standard
i.e.. miemaking for approval), thereby eaviag both
EPA and the Slate valuable time” FIt 2138. 2139 are caused predominately by fugitive,
(January19. 1989)). Therefore, requiring rulemakjeg ‘dust and mob.ile sources. Therefore, the
action to determine whether a SIP submittal is - . commenter believis, applying 2-to-I
complete would defeat the purpose of the ‘‘ ‘ ‘ offsets to industrial sources will have a
completeness criteTia. which Is to allow for a quick
rejection of those submiflals that are “essentially negligible effect on PM—b 24-hour
unre iewable” (hi). •. - .- - concentrations. - - - S
A July 1992 draft addendum to the
General Preamble (57 FR 31477, July Th,
1992) addresses severn! waiver policy
issues, including significance levels.
The EPA believes the comment period
for that policy, rather than this action
selecting sanctions, is the appropriate
forum for comments on that issue, The
EPA recognizes that in some
nonattainment areas industrial sources
may be less significant contributors. In
those cases, EPA may decide to apply
the highway sanction first, which this
jule provides flexibility to do.,;- -
C. Summasyof Changesin Rule,.
1. Section 52.31(a)—Purpose
Section 52.31(a) seta forth the purpose
of this rulemaking, which is to establish
the sequence of sanctions required to
apply under section 179(a). The -
substance of this provision was not
changed from the proposed rule. -
2. Section 52.31(b)—Definitions -
Section 52.31(b) sets fdrth-the-
‘definitions applicable under 40 CFR - -
52.3t. The definitions of “Act” and’
• ‘1990 Amendments” aie not ‘-- :•
substantively changed. However, the.
citations for these two definitions wer
inadvertently switched and they now
correctly proyide that the Act is located
at42U.S.C.etseq.andthel99O..-
Amendments were set forth in Public’
Law’101—549. . • ,
• In. addition, several definitions were’,
added. Since the regulation provides’s
that the offset sanction only applies to-
the pàllutant(s) that the finding.
concerns and its precursors, EPA has:.
added a definition of “precursors.” The
‘EPA has also added a definition of
pm uzsors’ which ’specifically
identifies the two ozone precursors— -
VOCánd -. .‘, , -.
- The EPA has added a newdefinftion
for “affected area.” This term, while
used in the proposed rule (e.g.ç the
tables), was not previously defined.
Furthermore, its usage in the final rule
has been expanded; in many places the
word “area” has .now.been replaced by
“affected area:” The definition provides
that an “affected area’ is the geographic
area subject to or covered by the Act
requirement that is the subject of the -.
•linding and either, for purposes of the
offset and highway sanctions,’ is or is
within an area designated - - - --
nonaltainment area pursuant to 42’ -
U.S.C. 7407(d) or, for purposes of the
offset sanction, is or ,is within an area
otherwise subject to the emission offset
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 7503. As ust d
in this rule, in conlunction vith
§52.31(e) (1) anà (2), the affected area
is the area potentially subject to a
-------
39.854 Federal R1!gjster I Vol. 59. No. 149 / Thursday. August 4. 1994 / Rules and Regplatinns
sanction based oaa finding. The new
definition clarifies that the sanction
applies to the gwgiaphic area subject to
or COvcwd Piy the recpñrement at issue
in the finding. This wfl usually be the
entire c sigjxated area, but in some
instances may be a portion of a -
dest eted area. This point is made
throu t the first portion of the
definition. Moreover, since the affocted
area istbeareein whinha sanction
applies, It w ecessary lfm4t the
definition tethose areas that could be
subject teasandion. Therefore, the
second portion of the definition restricts
the deflaltion of “affected area” b
incorporating the geographic limits of
the highway aiui offset sanctions. Fhst.
the highwaysandien. as applied aeder
sedina 179(a), is Ilsaitod to
noaau t eaa. sin i cecth
179(b)(1l des.that the highway
sanctioo ybe”applicable tea
nonattaMunea& area” ’ Second. b r Ito
terms, the offset sanction has effect only
in thosearearin whfchthe offset
requireseentsofs on 173 are re ired
to apply. (See 59 FR t4 ) (January U..
1994) for a firrthetdi usaiou of fbi
geogaphicapp l isetñlityofseetian.
17 * 1 ThisIfldHdeSal
oeseotae add tin a .sosrs
tboaetosated in NQTRaeahlhe
sub ject to the offset s n rni_sinsa
the eases may be sub t tn’thao et
requirements of section 173..evea • -
tho ye c --.
esection
exainpl4.Ther me..ll se chuee.
of the ds niinn. areen te
no o eatareen(whith be -
sidije to both the higK” y and o et...
nctiorr) and asses wuasEhfrIl to
the . s*sequiremonts tf ...i
secties 173 ( wbkb would be to:
the offset sanctions).. ..
• Thresuca eni1rstratehcwt - -
definition appti.a - One, if EPA finds
that a Slate folIate 5 i La 4t a Phi-il) plea
for a pM_1Ooonatta i nm. k
area a tesectino 1*IancIlhe.
State does not emsect tbe deficiency.
• within 18 n then. persu tet
rule,, the offset maclion shall app1 pin
the PM-b nenattainmant ares whose
boundaries asedescribed in 4 Q fl past-
81. 1 16,monihslates the dsfidasw y
resnsins.una*rected. then the hisbwair
Two, if EPA finds a State fails to
submit a required SD> revision under the
Act for a requ irement that applies to
only-a portion of an area, than the
sanduii apply-to the portion of the
area subject to the requirement and not
the whole area. Forexainpie, the
enhanced inspection and maintenance
plan reqiniement forserious, v rv.
antI e ,ctnnne flon ttdunuent areas
applies only to “çach Ukbau d area (in
the neeettainoient area) as defined by
the Bureau oltheCensus, with a 198&
population Of 29O,O9 or mere” (see
S bti I 192$c )(3)(AJ). Section 184
provides that for all maes within the
NCXTR. thfsrequwement will appiy to
uibeakosd areas with a p p’alatIon in
excess of OO9 Therefore, this
requirement enuld apply to a smaller
area wit a de gnatednooattaãtmeut.
et ent er classiSed moo. If the
State lateadapt the pre ram fur such
enmea,the 179 m wo’jtd
annhønl rth1hnt mt allpr-
i dstha
within thsNCfllkilaiosubmIa -
SWkw VOCa shed pusmant t
s’ioa48 bk1) B with voiced Is all
the isthaSthiecitothis.
____ reqiairemenL aed theState does not
coned the defr nry within 18 months,
then.. pursuant to this rule the et
sanction would apply in the entire
StMo. Ifgmcaths la r the deitcieacy
zeu in uncosrected. then the b1ghwa ,
sanction. would ppLy to all .1’ the -.. -
nonat L eet ameafu the Stole. If there
were ,no.dis ign t ad nenotlainmei s
_____ within the Slate , the highway sandion.
dnotapolyia thatSiate. • -
The gd.fi.ittonsa m e
___ ii’ n Ive1j ! m anged fro n these in
__ t 0 .
___ 3. edo 1 (c)i—Applicablllty
-. - Section 5Z.3 1(cl establishes the
applicability of the final rule. The
portions off 5231(cJ setting forth the
_______ - findings that frf pr the sanctions clock
remain unchang.edas these portions
were tsifr it directly from sections 179(a)
(1)-(4) .Cenorally. these fincflngs aze
thala Statebas failed to submit a
required SIP or SIP element, has
-submitted a SIP or SIP element that does
not meet EPA’s completeness criteria.
has submitted a SIP that is not
approvabte. or that the State is failing to
implement an app edS!P.
The portions of §52.31(c ) imlicating
the SIP u ,UtS to which this rule
______ applies have bee !! madffiett. ‘lire
proposal indicated the rule covers any
pavtl SIP or SIP rvvib uazequired
unclertheAct ranypartO SiPor SR
revision requfredbi response to a’
finding of substantial in acy under
section 11o k)(5]. This section of thel
final rule has been modified to cover
only past DSIP and S W revisions and
no! calls for pail D SIP’s or SIP revisions
under section 11O k)f5 . The final rule
does not cover part D SIP calls because
of con iiic abou l apptyingsanrtians for
Stale fafluzesto responcito such SIP
calls following EPA nui cuftt t
finding without opportunily fourotrce
and comment SIP calls are iirrøntIy
not subject to netica-aad aimmenr., The
public and. affected sources musthe
g vea notice and appathanity to
coáment before SIP calls cea have
binding effectas a result c ia section
179(a) finding that a Slate has (hued to
submit a S W in response te.a SIP cafl
Thus. if this rulerwere to apply teState
failures to respond loSiP calls.
mandatory sancffonsrau,LI apply
wizhcrrtaaappectunily forsuch. - .
comm t before now obligations -
barrima limiting against eatzd
sources. ‘this woLild be fnmneidpnt
svith thaAPArnqj’irnn ofsertinn
553. Thereihre. as discussedin section.
ILC.3., the fina l rule doesno& osmer part
D lls.ThaEPAwi11da ie1op
neihkarappco toeddroes calls
pro ddlngaa ppaiv mfty w otico ond
r mantbaiasemi a.d*tnry i ctii
apply for eState blithe to sosporad
SIPcaL,.. - .,,.
4. Section 5a3d1—&nction
Application Sequencing. .; -
Section 5231 (43(ljis the heart of this’
ruib In that It estab?k)we the order In.
which the automatic snnrlions under
section 1(alshaltappty SeveraT:
• c?anfirmtionshavabeen mace to the..
sedion ‘ - . - - -
One, s p IflflU
affirmative EPA action tnstopnanction-
___ -•
• section fl*) Endings. Including ’
nonsubiiifttal end iecosn il-I— . .ve .
- findings. TheEPA’s. proposed and final
sanction d i policypruv de s that.
following findings of nons*nittal and
leteness ariqw f ion ate-
nennenPPw tOrmad land en ,
___ -
flO J( pz desthat iw ttu}is
deemed complete if a thmplelauess
findingis not medebyEPA within 6
months of EWs receipt of the plan.
Under this clarification to §52.31(6). a
SIP beccuuingcotnplete by operation of
law wifleotbesirifirinuttostop
a1 zq dr or for an area to avild
sanctions. The’ EPA will need Is
afflrrnMivety’d eteunine that the
completein order lbr the s ndiuii
to stop and any sanctions to he tilted.
This policy clarification li
henceforth govern what is required to
sanction applies an the aonattainioen(
area as well. In both cases the sanction
applies only is the nosettoinment area.
because that is the geographic woe.
coveredby theAct reqalr ’n oh -
-“SeU on i 2 lihfbies ‘eoeac uz eaearea re
“an area d ‘ed’noiaita aineae 1th
respect’to(an aIz?puflutan within the meaninguf -.
secI o, ifirt - . - — , - -
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 1994 I Rules and Regulations - 39855
stop sanctions clocks and lift sanctions . substantial adverse environmental effect standards. Completeness reviews are
Following findings of nonsubmittal and or could permanently foreclose use of only indirectly related to attainment and
incompleteness, and the other section part D provisions such as sanctions. The maintenance of the standards in that the
179 findings. Prior to this policy EPA does not believe that . completeness review is not intended to
clarification, in certain cases EPA did grandfathering these areas from this be review of theSlP’s adequacy to meet
stop sanction clocks started by EPA policy clarification will have an the standards. Therefore, thern
findings of failure to submit or imminent and substantial grandfathering of these SIP submittals
incompleteness by SIP submittals being environmental impact given the limited from the policy clarification satisfies
deemed complete “by operation of law.” number of area and given that the this exception as well.
The EPA believes that thIs approach States’ submittals must be adequate to - Two, the phrase “affected area” has -
was consistent with EPA guidance at the attain and maintain the relevant been substituted for “area.” This is to
time and that it is appropriate to NAAQS beForoEPA can approve them. darify that the sanction only applies in
grandfather these areas under EPA’s - in addition, this grandfathering does not affected areas, and not necessarily all
grandlathering guidance. permanently foreclose the application of areas for which EPA makes a section
The EPA believes that after . sanctions in these areas should EPA, 179(a) finding. (See the discussion of
consideration of its grandfathering : - through rulemaking, find the SIP “affected area” under the definitions
policy for SIP requirements 35 it is submittals inadequate to attain and section above.) Three, the second
permissible to grandfather these cases - maintain the NAAQS and disapprove sentence regarding highway sanctions
from this policy clarification. The EPA’s them.. . . has been clarified to provide that
general grandfathering guidance The fifth exception provides that correction of the deficiency “forming
provides that SIP revisions will remain action on a SIP revision which comports the basis of the finding” is needed to
subject to the requirements in effect on with the revised requirements but not . stop the dock. This language is -
the date that the State adopts the SIP the original requirements may be based consistent with the language included
revision, provided a complete, fully on the revised requirements. In this in the proposal section 52.31(d)(1) for
adopted SIP revision is submitted . instance, this is indeed the case;. the offset sanction Insentence I and
promptly. generally.withln 60 days of conceivably, one or more of those SIP’s - donslstent with the Interpretation ‘-.
the adoption. Since the policy . . deemed complete by operation of law . established in the preamble to thern
clarification as effective by this action may have lacked one or more of the proposed rule at pages 512fl—51273.
and all of the SIP submittals in question . elements needed for EPA to find a plan This revisioimerely clarifies what
were adopted more than 60 days prior affirmatively complete. Nonetheless, - . deficiency needs to be corrected in
to September 6, 1994, under this general EPA cannot fully approve a plan if any order to stop the sanctions clock.
grandfathering, these cases are .- of the required completeness-elements .Finally, a new final sentence has been
grandfathered. However, the guidance-- are lacking. For example, if a SIP , “ added to the ection. The sentence
indudes several elceptions to the :.. submittal lacks compliancelenlbzvement provIdes that for clocks started by. -
general guidance which must be :, ‘.strategies, one of tethnical elements. ., -, rulemaking actloñ (La., disapprovals :
addreésed before an action is considered equimd for completeness, then EPA;..,.. -and findülgS of failure to Implement).
by EPA to be grandfathered. ... ...... : could not fully approve the plan. . , , the dater of the finding starting the clock--
.The first exception concerns the:.-.. . Therefore;while EPA Is grandfatherlng. ‘ is he ffel Jive date” of the action, not -.
intent of the policy not to grandMher these SIP submittals from completeness, . necessarily the date it is signed orthe
SIP’s submitted hurriedly to aVoid new. EPA is not grandfatheniig these areas . ‘ .-date.it’Is published in the Federal -
requirements. In the cases at issue, such “-tfrom having adequate SIP’s to attain and - Registet. Sin thedlsapproval or -.
action has not occurred on the part of Th maintain the standards; .. - . finding of failure tb Implement is not’
the State since the States have received ... The sixth exception raises a concern ‘ . ‘effective until the ’effectiv date” of the -
no early, formal notification-that the asto whether grandfathering the SIP ’ - flnaiaction the sanctions’clock’should
sanction clock policy is being cIarifled from the requirements hi question not startuntil uch action is effective. - -.
in the manner it is today. -.. .‘-‘, - - ;-would-render the SIP as iwhole ‘-,‘ - -. Upon further reflection,’EPA .
Thesecond exception to general. . - .r .. substantially inadéquate. ‘- r - .. determined that the clarification should
guidance on grandfathering concerns.,c;-. Grandfathering these SIP submittals - beinctuded In-the rulein order to
situations yihere a court ruling has : ‘ from this policy doesnot raise direct - ‘ensure that the.public is adequately
explicitly changed a current Federal’ r . concern that doing so might render the’ ‘ ‘apprised ‘of when the sahctions clockS:
requirement or has convinced EPA that-; ‘SIP’s substantially inadequate since the “has started fOrparticular areas based ha
- a previous requirement is no longer j --- .: - completeness review Is not a review, a rulemaking actlon. . ‘ ‘ ‘
supportabte. Here no such court ruling- .‘ intended to pass judgement on the .“-. . The EPA ha,s revised thefin rule to
is at issue so no exception should be .... -- adequacy of SIP’s. Rather, it is intended ..add new sections § 52.31(d)(2), (d113),
made in this case. -.--- - - -‘ . ..as a straightforward exercise to - - - and (d)(4): In response to comments, -:
The third exception is that the - -‘-- determine whether the SlP’ contain all these sections incorporate a,revision
Administrator may determine that - the technical and administrative.. , 7 made tbtherule.conceming how and
grandfathering is not appropriate under - elements to warrant further review. As -when sanctions, not yet applied, may be,
a new policy. In this case, the -. . - discussed above, if any of these SIP - - .deferred and sanctions, already applied.
