j^ m -jpfatf Salts
Early Action Compact Program for
Ground-Level Ozone: A Study
-------
-------
EPA-456/R-09-001
June 2009
Early Action Compact Program for
Ground-Level Ozone: A Study
By:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Outreach and Information Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Outreach and Information Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6
INTRODUCTION 6
BACKGROUND ON THE EAC PROGRAM 6
INFORMATION COMPILATION APPROACH 7
LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY 8
KEY OBSERVATIONS RESULTING FROM THE STUDY 8
HOW THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED 11
SECTION 1.0 BACKGROUND ON THE EARLY ACTION COMPACT
PROGRAM 12
1.1 Origin of the EAC Program 12
1.2 What EPA Required of Compact Areas 14
1.3 Areas that Participated in the EAC Program 16
1.4 Action EPA Undertook To Defer the Effective Date of Nonattainment
Designation for the EAC Areas 17
1.5 How EPA Addressed Compact Areas Attaining the 8-Hour Ozone Standard in
April 2004 18
1.6 Concerns About and Legal Challenges to the EAC Program 18
1.7 Federal Emissions Control Programs that Have Helped Improve Air Quality in
EAC Areas 20
SECTION 2.0 INFORMATION COMPILATION APPROACH 22
2.1 Decision to Conduct EAC Study 22
2.2 Scope of the Study 22
2.3 Refining the Study Scope 23
2.3.1 Environmental Aspects of Study 23
2.3.2 Program Design Aspects of the Study 27
2.4 Information Compilation 28
2.4.1 Quantitative Information Compilation 28
2.4.2 Qualitative Information Compilation 32
SECTION 3.0 INFORMATION COMPILED AND OBSERVATIONS 34
3.1 Information Compiled 34
3.1.1 Quantitative Information 34
3.1.2 Qualitative Information 5 2
3.2 Observations 68
3.2.1 Overall Observations Resulting from the Study 68
3.2.2 Specific Observations 71
3.2.3 Study Results Where Information is Insufficient or Too Ambiguous
to Make an Observation 75
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-1: Twenty-Nine Participating EAC Program Areas 7
Table 1-1: EAC Milestones 16
Table 1-2: Twenty-Nine Participating EAC Program Areas 17
Table 1-3: EPA Actions Deferring Effective Date of Nonattainment Designation 18
Table 2-1: Population, 8-Hour DVs and Emissions Information for the 20 Areas
Included in this Study for Which Quantitative Information was Compiled 24
Table 2-2: EAC Program Aspects and Areas Included in the Study, Breakout of
Information Compiled, and Whether it was Quantitative or Qualitative 29
Table 3-1: Summary of Air Quality Study Information 39
Table 3-2: Summary of Control Measure Emission Reduction Study Information 43
Table 3-3: Four Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas with Five Percent or
Greater of Quantified NOx and VOC Emissions Reductions from Eight
Individual Local Measures 45
Table 3-4: Two Attainment EAC Program Areas with Five Percent or Greater of
Quantified NOx and VOC Emissions Reductions from Three Individual
Local Measures 45
Table 3-5: EAC Program Area Measures Not Implemented by December 2005 47
Table 3-6: Comparison of Projected Air Quality Improvements Projected by EAC SIP
Modeling Monitored Air Quality Measured as 8-hour Ozone Concentrations,
From 2001-2003 to 2005-2007, 14 Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program
Areas and Six Attainment EAC Program Areas 49
Table 3-7: EPA Resource Estimates for the EAC Program versus the Traditional
Approach 52
Table 3-8: Conformity Program Status of Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program
Areas During Implementation of EAC Program 56
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Percentage Change in Seasonal 8-Hour Ozone Average Air Quality from
2000-2002 to 2005-2007, Adjusted for Weather 21
-1: Map Showing Percentage Changes in Average Summertime Daily
Maximum 8-hour Ozone Concentrations in EAC and Non-EAC Program
Areas in the East Between 2001-2003 and 2005-2007, After Adjusting for
Weather 36
-2: Box Plot Showing Percentage Changes in Average Summertime Daily
Maximum 8-hour Ozone Concentrations in EAC and Non-EAC Program
Areas in the East Between 2001-2003 and 2005-2007, After Adjusting for
Weather 37
Figure 3-3: Trends in 8-Hour Ozone (Seasonal Average Adjusted for Weather) 38
Figure 3-4: Percentage Change in Population and VMT from 2002 to 2006 for 20
EAC Program Areas, the U.S. and the South and West 51
Figure 3
Figure 3
-------
TABLE OF APPENDICIES
Appendix A: List of State and Local Agencies Consulted 3
Table A-1: State Agencies Consulted 3
Table A-2: Local Government Agencies Consulted 5
Appendix B: Tables 6
Table B-l: Year-to-Year Changes in 8-hour Ozone Design Values (ppm) from
2001-2003 to 2004-2007 for 14 Nonattainment- Deferred Early Action
Compact (EAC) Program Areas and Six Attainment EAC Program Areas,
Not Controlling for Meteorology 6
Table B-2: Year-to-Year Changes (and Percent Change) in 8-hour Air Quality Index
Days from 2001 to 2007 for 14 Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program
Areas and 6 Attainment EAC Program Areas, Not Controlling for
Meteorology (May to September Ozone Season) 7
Table B-3: Changes in Seasonal Average 8-hour Daily Maximum Ozone
Concentrations (ppm) from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007 for 14
Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas and 6 Attainment EAC
Program Areas, Controlled and Uncontrolled for Meteorology 9
Table B-4: Changes in Seasonal Average 8-hour Ozone Daily Maximum
Concentrations (ppm) from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007 (Meteorologically-
Controlled) for 14 Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas, 6
Attainment EAC Program Areas and 18 Non-EAC Program Areas 11
Table B-5: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Berkeley and Jefferson
Counties, West Virginia 13
Table B-6: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Chattanooga,
Tennessee-Georgia 14
Table B-7: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Columbia, South Carolina
(Central Midlands Area) 15
Table B-8: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Denver-Boulder-
Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado 17
Table B-9: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Fayetteville, North Carolina
(Cumberland County) 18
Table B-10: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Frederick County, Virginia 19
Table B-11: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Greensboro-Winston
Salem-High Point, North Carolina (Triad Area) 20
Table B-l2: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Greenville-Spartanburg-
Anderson, South Carolina (Appalachian Area) 22
Table B-13: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir,
North Carolina (Unifour Area) 24
Table B-14: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Johnson City-Kingsport-
Bristol, Tennessee 25
Table B-15: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Nashville, Tennessee 26
Table B-l6: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Roanoke, Virginia 27
Table B-17: Control Measure Emission Reductions for San Antonio, Texas 29
Table B-l8: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Washington County,
Maryland (Hagerstown) 30
Table B-l9: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Austin, Texas 31
4
-------
Table B-20: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Berkeley-Charleston-
Dorchester, South Carolina 34
Table B-21: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Mountain Area of Western
North Carolina (Asheville) 36
Table B-22: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 37
Table B-23: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Lower Savannah-Augusta,
South Carolina-Georgia 38
Table B-24: Control Measure Emission Reductions for Tulsa, Oklahoma 40
Table B-25: Control Measure Emission Reductions for South Carolina (Statewide) 41
Table B-26: Comparison of EAC NOx and VOC Emissions Reductions to the 2002
Emissions for the 20 EAC Program Areas, Emissions for the States in
Which They Are Located, and the NOx SIP Call Emission Reductions
in Those States 42
Table B-27: Population Change from 2002 to 2006 in 14 Nonattainment-Deferred EAC
Program Areas 44
Table B-28: Population Change from 2002 to 2006 in 6 Attainment EAC
Program Areas 47
Table B-29: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Change from 2002 to 2006 In 14
Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas 49
Table B-30: VMT Change From 2002 to 2006 in 6 Attainment EAC Program Areas 52
Table B-31: EPA Resources for Traditional Approach versus EAC Program 54
Table B-32: Summary of Requirements for Nonattainment-Deferred EAC 8-Hour
Ozone Areas Compared to a Summary of Requirements for Clean
Air Act (CAA) Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 Marginal 8-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Areas 60
Appendix C: Approach for Calculating National (Federal) Measure Emission
Reductions 69
Appendix D: Brief Profile of the 14 Nonattainment-Deferred Areas and Six
Attainment EAC Program Areas Included in this Study 75
Appendix E: Summary of Discussions with State and Local Agencies 79
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the Early Action Compact (EAC)
Program in 2002 to make available an option of early implementation action that provided for cleaner air
sooner than might have occurred by otherwise following the timelines in the Clean Air Act (CAA). In
exchange for early implementation action for the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA deferred the effective dates
of designation for those areas that would have been designated nonattainment for the 0.08 parts per
million 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). (The deferral of the effective
date had the effect of also deferring the application of specific CAA requirements in these EAC areas,
including the New Source Review (NSR) and Conformity Programs.)
V
The program concluded in the spring of 2008. At that time, the EPA designated as 'attainment' those
EAC areas that had attained the ozone NAAQS and affirmed a nonattainment designation for the one area
that had not attained the NAAQS for ozone.
Following the conclusion of the EAC program, EPA's Office of Policy Analysis and Review and EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards undertook this study of the EAC program in order to learn
what worked well and what did not with this community-based program, including whether EAC
Program areas attained the ozone NAAQS early. EPA's intent was then to share that knowledge with
leaders of programs that EPA and the states create to improve air quality in communities.
BACKGROUND ON THE EAC PROGRAM
In July 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone standard, i.e., the 1997 8-hour standard. EPA designated
areas for the 8-hour ozone standard in April 2004. After the standard was promulgated but before areas
were designated for it, some state, local and tribal air pollution control agencies expressed a need for
added flexibility in implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. One concept was to provide incentives for
taking early action to reduce ground-level ozone in exchange for avoiding the stigma of a CAA
nonattainment designation and its accompanying requirements (e.g., the NSR and Conformity Programs).
This incentive concept became the basis for the development of the EAC program.