Administrator is determining that - .. submittals deemed complete by - - - miy be stayed.-A complete discussion of
grandfathering is appropriate. -‘ - - operation of law lack any such - -. the revisions is set fórth in section’
The fourth exception indicates that elements, then such deficiency will be 11.8.3. above. These corrections concern
grandlathering is not appropriate if it - reflected in EPA’s determination as to the circumstance whOre EPA has -
would have an imminent and - - the SIP’s adequacy to attain and . “ disapproved a required submittal or -
__________ - maintain the air quality standards. -- where EPA has found that a State has
‘ 3 See “Grandlathering’ of Requirements for - The seventh exception concerns - . failed to implement an’approved SIP.’
c rtain c!asses of changes which are -Sections 52,3 1(d)(2)and 52.31(d)(3) set
June 27, 1988. This memorandum has beenenrered . only indirectly related to attainment and forth language concerning disapproved -
in the docket for this rulemaking . maintenance of the air quality - SIP’s and § 52.31(d)(4) sets forth the
-------
t985b Federal Register I Vol. 5 . No. 149 / Thursday. Augnst. 4. 19 / Rules and Eg cn
angi aga segardiegcases. where EPA h
na deaflnaLflndingoHaiarete -
o pIø Foi-purposesef an initial
Iappaa aL Os annutial finding of
ete plemeat far whith EPA.
iubsequently prop a positive
in og aid issues 50 intedse fl.eal nile
ndingtha&theState has carrected the
feflciency. any s ’tsi nainsulling.fr
cIes that iqu wilL bedeferred and
my saac$ionsihet have beea appt!âed
v áU bega 1reL (
pjuovol w ufdamtinueaay slap as
deferral thairasalted from a proposed
conditional appacwaL).This change
prouidingforestepasdefernalei
ranctioas doss net change the male’s
req me$ that cue and
sanctioaadecks.are n pannaneatI
stopped until EPA issues a final felL
appnivalos e i atha&a Staten
implementing its.S IP.
A.aaw §5Z.31 dU5 hasbeea. added
which reaffirms what EPA actions are
n& c ty for tha mandatory sanctions.
procoss.to pllrm ThAnt1y cease.
SpedficalLy 1tproiz that any
sanction cinch vdJLba p,rn1nn aLy
stopped and thin applied, stayed
or deferred will be permanentLy lifted
upon a w1 E P&fln&ngtha$ the
deficiencp f r ingth.basLs of the -
finding has. been corrected. Far a
senctioaa cl..ck and applied. sanctions
based on a finding of failure losnbreit
or h .pfateae .a finding that the -
, l ffr a .i r h basacoimctarLwilL.cxu,
by letter n EPA tegovasner..f s
a dockctapplin4 stayedee -
—— —
or deferred i bas crea a lading
lnanimplemeatations eflndingthat
the defl’ 4 —”y hasbees, eorrectockwill
ostb.oug)t final notice in the
Federal Register finding Lhattbe.Stot. is
thprowedS lP..
• on 52.31(d)( Jis essentieILy
unina pdfrore S52.3 .t(d)t Lotthe
proposed aida -This section . reakes clear
that EPA may take rulemaking action in
any specific dwimstance to reverse-the
order in which sanctions will beap$ied
under se i n 179 (a) .. In other words.
EPA can takam emakingactioni sothe
the highway wxndd appl yafter
lB months. and tbeeffset sa .ion.&
months thereaflaL two mimer,
nonsubstanti changes were made.
FIrsLEPA repisr ed the phrase “the
E pA” with”theAdministcatar. ’
Seceerl, EPA changad the. torn .
to. “shall’ to- mere firmly-
reflect the.mandatäry nature of the
sanctions
proposed role. The EPA has c1 fied the
applicability oFtha offset sanction to
PM—b precursors, modified the rule for
PM-1 and w.uu
- dar fle eIa w 6 e in the rule
regarding the pollutant applicability of
the o et sanction when the SII
deffdeucy-hz questi on is not specl&to
a polTutantor pollutants. A disn’c4on
ofthese changes in the context oftha
specific sections follows.
The EPLhasravi d § SZ.3e)rIJtJlin
— Fh* EP moved
.the o w iAroa table frmn the rule
- and . cIdadtupmvfdethepubflc
In Ofl ouereasthat will be
pohw’ff Wysubiect to sthictlons In a
separate Federal egister notice.
ft mi&na clear elsewhere-In this
para&apb end the rule, the sanctions
autoinat caUy apply lathe timeframes
prescaibed under I 5Z311d7. unfres .EP&
determines that the State has corrected
the relay utSWdeflciency Ibrmfngthe
basis of the !ndfng The EPA news
intended thaf’ for i otareaa faa
table iu.this.rub o be n y fbr
sen ons to apply aufnm ti fly.1be
saxictionam lhase lecteLtedoso
through notices lathe Fil.r l Regicte
‘ ratheribaaIhrnmagJt atable .thabod 1 .
oftharofa.Subchinfively,thereisnn.
illf ri .ni in tha sanss that areaswill.
- lace inosTa the tfmeframes
- pr ti ’ i d ILndQr 5 52.314d1 r gptdIessaf
whether they am1i ied in a table in the
rule or listed na.sepezateaotice.
Second.EPA as .addedthe bi . “in
- the twiof m pmscsibed under - —
- § 52.31(dloflhis .sedion.oa those
affected areassubject under § 52.a1(dL to
- the offset sanction of this section..” As -
noted above, sancticimapply
automaticalLy TogeAiIass .of whether.
themisa tablefn the rule listingtbe.
areassubject ctioris.Tha this
change wasma4ato make itclearthat
the sanctinosapp1 within the time
frames set ferthin §saal(dkIe further
darity isp th4..asecond change to—.
proposed §5 .31(e) tl(iJ . was to delete
“following’ in theclausereferencing
prep .31teUI)Lil bys tket -
olisets inastbeanhiavedfiar
po aedila la) 1 ner isfe,
which the fl- s 1 u,
EP&basm 1 i& the L
of propo e the final
rule athhas ,ed the resE’—- ’——
ofp posed § 31(e tI) e tci fl
§ 52.31(eX) . The L.i&cermw -
localedeoth. sececièem’.’ .i -
if Ihematarijiag C _ j Innatrpe .
toansce - pallnfatds2nèthele
precursor
apply tool poll it i&asielewa
their pen - .-fotwltichthe ases is —
subject heeawsouz re . —-- ..erit of
173 of Act Ser sa . -.
ILB.2. for fu d -.s—-.o1polMael
appli iky alibi
i.imikl app’y toany
erea - -- -’ - ----- ‘S. -
un dJththi . she saWeclef the
finding. ; •.. - -
In -.. -
now piaukl t the.. hvim . .;i -
o nt s c a appi s’wi the -
specified in § 53 .31tdk .ere.the the
rule n taincan.t-1. . It .s
- table f2 thet4hs asi ealemersron - -
- redut osn . .In .i d ishalL
be 21:e.d(3)thetthee t tInshatt
ap to reemosa r- a -
- theirprei raG r— 52.3*) -
finding anado C, bell pefhitsnts.. -
and forw&iieh the ewe
is sub jeci to the new so eaquirumeat
of section 173 .fthaAc*if the finding
was net ._-: •. -
TheEMirass flak new “ - - -
§ 52.3l(ellt)Ili)tospeciflcallyaihI
the isse. of fl i&n me4wjth anpacs
to ozone and itatwo
and N&, This was disczrssed generally
in the p . .. ..nJ tnthapooposed r
page 51276, b ote 1 , although i
specific language was included. lxii
proposed rate. The Ast tabtishes
requirements- fbi ozone- nonattainmemit - - .
amas , seine of which. are specik fèr.
- either VOC or NO Howo ,snmco she -.
5 Section 5p2.3 .1{e)—Available Sa ns tire o et satin for pot1 re s.awl their
and. Methods for Ithplementotioa - - pr The reasenfre this changem
Section 52.3r(e) sets forth the two beC e the table has teen deleted amid
sanctions that are-applied by section thus no e.wi1ibe Iid v ( The list
179(e ). Thin rile as did the sentesceofg5a3*)(1)(s)
rule. interprets in greater dctuil the thSZto t cdfsetabn
offset achieved forthepellutastorpoUntanes
79fMf2). Ul
- Regarding § 52.3Ife)( ’1) applicability
of theoffset sanction, there havebeen of tlasrssae,seesI !Pl4 afi.B.3.)
several changes that are nteuded o- The EPA has edd da .-’ 5nn e .r
10 § 52.3i(e3 J . T sente is
pamtialkydeaiuakhemS52.3*1Wt1r
______ ____ of the propose&nmle. The a _ rp eed
moving this atmmewas to.alheiate
redundai .e. the proposed rala-The
____________ first seatononal prçncI -
____ § 52 31Wlt ie) appeared ta
uvIen ”- ’—- ’— ait.n i - - V.
appaovaLafindtra tha& the
deficiency bae.beencorrected will ancer
tbzreagh s.lnaIn inthefedeea& -
Register fel ppseuiag the revised . u peeu wunaa irmma’ ’ vue
For a 4tcleckariOulied, staved as poasihia nn R1 tbatmay face
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 1994 F Rules and Regulations 39357
general assumption is that both - document located in the docket. EPA selection rulemaldng, the offset sanction
prec irsors are critical to ozone has determined that the offset sanction begins to apply on any areas for which
formation, EPA believes that even should have immediate effects in the sanction clock has elapsed on
though.a finding may be specific as to .. affected areas. Septemberfl, 1994 To understand the
one ozone precursor, the offset sanction Section 52.31(e)(2) of the final rule - -liming of the application of mandatory
should apply for both precursors. sets forth the highway sanction. Several sanctions in these cases, it is first
However, there are two exceptions to revisions have been made to this necessary to darify the discussion in the
this general requirement, both of which - section. As with § 52.31(e)(1)(i). EPA proposal at p.51274 on how the-
are based on the Act. First, affected has removed the highway sanction table sanction clocks function under section
areas that are designated nonatt ilnment • from §52.31(e)(2) of the proposed rule 179(a). -
for ozone but that are not classified as for the same reasons discussed above for . Section 179(a) sets up two distinct
marginal, moderate, serious, severe or why the offset sanction table was sanction clocks. The Act states that if
extreme, are not re4uired to achieve removed. Similarly, § 52.31(e)(2) the State does not correct the deficiency
off ets under section 173 for NOx. The includes new language that directly within 18 months after a finding, one of
second exception is for affected areas refers to the timing provisions of the two available sanctions shall apply,
that have received a NOx exemption § 52.31(d). As with the similar revised as selected by the Administrator. It then
from the NSR requirement pursuant to language In § 52.31(e)(l)(i), this is provides that if the deficiency has not
section 182( 1). These two exceptions merely to darify that the highway J)een corrected within 6 months
and the rationale for them are discussed sanction applies with respect to the thereafter, then both available sinctions
In section ILBi. above. A new times set forth in that subsection, even shall apply.1he EPA interprets this to
§ 52.31 (e)(lliili) sets up a similar though the area is not listed in a table mean that the second sanction always
provision with respect to PM—li) In the nile. In addition, a new sentence follows 6 months from the actual
precursors, which is also discussed in has been added which specifies that the application of first, regardless of
more detail in section ILB.2. above. highway sanction only applies to. . whether this would cause the
Section 52.31(e)(1)(iv) of the final rule a d azeas that a else - - application-of the second sanction to be
has merely been renumbered. Section, noiattiiinment areas. Although this delayed beyond 24 months from the
52.31(e)(1)(iii) of the proposed rule issue was not specifically addressed in date of the finding. Therefore. on
previously contained these the proposed rule, the proposed rule - September 8, 1994 the offset sanction-
requirements and substantially remains and the reamblo to the proposed rule shall apply on any area(s) for which an
unchanged. The preamble to the. . referrotfliack to the section i7g(b)(1) . 18-month sanction clock has elapsed
proposed rule at page 51276 provides highway sanction requirement of the and EPA has not detennined that the
that this section requires States to apply Act (58 FR 51274,51279; § 51.32(e)(2) of State has not corrected the deficiency.
the offset sanction consistent With ‘the proposed rule.) Section 179(b)(1) Both sanctions shall then apply 6
amended sectIon 173, regardless of. states that itihe Administrator may months from that date if EPA has not•
whether the State has approved NSR Impose a prohibition, applicable to a determined the deficiency
rules consistent with section 173 - - nonatuitnment aroa * .“ Therefore, corrected by ( ,; .-- .
requirements. The purpose of this - - -. EPA is Incorporating this language. ‘ The EPA- intends to notify States of -
urovision Is to ensure that States that- -’ which was merely referenced th - the-application and removal of section -
- have been delinquent In meeting the .
NSR requirements of the amended - - projiosed rule, Into the final rule. - -. 179 mandatory sanctions (as provided
for in § 52.31(d) of this rule) before they
- are not benefited by pplying sanctions - IlL Implicaticea of Tpday’s Pnt.m ildng apply. In addition;- In its actions on
in accordance with NSR rules that A. Implementation of the sanctions - subniittals recefved after a section -
179 (a) finding. EPA will indicate what -
more lenient than required by. the Act or
- by the absence of NSR requireme its - - Section 179(a) provides that unless - -. the effect of its action is on the - -
within the State. Under this section: -- the deficiency prompting the finding :- sinctions clock and sanctions -‘ - -
therefore, all affected areas subject to . .4i.e.; nonsubmittal. disapproval. and - - application; Thö following diser ssion - -
the offset sanctions would be subject te- - - nonimplementation) has been corrected explains how this will occur, first’
similar requirements in achieving those. 1i Periods pmm - sproviding the examples where. prior to
offsets, as specified in the amendedA therein one of the sanctions in section 18 montbs,-EPA finally detennines
Section 52.31(e)(1)(v) of this ‘. -. 179(b) “shall apply, as selected by the - whether the State has corrected the -
unchanged from § 52.31(e)(iXv) of the - Administrator.” Under this final rule, - deficiency prompting the flndhlg,añd
proposed rule. The purpose of this •- - - - sanctions will apply automatically In - then providing examples where EPA
provision is to establish when the -- - - the sequence prescribed herein in all - finally determines the deficiency has
increased offset requirement will be . Instances in which mandatory sanctions been con-acted after month 18. -: -.
applied. As noted in section ILB.2. - - -. are applied under section 179(a) - - - - In the cases where, prIor to 18
above, EPA received numerous -, - - following findings under section - - months, EPA completes its action
comments on this issue. For purposes of. 179(a)(1)—(4) for part D plans or plan - - determining that the State has corrected
applying the offset sanction, EPA had - revisions that EPA has already made or the section 179(a) deficiency, sanctions’ -
some flexibility in determining what that EPA will make In the future, except would not apply. The following two
permits would be subject to the - - when EPA. takes a separate action to examples address instances In which -
increased offset requirement. As noted -reverse ihe sanction sequence. However. EPA finally determines within 18- -
in section II.B.2., numerous commenters if thesanction clock has expired for any months of the finding that started the
suggested other possibilities. For’ - findings before September 6, 1994, no sanctions clock whether the State has
example, some suggested that the - - sanction has yet applied since EPA corrected the defldency and how EPA’s
increased offset ratio only apply to interprets section 179(a) to provide that action finding the State corrected the
permits for which an application was - -- sanctions shall not apply until EPA ‘ deficiency affects the sanction clock.
received after the date the offset.. ‘. - makes the sanction selection through .‘ - ‘In the case where, within 18 months
sanction applied. As stated more fully noticeand-comment rulemaking. Since - following a finding of nonsnbmittal or
in the detailed response to comments ::- this action constitutes the final sanction - incompleteness, EPA determines - -
-------
39858 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 149 I Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
whether a State’s SIP submittal corrects
the deficiency prompting the finding
(i.e., is complete or incomplete), EPA
will Inform the State of whether the
sanctions clock ii stopped when it
sends the completeness or
incompleteness letter to the State. If the
SIP submittal is incomplete, then the
letter will indicate that the sanctions
clock continues and that automatic
sanctions will apply as prescribed by
this rule, if the SIP submittal is
complete. then the letter will indicate
that the sanctions clock started by the
prior finding of failure to submit or
incompleteness permanently stops.
In the case where, within 18 months
followingi SIP disapproval or finding
of noniniplernentation, EPA determines
whether theState has corrected the
deficiency prompting the finding (i.e.,
whetherthe SIP is approvable or
whether the nonimplementation
deficiency has been corrected), EPA will
indicate whether the sanctions clock is
stopped when it takes final rulenviking
action on the SIP if EPA finally
disapproves the SIP or finally
determines that the nonimplementalion.
deficiency has not been corrected, then
the Federal Register action will indicate
that the sanctions dock continues and
that automatic sanctions will apply as
prescribed by this rule. If EPA finally
approves the SIP or finally determines
that the nonimplementation deficiency -
has beedoonected. then the Federal
Register action , wIli Indicate that the
sni rtIons clock started by the ior
‘dlsap’proval .or finding of
noniinpleinantation pennanentl stops.
The following examples address how, -
- following the sectIon 179(a) findings..
.theStateswl l lbekeptinfo rmedwhen
EPA’s actions on revised SIP’s are not
completed within 18 months of the
finding’s deficiency. As provided in this
ruleat §52.31(d)(1) through (4), in
explaining how the States will be kept --
• informed, these examples address
sanction removal, as well as sanction -
defenal and staying... — - ‘.
- In EPA interim final determinations.
thattheStatehascorrectedthe . -.
- deficiency, issued simultaneously with —
EPA proposed approvals and proposed..
findings that States are implementing -
- their SIP’S (after EPA SIP disapprovals
or findings of nonimplementation), EPA
intends to notify interested parties, -
“As discussed above in sectIon 11.8.1.. proposed
approval (or a proposal that the nonimplementation
deficiency bad been corrected) Following a SIP
disapproval or nonlmplementatlon finding has the
effect of deferring and/or staying the application of
sanctions. In this case, though, such proposal action
would not haveadererral and/or stayingeffect
because It is assumed (for the purposes of this
example) that EPA completes final rulemaking’
action on the Sip within 18 months.
including States, of any deferral or
staying of sanctions that will result from
Federal Register actions proposing to
approve SIP’s or to find that the State is
implementing its SIP, as provided for in
§ 52.3 1(d)(2), (3) and (4) of this rule. In
these cases, EPA will also indicate to all
interested parties whether sanctions are
removed, apply or reapply when it takes
subsequent final action on the plan in
the Federal Register. If subsequently
EPA’s proposed positive finding is
reversed, then in that action EPA will
indicate that sanctions apply or reapply,
as appropriate, and what sanctions, if
any, apply subsequently. If EPA
subsequently fully approves the revised
plan, then in that action EPA will
indicate that the sanctions clock
permanently stops and that any
sanctions previously applied due to the
original disapproval or finding of failure
to implement are removed.
In addition to these letters and
Federal Register actions, the EPA will
also periodically publish notices in the
Federal Register in which EPA will,
provide the public with Information on
areas for which EPA has made findings
• and whith, therefore, are likely to be
subject to the offset and highway
if removal, staying. or
deferral of sanctions is warranted, EPA
will similarly provide the public with.
information that sanctions have either
been removed, stayed or deferred in the
area. Finally, to supplement the various
letters and actions discussed abdve, EPA
will provide Information on the status of
sanction 12 findings on EPA’s
Technology Transfer Network (‘l7N).
B. Areas Potentially Subject to
Sanctions .
The EPA has made section 179(a)
findings of failure to submit and
incompletenás for numerous submittals
due under the amended Act. As
explained in section ll.C.5 above, EPA
has elected to provide the public with
inforelation on areas potentially subject
tosanctionsinaseparatenoticethat -
appears in the notice section of today’s
Federal Register rather than in tables in
today’s rule, Therefore, for further
information on areas likely to face
“ In some cases, the letter and/or the action may
be omubined with another action relating to the
submittal. For ercainpie. if Following a disapproval
EPA proposes toapprovea SIP at month 20 after
the offset sanction is in place, the Interim final
determination Issued simultaneously with the
proposed approval action would also serve tq notify
the public that application of the offset sanction has
beenstayet - -.
ufle TrN Is EPA’s bulletin hoard system for -
making air quality information available to
interested parties. For questions on what
information is available on the TI’N and how to
a It. contact the systems operator (919) 541—
5384 - .- ‘ S — ,
sanctions on September 6, 1994 see
other notice.
N. Miscellaneous
A. Executive Order 12866 -
Under Executive Order 12866 (Order),
(58 FR 51735 (October 4,1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the
regulatory action is “significant” and
therefore subject to the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) review
and the req)lirements of the Order. The
Order defines “significant regulatory
actions” 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; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interface with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or thetights and obligations of
- recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel or
policy Issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities.
the principles set forth In the Orde
Pursuant to the terms of the Orde
0MB has notified EPA that It considers
this a “significant regulatory action”
within the meaning of the Order. The
EPA has submitted this action to 0MB
for review. Changes made in response to
0MB su estions or recommendations. -
will be documented In the public
record..
B. Regulatory Fl exibility Act’ = -
1.Proposa l
The proposal includes a discussion of
the impact.of the rule on small entities
at pages 51277—8. The regulatory
fle dbility analysis (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 600
etseq.)requiresFederalagenciesto.
identify potentially adverse impacts of
• Federal regulations upon small entities.
Agencies are required to perform an
RFA where the significant impacts aie
possible on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include
small businesses, small not.for-proflt
enterprises, and governmental entities
with populations of less than 50,000.
Because this action will have some
impact, an initial RFA was prepared
pursuant to EPA guidelines, which has
been pliced in the docket to this
• rulemaking. For the following tin
reasons. EPA believes the impact
rule on small entities will be limited.
First, any impact that may occur from
the offset sanction is limited to sources
defined as “major” for nonattainment
-------
• .... Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 149 I Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 39859
ISR purposes, generally 100 tons per RFA has been prepared pursuant to EPA and recordkeeping requirements, and
ed (TPY) or more of a criteria guidelines, which has been placed in Sulfur dioxide.
ollutant, except in the more serious the docket to this rulemaking. Dated: July 21, 1994.
izone nonattainment areas. The major
ources most likely to also be small C. Paperwork Reduction Act Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
ntities as defined pursuant to the RFA This rule does not contain any
ire in these more serious ozone areas information collection requirements For the reasons set forth in the
vhere the major source TPY threshold which require 0MB approval under the preamble, part 52 of title 40, Code of
as been lowered under part DoE title Paperwork R duction Act (44 usc. Federal Regulations, is amended as sel
of the Act. Second, the amended Act 3501 et seq.). forth below:
ilso increases the nonattaInn ent NSR When the offset sanction applies, PART 52—APPROVAL
ffset ratio in the ozone nonattainment sources subject to it will not incur n PROMULGATION OF
trees. The ratio ranges from 1.1101 to additional information collection IMPLEMENTATION t s
1.5-to-I, depending on the severity of burden because sources are already
he area’s classification. Thus. any required under the section 173 offset . 1. The authority citation for part 52 is
impact the 2104 offset sanction will requirements to obtain an emission revised to read as follows:
ave may nOt be as significant in offset from between i-to-land 1.5-to-i. AidhwitT 42 u.s.c. 740a-Thllq.
precisely those onone nonattainment When the offset sanction applies, it
nuns where small entities that ° should not impose an additional Subpart A—(Amandedj
major sources are most likely to exist. ‘ information collection burden because
rbizd.asstatedabove,theonlyrelevant sourceswillnothavetoprovideany 2.SubpaflAiiamendedbyaddinga
new § 52.31 to reed as follows:
impact period is 6 months in duration,. information In permit applications - . -
since after that period the State will . beyond that which is already required §52.31.. Sefecflonof asqusoseol
either haVe become subject to both. in the absence of the sanction. (1?or the mandatory sanctions for findings made
sanctions or have corrected the information collection burden of new - pUrsi flt to sactiOfi 179.1 the Clean Al,
deficiency and been relieved from any equinm of the amended Act for Act.
sanctions, ‘- nonattainment NSR and prevention of (a) Fwpose . The purpose of this
2. Comments - . . - sig is fi t deterioration, an Information. section Is to Im lemant 42 U.S.c.
collection request is being prepared to 7509(a) of the ACt,WIIh respect to the
Section 11.8.1. of this document -. ‘ support rulemaking changes to pasta 51’ sequence in which sanctions will
includes several co” ’ ents concerning
the Impact of the proposed rule One and 52.) -‘ . ‘automatically apply under 42 u.s.c.
additional comment Is summarlznd When the highway sanction applies. 7509(b), following a finding made by the
the Secretary of DOT is required to, - Administrator pursuant to 42 U.S.C
her1 eMnmenterstat;s•that determine which projects or grants .
lowering of the major source threshèld - should not be affected by the sanction (b) Definitions. All terms used In this
under the Act exposes many more small’ and which, therefore, e t.mis section. but not spem lly defined
sources to control and the likelihood of - determination will be based on.’ , herein, shall ha the meening given
them In §52.01. . ‘. -
sanctions. The cominenter believes that information readily available in existing - (1) 1990 Amendñsè its m. i c the 1990
many such small sources are small. : documentation gathered for the purpose endments to the Clean Air Ad (Pub,
businesses and.Uut, contrary to ‘ . ‘: of evaluating the nmital, social. L No.101-549,104 Stat. 2399)..
analysis in the proposal, an increase in - and economic impacts of diff ut . - ‘‘ t2J Act means Clean Air Act, as
the offset ratio of 0.5 could have a -.:.,.‘ alternatives for transportation projects.: amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C 7401 of seq.
significant Impact on the ability bE - -- -These analyses are required for the, ‘ (1991)). - — .‘ . ‘ - “:
businesses to find adequate offsets.’. - ‘preparation of environmental - - - - “ (3) Affáted area means the
neewecments and impact statements r ge aphic subject to or covered by
3. Resp se ‘ • under the Natiimnl EIIVIIOflJImfltaI ‘ ‘ the Act requirement that Is the subject
The EPA believes that thi final’rule Policy Act (NEPA), (42 U.S.C. SeC. 4321’ of the finding and either, for purposes
will have some impact on smaU entities. .. et seq.). Historically, exemption , “ of the offset sanction under paragraph
The lowering of the major sourm. .. - , -determinations by DOT for sanctions .. (e)(I) of thiisection and the highway
threshold could expose more sources to ‘have been based on such NEPA sanction under paragraph (e)(2) of this
the offset sanction. The EPA does not, documentation and have not -- ““ ‘section. is’or is within an area
disagree that in individual cases an -. - n ccitated additional information “. designated nonattainment under 42
increase in the offset ratio could have a gathering andanalysis by the States. in U.S.C. 7407(d) or, for purposes of the
significant impact on a small business.’ addition, since under NEPA final “ - :‘- offset sanction under pwt rgtuph (eli) of
However, EPA believes that the impact. environmental documents must be -‘, - this section, is or is within an area
of this rule on small entities will be .‘- approved by DOT, in most cases the. otherwise subject to the emission offset
limited for the second and third reasons - NEPA documentation will already be in - recruirements of 42 U.S.C .7503. -
discussed above. Additionally, EPA ;.. DOT’s pc esaion. Therefore, EPA does . (4) Criteria pollutant means a
notes that the impact of this nile will , not believe that the highway sanction-, - pollutant for which the Adntinistzator
also be lessened by the provision in when applied, will impose an . . has promulgated a national ambient air
final rules that provides.for the deferTal additional information collection - quality standard pursuant to 42 u.s.c.
and/or staying of the application p1 burden on the States. --. ‘ 7409 (i.e., ozone, lead, sulfur dioxide,
sanctions in certain instances when EPA particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
believes it is more likely than not a List of Subjects in 40 R Part - nitrogen dioxide).
deficiency has been corrected (see . - Environmental protection, Mr ‘ - , (5) Findings or Finding refer(s) to one
discussion in sectiouiLB.3. of this’ -. . pollution éontrol, Hydrocarbons. -- ‘ - ;: or more of the rmdingn, disapprovals.
document). However, because this. ‘.-..‘ - Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen - . and determinations described in
action will have some impact, a finaL - dioxide, Particulate matter,Reporting subsection 52.31 (c).’ -
-------
:s9860 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 149 I Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
(6) NAAQS means national ambient when the Administrator makes a finding
air quality standard the Administrator under paragraph (c) of this section
has promulgated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. unless the Administrator affirmatively
7409. determines that the deficiency forming
(7) Ozone precursors mean nitrogen the basis of the finding has been -
oxides (NOJ and volatile organic corrected. To further implement 42
compounds (VOC). U.S.C. 7509(a). the highway sanction -
(8J Port D means part D of title I of under paragraph (e)(2) of this section
the Act. . shall apply in an affected area 6 months
(9) Part D SIP or SIP revision or plan from the date the offset sanction under
means a State implementation plan or paragraph.(e)(1) of this section applies,
plan revision that States are required to unless the Administrator affirmatively
submit or revise pursuant to part D. determines that the deficiency forming
(10) Precursor means pollutant which the basis of the finding has been
is transformed n the atmosphere (later corrected. For the findings undei
in time and space from point of paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3)(ii), and (c)(4) of
emission) to form (or contribute to the this section, the date of the finding shall
formation of) a criteria pollutant be the effective date as defined in the
(c) Applicability final action triggering the sanctions
This section shall apply to any State clock.
in which an affected area is located and (2)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph
for which the Administrator has made (d)(1) of this section, to further
one of the following findings, with implement 42 U.S.C. 7509(a), following
respect to any part D SIP or SIP revision the findings under paragraphs (c)(2) and
required under the Act: . (c)(3)(ii) of ibis section. if the State has
(1) A finding that a State has failed, submitted a revised plan to correct the
for an area designated nonattainment deficiency prompting the finding and
under 42 U.S.C. 7407(d). to submit a the Administrator, prior to 18 months
,lan,ortosubmitoneormoreofthe fronitheflnding,hasproposed tofully.
elements (as determined by the or conditiotially approve the revised
Administrator) required by the - plan and has Issued an Interim final’
provisions of the Act applicable to such determination that the revised plan
anarea,orhasfa lledtomakea . . correctsthedefic lencypromptingthe
subinissloá for such an area that finding, application of the offset
satisfies the minimum criteria sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of this
established in relation to any such . ‘ section shall be deferred unless and
element under 42 U.S.C.7410(k); until the Administrator proposes to or
(2) A disappreval of a submission . takes final action to pp the plan
under 42 U.S C. 7410(k), for an area. in whole or In part If the Administrator
• designated nonattainment under 42 . issues such a proposed or final -:“
U.S.C. 7407(d). based on the . • disapproval of theplan. the offset
submission’s failure to meet one or more sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of this
of the elements required by the - section shall apply in the affected area:
provisionsoftheActapplicabletósuch onthelaterofthedatethe:
an area; - - . . ; ‘. - . . . - .• . .. Administrator Issues such a proposed or
(3)(i)Adetermlnatión that a State has final disapproval, or 18 months .. .
failed to make any.submission required following the finding that started the
under the Act other than one described- sanctions clock. The highway sanction
under paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this under paragraph (e)(2) of this section
section. including an adequate . - - . shall apply in the affected area 6 months
maintenan plan, or has failed to make after the date the offset sanction under
any submission, required under the Ad. paragraph (e)(1) of this section applies.
other than one described under . unless the Administrator determines
paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, that the deficiency forming the basis of-
• that satisfies the minimum criteria - the finding has been corrected
established in relation to such .. , -. (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(i)
submission under 42 U.S.C. . . . .. of this section. to further implement 42
7410(k)(1)(A); or — - -. U.S.C. 7509(a), following the findings
.(ii) A disapproval in whole or in part . wider paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3)(ii) of
of a submission described under. this section, if the State has submitted’
paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section; or - a revised plan to correct the deficiency..
(41A lnding that any requirement of prompting the finding and after 18 but
an approved plan (or approved part of before 24 months from the finding the
a plan) is not being implemented. -, - Administrator has proposed to fully or
(d) Sanction Application Sequencing conditionally approve the revised plan
(1) To implement 42.U.S.C. 7509(a). and has issued an interim final . - . . -
the offset sanction under paragraph. determination that the revised plan
(e)(1) of this section hall apply in an corrects the deficiency prompting the
affected area i8 nonths from the date.• . finding, application of the offset-
sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of this
section shall be stayed and application
of the highway sanction under
paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall be
deferred unless and until the
Administrator proposes to or takes final
tion to disapprove the plan in whole
or in part lithe Administrator issues -
such a proposed or final disapproval of
the plan, the offset sanction under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall
reapply in the affected area on the date
the Administrator issues such a —
proposed or final disapproval. The
highway sanction under paragraph (e)(2)
of this section shall apply in the affected
area on the later of 6 months from the
date the offset sanction under paragraph
(e)(i) of this section first applied in the
affeded area, unless the Administrator
determines that the defidency forming
thebasisoftheflndinghasbeen
corrected, or immediately if the
proposed or final disapproval oauzs
more than 6 months after Initial
application of the offset sanction under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. -
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(i)
of this section, to further Implement 42
US.C. 7509(4. following the findings
under paragraphs ( X2) and (c)(3)(ii ) of
this sect lonif the Statehassubmitte —
a revised plan to correct the deficien
prompting the finding and more thai
months after the finding the
Administrator has proposed to fully or
conditionally approve the revised plan
andhasIsiuedaninterimflnal
determination that the revised plan
corrects the deficiency prompting the
finding, application of the offset
sanction under paragraph (e)(lTof this
section and application of the highway.
sanction under paragraph (e)(2) of this
sedlon shall be stayed unless and until
the Administrator proposes to or take&.
final action to disapprove the plan in
whole orin part. lithe Administrator
issues such a proposed or final -, -
disapproval, the offset sanction under
paragraph (e)(i) of this section and the
highway sanction under paragraph (e)(2)
-of thiisection shall reapply in the
- affectecFarea on the date the - - . -
Adininistratorissues such proposed or
final disappmvaL -. - - . -
- (3)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph
(d)(i) of this section. to further-
implement 42 U.S.C. 7509(a) Following-.