Certain environmental groups supported the concept of early action to improve air quality sooner, but had
serious concerns about the approach, including, in their view, a weakening of enforcement of the CAA's
nonattainment area requirements. Ultimately, EPA worked with these parties to address their concerns by
incorporating program elements to help ensure accountability and results.
In 2002, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality submitted an EAC protocol to EPA. EPA
endorsed the protocol and subsequently issued guidance for compact areas. Twenty-nine areas from 12
states submitted signed compact agreements by December 2002. Table ES-1 lists all of the participating
areas, only one of which did not complete the program due to an air quality violation (Denver-Boulder-
Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado). Fourteen of the areas participated as nonattainment-deferred.
This meant that their effective date of designation as nonattainment would have been June 15, 2004;
however, EPA deferred this date because of their participation in the EAC Program. The remaining
fifteen areas met the ozone NAAQS and were designated attainment, but were close to violating the
standard and were looking to voluntarily adopt programs to avoid becoming nonattainment in the future.
-------
Table ES-1: Twenty-Nine Participating EAC Program Areas
Nonattainment Deferred Areas (14)
Berkeley and Jefferson Counties, West Virginia*
Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia*
Columbia, South Carolina (Central Midlands Area)*
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado*
Fayetteville, North Carolina (Cumberland County)*
Frederick County, Virginia*
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, North Carolina
(Triad Area)*
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, South Carolina
(Appalachian Area)*
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina (Unifour
Area)*
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, Tennessee*
Nashville, Tennessee*
Roanoke, Virginia*
San Antonio, Texas*
Washington County, Maryland (Hagerstown)*
Attainment Areas (15)
Austin, Texas*
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester,
Carolina*
South
Catawba, South Carolina
Longview/Northeast, Texas
Low Country, South Carolina
Lower Savannah- Augusta, South
Georgia*
Mountain Area of Western North
(Asheville)*
Carolina-
Carolina
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma*
Pee Dee, South Carolina
San Juan County, NM
Santee Lynches, South Carolina
Shreveport/Bossier City, LA
Tulsa, Oklahoma*
Upper Savannah Abbeville-Greenwood, South
Carolina
Waccamaw, South Carolina
Source: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/index.htmtfEAC Main.
*Indicates the 20 areas included in this study.
INFORMATION COMPILATION APPROACH
This study examined both environmental and program design aspects of the EAC program. The
environmental aspects of the program included:
Changes in air quality;
Estimated emissions reductions from control measures;
Estimates made in State Implementation Plan (SIP) air quality modeling; and
Growth-related issues.
The design aspects of the study of the program included:
Efficiency of the EAC Program;
Longer term impact of the program;
Extent of outreach and stakeholder interaction; and
Other aspects of the program.
The study examined all 14 "nonattainment deferred" and six of the 15 "attainment" EAC Program areas
(see Table ES-1). The six attainment areas were selected based on geographic diversity and the
availability of relevant data. As part of the study, EPA gathered information on air quality and control
measure emissions reductions, among other data. Discussions were also held with state agencies from all
12 states that participated in the program, as well as local agencies in six of the 14 nonattainment-
deferred areas and in three of the 15 attainment areas that also participated in the program. EPA also
7
-------
consulted with representatives from two non-EAC Program areas and the states in which they are located
to provide additional perspectives.
The qualitative information and observations developed from discussions with state and local agencies
reflect the views of the individuals consulted. So, in that sense, the information gained was somewhat
subjective and should be interpreted in that light. But, to some degree, the information obtained was
consistent enough such that it could be generalized to other EAC areas. The program design areas in
particular were addressed in a qualitative manner because they did not lend themselves easily, if at all, to
quantitative measurement. Ideally, for example, it would have been beneficial to be able to develop a
questionnaire to answer some of the study's questions. Because that was not feasible in the time
available for the study, EPA held informal discussions, which, though not ideal, yielded useful
information. State and local agencies provided insights, positive and negative, on the EAC Program.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
This report is not a formal program evaluation and has several limitations. Specifically, the study did not:
Compare emission reductions of EAC areas versus non-EAC areas in terms of both quantities and
implementation timeframes;
Study air quality for EAC areas past 2007; and
Rigorously compare EAC areas with non-EAC areas with respect to certain key areas, such as:
o Program design-related concerns (e.g., program efficiency)
o Control measure implementation.
KEY OBSERVATIONS RESULTING FROM THE STUDY
Because of the study's limitations, it is difficult to draw hard findings and conclusions. However, the
study was able to make a number of observations about emission reductions, changes in air quality, and
issues related to program design and process.
Overall, a number of states in the Northeast had serious concerns about the approach. The EAC program
was generally popular with participating state and local officials. These officials indicated the EAC
Program model provided the right combination of incentives, flexibility, and structure and was used to
foster a collaborative environment that:
1) Encouraged local stakeholders to take ownership of the ozone air quality issue and to develop
and adopt local measures;
2) Increased awareness of ozone air quality issues with key stakeholders and, to a degree, with the
public; and
3) Helped establish working relationships between state environmental agencies and local
government that may prove beneficial for future implementation of air quality standards.
Emission Reductions
For the vast majority of the areas included in this study, the EAC Program appeared to successfully
encourage the development and adoption of quantifiable, local emission reduction control measures by
the December 2005 deadline. Ninety-six percent of the total 388 measures implemented for the 20 areas
included in the study were implemented by the EAC December 2005 deadline, according to EAC
progress reports and SIPs. Estimated emission reductions from local measures collectively constituted an
estimated nine percent or more of quantified nitrogen oxides (NOx)and volatile organic compounds
8
-------
(VOC) emissions reductions in seven of 18 EAC Program areas included in this study for which complete
emissions reductions data were available (the remaining reductions were achieved from national and state
measures). The local measures were "directionally correct" and should assist the areas in maintaining the
ozone NAAQS.
According to many state and local officials, the program also resulted in quantifiable emission co-
reductions of other pollutants, including particulate matter and/or air toxics.
Air Quality
The study analyzed the air quality improvements experienced by EAC Program areas in the eastern U.S.
by comparing them to improvements achieved in nearby nonattainment areas that did not participate in
the EAC program. (This could not be analyzed in the Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas EAC areas,
because there were not ozone nonattainment areas located near enough to provide a comparison.) The
analysis found that the changes in air quality in eastern EAC Program areas were consistent with those
observed in non-EAC areas. Additionally, consistent with the expectation that most progress towards
ozone attainment in the East would come generally from national measures such as vehicle standards and
power plant controls, it appears that, based on air quality data, local EAC measures adopted and
implemented in EAC Program areas in the East did not produce an early, demonstrable incremental
improvement in air quality. Relative to non-EAC Program areas, the information compiled appears to
indicate that, for EAC areas in the East, progress toward meeting the air quality standards on time was not
adversely affected by two factors: (1) the absence of some or all of the nonattainment area requirements
that traditional nonattainment areas face, or (2) population and vehicle miles traveled growth that most of
the areas experienced during EAC Program implementation. Relative to non-EAC Program areas, these
two factors also did not appear to adversely affect the ability of EAC areas in the East to attain the
NAAQS by December 2007 (or earlier for many EAC areas).
The fact that local measures did not produce an early, demonstrable incremental improvement in air
quality can be explained in part by the fact that quantified NOX and VOC emissions reduction estimates
from local EAC measures represented a small part of emissions overall: (1) in EAC Program areas; (2) in
states in which they are located, and (3) as compared to reductions achieved in each state through the NOX
SIP call. The best way to measure the impact on air quality of the EAC local measures - and whether
they contributed to the areas attaining early - would be to conduct incremental air quality modeling of the
emissions reductions from those measures. Short of that, the reductions are so small relative to the
emission reductions from federal and state measures that their impact is indiscernible.
All but one of the EAC areas did attain the ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2007; in fact, 15 of the 20
EAC areas attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2004 - prior to the required 2005
implementation date for the EAC control measures.
This study looked at ozone air quality through 2007. And while almost all the EAC areas met the ozone
NAAQS before 2007, it remains to be seen what will happen to ozone air quality levels in these areas as
they grow in the next 5 to 10 years. Ozone air quality in many of the areas will continue to be influenced
by, among other things, state and national programs to reduce NOX and VOCs. Some state and local
officials believe that local measures should benefit air quality in the future. EAC Program areas were
required to develop plans to demonstrate how they would address emissions growth and maintain meeting
the ozone NAAQS for five years (to 2012). They did so, and almost all the states in the southeastern U.S
(EPA Region 4) with EAC Program areas submitted maintenance plans for 10 years.
-------
The study also looked at whether the air quality modeling provided insight into what degree the "local"
EAC measures contributed to additional improvements in air quality, beyond the improvements provided
by the state and national measures. The only reliable way to quantify the air quality improvements from
the EAC local measures is to model the local measures independently of the state and national measures.
But the modeling performed for the EAC SIPs did not provide such an analysis. For this study the
information available only allows for a review of whether the actual air quality improvement achieved is
consistent with the level of improvement predicted by the model. After making this comparison, this
study observes that the estimates in the modeled demonstration are consistent with the air quality
achieved. Therefore, the modeling provided reasonable information.
It was beyond the scope of this study to analyze the improvements in short-term or long-term air quality
that would have otherwise occurred in the affected EAC areas if they had followed the traditional
requirements under the CAA associated with a nonattainment designation. For example, several of the
nonattainment-deferred areas experienced new stationary source activity that may have been subject to
permitting requirements under the CAA nonattainment NSR program had the same activities been
undertaken while these areas had a designation of nonattainment. The proposed emissions increases for
some of those sources were controlled under the CAA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program.
As noted above, this study did not quantify emission changes in EAC versus non-EAC areas and is,
therefore, unable to provide information on the impact on emissions of the absence in EAC areas of some
or all of the nonattainment area requirements that traditional nonattainment areas face, including those of
the Nonattainment NSR Program.