- the findings under paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(3)(ii) of this section, if the State has
submitted a revised plan to correct the
deficiency prompting the finding a ”
the Administrator, prior to 18 mor
from the finding, has conditionall
approved the revised plan and har
issued an interim final determinatior
that the revised plan corrects the -
deficiency prompting the finding.
-------
Federal Register. I Vol. 59, No. 149 I Thursday , August 4, 1994 / Rules and Regulations.- 39861
application of the offset sanction under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall he
deferred unless and. until the
conditional approval converts to a
disapproval or the Administrator
pioposes to or takes final action ta
disapprove in whole or in part the
revised SIP the State submits to fuifi ii
the commitment in the conditionally- -
approved plan. If the conditional
approval so becomes a disapproval or
the Administrator issues such a
proposed or final disapproval, the offset
sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of this
section shall apply in the affected area
on the later of the date the approval
becomes a disapproval or the
Administrator issues sucI a proposed or
final disapproval, whichever is
applicable, or 18 months following the
finding that staited the sanctions clock.
The highway sanction under paragraph
(e)(2) of this section shall apply in the
affected area 6 months after the date the
offset sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of
this section applies, unless the
Administrator determines that the
deficiency forming the basis of the
finding has been.corrected.
(ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (dKl)
of this section. to further implement 42
U.S.C. 7509(a), following the findings
under paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3)(ii) of
this section, if the State has submitted
a revis d plan to correct the deficiency
prompting the finding and after 18 but.
before.24 months from the finding the,
Administrator has conditionally
approved the revised pian and bai. .
issued an interim final determinationl;
that the revised plan corrects the...
deficieiicy prompting the finding.
application of the offset sanction under
pyragraph (e)(i) of this section shalibe,
stayed and application of the bighway
sanctiol)ünder paragrapli(eX2) of this.
section shall be deferred unless and -
until the conditional approval cOn’verts
to a disapproval or the Administrator.
proposes to Or takes füial action to
disapprove in whole or in part the
revised SIP the State submits to fulfill
the commitment in the conditionally-
approved plan. If the conditional
approval so becomes a disapproval or
the Administrator issues such a
proposed or final disapproval, the offset
sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of this
section shall reapply in the affected area
on the date the approval becomes a
disapproval or the Administratorissues
such a proposed or final disapproval,
whichever is applicable: The highway
sanction under paragraph (e112) of this
section shall apply in the affected area
on the later of 6 months from the date
the àffset sanction under paragraph
(e)(1) of this section first applied rn the
affected area, unless the Administrator sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of this
determines that the deficiency forming section shall apply in the affected area
the basis of the finding has been . on the later of the date the
corrected, or immediately if the - Administrator proposes to take action or
conditional approval becomes a takes final action to find that the finding
disapproval or the Administrator issues of nonimpiementation has not been
such a proposed or final disapproval, corrected, or 18 months following the
whichever is applicable, more than 6 finding that started the sanctions clock.
months after initial application of the The highway sanction under paragraph
offset sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of (e)(2) of this section shall apply in the
this section. — - affected area 6 months after the date the
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraph (d l i i) offset sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of
of this section, to further implement 42 this section first applies, unless the
U.S.C. 7509(a). following the findings Administrator preliminarily or finally -
under paragraphs (c)(Z) and (c)(3)(ii) of determines that the deficiency forming
this section, if the State has submitted - the basis of the finding has been
a revised plan to correct the deficiency corrected. -.
prompting the finding and after 24 :.. - (ii) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(i)
months from the finding the - -. of this section,. to further implement 42
Administrator has conditionally . - U.S.C. 7509(a), following findings under
approved the revised plan and has paragraph (c)(4) of this section, if after
issued an interim final determination .18 months but before 24 months from
that the revised plan corrects the.. - the finding the Administrator has .-
deficiency prompting the finding, proposed to find that the State is
application of the offset sanction under iinplementinglhe approved plan and
paragraph (eli) of this section and .. has issued an interim final.
application of the highway sanction - - determination that thedeficiency . . -
under paragraph (e)(2) of this section’ prompting the finding has been -
shall be-stayed unless and unti1 the -.:‘. corrected, application of the offset
èonditional approval converts to a::. -- sanction under paragraph (e)(1) of this
disapproval or the Administrator . section shall be stayed and application
proposes to or takes final action to - .. - of the highway sanction under ‘ -.
disapprove In whole or in part the paragraph (eUZ).of this section shall be
revised SIP the State submits to fulfill deferred unless and until the
its commitment in the conditionally-. Administrator preliminarily or finally
approved plan. lithe conditional determines, through a proposed or final.
approval so becomes a disapproval or.. . finding, that the State Is •
the Administrator issues such . . implementing the approved plan and . -
proposed or final disapproval, theoffset. that, therefore, the State has not ’”
sanction under paragraph e)(1) of this ;.- correctedihe deficiency. If the’ ”
section and the highway sanction under ‘. Administrator so prelimin iiy or finally
paragraph (e)(2) of this section shail - ‘ ‘determines thatthe Stat has .
reapply in the affected area on the date; corrected the deficiency, the offset
the conditional approval becomes a . .. ... sanctionunder paragraph (e)(i) of ibis -
disapproval or the Administrator issuesr section shall reapply In the affected area
such a proposed or final disapproval... - on the date the Adminjstrator proposes’.
whichever is applicable. -: -: to take action or takes final action to
(4)(i) Notwithstanding paragraph - - t - find that the finding of.:
- (d)(i) of this section, to further - nônimplementation has not been
implelneaLt 42 U.S.C. 7509(a). following. - correcte&The highway sanction under
findings under paragraph (c)(4) of this paragraph(e)(2) of this section shall
section. if the Administrator, prior to 18 - apply in the affecfed area on the later of
months from the finding, has proposed .. 6 months from the date the offset -
to find that the State is implementing , ‘. saiIction under paragraph (e)(i) of this
the approved plan and has issued an, -section first applied in the affected area,
- int?rim final determination that the- - :. unless the Administrator preliminarily
deficiency prompting the finding has; - Or finally determines that the deficiency
been corrected, application of the offset . forming the basis of the finding has been
sanction under paragraph (e)(i) of this - corrected, or immediately if EPA’s
section shall be defprred unless and - .. proposed or final action finding the
until the Administrator preliminalily or deficiency has not been corrected occurs-
finally determines, through a proposed more than 6 months after initial -.
or final finding, that the State is not application of the offset sanction under
implementing the approved plan and - paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
that, therefore, the Slate has not . (iii) Notwithstandingparagraph (d)(i)
corrected the deficiency. If the- of this section. to further implement 42
Administrator so preliminarily or finally U.S.C. 7509(a), following findings under
determines that the State has not• - - paragraph (c)(4) of this section. if after
corrected the deficiency, the offset . — 24 months from the finding the
-------
31862 -Federal Register I Vol. 59. No. 149 $ Thursday, August 4, 1994 1 Rules and Regulations
Atiministrattw has proposed to find that
the State is linplexnenting.the approved
plan and has is ied an interim final
deniI n that the deficiency
prompting the flndinghas been
corrected. applicebon ofthioffset
aw ico under paragraph (e)(l) of this
s i and the highway sanction under
p.i agi h 1ek21 of this section shall be
stayed wiless and until the
Miietnr preliminarily or finally
determines, thrcmgh a proposed or final
flnding.tlmt.the State is not
the approved plan, and
tlmt,thazefom, the State has not
a,rrected the deficiency. if the
Administrator so preliminarily or finally
dsihattha.State has not
the deficiency. the offset
sian ‘ an er paragraph (eXI) of this
Ian and the highway smrfio wider
paiagraithM2l of this section shall
reapply ui the ff q%.d area on the date
the Adiuiidatrater proposer to take
ntin ir kse0imI nction to find th
the finding of nmhnpleinentalion has
not bee ---- ” L
(5) Any c . . 1iim dock stazted by.a
flñdingmidparagiaph(ci of this
will be pI u1smImtIy stopped
and ‘- --. appliecL stayed
deferred will bepernianently lifted
üpon a al EPA finding that the
deflciepcy6 n n the basis of the
fln .ghsebeen ccarected. For a
‘. dot* and applied sanctions
based on a finaIbi under paragraphs
(c)(i)ael *ijofthis sactio a
findingtliat the deficiency has been
corrected seW oocurbyktter from the
AdrebdatitralotheState govasnor. For
a sancftiaesdoth or-applied, stayed or -
on a Chiding
u r pzegriiphslcXz) ud (cX3)tii)o1
, 1ivia fini mg
— -y Las been cerreded will oc
througha full notice in the Fede al
Register fully approving the revised g’
For a aeei ioiis dkor applied, stayed
or fonad.sanct us based on a fln
underpme apb-(c)l4)of1his section, a
finding (l the deficiency has been
corrected Will o r1hrough a final
neticebithe federal Register finding
d the State is hnplementingthe
• app ttSlP. -
lNstwithstanding paragraph (diLl)
ofthis section, nothing in this section
will prohibit the Mministrator from
deterunuthugibrough notice-and-
comment iulemaking that in specific
ciicwnstances the highway sanction.
rather than the offset sanction, shall
apply 18 months a er the Administrator
makes oneoftheflndingsunder
p& rnph tc) of this section, and that
the o t sanction, rather than the
highway sanction, shall apply 6 months
from the date the highway sanction
applies. - . - .
(e) Available Sanctions and Method
(I) As further set
forth in paragraphs (e)(lXüNeMlXvi) of
this section, the State-shall apply the
emiseicee offset iequireznent in the
thtthame prescribed under pw rdph.
(d) of this section on those affected areas
subject under piun r iph (d) of this
section to the offset sanction. The Stale
shall apply the n ’on ofLet
requirements inaomrdance With 42
U.&C. 7503 and 7509(b)(2L, at a ratio of
at least two ntaof 4 ienreduthons
for oath unit diomeased imc ciansd
the poilutsntl4and its(their) pv.m- ....
for w finding(s) under
paragraph (cl of this section is (are)
made. f tholefidency prompting the
finding misl peragzaph (c) of athis
section lSw* p ciflc to one or mom
___ their.
precursors, the 2-to-i ratio shall apply
to all pollnthiitc (and their pIeu.-wwr . )
for whidu an affected area within the
-State listed in i raph (e)(iXi) of this
sedio n iqulltomeettbe ’ufL e t
requireumatsof4z USC. 75an. - - . -
4fl) Notwithstanding paragraph
.(eXij(i ) cId a 4in when a nthng
ismede with 1 spr.v*1o .a requirement
for th,aitseia pollutant o ” e orwhen
tlmfi . i g usni* poll t-speciflc,the
Statesheflria(applytbs emissions
seqairseñe at a ratloof at least
2-to - I fer mion.iedudions to
increased emissions for nitrogen oxides
whers,-under42lLS.C 7511affl, the
Administrator has approved anNOx
# Gen IOrthe affected area from the
Act’s new soorosieview requirements
under 42 USC. 7501—7515 forNOx or
uiiueie the affectId area is not otherwise
subject to the Ad’s new source review
requirements for-emission offsets aider
42 U.S.C 7501—7515 for NOx.
(iii) Notwithstanding paregrapb
(e)fflti) of this section, when a finding
underparegxapb(c)ofthissectionis
made with respect toPM-1O, or-the
finding is not pollutant-specific, the
State-shall not applytbe emissions
offset requirements, at a ratio of at least
2-to-I for emission reductions to
increased emissions to PM— ID -
precursors if the Administrator has
determined wider 42 USC. 75 13a(eJ
that majorstationazy sources of PM-lu
precursors do riot contribute - ‘
significantly to PM—to levels whidu -
exceed the NAAQS in the affected area
(iv) For purposes of applying The
emissions offset requirement set forth in
42 USC. 7503. atlhe 2-to-I ratio
required under this section, the Slate
shall comply with the provisions of a
State-adopted new source review (NSR’J
program that EPA has approved under -
42 U.S.C. 7410(kX3) as meeting the
nonattaluinent area NSR requirements
of 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, as amended by
the 1990 Amendments, or,if no plan
has been so apjwvud , the State shell
comply directly with the nonattainmea
wee NSR requirements specifled .in.42
U.S.C. 7501-7515, as amendedby the
1990 Amendments, or ceaseissuling -
pennhtsto construct and operate major
new or modified pun as defined-In
these vequirements For purposes of
applying the off requirement aider
42 ILS.C.-7503 where EPA has not fufl
approved a State’s NSR us
meeting the requirements of partD, the
specifications of those provisionsiball
supersede any State requirement that ii
- less stringent orinoomistenL 1
(v) Forpwposes of applying the-
emissions ofihataequiremenl set forth i
42 U.SC 7503, any permit required --
pursuantto42US.C.75 o3andissued - -
on or after the dale the offsetsanction.
applies under paragsejih 4d) o!this
section shallbs subjeotto the enhanced
2-to-i ratio underparagrapb(s)(i) (1) 01
this section. . -
(2) HhwayFwudisinction.The;
highway lanction shellapply. as -
provide 42 U.SCJ5O9(b) (13, La the
timeframepsesaibed underparagi h
(d)of this section on thoseaffectedarea
subject wider para aph (d of this
section to the highway sanction. bet
shall apply -only to those pOrtions of.
affected aaeasthat.aie des#ated ‘ - -
nonattainnient undar4 CFRpart.8L
IPRDOC. 94—18572 FI led 8 3-44: 8:45 irnl
revs -
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4, 1994 / Notices
39863
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC11ON
AGENCY
IFRL-6023-2 1
Notice of Areas Potentially Subject to
Sanctions Based on Findings Issued
Under Section 179 of the Clean Air Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: This notice lists those areas
for which EPA had previously issued a
finding. underihe Clean Air Act (Act),
and for which the 18-month mandatory
sanction clock had expired on or before
July 15. 1994 or is projected to expire
througJi August 31. 1994.11 these areas
do not correct the outstanding
deficiencies before the effective date of
the “Selection of Sequence of
Mandatory Sanctions Rule” (sanctions•
rule), which Is found in today’s Federal
Register in the rules section and
becomes effective September 6, 1994..
these areas would be subject to
sanctions. The sanctions rule describes
In detail the process by which sanctions
will apply to areas that do not meet
deadlines specified in the Act and forrn
which findings are made.
As noted In the list, the vast majority
of areas plan to take corrective action
befoi the sinctions rule goâ into
eff cL HoweveZ, ixiy area that does nbt
take the required action before that time:
will be subject to the 2 to I emissions
offset sanction (offset sinction) a -
provided by the Act. Futheunore, in.
most i ç if EPA has not determined
that the deficiency has been corrected
within 6 months of the imposition of the
offset sanction, the second sanction,.
affecting Federal highway funding, will
alsoapply.’ •
ADORESS(ES): Air Docket A—94—41, The
Air and Radiation Docket and .
Information Center (6202).. -
Environmental Protection Agency. 401
M St. SW., Room M—1500, Washington.
DC 20460. - -
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAT iON: The table
below lists those areas with active
sanctions clocks resultIng from a
finding. This table should not be used
as the sole guide to determine which
areas will be subject to sanctions when
the sanctions rule goes into effect. En
fact, it is likely that today’s list may be
obsolete with respect to many areas by
the effective date of the sanctions rule incompleteness. The full set of letters
because these areas will have corrected reflecting the findings of nonsubmittal
the relevant deficiency by that date. It or incompleteness that EPA has already
is important to note that the enclosed issued can be found in Air Docket A—
table reflects only those areas for which 94—41. Please refer to the sanctions rule
clocks.had expired as of July 15, 1994 for a discussion on the significance of
or is projected to expire through August finding type. -
31, 1994. There are other sanctions
clocks running under the Act (e.g.. any The “State Implementation Plan
area that has not yet made a complete Element” column describes the SIP
submission to EPA for State element on which the finding wasP
implementation plan (SIP) elements due based. Abbreviations are as follows:
on November 15, 1993). In the VOC—volatile organic compounds.
other sanction docks will be initiated if CO—carbon monoxide, NOx—nitrogen
EPA finds that a State has failed to make oxides, PM-b—particulate matter with
a required submittal, if EPA determines an aerodynamic diameter less thail or
that a State submittal is incomplete, if equal to a nominal 10 micrometers. The
EPA disapproves a State submission, or elements and their respective
if a State fails to implement an approved sections in the Act are as follows: VOC
plan.- . - . .. Reasonably Available Control
The EPA will periodically provide the Technology Fix-ups—section
public with aocess to updated 182(a)(2)(A); PM—b SIP Attainment
information through the Office of Air Demonstration—section 189(a);
Quality Plsnning and Standards’ F .mkaion Statements—section
Technology Transfer Network computer 182(a)(3)(B); PM-b New Source
bulletin board system and through . - Review—sections 172(c)(5) and
updates of this Information in the 189(a)(1XA); Basic Vehicle Inspection
Federal Register. These updates wi11 and Maintenance—for ozone, section
indicate cases in which sanctions have 182(b)(4), and for CO. section 187(a)(4);
been deferred or stayed, delete areas for. - nhsnced Vehicle Inspection and
which EPA has made a final - faintenance—sectIon 182(cU3IIA);
determination that the defldei acies VOC Reasonably Available Control
prompting the findings 1i ‘° i Technology Catch-up--section
corrected, and add additional areas as - l8z(b)(z); NOx Reasonably Available
findings are made triggering sançtons Control Technology Rule —secdon . -
clocks. Fuithermore , EPA will publish a .. 182(b)(2)and (I); Employer Commute :‘
notice with a cimilAr table, as -. . Program—sétlon 182(d)(2);
appropriate, for areas that later may be Oxygenated Fuels—for serious areas,
subject to the highway sanction. . tion 187(b)(3) and for moderate areas,
- For each area potentially subject to
the offset sanction on the effective date section 211(m); CO Contingency
Measure&—section 187(a)(3); CO
of the sanctions rule, the table below Atininment DemonstratIon_section: -.
identifies the State, the affected area, the 1871a)(7). . ’;.. .. ‘— .. ..:..
type of finding the area received, the SIP
element, the pollutants affected by the’ The “Pollutants Affected” column.
offset sanction, the date the sanctions describes which pollutants and their
clock expires, and the corrective actions . precursors would be affected should the
needed to stop the sanctions clock. ... offset sanction be applied. The preamble
The “Affected Area” column lists the ... of the sanctions rule explains when
- area in which the offset sanction woutd precursors will be subject to the offset
apply if the deficiencies are not. sanFtion. The.”Date Sanction Clock
corrected by the effective date of the -.:‘: €xpires” column is the date the 18- -.