State and local agencies consulted did believe the EAC approach to be well suited for nonattainment-
deferred areas that were new to the ozone air quality issue and had ozone air quality levels relatively
close to the standard. Those areas did not face the same degree of ozone air quality challenge faced by
some of the nation's largest areas and so, in that regard, their air quality problems were more manageable.
EAC Program participants in these areas took ownership of their air quality problem in a way that was
not likely, in the opinion of the state and local agencies consulted, to have occurred to the same degree
under the traditional approach, absent a concerted EAC-type effort or unless the community was already
active on environmental issues.
Program Design and Process
Some EAC Program areas did not experience the "collaborative environment" the EAC Program model
fostered in other EAC Program areas. Based on the study discussions, several possible reasons emerged
to help explain this:
Insufficient technical support for EAC Program areas from EPA and the states;
Insufficient state or local agency leadership to help start and/or shepherd the EAC Program
process;
Lack of public interest due to insufficient information about local air quality issues; and
Ozone air quality problem believed to be solvable due to state and national measures alone so
there was not much action perceived to be needed locally.
The state and local agencies implementing the EAC Program reported that, in order to succeed, the EAC
program needed (1) the threat of reinstatement of the nonattainment designation as the consequence of
failure to meet EAC Program requirements and (2) for the EAC Program to be part of the larger SIP
10
-------
program. The majority of state and local agencies consulted believed that states and local areas needed
motivation to participate in the program for it to succeed.
The EAC Program required as much EPA staff resources or less than the staff resources EPA estimated
would have been needed to implement the regular program for the same areas. The question of whether
the EAC Program saved estimated human resources varied by EPA region. The study lacked data to
assess the resource impact of the EAC program on the participating state and local agencies.
Details on specific quantitative and qualitative observations on environmental impacts and program
design-related issues can be found in Section 3.0 of this report.
HOW THIS REPORT IS ORGANIZED
This report contains four sections. Section 1.0 provides background on the EAC Program, including
some of its history and why some states supported and other states and environmental groups opposed the
program. Section 2.0 describes the quantitative and qualitative information compilation approach used to
conduct the study of the program. Section 3.0 presents a summary of the study information, as well as
observations based on that information. The appendices include numerous data tables, lists of state and
local agencies consulted, and a complete summary of discussions with state and local agency officials.
11
-------
SECTION 1.0 BACKGROUND ON THE EARLY ACTION COMPACT
PROGRAM
This section provides background on the Early Action Compacts (EAC) Program, including: (1) a brief
history; (2) why some states supported the program and other states and environmental groups opposed it;
and (3) why the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office of Policy Analysis and
Review (OPAR) and Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) decided to undertake this
study.
1.1 Origin of the EAC Program
The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a process for air quality management through the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Area designations are required after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. In 1979, EPA promulgated the 0.12 parts per million (ppm), 1-hour ozone standard. On July
18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised ozone standard of 0.08 ppm, measured over an 8-hour period (i.e.,
the 1997 8-hour standard.)1 The 8-hour standard is more protective of public health and, thus, more
stringent than the 1-hour standard. In 2008, the Agency further tightened the 8-hour ozone standard. (In
this document, when references are made to the 8-hour standard it applies to the 0.08 ppm standard
promulgated in 1997.) The 1997 NAAQS rule was challenged by numerous litigants and, in May 1999,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a decision remanding,
but not vacating, the 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA sought review of two aspects of that decision in
the U.S. Supreme Court. In February 2001, the Supreme Court upheld EPA's authority to set the
NAAQS and remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit for disposition of issues the Court did not
address in its initial decision. Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 121 S.Ct. 903, 911-914, 916-
919 (2001)(Whitman). The Supreme Court also remanded the 8-hour implementation strategy to EPA. In
March 2002, the D.C. Circuit rejected all remaining challenges to the 8-hour ozone standard. American
Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 283 F.3d355 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
The process for designations following promulgation of a NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(l) of
the CAA. For the 8-hour NAAQS, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) extended
by one year the time for EPA to designate areas under the 8-hour NAAQS.2 Thus, EPA was required to
designate areas for the 8-hour NAAQS by July 2000. However, House Resolution 3645 (EPA's
appropriation bill in 2000) restricted EPA's authority to spend money to designate areas until June 2001,
or the date of the Supreme Court ruling on the standard, whichever came first. As noted earlier, the
Supreme Court decision was issued in February 2001. In 2003, several environmental groups filed suit in
district court claiming EPA had not met its statutory obligation to designate areas for the 8-hour NAAQS.
The EPA entered into a consent decree that required EPA to issue the designations by April 15, 2004.3
During this period, in the early 2000s, some state, local and tribal air pollution control agencies expressed
an interest in added flexibility in implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including incentives for taking
action sooner than the CAA required for reducing ground level ozone. Some of these agencies were
particularly interested in early planning and implementation to avoid the nonattainment designation and
1 "National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone," 62 Federal Register 38856,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/19970718 o3naaqs.pdf. July 18, 1997.
2 CAA section 107(d)(l); TEA-21 section 6103(a).
3 "Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action
Compact Areas with Deferred Effective Dates," 69 Federal Register 23858-23951,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/fr 69(84) 23858.pdf. April 30, 2004.
12
-------
the various CAA requirements associated with being designated nonattainment (e.g., Conformity and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) Programs) that they were going to face in 2004 with EPA area
designations. The concept for an EAC program required local areas to make decisions to achieve
reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions sooner than
otherwise mandated by the CAA. It was assumed that early planning and early implementation of control
measures that improved air quality would provide early protection of public health. Environmental
groups supported efforts to improve air quality sooner, but had serious concerns about the EAC Program.
Some states, supported efforts that afforded flexibility in achieving their clean air goals but did not
support the EAC Program per se. They believed that EPA could not relieve areas of nonattainment area
requirements under title I, part D of the CAA when such areas were in violation of the standard at the
time EPA designated areas. (These concerns are discussed in greater depth in Section 1.6 below.)
In March 2002, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) encouraged EPA to consider
incentives for early planning towards achieving the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The TCEQ submitted to EPA
the "Protocol for Early Action Compacts Designed to Achieve and Maintain the 8-hour Ozone Standard
(the Protocol)."4 The Protocol was designed to achieve NOX and VOC emissions reductions for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS sooner than would otherwise be required under the CAA. The TCEQ recommended
that the Protocol be formalized by "early action compact" agreements to be developed primarily by
local, state and EPA officials. The principles of the compacts, as described in the Protocol, were as
follows:
Early planning, implementation, and emissions reductions leading to expeditious attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard;
Local control of the measures employed, with broad-based public input;
State support to ensure technical integrity of the early action plan;
Formal incorporation of the early action plan into the State Implementation Plan (SIP);
Designation of all areas as attainment or nonattainment in April 2004, but, for compact areas,
deferral of the effective date of the nonattainment designation and/or designation requirements so
long as all compact terms and milestones continue to be met; and
Safeguards to return areas to traditional SIP attainment requirements should compact areas fail to
meet program terms (e.g., if the area fails to attain in 2007), with appropriate credit5 given for
reduction measures already implemented.
In a letter dated June 19, 2002, from Gregg Cooke, Administrator, Region 6, to Robert Huston, Chairman,
TCEQ, EPA endorsed the principles outlined in the Protocol.6 The Protocol was subsequently revised on
December 11, 2002, based on comments from EPA. The Protocol specified certain components that
compacts had to address, including the development of local air quality plans and the following elements:
4http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/20020619_eac_protocol.pdf
5 In the EAC context "credit" is discussed in a guidance Q and A that EPA issued under the heading of "SIP credit":
"Question: If an area implements controls under an MO A or Compact, will those reductions be able to be counted as control
measures under a subsequent attainment SIP, if one is required?
Response: The 8-hour "Compact" is the Memorandum of Agreement. Reductions from any control measures implemented
under the 8-hour Early Action Compact and approved into the SIP can be credited towards a subsequent attainment SIP, if one
is required (see memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Gregg Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region VI, dated January 29, 2001, "Near-Term Discretionary Emission Reductions for Ozone
NAAQS-Clarification.")," http://www.epa.gov/oar/eac/faq.html.
6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/20020619 eac protocol.pdf
13
-------
Completion of emissions inventories and modeling (based on most recent Agency guidance) to
support selection of local control measures;
Adoption of control strategies that demonstrate attainment and that are submitted as a revision to
the SIP;
Completion of a maintenance component to address emissions growth at least five years beyond
December 31, 2007, ensuring that the area will remain in attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard
during that period;
Public involvement in all stages of planning and implementation, including public education
programs and a process that ensures stakeholder involvement and public participation in planning
local strategies and reviewing air quality plans; and
Semiannual reports detailing progress toward completion of compact milestones.
1.2 What EPA Required of Compact Areas
Based on the Protocol, EPA issued Agency guidance7 that established parameters for entering into a
compact. To be eligible as an EAC area, areas had to be designated attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard8 and be in attainment with that standard when entering into the compact. Air quality in
qualifying EAC Program areas could approach or violate the 8-hour ozone standard9 at the time of the
agreement, but the area would need to demonstrate that it would attain that standard by December 31,
2007.
EPA's EAC guidance memorandum specified that compacts had to be completed, submitted to EPA and
signed by local, state and EPA officials by December 31, 2002. Each EPA Regional Administrator (or
designee) was a signatory on the compact agreement. Although these compacts alone did not constitute
EPA-approved SIP revisions, EPA's signature indicated the Agency's support and willingness to honor
the commitments established in these agreements, provided the areas met all components of the Protocol
and acted consistently with Agency guidance and schedules. No additional areas were allowed to enter
into compacts after December 31, 2002.