- sanctions rule. For more information on month sanction clock expires. In the -
the boundaries of any listed area, the future, this column will include -
public can refer to 40 CFR part 81, information on the deferral and stay of -
which sets forth the designations fdr . any sanction under § 52.31(d) of the
areas and establishes their boundaries.- sanctions rule. The “Corrective Actions
Foothoted areas are included because a - Needed” column provides specific
SIP submittal was disapproved. All . actions that must be completed to stop
other areas are included as a result of a imposition of sanctions for each area on
finding of nonsubmittal or . the list.
-------
Mw pa Coun
/
San Francisco-Bay
area’.
VOC Reasonatily
Technolo Catct-
VOC Reason 1y
*va bla Cm o
Technology Catth-
VOC Reasonat ly
Available Control-
Technology Fix-up
VOC Reasonably
Available Control
Technoiogy Fix-up
The State and Counly ad lioe
of rules is scheduled for August 9. 1994.
The State and County we expected to
submit plans to EPA on Augast 12The
EPA expects to issue completeness de-
trninationsby August31.
Maricog w Coisly adoplion of TOtes s
edi*d for August 5. 1994. The State
e expected to s*bilt the plan to EPA
en August 10. The EPA expects to issue
a w,qikhnesS eiu by August
17. -
The State and e Ccw
of n es athe d tar iof 9,1994.
The State and Cc.mty are expected to
aub”ii plans to EPA en August 12. 1
EPA to Issue completeness do.
teflh1ln OnSby August31. ___
11w State and Plies Cowlly nk
rules is tthe&,led August 9, 1994 .
The State and Coisdy are elpectud to
to EPA-wi 12. The
EPA qads to Issue completeness de.
t a .- - .sbyAug ied31.
The Slate and .Pt oIa
rules Is sthe ad Ear 9. 195
The Slats and Cow ected
wbmliplansbEPAonAuguet 12.11
EPA xpects to Issue completeness do-
ZendoatioiwbyA ugust3 l.
The State plsu - — sxtn tad to EPA en
*pnl .22, .1994. The EPA expects to
Issue a completeness kd flby
_15._•-.-- -• -.
The State expects to s n thd plan Is
EPA en -July 18,1994. Th. EPA ipei
to heus a .eonçletsaees deS Jx .- .
byAu at15 ...
lbs Stats . - to w n* Th
EPA en July 18,1994. The EPA ‘ ‘ e ’
to Issue a coepleteness
by.My . . .
The State plan was suliaittedia Aoi
May 24,1994 . The EPA expe tops-
Ish an aofon i F Eest s3l5lEa
byAugwat-19
The Sese plan was subndtIwi to EPA øá
July 13 . 1994. The EPA expects toissue
a completeness d mii ien .by July
22. -
The State plan was subndtlisl to EPA on
July 18, 1994. The EPA pect to Issue
a completeness determination by July
22. -
The State plan was submitted to EPA on
July 13. 1994. The EPA expects to Issue
a completeness determination ty July
22.
The State plan was submitted to EPA nn
May 24. 1994. The EPA expects to i
lish an action in the FEDERAl. REGIt
by August 19.
The State plan was submitted to EPA on
July 13, 1994. The EPA expects to pub-
lish an action in the FEDERAL REGISTER
by August 19.
33864
Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 149 / Thursday. August 4, 1994.1 Notices
STAIUS OF SMICI1ONS’CLOCKS - - -
itstardng State Plan Sidimiftals as Of idly 15,1994]
.
State
Alfectedarea
%‘ 7 r°
.
Polhátants affected
Date
on
pires
.
Ozone New Source.
fleview.
Ptmenixarea.
AZ’
AZ
AZ_-
AZ___
• - ,_
— •1.
.42 - .
• _
‘:; :-•
AZ__
•,• .- . - : • ‘ :. -
- ;:*
CA..- ___
.-,-- - -C .4..
• ‘ -•-.
CA
— .
CA
CA
2
PkI40 New Source
PU—lÔtto,, Source
p,A-io New Source
R -1O imeet
-1O ALI an M.
Dea
COcon
A le Coi
VOC Reasonably
AmileMa
bsne New Soume.
VOC. NOx
vOC —-
PM-b and precrx-
P 18-10 urul precw-
l i sa..
PM—to an tLprecur-
fM-tO and ewa ,
“— :-
—
4 1 -S • %• - —
f —--.
VcC
VOC NOx
VOC, NOx
VOC, NOx
07 115194
07J15194
07 . 15194
11 114 193
11 114193
07115194
— . --1
•wr5194
07415/94
V7715 /94
PlnaCount y ;Ajo
area
Plies County; Rilto
p t eJ ng area
PCoin4 RenO
Vigria Cowly; Vuma
• an wea•
Los Ange South
,-Co A 8ado
, area. .;• .-.
LosAugSou
- - ueatAkBadn-
Sa
SwUtlogo area
San Duegoarea
San Diegoafea’ -
-------
Santa Barbara-Santa
Maria-Lonipoc aiea.
Southeast Deseit-
.Mocfifled AOMA
Lake and Porter
Counties portion of
Choa
cwtty ar
Ceof Counly
of Ptiladelphia-WiI - I
zimngton-Trenton
JCnoxCcur*ywId I
Rest of State (Attain-
ment and Marginal
areas in Northeast
Ozone Transport
- Region).
MO_..._.._.. St.thuisarea
VOC Reasonably
Available Control
- Tec!lnology Catch-
up.
VOC Reasonably
Available Control
Techno logycatch-
up.
VOC Reasonably.
Available Control
Technology Catch-
‘ 1*.
VOC Reasonably
Available Control
Technology Catch.
(4 -
Eixployer Commute’..
OpllorL
:;:
N __
A .JLJiIe Coilror ’ - ’
Tectsdogy Rof
- —.. . I ..
- i-•__ -
- Available Co.t’ol
• Tec f lnolagyLRu les.
•f4 -.
-
NOxRea dñ l y _j
.Avaiatilo.Costol i-
• ______
• ..
NOx Reasonably
Available Control -
Technology Rules.
Basic Vehicle Inspec-
- lion and Mainte-
-nanca
The State plan -was submitted 10 EPA on
July 13, l994. The EPA expects to issue
a completeness determination by July
22.
The State plan was submitted to EPA on
July 13, 1994. The EPA expects to issue
a completeness determination ty July
22.
The State plan was submitted to EPA on
July 13. 1994. The EPA expects to issue
a completeness determination by July
22.
The State Board Is expected to adopt the
nile on August 3, 1994. The nile would
become etfecti e on August & The
State expects to submit the plan to EPA
by August 10. The EPA expects to issue
a completeness detem’ãnation by August
15. - -
The .State s tniltted reliminasy plan to
EPA on.rn .15, 1994. The State ex-
pects to adopt the nile on August 5. and
submit the final nile to EPA shertly
thereafter. The EPA expects to issue a
completeness determination by August
15. . .- . • -
The State sihrritted a.prerininary plan to
EPA on July 15. 1994. The State ex-
pects to adopt the nile on August 5. and
-. sibolt the final nile to EPA shortly
thereaftec The EPA e ’ to Issue a
•comp teness detern*sstion by August
-15.
A. wIde nile was 3ent out for ptlic
comment on June 15, 1994. The State
expects to adopt the nile-by July20 and
submit itto EPA by August 15. The EPA
- expects to issue a coirçleteness deter-
nilnationbyAugust2. ;.
A 4 pJe . of for pitflc
comment on Jima 15, 1994. The State
expects to adopt the nile by July20 and
submit It to EPAby August 15. The EPA
expects to issue &coixpleteness-doter-
minabonbyAugust22.. - -
A State-iside nile was sent oUt for public
.‘.cné ig-cn.3une ‘15.1994. Th. State
expects to.adopt the nileby .July 20 and
-submit It to-EPA by August 15. The EPA
expects to issue a completeness deter-
,ana tionbyAugust22. -
A State-wide nile was sent out for public
comment on June 15. 1994. The Slate
expects to adapt the nile by m 20 and
submit itto EPA byAugust 1&The EPA
expects to issue a completeness deter-
mination by Au mt 22.
Necessary legislation Was passed in May
1994. but will ,ic(gO into effect until Au-
gust 28 The State has scheduled a
public heaiing on July 28 and expects to
adopt an emergency rule that will be-
come effective on August 28. The Stale -.
will then submit the plan to EPA and.
EPA expects to issue a completeness.-
determination shortly thereafter.
Federal Register F VoI. 59, No. -149-I Thursday, August 4, .1994 I Notices
- ‘STATUS-OF SANCTIONS CLOCKS—Continued
(Outstardng State PlanSubinittals as of July t5, .1994) -
State
Affected area
:-
ptan element
.
Pollutants affected -
•
-
Date
saslCbOfl
-clock ex-
-—
.
Corrective actions needed
CA —- -- San Joaquin Valley
area.
39365
Optio
CA_
IN _____
IMD.__
- .
MD .__
— . i_S —
ME - -
• -;__
- . - -
;,n. &. —. -J
5- . . .— ..
- 1•
ME
ME ... -
07115194
07115194
07115194
07t1 5194
‘07L19194
07119194
07At5f94!
S.
‘07
- ,.-
O7115l94
07115194
07115194
VOC. NOx -
VOC, NOx
VOC. NOx
VOC. NOx
VOC,NOx
VOC. NOx L..
- ..
- - - . -
*
VOC ..NOx -._____
- -. ;*-
--
- _ , ..,.j - - -
_, . S
._ ‘ , - ‘- --
VOC. NOx -.-
VOC. NOx .._.
Le w iston-Aubwn’
-area -:‘
a - -
• .— —
Portland area
-------
39866
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 149 / Thursday, August 4,. 1994 / Notices
WV ___..._._
:‘:‘
vwV
y. - - - .
- r- — -
•,
: wv-: ’ -
- .•‘ . -. -
Oxygenated Fuels
(for moderate
Basic Vehicle Inspec-
lion and Mainte-
nance.•• -
Ozone New Source
Review.
£
Enhanced Vehicle In-
spe dian and Main-
tenanc . ,
VOC Reasonably
Available Confrol
Technology Catch-
._up.. -
Basic Vehicle Inspec-
lion and Mainte-
• -“:
Basi Vehiclei Inspec-
bonandM a i n te-
nance. - -
— • .. —, ‘.1•
.
Bed Vehicle hispec-.
bonandM&rde-. I
_. l2 b0?. : ‘ri
The EPA expects to publish a direct final
FEDERAL REGISTER notice approving the
States request for redesignation by July
22. 1994. The EPA expects to make the
final action effective shortly after August
22.
The EPA expects to publish a direct final
FEDERAl. REGISTER notice approving the
State’s request for iesig i by July
22, 1994. The EPA expects to make the
final action effective shortly after August
22. -
The State has indicated the rule will be af-
fective August.15, 1994 and sabetitled
to EPA by August 15. The EPA
to issue a colq$eteness delamination
byAugustl8. --
The Slate legislatwe nebde to authorize
the program aid will not renonveno imW
— 1995.
The EPA has detern*ied that the State
has made aconçlete Sub.u liJ b 10 of
11 requIred nies. The leinaii&.g nile
will go bib eftedan August t7, 1994.
The State expects to si*n the plan to
EPA by August 19. TheEPA- , . .pv to
issue a coixpleteness &IOUUL aI
August22.
The EPA proposed redeslgnatlon a
of this area to attairinent ‘en how
1994. The comment period ciosert no
adverse coninerib we received. Fmal
redesigriatlon approval is expededby
August15.-
The EPA perib to publish a’ii’ed fsiat
FEDERAl. REGISTER notice appovlig
SteWs - - for redesignalkin by Aa
• gust .15, 1994.-The EPA e ects to
mire the rmal adios effective shortly.
aftefSeptentheri&. -
The EPA proposed redesigudion approval
- of this area to tlsi... .s4 on kme 10.
- 1994. The comment period osert no
adverse conineots were received. Fmel
L .redeslgnation.approvalle anperled by
August15.’ - . —, ,, : • , -
STATUS OF SANCTIONS CLOCKS—Continued
(Outstanding State Plan Subn ’ iUals as of July 15, 1994]
State --
Affected area
-
State implementation
eiement
Pollutants affected
.
Date
sanction.
- ( j e actions needed
Memphis area ._
• 1. ___ Memplusarea
TN
co
VOC. NOx
VO NO
VOC .NOx _
VOC, NOx ....._L._.
vpc Nox ... _
- .?- ,*, r ,..
-
— -
--I S:--
YC. Nx ___
07115194
07I15J94
07115194
07l1 5194
07115194
07115(94
07115(94
- . —
07115194
Nashville area
Burlington Metropoh-
• tan Statistical area
Entire State (Attain-
ment areas In
Transport Region).
charieston area
- ,•: ,
Huntingten .Ashiand. ’
•
b4e
- -
These plans were formally disacoroved because they did not fully meet EPA published recparéments The’flnal disaptiuvat s rted as 18-
• . month sanctionclock, ’which expired in May 1994. To Stopihe sanctions clock, EPA mud finalize an approval ‘action in the FEDERAL REGiSTER U I-
• corporating a revision that corrects the deficiencies in the Stflte plan. Sanctions may be stayed or deferred based on a detemilnallon that the de-
Ilciency has been corrected. This determination would be made by an Interim final rule at*ilished on or after the time EPA has crocosed aD- -
lot lar -‘-.
• Dared: JuLy21, 1994
Mary D. Nichols.
AisistantAdministrator. , , -
- IFR Doc. 94—18571 Filed 8—3—94; 8:45 amj
€ - : - -
--I-
-------
?ItO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
1 ” t PRO ’
OFFICE OF
AIR QUALITY PLANNING
AND STANDARDS
APR 24 1995
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Revised Guidance on the Treatment of Federal
Implementation Plan Clocks Following Section 179
Findings
FROM: tver, Director
Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides arid Toxics Division,
Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
Memoranda issued in 1992 and 1993 provided guidance on,
among other things, how the sanctions and Federal implementation
plan (FIP) clocks operate following section 179 findings of
nonsubmittal, incompleteness, and SIP disapproval.’
Additionally, on August 4, 1994, EPA issued a rule prescribing
the sequence of section 179 mandatory sanctions (59 FR 39832).
In the preamble to the rule, EPA described a revised policy for
how the sanctions clocks operate following section 179 findings.
The purpose of this memorandum is to revise the 1992 and 1993
guidance on how the FIP clocks operate to be as consistent as
possible with the revised sanctions clock policy EPA adopted via
the sanctions rule.
1 The two memoranda are: July 9, 1992 memorandum from John
Calcagni to the Air Division Directors entitled “Processing of
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals,” and a July 14, 1993
memorandum from Kent Berry to the Air Division Directors entitled
“Impact of Conditional Approvals on Sanctions and Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) Clocks.”
-------
2
Background
The two memoranda referenced above provided guidance on how
the sanctions and FIP clocks function. The July 9, 1992
memorandum indicated that to stop the sanctions clock, following
a section 179 finding, the State must correct the deficiency
prompting the finding. A finding of failure to submit a plan or
complete plan is corrected when the State submits a plan to EPA
that EPA finds complete. A SIP disapproval is corrected when EPA
takes final rulemaking action fully approving the plan.
Concerning FIP clocks, the guidance indicated that section
110(c) (1) requires that EPA promulgate a FIP within 2 years of
findings of failure to submit, incompleteness, or SIP disapproval
unless two conditions are met: the State corrects the
deficiency, and EPA approves the plan.
The July 1993 guidance memorandum addressed the effect of
conditional approval on sanctions and FIP clocks initiated by
findings of nonsubmittal or incompleteness. The guidance
reiterated that when EPA finds that a State has failed to submit
a plan, or a complete plan, the sanctions clock permanently stops
when EPA finds the plan complete. If the EPA then takes final
rulemaking action to conditionally approve the same plan, the FIP
clock will temporarily stop. The guidance further indicated that
the FIP clock will stop permanently if the State fulfills its
commitment, and the EPA then takes final action fully approving
the plan. However, the clock resumes where it stopped (and the
EPA remains under its FIP obligation) if the conditional approval
becomes a disapproval.
In the preamble to the sanctions sequence rule, in re ponse
to public comments, EPA revised the sanctions clock policy
described in the July 1992 memorandum (see 59 FR at 39837-52).
The EPA retained the previously stated policy that in order to
permanently stop a sanctions clock and permanently lift
sanctions, EPA must finally determine that the State has
corrected the deficiency prompting the finding. However, the
revised policy indicates that EPA recognizes that it is
inequitable for sanctions to apply where EPA has made an initial
determination that the deficiency has been corrected and the
State, therefore, has presumptively corrected the deficiency.
Therefore, the policy and the rule provide that, following SIP
disapprovals, when EPA proposes to fully or conditionally approve
-------
3
the revised SIP, EPA may also make an interim final determination
that the deficiency has been corrected. 2 This interim final
determination shall have the effect of temporarily deferring
and/or staying sanctions. 3 Sanctions are temporarily deferred
and/or stayed unless and until EPA reverses the proposed approval
and proposes or takes final action disapproving the SIP. The
purpose of this memorandum is to revise the July 1992 and July
1993 guidance to make the treatment of the FIP clock following
section 179 findings roughly consistent with this revised
sanctions clock policy.
Revised FIP Clock Policy
Overall Policy
By this memorandum, the FIP clock policy is being revised to
provide for the deferral of the FIP requirement following
findings of nonsubmittal and incompleteness and SIP disapprovals
where EPA has finally determined prior to 2 years from the date
of the finding that the plan is conditionally approvable. Note,
like the revised sanctions clock policy, the conditional approval
will not temporarily or permanently stop the FIP clock. Rather,
the FIP clock will continue to run when EPA issues its
conditional approval, but the FIP requirement will be deferred
unless and until such time as the conditional approval converts
to a disapproval. Of course, if the State fulfills the
conditional approval commitment and EPA fully approves the
revised SIP, then the FIP obligation is fully satisfied and the
FIP clock stops.
2 With respect to a conditional approval, EPA’s interim
final determination can be made at the time of a proposed or
final conditional approval. The EPA will not take final action
on the interim final determination until the State has met its
commitment and EPA has issued a final full approval. For a
further discussion of interim final rules, see the sequence of
sanctions rule, 59 FR at 39832-52.
The policy and rule make similar provision following
findings of nonimplementation where the application of sanctions
is temporarily deferred and/or stayed if and when EPA makes an
initial determination that the nonimplementation deficiency has
been corrected. However, the policy and rule do not provide for
the temporary deferral and/or staying of sanctions following
findings of nonsubmittal and incompleteness because EPA’S
determination as to whether the deficiency has been corrected in
these cases consists of a completeness review. Completeness
reviews are not subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking for the
reasons discussed in the preamble to the sanction rule and thus
there is no initial finding of completeness on which to base a
temporary deferral and/or staying of sanctions.
-------
4
How the Policy Works
Findings of Nonsubmittal and Incompleteness
Following findings of nonsubmittal and incompleteness, the
sanctions clock stops when EPA finds the SIP complete. Finding
the SIP complete also satisfies the first condition of stopping
the FIP clock as mentioned above. Regarding the second condition
that EPA approve the SIP, if EPA subsequently conditionally
approves the SIP, then EPA’s obligation to promulgate a FIP 2
years from the finding will be deferred unless and until the
conditional approval converts to a disapproval (see footnote 1).
SIP IDisapprovals
Following SIP disapprovals, regarding the first condition
for deferring the FIP obligation, if EPA subsequently
conditionally approves the submittal and makes an interim final
determination the deficiency has been corrected (as is done to
defer and stay sanctions), then EPA’S obligation to promulgate a
FIP at 2 years will be deferred unless and until the conditional
approval becomes a disapproval. 4 In addition, the conditional
approval also addresses the second condition for deferring the
FIP obligation, namely that EPA approve the SIP.
Policy Rationale
The EPA’s policy rationale for deferring the FIP requirement
in the cases described above is that it is duplicative for EPA to
promulgate a FIP when after public notice and comment the State’s
plan has been determined to be conditionally adequate. Faced
with limited resources, the Agency believes it is more -.
appropriate for it to put its FIP development efforts on hold
where the State has submitted a substantive SIP with commitments
for filling the submittal’s gaps within the relatively. short
period provided for a conditionally approved plan.
Le a1 Rationale
Section 110(c) (1) provides that the Administrator must
promulgate a FIP at any time within 2 years after the
Administrator makes a finding of nonsubmittal, incompleteness, or
SIP disapproval “unless the State corrects the deficiency and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the
Administrator promulgates” the FIP. The EPA believes that the
term “approval” can apply to conditional approval, as well as to
full approval, since there is no disapproval element associated
4 For a discussion of how to make interim final
determinations, see the preamble to the sequence of sanctions
rule (August 4, 1994, 59 Federal Register 39837)
-------
5
with a conditional approval. However, since a conditional
approval may convert to a disapproval, EPA does not believe that
a conditional approval should fully discharge the FIP obligation
as does a full approval. Therefore, during the time that the
conditional approval is in place, no FIP obligation will come
due, although any clock will continue to run. However, if the
conditional approval is converted to a disapproval and the FIP
clock has run out, the FIP obligation will then be re-triggered
and EPA would need to fulfill its FIP obligation as quickly as
practicable.
General questions on this clarification should be directed
to Chris Stoneman of the Air Quality Strategies and Standards
Division (919-541-0823). Questions regarding application to
specific programs should be directed to the appropriate program
group within OAQPS or OMS.
Attachments
cc: Phillip Lorang, OMS
Rich Ossias, OGC
Lydia Wegrnan, OAQPS
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
Regional Air Counsel, Regions I-X
-------
Figure 1: FIP Clock Following
Findings of Nonsubmittal / Incompleteness
Yes
Conditional
Approval Becomes
Disapproval - F l ?
Obligation No
Longer Deferred and
is Now Due
Fl ? Clock Continues
But First Condition
for Stopping Fl?
Clock Satisfied
(Sanction Clock
Stops)
EPA Conditionally
Approves SIP Prior
to 2 Years From
Date of Finding
-------
FIP Clock Following
Figure 2:
SIP Disapprovals
Yes
Conditional
Approval Becomes
Disapproval - PIP
Obligation No
Longer Deferred and
is Now Due
EPA Conditionally
Approves SIP Prior
to 2 Years From
Date of Finding and
Makes Interim Final
Finding that
Deficiency
Corrected
-------
FJeral RegIster 1. VoL 60. No.. 120 1 Friday. Jwie 30. iee; I Notices
(lAD
34315
statutorily required qoneultadan baa
been accomplished.
The FAA baa formally received the
noise compatibility program for The
Southwest Florida International Airport,
alec effectIve on May 17, taos.
PreUrnIn uy review of the submitted
materiel Indicate, that It conforms to the
requirements for the submittal of not..
compatibility programs, but that further
zev lewwtlibenecessezypr lorto
approval or disapproval of the program.
The format review period, limited by
lawtoamax lmum of 180 days, will be
completed on or before November13,
1001.
The FAA’. detailed evaluation will be
conducted u dsr the provIslona of 14
CFR part iso. 16O.3 . The primary
amsideatlons In the eva luation process
are whether the proposed measures may
reduce the level of aviation safety,
aeaw an undue burden on Interstat. or
foreign commerce, or be reasonably.
consistent with obs2frI{ng thi goal of
reducing e d.dng noncorepetibi. land
uses end preventing the Introduction of
additional noucompatlble land uses..
Interested persona axe lnvlte4te
comment on the proposed program with
specific reference to these factors. All
comrnentL otbet than those properly
addressed to loàl land use authorfttes
will be consideredhy the FAA to the’
extent practkabla. Copies of the note.
exposure map.. th FM’. evaluation of.
the maps. and the pToposed noise.
compatibility program are eveilable for
* examination atihe following loimtIan .
Federal Aviation M” 4 n 4 stra11oa
Orlando Airport. DIstrtctOMce, 9677
Tradeport Drive, SuIte 130, Orlando,
Flortda 3z827-5397
Lee County Port Authority, 16000
Chambó Un Parkway. SuIte Sell. Pt
My.is. FL33e 13-eaOO
Questions maybe directed to the
Individual named above under the
heading. Foe PU 14ER iwcoe *iioN -.
CONTACT.
Issued Is Orlando. Florid.. May 17 .1995.
a arim B. BWi Manqss,
OtiasidoAlzpoifaDfstricl Office.
(FR Dec. 95-16164 FIled 6-29-93,8:43 siul’
giLlimoses 4 5SS-I 5.
Connecticut Avenue, NW., SuIte 1020,
Weah1n ton. D.C., 20036.
The agenda will be as follows.
(1) Welcome and AdmInIstratIve
Remarks;
(2) Introductions;
(3) RevIew and Approval of the
Agenda;
14) RevIew and Approval of the
Summary of the Previous M.ating
(5) RevIew of Results of Working
Group 1 EdItorial Group Msetlng
oiPgeeenta t iens;
7) AssIgnment of Tasks;
8) Other Business;
9) Date neil Place of Next Mâetlng. -
Attendance Is open to the Interested
public hut limited to space availability.
With the approval of the chairman.
members of the public may present oral
atatsments at the meeting.
Persons wishing to present statements
or obtain Information should co tad the
RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut
Avenue NW., SuIte 1020. WashIngton.
D.C. 20038; (202) 833-0359 (phone) or
(202)833-9034 (fax). Members of the
pubic may present a written statement
to the comndne. at any time.
Issued In Wk.blnglen, D.C., on fuss 26,
loss.
Jaa i ml.P*zu ,
florfjnawdOfflaa l.
IFR Dec. 05—15185 Flied 6—2 0-el: ass amj
laLLiat 4m54
Flight SarvIceBtatIse at But , M I;
Notice oLClosln
Notice I. hereby given that on or
about July 28. 1905, the flight service
station at Butts. Montana, will be
closed SeMces to the aviation publlc
formerly rovt4ed by this facility will
be piovided by the’automated flight
service station In Greet Falls, Montana.
This lnfeimatioa will be reflected In the
FAAflipnization Statement tite Xt
tirnerit is Issued. Sec. Sin(s) of Federal
Aviation Act of 1958. as amended; 72
Stat. 752; 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a).
lusuad in 3ssals Washington. on June 20.
1096.
Fiedstlck bf. Isaac,
Re oa,uiAdminIat,utur. NahweugMo ngaIi
Region.
(FR Doe. 98—10168 WIled 6—29—95: 0:451 ,0 1
WLu CC C I lI -1L*
AGENCY: Federal Highway
Adminletratlon (FHWA). DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposod policy
statement; request for comments .
SUMMARY; The purpose of this document
is to propose a policy which would:
govern the exemption criteria that
would be used to determine which
projects could advance I! the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
imposes highway sanctions In
accordance with sectIon 179(a) or
section 110(m) of the CAA, In
conjunction with EPA regulations
published In the Federal Register on
January 11. 1994. end August 4. 1004:
define the requirements which establish
the basis for plolect exemptions; and
describe and clarify the types of prolects
and programs which are exempt The
FHWA requests comments on the
proposed policy.
DATES: Comments eliould he received by
August 29, 1995.
ADRUs $ Submit written, signed
comments to FHWA Docket 04-3p.
Federal Highway Adznlnlstratloa, Room
4232, HCC-10, Office of Chief Counsel,
400 Seventh Street, SW.. Washington
DC 20590. AU comments received will
beava ljablefarexanr lnauonatthe -
above address between 8:30 a.m. and
4:15p.m., e.t., Monday through YXtday,
except Federal holidays. Those desiring
notification of receipt of commentn must
Include a s.lf.addressed, stamped
envelope or postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CCNTACfl Ms.
Lucy Garilauska.. Office of Environment
and PlannIng, (202) 388-2088, or Mr.
ReId Aleop. Office-of (2def Counsel.
(202) 380-1372. FHWA. Office .houm are
from 7:45 e.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMIKI’*RY INFQRM*Tl0N: This.
policy statement propose. adexia and
- offers cWlftcatlon.on the types of
projects (“exempt projec1a ’ listed In
section 179(b)(l) of the Clean Alt Act
(CAM as amended in 1990 (42 USC.
7509(b)(1fl, that may. continue to
advance while an area Is sublect to
highway fun Hng sanctions. Under
section 179(b) arid section 110(m) of the
CAA. the EPA Ad ,1 1 , .letrstor may
impose a prohibition on project
approvals and grants made under title
23, UnIted States Code, by. the Secretary
of Transportation (highway.
sanctions”). The descriptions of exempt
-. projects contained within this document
would apply equally to sanctions
applied under sectIon 179(a)
(“mandatory sanctions”) or section
110(m) ( ‘discretIonary sanctions”).
Sootlen 110(m) contemplates
circumstances under which EPA may
extend highway sanctions to areas not
designated as “nanallalnment”. Hence.
RTCA, Inc., Special Commute. 181;
A.ronaUecaI 8pecDum Planning
‘Sues
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the
doral Advisory Committee Act
92-463.5 U.S.C.. AppendIx 2). notl Eumptiaii Criteria for Hlghw.
e hereby given for Special Committee
15$ meeting to be herd August 1—3, °°
1005, startIng at 9:00 a.m. The meeting
wtfl be held at the RTCA, 1140
-------
VI sd 1 U1 .LZ.15 S.
.1St I sI..d
34310
Federal EagMer I Vol. 60. No. 126 1 Friday, Juno 30, 1995 I Notices
the Information contained In this notice
applies to attelvlmeflt , nonattainmant.
and unclassifiable areas.
As alibis dato.EM has published two
fuel rules related to senctlon& A final
rule was published In the Federal
Register on Januarym 1094. entitled,
‘Criteria for ExsrcIelng Discretionary
Sanctions under Title I of the Clean Air
Act” (59 FR 1476). Ii establishes criteria
to guide EPA’. decision on whether. in
a specific circumstance, to impose
discietlonary sanctions on a statewide
basis under section 110(m).
A second regulation, “Selection of
Sequence of Mandatory Sanctions for
Findings Made Pursuant to Section 179
of the Clean Air Act,’ vu published on
August 4, 1994(59 FR 39832). ThIs
regulation establishes that, following
sectIon 179(s) fln ’ 1 ’gs, the 2-toi offset
sanction on new or modified major
stationary sources applies first, 18
months after the finding (except where
EPA. reverses the order through a
separate nalemsklngL unless EPA baa
detenulned that the State corrected the
deficiency that prompted the finding.
Highway sanctions apply second, six
months after application of the offset
sanction, unless EPA baa determined
that the State corrected the deficiency
that prompted the finding:
Those two final rules (and this
propo.ód policy statement, if mad.
final) effectively supersede the joint
DOT/EPA Federal Register notice of
April 10.1980(45 FR 24692), “Federal
Assistanos Limitation Required by
section 178(a) of the Clean Air Act.”
The EPA also expects to publish another
regulation that would establish the
sequence of sanctions applied under
section 502(dXZRB) of the Clean Air Act
relating to the EPA’. permit program.
The proposed policy seeks to clarify
the types of project, which axe exempt
from sanctions and to establish crfteth
that are uniformly applied when
determIning which programs and
projects are exempt from highway
sanctions. The proposed policy give.
recognition to the respective roles and
responsibilities of the FHWA and the
EPA In applying f indIig and program!
project approval limitations under
section 179(b)(1), when the highway
sanction Is Imposed under section
179(a) or sectIon 110(m) of the CAA of
1990.
The policy would be nationally
applicablo. Although PWNA would
,.consult with EPA to detennlnwwbether
projects meet the exemption criteria set
forth In this proposed policy, the final
authority to determine whether a project
Is exempt from highway sanctions
under the safety exemption criteria and
seven congressionally authorised
actIviI es Is the responalbiliry of the
Secretary of Transportation. as
delegated to the FHWA. Other
transportation related projects, not
covered under the aforementioned
exemptions, are not exempt unless the
EPA Administrator, In consultation with
the Secretary of Transportation. finds
that they will improve air quality end
not contribute to Increased single
occupancy vehicle (SOy) capacity.