The EPA guidance described several features of the EAC Program:
Laid out the process by which compact areas would select control strategies based on SIP quality
modeling that showed attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard no later than December 31, 2007;
No later than December 31, 2004 states and tribes were to submit to EPA a SIP or Tribal
Implementation Plan consisting of the local EAC plan, including all adopted control measures,
and a demonstration that the area will attain the 8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2007;
7 (1) Memorandum from Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, "Schedule for 8-Hour
Ozone Designations and its Effect on Early Action Compacts,"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/designation_eac_20021114.pdf, November 14, 2002 and (2) Memorandum from
Lydia N. Wegman, Director, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
"Early Action Compacts (EACs): The June 16, 2003 Submission and Other Clarifications,"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/6-16-2003 eac milestone memo.pdf. April 4, 2003.
o
The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average
concentrations above 0.12 parts per million is equal to or less than 1 (see 40 CFR part 50.9 and Appendix H).
The 1997 8-hour ozone standard is met when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm 1 (see 40 CFR part 50.9 and Appendix I).
14
-------
Indicated that all compact areas were to submit a local plan by March 31, 2004 that included
measures that were specific, quantifiable, permanent, and that, if approved into the SIP by EPA,
would be federally enforceable
o The March 31, 2004 submission had to include specific implementation dates for the local
controls, as well as detailed documentation supporting the selection of measures
o Deadline for plan submission was approximately 30 months earlier than would have
otherwise been required by the CAA;
Local controls were to be implemented by the 2005 ozone season (or no later than December 31,
2005). This deadline was at least 16 1/2 months earlier than would have otherwise been required
by the CAA; and
Reports were to be submitted every six months to describe progress toward completion of
milestones.
o In June 2006, compact areas were to submit a report to EPA that described the
implementation of control measures, as well as an assessment of reductions in emissions
and resultant improvement in air quality.
EPA EAC guidance10 with respect to the attainment demonstrations due by December 2004 indicated that
state and local agencies should do the following:
Follow the most recent OAQPS modeling guidance ("Draft Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS," May 1999, EPA-
454/R-99-004);
Model most current emissions inventory, preferably 2002 (however, if 2002 was not available, use
of a 1999 or later inventory for EAC modeling was acceptable);
Base 2007 projections on 1999 emissions inventory or later;
Use MOBILE6 in both the current and future inventories;
Select episodes representative of the area's ozone problem; and
Use appropriate assumptions and emissions analysis techniques in quantifying emissions
reductions.
Table 1-1 describes the milestones and submissions that compact areas were to complete to continue
eligibility for a deferred effective date of the nonattainment designation for the 8-hour ozone standard,
which is further described in Section 1.4 below. (The EAC milestones and requirements were issued as a
regulation on April 30, 2004.11)
10 (1) Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, Director, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, "Early Action Compacts (EACs): The June 16, 2003 Submission and Other Clarifications,"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/6-16-2003 eac milestone memo.pdf. April 4, 2003; (2) "Draft Guidance on the Use
of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-454/R-99-004, May 1999; and (3) "Frequently Asked Questions on Implementing the DRAFT 8-Hour Ozone
Modeling Guidance to Support Attainment Demonstrations for Early Action Compact (EAC)," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/eac-ozone.pdf.
11 "8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Final Rules," 69 Federal Register 23858-23951, 23875-76,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/fr 69(84) 23858.pdf. April 30, 2004; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations 81.300(e).
15
-------
Table 1-1: EAC Milestones
Compact Milestone
Submit Compact for EPA signature.
Submit preliminary list and description of
potential local control measures under
consideration.
Submit complete local plan to state (includes
specific, quantified and permanent control
measures to be adopted).
State submits adopted local measures to EPA
as a SIP revision that, when approved, will be
federally enforceable.
Implement SIP control measures.
State reports on implementation of measures
and assessment of air quality improvement
and reductions in NOX and VOC emissions to
date.
Area attains 8 -hour ozone NAAQS.
Submittal Date
December 3 1,2002
June 16, 2003
March 3 1,2004
December 3 1,2004
2005 ozone season (or no later than December 31, 2005)
June 30, 2006
December 3 1,2007
Source: "Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; Early Action Compact Areas with Deferred Effective Dates," 69 Federal
Register 23858-23951, 23865, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/fr 69(84) 23858.pdf, April
30, 2004.
1.3 Areas that Participated in the EAC Program
Many areas were interested in participating in the EAC Program. Some areas that showed initial interest
decided not to pursue participation in the program or were ineligible for different reasons such as the
applicant could not meet the deadline (December 2002) for submitting a signed compact agreement or
their application did not meet all of the criteria described in EPA guidance. Thirty-one areas from 12
states submitted signed compact agreements by December 2002 and 29 of those areas ultimately
participated fully in the program (two areas withdrew from the program prior to submitting an EAC SIP).
Table 1-2 lists all of the participating areas at the end of the program. Fourteen of those areas were
"nonattainment-deferred" which meant that EPA would have designated them nonattainment with an
effective date of June 15, 2004 had they not participated in the EAC Program. Fifteen of the areas that
participated were designated "attainment" with an effective date of June 15, 2004. The nonattainment-
deferred areas were in the mid-Atlantic and southeastern regions, except for San Antonio, Texas. Nine of
the 15 attainment areas were in the southeast, eight of which were in South Carolina. The remaining six
areas were spread across Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana.
16
-------
Table 1-2: Twenty-Nine Participating EAC Program Areas
Nonattainment Deferred Areas (14)
Berkeley and Jefferson Counties, West Virginia
Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia
Columbia, South Carolina (Central Midlands Area)
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado
Fayetteville, North Carolina (Cumberland County)
Frederick County, Virginia
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, North Carolina
(Triad Area)
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, South Carolina
(Appalachian Area)
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina (Unifour Area)
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee
Roanoke, Virginia
San Antonio, Texas
Washington County, Maryland (Hagerstown)
Attainment Areas (15)
Austin, Texas
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester, South Carolina
Catawba, South Carolina
Longview/Northeast, Texas
Low Country, South Carolina
Lower Savannah- Augusta, South Carolina-Georgia
Mountain Area of Western North Carolina
(Asheville)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Pee Dee, South Carolina
San Juan County, NM
Santee Lynches, South Carolina
Shreveport/Bossier City, LA
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Upper Savannah Abbeville-Greenwood, South
Carolina
Waccamaw, South Carolina
Source: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/index.htmtfEAC Main.
1.4 Action EPA Undertook To Defer the Effective Date of Nonattainment Designation for the EAC
Areas
At the time EPA designated areas for the 8-hour ozone standard in April 2004,12 EPA took final action
deferring the effective date until September 30, 2005 of the nonattainment designation for the 14
participating compact areas that were monitoring a violation of the 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA took
action because all terms of the agreement continued to be met up to that point, including timely
completion of all compact milestones and reports. Subsequently, through notice-and-comment
rulemaking, EPA further deferred the effective date, based upon a determination that the areas continued
to meet all compact milestones the time of the action. Table 1-3 provides the deferred effective date
adopted in each of the Federal Register actions for the 14 areas.
Table 1-3 also includes the effective dates that were specific to the Denver, Colorado EAC Program area.
On November 29, 2006, EPA extended the deferred effective date for Denver from December 31, 2006 to
July 1, 2007. In that final rulemaking, EPA noted that it would further extend the deferred effective date
to as late as April 15, 2008, which was the then-applicable effective date for the other 13 areas, once
Denver addressed certain issues with its EAC. The action extending the deferral to July 2007 was
challenged by Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action (RMCAA), which had also challenged the August 16,
2007 deferral as it applied to the Denver EAC Program Area. EPA issued a short further deferral to
preserve the status quo as settlement discussion with RMCAA continued, extending the deferral date
from July 1, 2007 to September 14, 2007. At the conclusion of settlement discussions, EPA extended the
deferral of the effective date to November 20, 2007. Because EPA determined that the Denver area
violated the 0.08 ppm, 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on air quality data from 2005 through the first three
12 "8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Final Rules," 69 Federal Register 23858-23951,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/fr 69(84) 23858.pdf. April 30, 2004; and in subsequent Federal Register notices
provided on http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/index.htmtRMNotices.
17
-------
quarters of 2007, the nonattainment designation for the Denver EAC was not further extended and it took
effect on November 20, 2007. After concluding that the remaining 13 EAC Program areas had attained
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on air quality data from 2005-2007, on March 27, 2008 the EPA
Administrator signed a final action designating those 13 EAC Program areas as attainment, effective
April 15, 2008.13
Table 1-3: EPA Actions Deferring Effective Date of Nonattainment Designation
Deferral
1st
/^nd
ord
4m
5ffi
Final Rule Date
(EPA Administrator Signature)
April 15, 2004
August 16, 2005
November 22, 2006
June 22, 2007
September 14, 2007
Deferred Effective Date
September 30, 2005
December 3 1,2006
April 15, 2008
July 1, 2007 (Denver, Colorado)
September 14, 2007 (Denver,
Colorado)
November 20, 2007 (Denver, Colorado)
Source: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/index.htmtfEAC Main.
1.5 How EPA Addressed Compact Areas Attaining the 8-Hour Ozone Standard in April 2004
Compact areas not violating the 8-hour ozone standard based on the most recent air quality data available
(generally data from 2001-2003) were designated unclassifiable/attainment in the April 2004 designation
action and the unclassifiable/attainment designation became effective on June 15, 2004. EPA encouraged
unclassifiable/attainment areas that had joined the EAC Program to continue to develop clean air plans
and to remain committed to the compact program to ensure air quality remained clean. Seventeen such
areas decided to participate in the program; however, two areas (Haywood County, Tennessee and
Putnam County, Tennessee) later withdrew from the program. If an area designated
unclassifiable/attainment in April 2004 participating in the EAC Program subsequently violated the 8-
hour ozone standard during the term of the compact, EPA had the discretion (under section 107(d)(3) of
the CAA) to redesignate the area to nonattainment, as it does with any unclassifiable/attainment areas
following designations.
1.6 Concerns About and Legal Challenges to the EAC Program
A number of environmental groups and states had significant concerns with the EAC program. This
section describes concerns expressed by outside parties in formal comments on EPA Federal Register
actions, EPA's response to them and the chronology of events concerning legal challenges to the EAC
program.
Many commenters on EPA's initial designations notice expressed support for the compact process, the
goal of clean air sooner, the incentives and flexibility the program provides for encouraging early
reductions of ozone-forming pollution, and the deferred effective date of nonattainment designation.14
13 "Final 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards Designations for the Early Action Compact Areas," 64
Federal Register 17897, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/fr20080327 eac.pdf. April 2, 2008.
14 "Deferral of Effective Date of Nonattainment Designations for 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Early Action Compact Areas," 68 Federal Register 70108-70119,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/fr 68(241) 70108.pdf. December 16, 2003. See "Response to Public Comments
Early Action Compacts for Implementing the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Early Action
Compact Areas," Docket No. OAR-2003-0090-0278, April 15, 2004.
18
-------
However, a number of commenters opposed the EAC program. Several of these commenters expressed
concern about the legality of the program and primarily about the deferral of the effective date of the
nonattainment designation for these areas. Although all of these commenters were supportive of the goal
of addressing proactively the public health concerns associated with ozone pollution, the commenters
stated that the EAC program was not authorized by the CAA. All of these commenters indicated that
EPA lacked authority under the CAA to defer the effective date of a nonattainment designation. In
addition, these commenters stated that EPA lacked the authority to enter into EACs and lacked authority
to allow areas to be relieved of obligations under title I, part D of the CAA while these areas were
violating the 8-hour ozone standard or were designated nonattainment for that standard.
In response, EPA continued to believe that the compact program, as designed, will give local areas the
flexibility to develop their own approach to meeting the 8-hour ozone standard, provided the participating
communities are serious in their commitment to control emissions from local sources earlier than the
CAA would otherwise require. By involving diverse stakeholders, including representatives from
industry, local and state governments, and local environmental and citizens' groups, a number of
communities were discussing for the first time the need for regional cooperation in solving air quality
problems that affect the health and welfare of its citizens. EPA stated that people living in these areas
that realize reductions in pollution levels sooner will enjoy the health benefits of cleaner air sooner than
might otherwise occur. In the April 2004 rule EPA codified the specific requirements in part 81 of the
CFR to clarify what is required of compact areas to be eligible for deferral of the effective date of their
nonattainment designation and what actions EPA intends to take in response to areas that meet the
milestones and areas
In addition, in response to environmental groups' concerns, the EPA entered into discussions with those
environmental groups. The EPA sought to address their concerns by incorporating several safeguards
into the program to ensure the accountability of EPA and participating state and local agencies. The
safeguards included: bi-annual progress reports; periodic milestones; and, requiring state and local
agencies to identify measures that would produce meaningful emissions reductions.
Several parties filed a lawsuit claiming EPA had not designated areas within the timeframe required by
the CAA. In a March 13, 2003 consent decree between EPA and the parties who filed the challenge, the
EPA agreed to sign a notice by April 15, 2004 promulgating the 8-hr ozone designations and to publish
that action by April 30, 2004. In addition, the environmental groups and EPA agreed to meet periodically
to discuss ways to encourage areas that approach or monitor minimal exceedances of the 8-hr standard to
develop and implement early action plans offering a more expeditious time line for achieving emission
reductions.
Upon promulgation of the 8-hour area designations, several environmental groups and some of the
Northeastern states filed suit challenging EPA's deferral of the effective date of designation for the EAC
areas. American Lung Assoc., et al., v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 04-1275). These same parties challenged
each of the subsequent actions further deferring the effective date of designation and those subsequent
cases were consolidated with the first. In addition to these actions by national environmental groups and
Northeastern states noted above, RMCAA sued EPA specifically on the deferral for Denver, Colorado
from November 29, 2006 to July 1, 2007. RMCAA v. EPA (D.C. Cir. 07-1012). As noted above, on
November 29, 2006, EPA deferred designations for 13 EAC areas until April 15, 2008. EPA deferred the
designation for Denver only until July 1, 2007, as it had not yet completed all of the necessary
rulemaking. Subsequently, the measures were adopted. EPA settled the suit with RMCAA in 2007, by
19
-------
which time Denver had measured a violation that ultimately resulted in the nonattainment designation
taking effect on November 20, 2007. RMCAA 1
Denver's nonattainment designation, including:
taking effect on November 20, 2007. RMCAA had several comments15 on EPA's proposed deferral of
2006 ozone levels have risen to unhealthy levels;
Denver EAC has fallen short of achieving reductions in ozone precursors;
Nowhere does the CAA allow deferrals of nonattainment designations; and
If Denver violates the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2007, there is nothing that triggers an automatic
nonattainment designation.
1.7 Federal Emissions Control Programs that Have Helped Improve Air Quality in EAC Areas
Amid the concerns and challenges discussed in the prior section, the EAC Program moved forward and
was implemented with all but one of the 29 participating areas attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the
December 2007 deadline. The EAC areas were aided in reducing their ozone levels to a significant
degree, as is true for many other ozone areas in the country, by implementation of several Federal
programs to reduce emissions of NOX, and to some degree VOCs. These programs include:
NOX SIP Call16
o Compliance dates 2004-2007, depending on the state
o Set NOX budgets for electrical generation units, large industrial boilers, cement kilns and
turbines in 20 Eastern states and Washington, D.C.
o NOX reductions of 880,000 tons per ozone season by 2007;
Tier 2 Vehicle and Gasoline Sulfur Program17
o Compliance dates 2004 for gasoline sulfur content and 2004-2009 for phase-in of new
vehicle standards by model year
o Covered gasoline sold nationwide and cars, light-duty trucks, and certain size sport utility
vehicles sold outside California
o Reduces NOX and VOC emissions; and
New Source Performance Standard and Emission Guidelines for Waste Combustion18
o Compliance date 2005
o Covered certain incinerators and municipal waste combustors nationwide
o Reduced NOX emissions by 16,283 tons per year in 2006.
These and other Federal programs helped to reduce ozone in the EAC Program areas - both locally-
formed and transported ozone. Figure 1-1 provides a visual display of the benefit to ozone air quality for
15 "Final Extension of the Deferred Effective Date for 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Denver
Early Action Compact: Proposed Rule,"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/fr 20070301 72(40) 9285 eac 4extend deferred date.pdf, March 1, 2007; Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0090, comment submitted by Jeremy Nichols. Director. Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action. April
2, 2007.
16 "Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region
for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone," 63 Federal Register 57356,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/sip/index.html. October 27, 1998.
17 "Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline
Sulfur Control Requirements," 65 Federal Register 6698-6870, http://www.epa.gov/tier2/finalrule.htm. February 10, 2000.
18 "Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Other Solid Waste
Incineration Units; Final Rule," 70 Federal Register 74870-74924,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fr notices/30600oswi fr note.pdf. December 16, 2005.
20
-------
areas in the Eastern U.S. due, in part, to these control programs, particularly the NOX SIP Call. The figure
shows the change in seasonal 8-hour ozone averages adjusted for weather from 2000-2002 to 2005-
2007. The map shows the wide range of change across the East. The range spans a one percent
deterioration in the seasonal 8-hour ozone average to a 17 percent improvement in the seasonal 8-hour
ozone average. The impacts of NOX reductions in the East have been assessed in three NOX Budget
Trading Reports that have been issued from 2003 to 2006.20 See also Figure 3-1, which compares ozone
reductions in EAC and non-EAC areas.
Figure 1-1: Percentage Change in Seasonal 8-Hour Ozone Average Air Quality
from 2000-2002 to 2005-2007, Adjusted for Weather
Source: Analysis by the Air Quality Assessment Group, OAQPS, using the method described in
Camalier, L., Cox, W., Dolwick, P., 2007. The effects of meteorology on ozone in urban areas
and their use in assessing ozone trends. Atmospheric Environment 41, 7127-7137.
9 The methodology used to adjust for weather is explained in section 3.1.1.
20 http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/progress-reports.html.
21
-------
SECTION 2.0 INFORMATION COMPILATION APPROACH
This section describes the study's information compilation approach, both quantitative and qualitative. It
is important to note that the information compilation approach has several limitations because this report
is not a formal program evaluation. Specifically, the study did not:
Compare emission reductions of EAC areas versus non-EAC areas in terms of both quantities and
implementation timeframes;
Study air quality for EAC areas past 2007; and
Rigorously compare EAC areas with non-EAC areas with respect to certain key areas, such as:
o Program design-related concerns (e.g., program efficiency)
o Control measure implementation.
2.1 Decision to Conduct EAC Study
Following the conclusion of the EAC program, EPA's OPAR and EPA's OAQPS undertook this study of
the EAC program in order to learn what worked well and what did not with this community-based
program, including whether EAC Program areas attained the ozone NAAQS early. EPA's intent was to
then share that knowledge with leaders of programs that EPA and the states create to improve air quality
in communities.
2.2 Scope of the Study
EPA staff, consulting with EPA management, determined that the quantitative component of the study
should address all 14 of the "nonattainment deferred" and six of the 15 "attainment" EAC areas. The six
attainment EAC Program areas were selected based on geographic diversity and availability of
meteorological data. The attainment EAC Program areas were located in the Southeast and Southwest -
EPA Regions 4 and 6 - so areas were selected from these two parts of the country for which
meteorological data were available. (The availability of meteorological data was important for the air
quality information compilation because it was needed in order to be able to remove the effects of
weather when examining changes in seasonal 8-hour ozone air quality. Section 2.3.1 below provides a
description of how the meteorological adjustments were made.) Qualitatively, the study addressed all 29
areas primarily by consulting state and local agencies from all 12 states that participated in the program,
as well as six of the 14 nonattainment-deferred areas and three of the 15 attainment areas that also
participated in the program. Information and observations from these discussions have been generalized
and extrapolated to all EAC Program areas. To provide a qualitative comparison for these areas, two
non-EAC Program areas and the states in which they are located were also consulted.