A number of stand-alone projects
which do not affect alr.quality but have
other environmentally beneficial
Impacts are not specifically exempt
from sanctions by the CAA. These
projects may Improve water quality,.
mitigat, wetland Impacts, provide
landscaping. preserve historic
structures, reduce noise, anthmre other
aesthetic benefit .. Whil, th. proposed
po 1 icy statement would not exempt
these projects. FHWA requests.
comments a. to whether the following
types of projects should be exempt from
highway sanctions bemuse of their de
pttnhnls Impact on air quality. These
activitlea are generally exempted from
the CAA transportation conformity
requirements (see 40 CFR if 51.460 and
03.134). C’mvrtenie sbauld.include a
discussion of the bests for the
commautor’s position In favor of, or
against, such an exemption. PHWA
would consult further With EPA before
granting such an exemption.
The projects for which exemption
status I. being conatd rsd Include:
1. Wetland edttgetIon
2. PlantIng trees. shrubs. wildflowers;
3. LandetupIn f
4. Purchase of scenic easements:
5. BilLboard and other alga removal:
8. HistorIc preservation;
?. Transpoziedan .ohsw.ameoi. .nd
8. NoIse abatement.
Requirements which Establish the BuIi
for Highway Sanctions Exemption.
The Secretary of Tranapo*ddon may
make certain project approvals and
award grants, even while the
nonaualnment area or State Is under
highway sanctions. As stated In section
179(b)(1) of the CAA. safety projects
could go forward provided the Secretary
of ’l anepoxtation deter rInes t at. based
on accident or other data, the principal
purpose of the project Is an
Improvement In safety to resolve a
demonstrated safety problem and will
likely result In a significant reduction in
or avoidance of accidents.
addition to safety projects. section
179(b)(1) specifically exempted seven
activities from highway sanctions.
Projects that the EPA Mmlalstrator, In
consultation with the Secretary of
TransportsUon. delerutinos would
contribute to air quality Improvement
and would not encourage SOy capacity
are also exempted. Programs and
projects which are allowed to go
forward under section 179(b)(1) should
strive to avoid Increasing or relocating
emissions end congestion rather than
ainqily reducing them.
SaMy PrograrnlProject Requirements
Under 23 U.S.C.
Several programs have been
established under title 23, U.S.C.,
expressly for the purpose of addressing
safety objectives, either through
pmgr n s targeted at driver behavior or
safety projects Intended to remedlate
structurea, faclliuioe, or prevent loss of
) xwtan life. These programs include the:
(1) HIghway Safety Improvement Program
ss.d.fln.d under 33 CFR Pert 924;
(2) the Highway Bridge Replacement and
R.b.bilttitlon Ptogram es defined under 23
CFR Part 650. Subpart 0; and
(3) grunt pzognms who.. FII1 PaI
purpem to Improve safety and which do
not Include any capital Improvements.
Including .11 p ograsas established In Chapter
I IVor 22 U.S.C. that are administered by
the National }ftgbwsy Traflic Safety
Admbistr tIon (NHTSA).
Additionally, the Transportation
Management and Monitoring Systems
defined under 23 CFR Part 500 (58 FR
63.475. December 1, toas). defined
requirement . for six management
systems and the Traffic Monitoring
System. The requirements set forth in
the management systems axe being
phased In and, with the exception of ths
pavement and bridge management
systems. wIU be fully operational by
October 1, 1908. The pavement and
bridge management systems axe
required to be fully operational by
October 1, 1997, and October 1, 1098,
respectively. Those requIrements. as
applied to the safety end bridge
mansgáment systelfls. will yield
additional Information and data needed
to support highway sanction
as apecifled in section
179(b)(1) of the CAA. This information
may be used to supplement existing
data ni. as ft Is deveinpail. may lTnprnve
existing data or Information currenily
available.
Programs or projects stemming from
the following provisions could be
exempt on the basià of an established
safety.related project need meeting
sectIon 170(b) requIrements. TItle 23 of
the Code of Fedqral Regulations (April
1, 1994) sets forth the requirements for
eligibility for Federal funding for
projects under the Highway Safety
Improvement Program (23 CFR Part 92
and the Highway Bridge Replacement
and ReImbiliurtion Program (23 CFR Pa
-------
ui—ii— 3 uq. qrM
riwu rn 1ViY LA1 Vl rtf DvI I V 1/ iU) .J .),JU
I UUJ/ L UU
Federal Register I Vol. 80; No. 126 / Friday. June 30, 1995 I Notices
34317
r grsm. •. 3.ySaf e lyP ngroma
.admn 1byNl SA (Chapter. fl Admh iIs1ered yNHSTA.
and III of 23 CPR). ThelS prOgImS haVO The National Highway Traffic Safety
boon established with the purpose Adin1S? UOfl rs administers
add afng safety objectives and Y hi (Independently. 1CID YI or cooperatively
used to establish justIflr t1 for the with other Federal agencies) program.
safety ezemudons wider the CM lithe whose principal purpose Is to Improve
sectIon 179(b) requIrements and those of highway safety end which do not
this policy are fufly met. ,
i.Iügbieny SafrfyImp rovewent . Under those propemr, the agency
Progium 123 R Pait 924). awards elthei pants. contracts, or
The Highway Safety Improvement. cooperative agreements. These programo
Program requires each State to develop Include, but are Dot limited to. programs
and bnpb’nent a urogram which baa as authorized under chapter W of tIde 23.
Its goal reducing e number and U.S.C.., M aCh as:
severity of acdøente and decreasing the Section 402. HIghway Safety
potential for accidents on all highways. Programs. under which the agency
The program Is to be continuous and Its P° ° 8 ’” 5Uldellflee and awarda
comocoents consist of eranti to Statee.bavbig approved
Im,fr”aitauon. an4 evaluation of JghwaY safety programs designed to
end ptojdcts. reduce traffic aeddeitta and deaths.
.T t ntatIon of the highway Injuries and property damage;
safety mj rovement program Is subject Section. 403, Highway Safety Research
to rcceaures eat forth In 23 CFR Part end.Developmeni. under which the
ego. Subpart A, Pedml a1d agency engages in research on .11 phases
Approval and Prajocr Autharlzauon.. of highway safety and traffic cond3tlonl
and the priorities developed and other related rematch and
conjunction wIth 23 CFR Part 924, development activities which will
promote highway safetv
section 024 .9—PI”g
The planning components of the Section 40L Alcoho(TraIEc Safety
program shall Incorporate a process for Programs. and section 410.’Alcohol
collecting and ro fltsbi4T g a record of lw abud Driving nthrn eaaurea.
accident data; a process for analystng unaer which the agency makes grants t
available data to Identify hazardous States which adopt and Implement
locations on the basis of accident elfective rvpam . to reduce traffic
experience ur acctdaui potential; safety proolsa. resulting from person.
process for conducting engineering driving while under the Influence of
studies to develop highway safety alcohol or a controlled substance.
fmprovemsntec and projects c neIderIng NHTSA programs also I nclude. but
the potential reduction in the number are not limited to, programs authorized
and severity of accidents. . under Chapter 1 of tld. 23. U.S.C. such
an.
2. The Hlghwey Bridge Replacement SectIon 153. Use of Safety Bolts and
and R.hahWtadon Program. ) y under which the
This program Is administered ln agoecy has made grants to Stats. with
accoid ”e . with 23 U.S.C. 144. EligIble •ffective safety bali and motorcycle
work under this program Inciudee the helmet use laws and under which States
total rspla rneut eta structurally. bj c to the transfer of certain
deficient or functionally obsblets hridge highway coestsuetlon funds to section
a nominal amount of approach work 402
sufficient to connect the bridge to the rsnia not having suck laws
roadway or major work requlredto Section 154. NatIonal M hnum
restore the structural Integrity ala Speed Limit. urrderwhkh States are
bridge as well as work necessary to subject to the transfer of certain
correct major safety defects. Bridge highway construction funds to section
projects eligible for funding under the 402 programs for noncompliance with
liridge replacement and rehabilitation the National Maximum Speed Limit
program must be supported by bridge requirement ..
Inventory data and evaluathm of the
bridge Inventory. •. . 4. IS1TA Management Systems
Projects are submitted by the State to Section 1034 of the ISTEA amended
the FlIWA In accordance with 23 CFR t Itle 23, UnIted States Code, by adding
part e o, Subpart A, Federal-aid sectIon 303, Management Systems.
Programs Approval and AuthorI a1lon. SectIon 303 requIres State development.
Priority consideration. will be given to establishment, and Implementation of a
those projects which will remove from system f& nianaghig each of the
service those highway bridges most In following: highway pavement of
danger of failure. Federal-aid highways (PMS); bridges on
ond.off Federal-aid highway. (BMS);
highway safety (SMS); traffic congestion
(CMSJ; public transportation facilities
end equipment (PTMS); and Intermodal
transportation facilities and systems
(IMS). An Interim 8nol rule (IPR) for
these systems was published on
December 1. 1993.as23 CFR part 500.
The lP’R aUowa for a phase-In of the
management systems ranging over the
next soveralyears..
While each of the systems may result
In the identification of strategies that
benefit attainment of the NAAQS, lbs
dataava llahlefromtheBMSaztdSMS
would aignificertly oontxtbute toth.
justification for project exemption for
bridge and safety strategies IdentUted by
these systeme
The BMS (23 R part 500. subpart
C). which muet.be fully operational by
October 2. 1998, must.inciude a bridge
Iavenao y database, a procedure for
predicting the deterioration of bridge
elements with or without intervening
action, and ldántl&aslon of feasible
actions to Improve bridge cond1tIo .
safety, and serviceability.
The SMS (23 ‘R part 500. subpart
D), which must be frilly operational by
October 1, 1996.1. to provide
Infonnadon for selecting and
Implementing effective highway safety
strategies and projects and must indude
Identification of highway safety
strategies, actions, projects or programs
for consideration In development of
highway safety plan.. State enforcement
plans. and metropolitan and statewide
transportation plans and Improvement
programs.
The proposed policy for exemption
rIt.ria for highway sanctions follows;
HIGHWAY S4NCIION EXD IFrION
CRiTERIA POLICY
SUBJECT: Policy for zempuon Criteria
to be Used to Determine Which
Projbcts Can Advance If the
Environmental Protection Agency
Imposes the Highway Funding
Sanction Under section 179(a) or
110 (m) of the CM. as Amended In
1990.
FROM: Rodney. E. Sitter, F deraI
H1gh ay Administrator U. S.
Department of Transportation.
MEMO TO: Regional Adndnlatrators.
Federal Lands Highway Program
Administrator
The purpose of this memorandum Is
to define the exemption criteria that will
be used to determine which projects can
go forward and which grants can be
awarded In the event the Environmental
Protection (EPA) Agency Impasse
higliway sanctions under section 179(a)
or section 130(m) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) of 99o. This policy contains a
-------
ui—i —s u4:C4rM rrtu!V1 cut IVIYcLANN itADUc
It) 1/ IU.)(.JJJJJU
I UU j/ UUU
4316
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 126 / FrIday, june 30, 1.095 / Notices
escrIpdon of the criteria for
sxempdou and clarification of the
Lypes of projects and programs that are
sxempt. Projectafor which exam tions
olbent,daresl.QIRG IU b
this policy memorandum.
A. General Description
Highway sanctions, when applied,
halt the approval of projects and the
award of any grants funded under title
23, UnIted States Code (Title 23), except
udefined In sectIon 179(b) andth la
policy ibis applies to the following
major funding propams
1. SudeceTrensportadora Program
(Sm);
3. NatIonal Highway System;
.3. Interstate Maintenance;.
4. BrIdges;
5. Interstate Construction;
a. Inroretate Substitution; ax&4
7. CongestIon Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program (C24AQJ.
Project. funded under all other Title
23 programs and other authorizations
are also subject to sanctions, Including
demonstration projects Identified by the
Congress a*d epeciflod In lbs
Intermodal Surface Transportation
Elflclency Act (W1EA) of 1991 under
sections 1103—1108 or In other laws.
ualeu they meet e criteria set forth In
this policy memorandum. Additionally,
projects to be funded under previously
authorized programs, such as Federal.
aid Urban, etc., are also subject to
sanction.
ProjectB funded under tItle 49. U.S.C..
chapter 13, the Federal Transit Laws, as
amended, are categorically exempt from
sanctions by law as are other
transportation programs authorized by
statutes other than TItle 23.
B. Typical Nonsx.mpt Projects
The following types of projects
generally do not meet the axempUon
criteria ln.aectlon 179(b)(1) and would
not be aUpwed to proceed If funded or
approved under Title 23 unless it Is
demonstrated that they meet one or
more of the exemption criteria. These
Include projects that expand highway or
road capacity, nonexempt project
development activities and any other
project that does not explicitly moot the
criteria in this notice. Those may
Include activities for:
1. The addition of general purpose
through lanes to existing roads:
2. New hlghway’faclutles on new
locations;
3. New Interchanges on existing
highways;
4. Improvements to, or
reconfIguration of. existing
Interchanges;
5. Addlilons of new access points to
the e dstiug road network;
6. Increasing functional capacity of
the facility;
7. Relocating existing highway
facilities:
8. Repaving or reawfaclng except for
safety purposes, as defined by section
179(b);
9. Nonexempt projects, project
development. Including NEPA
documentation and
engineering, rlgbt.of-way purchase,
equipment purchase, and construction;
10. Standa’one projects that do not
affect air quality but hay, other
eavixonrnenrally he eflda1 impacts
such as wetland mitigation, planting
and landscaping, purchase of scenic
easements. billboard
and other sign removal, historic
preservation, transportation -
nh,’tcenmerrb, end noise abatement
C. frojectExempt lons
• Under section 170(’b)(i) of the CAA.
once the EPA 1 npeses highway
sanctions, the FRWA may not approve
oraward anygrantelnthe sanctioned
area except those which fall under three
categories: (1) safety programs and
projects: (2] congieulonally-authorized
activities under section 179(b)(t)(B);
and ( ) art quality Improvement projects
that do not encourage single occupancy
vehicle capacity.
2. Safety Programs arid Projects
Safety projects are those for which the
prIncipal purpose Is an Improvement In
safely but the projects may also have
other Important benefits. These projects
must resolve a demonstrated safety
problem with the likely result being a
significant reduction In or avoidance of
accidents as determined by the FHWA.
Such demonstration must.be supported
by accident or other data submitted by
the State or appropriate local
government.
- Three types of categories of sa t ery-
based programs and projects cotlid
potentially meat the exemption criteria:
grant programs end related activities:
statewide safety Improvement programs;
and specific projects outside of a
statewide safety program. Each category
calls for a different level of justification
specific to a particular category.
a. Programs administered by the
National Highway TaWi Safety
Administration qualify for blanket
exemptions, on the basis that their
principal purpose Is to improve safety
and do not include any capital
Improvements. Programs that fall within
this category Include but are not limited
to: Use ol Safety Belts and Motercycle
Helmets (23 U.S.C. 253); National
Maximum Speed LImit (23 U.S.C. 154);
Highway Safety Program. (23 U.S.C.
402); Highway Safety Research and
Development (23 U.S.C. 403); Alcohol
Traffic Safety Programs (23 U.S.C. 408);
and Alcohol .Iinpalred Driving
Countermeasure. (23 U.S.C. 401).
b Statewide safety lipprovement
programs Include specific safety
projects that con ha justified on the bash
of State or national level data, which
will be additionally supported by data
and analysis atenuning from the
management system requirements once
the system. are fully operational.
Projects meetlng.thie exemption
• categorj would come our of the
Highway Safety Improvement Program
(23 CFR part 924) and the Highway
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation
Program (23 CFR part 650, subpart D).
The Highway Safety Improvement
•Pan alsofa eJudegtheH
Elimination Program (23 U.S.C. 152).
c. Specific projects for which
justification is needed to ahow that the
project Is related to safety, unless the
project Is drawn out of a statewide
-safety program end would be llkeiy to
reduce ccldento, would Include capital
projects such as:
1. Ellrninatlon of, and safety features
for, rallroad.bigbway grade crossings;
2. RepaIr of damage caused by natural
disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts;
3. Changes In vertical or horizontal
alignment;-
4. IncreasIng eight distance;
5. EliminatIon of high hazard
locations or roadside obstacles:
a. Shoulder improvements, widening
narrow pavements:
7. AddIng or upgrading guardrail.
median. sud barrier., rranii cu.hlou..
fencing:
8. Pavement resurfacing or
rehebllitatinn to Improve skid
resistance; I
9. Replacement or rehabilitation of
unsafe bridge.;
10. Safety roadside rest areas, truck
size and weight Inspection stations;
11. AddItion and upgrading of traffic
control devices, (traffic signal., sips.
and pavement markings);
12. Lighting improvements; and
13. Truck climbing lanes.
justification [ or an exemption on the
grounds of safety must be based on
accident or other data such as the data
derived from a safety management
system, bridge management system, the
Highway Safety Improvement Program.
or the Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rebsbthtation Program. Such data need
not be specific to the proposed project’s
location but may be based on accident
or other data from similar conditions,
including national experience where
such projects have been Implemented
remove safety hazards. For example.