Table 2-1 provides a list of the 20 areas that were included in the study, along with their 2001-2003 8-
hour ozone design values (DVs), 2001 population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and a breakout of
NOX and VOC emissions. (Appendix D also provides a brief profile of the 20 areas. More detailed
information on population and VMT for the states in which these 20 areas are located can be found in
Appendix B, Tables B-27 to B-30.)
Of the 14 nonattainment-deferred areas, some are rural with lower populations, such as Frederick County,
Virginia, while others are medium sized - Chattanooga, Tennessee - and yet others are larger - Denver,
Colorado and San Antonio, Texas. Eight-hour ozone DVs for 2001-2003 for the 14 areas were relatively
close to the level of the 1997 standard with only one area above 0.090 ppm: Greensboro, North Carolina
at 0.093 ppm. The mix of NOX and VOC emissions varies from area to area.
22
-------
Of the six attainment areas, one is rural with lower populations - Mountain Area of Western North
Carolina (Asheville) - while three others are medium sized - Lower Savannah-Augusta, South Carolina-
Georgia - and yet two others are larger - Austin, Texas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Eight-hour
ozone DVs for 2001-2003 for the six areas were at or below the level of the 1997 standard with two areas
at 0.072 ppm or less. The balance among NOX emissions sources and among VOC emission source types
varies from area to area.
2.3 Refining the Study Scope
As the study scope was determined, EPA staff, consulting with EPA management, refined it by
identifying the key areas the study would address. The following two subsections capture the essential
issues that the study included.
2.3.1 Environmental Aspects of Study
Changes in Air Quality
The study analyzed changes in air quality in EAC Program areas (improvements or deteriorations), both
not controlling and controlling for meteorology. One of the purposes of the study was to determine
whether those changes were more, less, or the same as neighboring areas. The study also sought to
determine what accounted for the changes.
Estimated Emissions Reductions from Control Measures
This study looked at to what degree "local" EAC measures contributed to any improvements in air quality
in EAC Program areas. In addition, the following issues were investigated:
What control measures (and how many of the total) had emissions reductions associated with
them (and which did not) and how large were they;
Which measures provided the greatest or least for overall emission reductions and the modeled
attainment demonstration;
Were all control measures actually implemented as required of the states;
Were there environmental benefits as a direct result of the EAC activities for pollutants other than
ozone; and
Did areas implement temporary control measures that were later discontinued.
23
-------
Table 2-1: Population, 8-Hour DVs and Emissions Information for the 20 Areas
Included in this Study for Which Quantitative Information was Compiled
EAC Program Area
2002
Population*
2002
VMT*
2001-2003
DV (ppm)
2002 Emissions
NOX
voc
Source Type
Nonattainment Deferred Areas
Berkeley and Jefferson
Counties, West Virginia
Chattanooga, Tennessee-
Georgia
Columbia, South Carolina
(Central Midlands Area)
Denver-B oulder-Greeley-
Fort Collins-Loveland,
Colorado
Fayetteville, North
Carolina (Cumberland
County)
Frederick County, Virginia
Greensboro-Winston
Salem-High Point, North
Carolina (Triad Area)
126,357
466,775
611,932
2,970,672
304,094
87,282
1,471,869
1,279
4,976
7,208
24,081
2,780
1,136
16,351
0.086
0.088
0.089
0.087
0.087
0.085
0.093
30%
7%
37%
27%
9%
6%
63%
22%
35%
6%
46%
13%
28%
5%
49%
18%
7%
5%
73%
15%
4%
17%
63%
16%
47%
3%
40%
10%
3%
52%
33%
12%
6%
44%
37%
13%
9%
50%
27%
13%
37%
26%
26%
12%
9%
40%
42%
9%
16%
40%
23%
21%
14%
50%
27%
9%
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
24
-------
Table 2-1: Population, 8-Hour DVs and Emissions Information for the 20 Areas
Included in this Study for Which Quantitative Information was Compiled
EAC Program Area
Greenville-Spartanburg-
Anderson, South Carolina
(Appalachian Area)
Hickory-Morganton-
Lenoir, North Carolina
(Unifour Area)
Johnson City-Kingsport-
Bristol, Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee
Roanoke, Virginia
San Antonio, Texas
Washington County,
Maryland (Hagerstown)
2002
Population*
1,053,490
348,968
408,857
1,269,605
235,494
1,654,839
134,700
2002
VMT*
10,887
3,003
3,887
15,876
2,487
14,967
1,886
2001-2003
DV (ppm)
0.087
0.088
0.086
0.086
0.085
0.089
0.086
2002 Emissions
NOX
13%
10%
59%
18%
60%
3%
27%
9%
67%
3%
23%
8%
21%
4%
58%
18%
14%
14%
58%
14%
28%
8%
49%
15%
30%
7%
48%
15%
voc
8%
58%
23%
11%
37%
31%
23%
9%
33%
36%
24%
7%
13%
36%
35%
16%
6%
53%
34%
7%
2%
50%
34%
14%
5%
51%
33%
12%
Source Type
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
25
-------
Table 2-1: Population, 8-Hour DVs and Emissions Information for the 20 Areas
Included in this Study for Which Quantitative Information was Compiled
EAC Program Area
2002
Population*
2002
VMT*
2001-2003
DV (ppm)
2002 Emissions
NOX
voc
Source Type
Attainment EAC Program Areas
Austin, Texas
Berkeley-Charleston-
Dorchester, South Carolina
Mountain Area of Western
North Carolina (Asheville)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Lower Savannah- Augusta,
South Carolina-Georgia
Tulsa, Oklahoma
1,347,464
562,579
285,431
1,107,167
594,875
819,321
13,088
5,649
3,115
13,793
6,790
10,639
0.084
0.072
0.083
0.080
0.067
0.083
14%
7%
57%
22%
48%
3%
20%
29%
44%
3%
43%
9%
13%
12%
59%
15%
46%
6%
37%
11%
43%
10%
35%
12%
2%
48%
34%
17%
10%
46%
23%
21%
12%
38%
35%
15%
4%
45%
39%
11%
11%
55%
26%
9%
4%
52%
30%
13%
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Point
Area
Highway
Vehicles
Off Highway
Vehicles
Source: U.S. Census, 2002 National Emissions Inventory, and Air Quality System
*For four areas the population and VMT estimates are for whole counties even though only a
partial county was part of the EAC Program: Mountain Area of Western North Carolina
(Asheville); Columbia, South Carolina (Central Midlands Area); Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort
Collins-Loveland, Colorado; and Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina (Unifour Area).
26
-------
Air Quality Modeling for EAC SIPs
The study addressed three issues with respect to the air quality modeling work states performed as part of
their EAC SIPs:
Whether the modeling could provide any insight into what degree "local" EAC measures
contributed to any improvements in air quality in EAC Program areas;
Did the air quality modeling predict attainment with or without the local EAC measures; and
Were the air quality improvements projected in the state's EAC modeling achieved or did the
observed air quality improvements exceed the air quality improvements projected in the state's
EAC modeling.
Growth-Related Aspects of the Study
There was interest in studying the impact on EAC Program areas of not requiring the Nonattainment NSR
and Conformity Programs in EAC areas, both of which address growth in emissions. However, because
of the complexity of the programs, it was decided such an analysis was beyond the scope of this effort
and that it would require a separate study. So, instead, the study focused on a limited scope:
Determining whether the extent of new source activity that occurred in the 14 nonattainment-
deferred EAC Program areas that may have been subject to the Nonattainment NSR Program had
the areas been designated nonattainment;
Determining which of the 14 nonattainment-deferred EAC Program areas were subject to the
Conformity Program for other reasons even though they were participating in the EAC Program
for ozone; and
Displaying changes in estimated population and VMT during EAC Program implementation.
2.3.2 Program Design Aspects of the Study
Efficiency of EAC Program
The study addressed the issue of whether the EAC model is just as efficient at producing clean air as the
traditional nonattainment designation approach. This issue was approached by: (1) studying the resource
aspect of this question for EPA regions and headquarters, and for state and local agencies; and, (2) asking
whether all states and areas met their process-related goals and requirements. This study also addresses
whether the compact agreements gave local areas flexibility to develop their own approach to meeting the
8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, the study asks whether the program would have succeeded without
the threat of nonattainment designation for those areas with deferred nonattainment designations.
Longer Term Impact
The study addressed whether EAC activities: (1) will result in longer-term emission reductions or
continued reductions in ozone and air quality improvement activities and policies into the future; and, (2)
provide for or create a local "infrastructure" for further or continued action in the future through, for
example, the creation of an organizational entity in the local area.
Outreach and Stakeholder Interaction
The study addressed whether the compacts were successful at engaging and involving stakeholders at the
local level. In addition, the study addressed whether there were any intangible information from
27
-------
stakeholder engagement. It was also important to gain an understanding of how successful the outreach
programs were in EAC Program areas.
Other Aspects of the Program
The study also addressed how the requirements for the EAC Program areas compare to the requirements
the areas would have faced as traditional nonattainment areas.
2.4 Information Compilation
Table 2-2 provides a breakout of the EAC Program aspects and areas included in the study and whether it
was quantitative or qualitative. To understand the table, it is important to note that the study's
quantitative information focused on 20 areas (of the 29 total EAC areas), while the qualitative
information addressed all 29 areas. The qualitative study was conducted through discussions with all 12
states in the program and nine of the 29 EAC Program areas. The information from those discussions
was generalized to all 29 areas.
The following two subsections provide an overview of how the study was conducted for the 14
nonattainment-deferred EAC Program areas and the six attainment EAC Program areas that were
included.
2.4.1 Quantitative Information Compilation
For environmental aspects of the study, the quantitative information addressed:
Changes in air quality;
Estimated emissions reductions from control measures;
Air quality modeling for EAC SIPs; and
Growth-related aspects of the study.
For design aspects of the study, the information compiled addressed the efficiency of the EAC Program.
Changes in Air Quality
The air quality information gathered came from EPA's Air Quality System submitted by the states to
EPA. The study looked at changes in air quality from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007 on three bases: 8-hour
ozone DV; Air Quality Index (AQI) days above 100; and seasonal averages of daily maximum 8-hour
ozone (not controlling and controlling for meteorology) (see Appendix B, Tables B-l to B-4). Seasonal
averages for meteorology were "controlled" or adjusted. The study performed meteorological
adjustments for the 15 EAC Program areas that are located in the East (except for a few cases where data
were not available), and, for comparative purposes, for 18 non-EAC metropolitan areas that are generally
in the same region as these EAC Program areas. The non-EAC Program areas are a mix of attainment
and nonattainment areas. In the Southwest, air quality comparisons were difficult to make because of a
28
-------
Table 2-2: EAC Program Aspects and Areas Included in the Study, Breakout
of Information Compiled, and Whether it was Quantitative or Qualitative
Program Aspect
Quantitative
Information
Compiled
Qualitative
Information
Compiled
Areas
EAC Program Environmental Aspects of Study
Changes in air
quality
Estimated emissions
reductions from
control measures
Air quality modeling
for EAC SIPs
Growth-related
aspects of the study
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Quantitative information: all 20 areas (except
for cases where meteorological data were not
available)
Quantitative information: all 20 areas
Qualitative information: all 29 areas (able to
generalize information to all areas by consulting
all 12 states in the program and nine of the 29
EAC Program areas)
Quantitative information: all 20 areas
Quantitative information: all 20 areas
Qualitative information: 14 of the 20 areas
EAC Program Design Aspects of the Study
Efficiency of EAC
Program
Longer term impact
Outreach and
stakeholder
interaction
Other aspects of the
program
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Qualitative information: all 29 areas (for
estimation of EPA resources for EAC Program
versus traditional approach)
Qualitative information: all 29 areas (able to
generalize information to all areas by consulting
all 12 states in the program and nine of the 29
EAC Program areas)
Qualitative information: all 29 areas (able to
generalize information to all areas by consulting
all 12 states in the program and nine of the 29
EAC Program areas)
Qualitative information: all 29 areas (able to
generalize information to all areas by consulting
all 12 states in the program and nine of the 29
EAC Program areas)
Qualitative information: all 29 areas (able to
generalize information to all areas by consulting
all 12 states in the program and nine of the 29
EAC Program areas)
29
-------
lack of monitoring sites with meteorologically controlled air quality data that were close enough to the
EAC Program areas. Therefore, the study was not able provide a review of how those air quality gains in
that region compare to other non-EAC ozone areas in the same region. The study did not compare two
individual cities because it is very difficult to determine if they are comparable. Comparing the range of
reductions between two groups is more reasonable, as the study did for areas in the East.
Meteorological adjustments of the data pertain to how weather differences from day-to-day and across
years can cause substantial differences in monitored ozone concentrations, even when emissions are not
changing. This can obscure the changes in ozone that are rightly attributable to emissions reductions
achieved by control strategies like those included in the EAC and standard ozone SIPs. Therefore, it is
useful to adjust monitored ozone concentrations for meteorological effects. The methodology uses a
generalized linear model is used to describe the relationship between daily ozone and several
meteorological parameters. The model also accounts for the variation in seasonal ozone across different
years by correcting for meteorological fluctuations between those years. The most important
meteorological parameters considered in this model are daily maximum 1-hour temperature and midday
(10 a.m. to 4 p.m.) relative humidity. This model is estimated or fitted for individual metropolitan areas
of interest, where the necessary ozone and meteorological data sets were both available. Once the
parameters (i.e., coefficients) have been estimated using daily data, the model produces an estimate of
what the seasonal average daily 8-hour maximum would have been in a given year if that year had had
typical weather conditions combined with its actual emissions. This methodology and the subsequent
ozone estimates are provided by EPA's OAQPS, Air Quality Assessment Division.21
Estimated Emissions Reductions from Control Measures
The emission reductions information compilation had two features:
First, information was gathered from the EAC SIPs in several areas to compile a complete list of
measures, including any prospective emission reduction estimates provided by the states in their SIPs for
local, state and national (Federal) measures (see Tables B-6 to B-26). For this part of the study, local
measures were defined as measures adopted locally by a local body or authority, as well as measures
adopted by the state that applied specifically to that area. (State measures were measures adopted by
states that apply in more than one area in a state and national (Federal) measures were measures adopted
by EPA that apply nationally or in a sub-region of the country.) In addition, where possible, the
quantified emission reduction from each EAC SIP measure was compared as a percentage to the total
reductions for all such measures in the same SIP, as well as to the total 2002 NOX and VOC emissions in
the EAC Program areas from the 2002 National Emissions Inventory. This was done in an attempt to
convey the relative air quality importance of the various measures.
There are at least two important limitations to what can be discerned from the estimates in Tables B-6 to
B-26:
1) Estimating emissions reductions is inherently uncertain.
21 The method used is described in: "The effects of meteorology on ozone in urban areas and their use in assessing ozone
trends," Atmospheric Environment 41, 7127-7137', Camalier, L., Cox, W., Dolwick, P., 2007. See additional resources on
meteorological adjustment of ozone air quality on: http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/weather.html.
30
-------
o For the local measures, the limitations include the inherent uncertainty of estimating
emissions reductions from non-traditional sources and strategies on which the EAC
Program areas relied for local measures.
2) The percentages must be studied carefully when comparing the reductions for each measure (or
groups of measures) to total reductions for all the measures. In some of the EAC SIPs, the
denominator for the percentages (total quantified emissions reductions from listed EAC SIP
measures) may not be a completely consistent benchmark because it may not reflect every state
and national measure that contributed to air quality improvement.
o For the Federal measures, the study calculated a rough estimate of the emissions
reductions from Federal measures. This is reflected in Tables B-6 to B-26 (or "other"
Federal measure emission reductions in the case of the two areas where some Federal
measures were quantified).
The study employed an approach for developing the estimates that is described in
Appendix C.
o The approach was to calculate the total emissions reductions assumed in the modeled
attainment demonstration and to subtract from that the quantified state and local measures
in the attainment demonstration (as well as some national measures that were quantified in
two areas).
o Providing the estimates of Federal measure emission reductions helps to address the
concern with respect to the percentages by making the denominators more reflective of all
the measures that benefited the areas.
o Having as accurate a denominator as possible is important to avoid overstating or
understating the percentage contributions of local, state and national measures.
o In an extreme case, a hypothetical SIP that explicitly listed only one small local measure
would calculate that measure's percentage as 100 percent of total quantified emissions,
possibly giving the impression that the measure was important to air quality progress in
the area when it may not have been.
o Another example of the misimpression that can be taken from these percentages is the
hypothetical case of a SIP that contains 100 local measures each with equal and large
emissions reductions; those measures would each only score 1 percent.
Second, the study also put the magnitude of the emission reductions in the EAC Program areas' SIPs into
perspective by comparing the total quantified NOX and VOC emission reductions estimates in the EAC
SIPs to:
Total 2002 NOX and VOC emissions in the EAC Program areas;
Total 2002 NOX and VOC emissions in the state in which the area is located; and
Total NOX reductions from the NOX SIP call within the state in which the area is located (for states
that were part of that program).
The 2002 NOX and VOC emissions estimates for the EAC Program areas and for the state in which the
area is located come from the 2002 National Emissions Inventory. The quantified NOX and VOC
emissions estimates in the EAC SIPs used for comparative purposes are for local measures, state/national
measures, and the two combined.
31
-------
Air Quality Modeling for EAC SIPs
To answer the questions posed with respect to air quality modeling, the study addressed the modeling
information from EAC SIPs and then compared the information to observed air quality values.
Growth-Related Aspects of the Study
The study also reviewed information concerning estimates of population and VMT change from 2001 to
2006. The population estimates came from the U.S. Census. The VMT numbers come from the National
Emission Inventory's VMT estimates, which are derived from the Highway Performance Monitoring
System (HPMS). It is important to note that they are subject to significant uncertainty that can cause over
or underestimates. HPMS was designed to collect statewide data to populate a national database that
would be used to: (1) assess the performance and condition of the nationwide transportation system; and,
(2) help guide national investment priorities. The sampling techniques were designed for these purposes.
They may not be appropriate for estimating small changes in VMT in smaller geographic areas such as
the areas included in this study. While the margin of error at the statewide and national level is acceptable
for the purposes that HPMS was designed for, it is unclear whether the margin of error at the
nonattainment areas scale would render the study inconclusive.22
Other Aspects of the EAC Program
For design aspects of the study, the quantitative information addressed the efficiency of the EAC Program
by estimating the resources expended by EPA headquarters and regional offices for the EAC Program.
This was compared to the level of estimated resources that would have been necessary had the EAC
Program areas not participated in the EAC Program but instead pursued a traditional approach after being
designated nonattainment or attainment (estimates do not include state and local agency resources). The
resource estimates encompassed Full Time Equivalent (FTE) and the number of Federal Register actions
and pages (including costs). Federal Register costs were calculated using the current rates due to the
difficulty of determining historical Federal Register costs and of determining what costs apply to which
Federal Register actions. Table B-31 provides the methodology used to develop them. The resource
estimates for the traditional approach assume that: (1) the 14 nonattainment-deferred areas would have
been Subpart 1 areas; and (2) the resource estimates vary depending on the size of the area. Because the
regional resource estimates varied for the traditional approach, a range of numbers is presented.
2.4.2 Qualitative Information Compilation
For environmental aspects of the study, the qualitative information compiled addressed qualitative aspects
of (1) control measure emissions reductions and (2) growth-related aspects of the study (i.e., new source
activity, and Conformity Program applicability in the 14 nonattainment-deferred EAC Program areas
during the implementation of the EAC Program).
For design aspects of the study, the compilation of qualitative information addressed:
Efficiency of EAC Program;
Longer term impact;
Outreach and stakeholder interaction; and
Other aspects of the program.
22 For more information about HPMS, visit: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policv/ohpi/hpms/abouthpms.htm.