-------
Federal la ster/ Vol.. 80. No. 126 1 FrIday, June 30. 1995 / Notlcee
34319
rlgldhlgbway .1 p posts were identified
In the past ae a saMy hazard causing
•uanocessuy deaths and Injuries. The
Idantificatign of this hazard led to
national policy requiring rigid posts to
be replaced with breakaway poles.
Projects exempted under the safety
provision may not Involve s ib.tant1al
functional (such as upgrading major
arterial to freeways), loiatlonol. ox
capacity changes except when the safety
pmblem could not otherwise be solved.
Although substantial changes to the
function. location, or capacity have been
previously allowed for projects funded
under Emergency RaIlef such projects
could not proceed under sanction.
2. Congresalonaliy Authorized AcIiviUes
Seven project types axe Identlfled
specifically In CAA section l7atbXl) as
exempt from highway sanctions.
Esseinhally these are projects that
discourage single occupancy vehicles or
improve traffic flow (e.g., intersections,
turning lanes) In ways that reduce
congestion and einluiansr
a. Capital programs for public transit.
These Include any capital investinent
for new construction, rehabilitation,
replacement, or reconstruction of
facilities and acquisition of vehicles and
equipment;
b. Consinrcuon or restriction of
certain readsorlanes solely fortheuse
of passenger buses or high occupancy
vehicles (ROY). Exempt projects
Include construction of new }IOV lanes,
If those lanes are solely dedicated as 24-
hour NOV facilities, and converting
existing lanes for HOV use during peak
hours, includIng capital costs necessary
to restrict existing lanes (barriers, -
striping, signage, etc.):
c. Planning br requirements for
employers to reduce employee work
trip-related vehicle emissions. This also
includes promotional and other
activities associated with this type of
program that are eligible under Tltl. 23;
d. Highway ramp metering, traffic
signalization, and related programs that
Improve traffic flow and achieve a net
emission reduction;
e. Fringe and transportation corridor
parking facilities serving multiple
occupancy vehicl, program, or transit
operations (this Includes the
construction of new facilities and the
maintenance of o,dsting facilities);
1. Programs to limit or restrict vehicle
usa In downtown areas or other areas of
emission concentration, particularly
during pertpde of peak use, through
road use charges. tolls, parking
eurchaips, or other niclng
mechanisms, vehicle restricted sonea or
periods, or vehicle registration
programs: exempt projects include all
activities of these types that are eligible
under existing funding programs; and
g. Program. fox breakdown and
accident scene management,-
nonrecurring congestion, and vehicle
Information systems, to reduce
congestion and emissions.
The FHWA will consult with the EPA
on any project claimed to reduce
emissions; thai is, with projects falling
under paragraphs c. d. and g, above. the
final authority to determine whether a
project meet . the criteria In this section
end Is therefore exempt from highway
sanctions, however, rests with the
F}IWA.
3. AIr Quality Improvement PTegmms
That Do Not Hncourrxge Single
Occupancy Vehicle ft ’
Transportation programs not
otherwise exempt that Improve air
quality and which would not encourage
single occupancy vehicle capacity (as
determined by EPA In consultation with
DOT) axe also exempt from highway
san ons.
For example, transportation control
measures (TQis) listed In sectIon 108(1)
of the CM and projecirAzoded under
23 U.S.C. 149. the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement (Ovti QJ
program, are project . which the EPA
and DOT may, alter Individual review of
each project. find to be exempt from.
higbway sanctldns. For these projects to
advance while highway sanctions are in
place, the State must submit to DOT an
emissions reduction analysis similar to
that required under the CMAQ program.
Upon receipt, DOT will forward It to the
EPA. The EPA will complete Its review
and task. Its 5i I ig regarding air
quality and single occupancy vehicle
travel wIthin 14 days of receipt of such
Information.
The EPA and DOT have agreed that
the following projects will be
categozically exempt from highway
sanctions, and will not require
additional EPA review or an Individual
finding by EPA:
a. TQwfs Included in an EPA .
approved State buplementadon Plan
(SIP) or Federal Implementation Plan
which have emission reduction credit
and will not encourage single occupant
vehicle travel:
b. Inspection and maintenance
facilities and acrlvtUes eligible for
CMAQ fundlngr
c. Bicycti and pedestrian faciUtles
sod programs; and
d. CarpoollVanpool programs.
En considering exempt projects, Slates
uhrn,h’I sank to ensure adaquarn sre asa to
downtown and other commercial and
residential areas, and avoid increasing
or relocating emissions and congestion’
rather than reducing them.
0. PlannIng end Research Activities
Planning and research activities for
transportation and/or air quality
purposes are exempt from highway
sanctions (except as noted In Section E.
Project Development Activities). Such
planning and research Is critical for the
development of projects that Improve
safety and address an area’s
transportation/air quality needs.
Planning and research activities Include
development of major investment
studies which may be coupled with the
&aft.Envuonmenlal Impact Statement
or Environmental Assessment. Major
investment studies take a multimodal
approach In considering transportation
alternatives (Including new highway
capacity) which would be exempt from
highway sanctions If advanced as stand
alone prr4ects.
Research activities also Include those
research, development, testing, and
pia . ie. pro jocts Involving the Naticna
Intelligent ‘Transportation Systems (ITS)
Program. The goal of the ITS Program Is
to use advanced technology to improve
travel and roadway safety without
expanding existing infrastructure. ITS
activities axe generally done under
seven broad categories: Travel and
transportation management; travel
demand management; public
transportation operations; electronic
payment; commercial vehicle
operations: emergency management:
and advanced vehicle control and safet)
systems.
For these reasons, planning and
research activities can continue even
under highway sanctions. These studle
may be carried out with any Title 23
program funds (metropolitan planning.
etatepI nl g and research, STP. or
other programs) under SectIons 134,
135, and 307 or other relevant sections
E. Project Dovoloptasut Activities
Dovolopinent and completion of
studios that are necessary to meet
requirements under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are
exempt from highway sanctions as loni
as consideration of projects that would
be exempt under the policy statement.
such as transit or other transportation
demand management (TDM) measures.
are actively pursued as reasonable
independent alternatives. Once all
alternatives that could be considered
szwupt from highway asactions under
this policy statement are eliminated.
project development activities for NEF
or other purposes axe no longer exemp
and can no longer be approved if they
are to be funded under TItle 23. For
a
-------
34320
Fe oral Register
/ Vol. 60. No. 12 / FrIday. June 30. 1995 I Notices
example, Ii prior to completion OrNEPA
documentation, all 1DM measures are
eliminated from consideration and the
sole rem ’ ’ g question is the
determination olin alignment for a
highway capacity.expandb’g project
( hlch may 1 c1ude DM) , mibeequent
project development activities am not
exempt from highway sanctions.
The FHWA rosy not approve
p&(e b isy engineering for final design
of a project. nor can approval be granted
for a projects plauL spedltcatIons and
estimates (PS&E) derthitiation of
highway sanction. for project. that are
not exempt under Ibis policy. Neither
rightof-way nor any necessary
equipment may be purchased or leased
with Federal funds for nouexempt
projects while an area launder unction.
Federally-funded construction may not
In any way begin on a project that doe.
not meet the exemption ctiteria
desc Ibedththt.polIcywhUes nare ois
under sanction.
Highway ianctiona apply to those
project. whose funds have not yet been
obligated by the FHWA by the date the
highway sanction app11 ... Those
project. that have already received
approval to proceed end had obligated
funds before the EPA Imposes the
prohibition may proceed even while the
area launder unction, Uuo other
FUWA action is required to proceed. In
the cese of a phasesi project, only those
phases that have been approved and bad
obligated funds prior to the date of
n 44 n application may proceed. Per
example. If preliminary on for
a project was approved en funds were
obligated prior to application of
sanction. but no approval was secured
for later project phase. (such as rfghtof .
way acquisition, construction. etc.).
prelimloory engineering could proceed
while the highway sanction applies but
no subsequent phases of the project
could proceed with Federal highway
funds unless the total po2ject meets the.
exemption criteria In this policy. These
restrictions pertain only to project
development acuvtuea that axe to be
approved or funded under Title 23.
Activities funded under title 49, U.S.C.,
or through State or other fund. rosy
proceed even after highway sanctions
have been imposed unless: (i)approval
or action by PHWA under tItle 231.
required: arid (2) they do not otherwise
meet the exemption criteria of this
policy statement -
F. Other Eovlronmaotal Requirements
Exemption of a transportation project
from the section 170(bXl) highway
sanctions doe. not waive any applicable
requirements under the NEPA (e.g..
environmental docum*nts), section
176— of •tho CAA (conformity
requiremant). or other Federal law.
Authority. 42 U.S.C. 7509(b): 23 U.S C.
315; and 49 R 1.48.
issued on: juse 22,1905.
Rodney E. 51 . 1ST, -
FedereJHighr. yAdmtnIa lmior.
jPR Doo. 08- 16105 FIled B—29-I5; 9:46 emj
uJata coos we .er-P
Maritim. Administration
(Basic.? 8 -UI)
Matson Navlgadon Company, Inc.;
NoVa. of Application for Written
Consent Pursuant to Section 506 c i the
Merchant Marine Act, 1836, as
amended, for the Transfer of Vt.
President Hoover. President 0,e.it, and
President Tyler to the Domestic Tied,
Notice I. hereby given that Matson
Navigation Company, Inc. (Matson), by
letter of June 10,1095, request. a waiver
of the provisions of section 508 of the
Merchant Marine Act. 103*,sa amended
(Act), so as to permit Matson to operate
In exclusively domestic service during
the year commendng December 1. 1995,
the U.S-Flag C—B contalnereblps the
President Hoover. President Grant,and
President Tyler (Vessels) not to exceed
abc months, with respect to each ....l,
during that year period. The Vessels
ware built In the United States with the
aid of constructien-differemtia l subsidy.
(O)S), and are ccmently owned by
American President Lines, Ltd. (API .).
Matson intends top the Vessel
fiom APL.
Matson elates that It intends to use the
C-aS both in Its Trsn.paclflc ftlllan .
(Alliance) service, as well as in Its
Pacific Coast Shuttle (PCS) service,
where they will engage on voyages
among Vancouver, British Colombia.
.(Canada; Seattle, Washington; Ltt
Angeles and Oaklend,’Ca11fcraia The
Itinerary of the Alliance service vessels
weotbound will Involve departures from
California ports with calls at Honolulu
arid Guam outbound before arr1 al a.
Mien port. The outbound calls at
Hawaii arid Guam are specifically
permitted under section 606 of the Act.
Matson explains that due to operational
exlgendes Involved In the start.up of
the Alliance service, It Is likely that the.
Vessels will have to be used
lrneii hangeably among the Alliance and
PCS services for an indefinite period.
However. Matson indicates that only
two of the Vessels will ho used In the
PCS service at any time. Acquisition of
the C-se will mean that the PCSeanbo
expanded to a twice weekly service, and
that Oakland, CA can be added as port
of call.
- Any person, finn, or corporation
having any interest In th, application
for sectIon 506 consent and desiring to
submit lmmenta concerning Matson’s
request must by L00 p.m. on July 17.
995, file written comments In
triplicate, to the Secretary. Maritime
.i ,n4n1str tlon, Room 7210, Nassif
BuIlding, 400 Seventh Street, SW..
Washington. D.C. 20590. The Marithue
Adininuatration, as a manor of
discretion, will consider any comments
submitted and taha such action as rosy
be deemed appropriate.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program No. 20.800 Ccesbuodon .DIfforsntlsl
Subsidies (CDS)).
By -Ceder of th e Maritime Administrator.
Dated: Jim. 27. 1005.
•1ee1C.R 1eh &
Swvtar, MUm.Admlnlarretiee.
Federal Transit Administration
Environmental impact Statomeni on
• Introduction Of Transportation
Improvement. on the East Side of New
York County, NY
AQSNCY; Federal Transit Mndnlstratlon
(PTA), DOT.
ACflOIt Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental Impact statement .
IUNMARY: The FIA. the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWAJ and
the New York City Transit Authority
(NYC Transit) are Issuing this notice to
advise the public and all other
Interested paxtiee that hr accordance
with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). an Environmental lm pact
Statement I SIS) will be prepared for
transportation Improvements that will
Improve mobility on the east side of the
island olMeuhattan within the Qty of
New York. NYC Transit will ensure that
the EIS also satisfies the NquIrements of
the State of New York Environmental
Quality Review Act and the intent of the
City of New York Environmental
QualIty Act. The Draft EIS (DEIS) will
Include a Major toveermeni Study (MIS)
In accordance with the joint FTA/
FHWA Metropolitan Planning
Requirements. as CPR part 480.
High levels of auto congestion In the
study area Influence the region’s ability
to meet National Ambient Air Quality
standards. The MIS/DEIS process will
clearly Identify these end other mobility
problems In the study area and evaluate
any alternative action, generated
through the ecoplag process. Among the
alternatives that the MIS/DEIS effort
will evaluate are the No .Action and
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
10 199$
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTs Redelegation o1 Authority for Delegation 7-10 from the
Assistant Administrator to the Regional
Administrator’s;
FROM: Mary D. Nichols;, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air nid Radiation (6101)
TO; Regional Admin:Latrator, Region. I-X
Pursuant to Delegation 7-10, contained in the EPA Delegation
Manual, the authority to pprove/disapprova State Implementation
Plane (SIPs) and SIP reviisions required to be submitted to EPA
under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act was delegated to the
Regional Administrators f r certain categories of actions. The
categories of actions delegated for decision by Regional
Administrators are the tables initially published in the Federal
Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214) and subsequently
revised in an October 4, 3993 Memorandum from Michael Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator, to the Regional Administrators.
Delegation 7-10 states that the Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation can periodically revise the tables via a memorandum
to the Regional-Administrators. Thu authority may not be
redelegated. Effective today, all actions currently en Tables 1
and 2 are moved to Table 3 and are thus delegated to the Regional
Administrators for signature.
Based upon reconu.. 1 .ndations made at the April, 1994 Regional
Air Division Directors meeting in St. Louis, Missouri, a SIP
Improvement Workgroup was established to examine EPA’s procedures
for promulgation of SIPS and to recommend improvements. Attached
ii the final report, which I have approved. The report contains
numerous recommendation, which I believe will simplify end
streamline the si re ‘te% process. A key recommendation of the
workgroup is to maxie e regional authority by delegating
signature for all SIPS to the Regional Administrator.. Today’s
memorandum is an importaii.t first step in implementing this
recommendation. However, to more dearly indicate in the
delegation itself what authority has been delegated to the
Regional Adminiitratora.and what the limitations raon that
-------
2
authority, we are prepariTig a new delegation for Green Border
review which will •ffectivelyeliminate the SIP Tables. While
this process may take a few months, the baBic intent of the new
delegation can be achieved in the interim by today’s revision to
the existing delegation.
I feel. that it ii important to highlight for you the basic
limitations on the new deLegation, which also apply during this
interim period. The first of these limitations 1. the process
recommended by the Coneisi ency Committee for assuring clear
accountability at the Regional level and adequate national
consistency. I believe thi, process, a. outlined in Chapter III
of the final report (p.37), strikes a reasonable balance between
the need to have consistent application of regulation and policy
nationally with the need for regional flexibility to address
local issue.. These procedures, which go hand-in-hand with the
delegation, will provide Regional Offices a mechanism to quickly
identify issues that have national implications and should be
discussed by all Regions, thus encouraging Regions to be
accountable to one another when an individual Region feels a need
to deviate from national policy. I consider this consistency
process necessary for maintaining program integrity as we move
forward to eliminate formal Headquarters review of SIP packageB
in our efforts to streamline the process and maximize Regional
authority.
A second limitation of the delegation, which i. discussed in
some detail in the final report (recommendation 4b, p.23), is
that the Office of General Counsel will be provided an
opportunity to review SIP packages containing significant adverse
comments and the responses to those comments. Thirdly, during
thi. interim period, the Office of Management and Budget will
continue to review those SIP categories and Federal Register
actions as defined in th€ July iS, 1994 memo from John Seit. to
the Air Division Directors.
Another issue for yciur consideration as we move forward to
implement the recommendation. in this report is that although OGC
will be available for consultation on specific issues, the
Offices of Regional Couniiel (ORC) will carry the sole burden of
providing legal review of SIP submittal. (recommendation 3e,
p.22). Therefore, early and thorough r.view by ORC will be
increasingly necessary. The SIP Improvement Report specifically
recommends that the Regional program office consult with other
offices in the RegLon--pi rticularly ORC--and reevaluate the
Region’s internal procesu for reviewing SIPs (recommendation.4p,
p.31). This effort should occur as soon as possible in order to
ensure a smooth transition to th. new fully delegated program.
-------
3
If you have any questions regarding this delegation please
call Pam Johnaon at (919) !41-5270.
Attachment
cc , 7. Seitz
N.Oge
A. Eckert
0. Hanson
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
Air Division Director, Region. I-X
------- |