32
-------
These four program design areas were addressed in a qualitative manner because they did not lend
themselves easily, if at all, to quantitative measurement. Ideally, for example, it would have been
beneficial to measure the impact of the EAC Program on state and local resources by developing a
questionnaire that measured the impact on state and local agency FTE and budgetary outlays. However,
that was not feasible in the time given for the study, so an alternative informal discussion method was
employed, which, nonetheless, yielded useful information.
Information for the qualitative part of the study came from four sources:
The progress reports and SIPs submitted by the states and local agencies;
EPA and state permitting databases containing information on new source activity;
The four EPA regional offices that implemented the program; and
Discussions with staff and managers at the state and local agencies that implemented the program.
The discussions were held with all of the air planning agencies for the 12 states involved in the EAC
Program and with local agencies for six of the 14 areas involved in the nonattainment-deferred EAC
Program. Appendix A provides a list of the individuals consulted. In addition, two non-EAC ozone 8-
hour nonattainment areas - Rocky Mount, North Carolina and Knoxville, Tennessee - and the air
agencies for the states in which they are located were consulted to provide a comparison to the responses
received with respect to the EAC Program areas. Appendix E provides a complete summary of the
discussions that can reasonably be generalized to other EAC areas. The discussions reflect people's
views so, in that sense, the information gained is the view of the respective local or state agency.
Because the state and local agency names are included in Appendix E, the individual discussion notes
were shared with the individuals consulted as a courtesy and to provide an opportunity for any
corrections. The discussions provided useful insights, both positive and negative, on the EAC Program.
33
-------
SECTION 3.0 INFORMATION COMPILED AND OBSERVATIONS
In this section the information compiled as part of the study is described and observations stemming from
the information are provided.
3.1 Information Compiled
3.1.1 Quantitative Information
The study produced quantitative information for both the environmental and program design aspects of
the study.
Environmental Aspects of the Study
The study produced information in four areas:
Changes in air quality;
Estimated emissions reductions from control measures;
Air quality modeling for EAC SIPs; and
Growth-related aspects of the study.
Changes in Air Quality
Ten of the 14 nonattainment-deferred areas attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2004,
prior to the required 2005 implementation date for the EAC control measures. All of the 14
nonattainment-deferred areas, except Denver, Colorado, attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December
31, 2007. Five of the areas had 2005-2007 8-hour DVs at or below 0.079 ppm, while 11 were at or below
0.083 ppm. All of the areas showed an improvement in ozone air quality from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007
and five areas showed a 10 percent or greater improvement in their DVs. All of the areas reduced the
number of AQI days above 100 from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007, while 10 showed a greater than 60 percent
improvement on an AQI day basis. Thirteen of the 14 nonattainment-deferred areas showed an
improvement in air quality from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007 on an 8-hour, meteorologically controlled
seasonal average basis (Denver was excluded due to a lack of meteorological data). Eight of the 14 areas
showed a 10 percent or greater improvement on that basis. (For a summary, see Table 3-1 and, for more
details, see Tables B-l to B-3 in Appendix B.)
Five of the six attainment areas attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2004, prior to the
required 2005 implementation date for the EAC control measures. All six attainment areas included in
the study attained the 8-hour NAAQS as of December 31, 2007 and all had 2005-2007 8-hour DVs at or
below 0.080 ppm. Three attainment areas showed an improvement in ozone air quality from 2001-2003
to 2005-2007 on an 8-hour DV basis. One of the six attainment areas showed deterioration in air quality
from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007 on the same basis, while two of the six showed no change. When areas
were studied on an AQI day basis, four of the six areas showed an improvement from 2001-2003 to 2005-
2007. Two of these areas showed a greater than 80 percent improvement. One area showed an increase,
while another showed no change. Four of the six attainment areas show an improvement in air quality
from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007 on an 8-hour, meteorologically controlled seasonal 8-hour average basis.
One area showed an increase, while another showed no change. (For a summary, see Table 3-1 and, for
more details, see Tables B-l to B-3 in Appendix B.)
34
-------
For the 12 nonattainment-deferred areas in the East, the improvement in ozone air quality on a
meteorologically controlled seasonal 8-hour average basis from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007 ranges from 4
percent to 12 percent, with an average 9 percent improvement. For the three attainment areas in the East,
the change in ozone air quality on a meteorologically-controlled, seasonal 8-hour average basis from
2001-2003 to 2005-2007 ranges from a 6 percent improvement to a 3 percent deterioration, with an
average 1 percent improvement. The air quality deteriorated in Lower Savannah-Augusta, South
Carolina-Georgia. Savannah is located on the perimeter of the NOX SIP call region (due to its location on
the border between Georgia and South Carolina, a state that was part of the NOX SIP Call). It is also not
located in the normal downwind area in the East that would benefit from NOX reductions in the Midwest
and Southeast. Overall, the average improvement in air quality was 8 percent for the 15 nonattainment-
deferred and attainment areas in the East.
For comparative purposes, the range of improvement in ozone air quality on a meteorologically
controlled seasonal 8-hour average basis for 18 non-EAC, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in the East
from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007 was from 5 percent to 14 percent. Overall, for the 18 non-EAC Program
areas in the East the average improvement in air quality was 8 percent.
Figure 3-1 is a map that shows the 15 EAC Program areas in the East that were included in the study and
the 18 non-EAC, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in the East that were used for comparison. The map
indicates the percentage reduction in ozone from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007. Figure 3-2 is a box-plot of the
same areas that illustrates the means, medians and the 90th and 100th percentiles of the percentage
reductions. (As indicated in Figure 3-2, the dots represent the means of the areas represented, the line
inside the box represents the median, the ends of box represent the 10th percentiles and the ends of the
"whiskers" represent the 90th percentiles. The length of the "whiskers" represents the spread of the data.)
The means and the medians are close, while the 90th and 100th percentiles are farther apart, particularly
at the deterioration end of the range. However, the percentiles are within the 2 percent margin of error.
The meteorological adjustment analyst considers this difference to be within the range of uncertainty (or
close to it), with the exception of the 100 percentile where the EAC air quality change is greater at the
deterioration end of the range. Table B-4 in Appendix B contains the air quality data and percentage
changes from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007 for the 15 and 18 areas.
In addition to these figures and tables, Figure 3-3 shows the difference in ozone air quality (seasonal
average adjusted for weather) over time from 2001 to 2007 for the 15 EAC Program areas in the East that
were included in the study and the 18 non-EAC, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in the East that were
used for comparison. While the graph shows consistently better air quality in the EAC areas versus the
non-EAC areas, the difference is within the margin of error and, thus, not significant. In addition, the
degree to which the two trend lines track so closely indicates the degree to which air quality levels
recorded at monitors across the East are uniformly influenced by regional air pollution emissions
reductions from programs such as the NOX SIP call.
35
-------
Figure 3-1: Map Showing Percentage Changes in Average Summertime Daily Maximum 8-hour
Ozone Concentrations in EAC and Non-EAC Program Areas in the East Between 2001-2003 and
2005-2007, After Adjusting for Weather
*
ms * *
/^"^ .... <^
*EAC Areas * Non-EAC Areas
f*. 3% or more Increase
D +/- 2% Change
3% to 7% Decrease
8% or more Decrease
Source: Analysis by the Air Quality Assessment Group, OAQPS, using the method described
in Camalier, L., Cox, W., Dolwick, P., 2007. The effects of meteorology on ozone in urban
areas and their use in assessing ozone trends. Atmospheric Environment 41, 7127-7137.
36
-------
Figure 3-2: Box Plot Showing Percentage Changes in Average Summertime Daily Maximum 8-
hour Ozone Concentrations in EAC and Non-EAC Program Areas in the East Between 2001-2003
and 2005-2007, After Adjusting for Weather
Percent
Change
5-
4-
3
2
1 -|
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
90th Percentile
10th Percentile
Mean
Median
EAC Areas
NON-EAC Areas
Source: Analysis by the Air Quality Assessment Group, OAQPS, using the method
described in Camalier, L., Cox, W., Dolwick, P., 2007. The effects of meteorology on
ozone in urban areas and their use in assessing ozone trends. Atmospheric Environment
41,7127-7137.
37
-------
Figure 3-3: Trends in 8-Hour Ozone (Seasonal Average Adjusted for Weather)
.a
o.
o.
o
O
70
60
50
40
30
o
20
10
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Non-EAC Areas (18) -^- EAC Areas (15)
Source: Analysis by the Air Quality Assessment Group, OAQPS, using the method described in
Camalier, L., Cox, W., Dolwick, P., 2007. The effects of meteorology on ozone in urban areas and
their use in assessing ozone trends. Atmospheric Environment 41, 7127-7137.
38
-------
Table 3-1: Summary of Air Quality Study Information
Percent
Improvement In
8-Hour DV
(2001-2003 to
2005-2007)
Percent
Improvement In
AQI Days (2001-
2003 to 2005-2007)
Change In Number
of Average AQI
Days (2001-2003 to
2005-2007)
Percent Improvement
In Seasonal Ozone
Average,
Meteorologically
Controlled (2001-2003
to 2005-2007)
Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas
Berkeley and
Jefferson Counties,
West Virginia
Chattanooga,
Tennessee-Georgia
Columbia, South
Carolina (Central
Midlands Area)
Denver-Boulder-
Greeley-Fort Collins -
Loveland, Colorado
Fayetteville, North
Carolina
(Cumberland County)
Frederick County,
Virginia
Greensboro-Winston
Salem-High Point,
North Carolina (Triad
Area)
Greenville-
Spartanburg-
Anderson, South
Carolina
(Appalachian Area)
Hickory-Morganton-
Lenoir, North
Carolina (Unifour
Area)
Johnson City-
Kingsport-Bristol,
Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee
Roanoke, Virginia
San Antonio, Texas
Washington County,
Maryland
(Hagerstown)
-13%
-5%
-8%
-2%
-6%
-14%
-11%
-5%
-11%
-3%
-2%
-11%
-8%
-8%
-77%
-72%
-48%
-47%
-62%
-93%
-76%
-77%
-100%
-45%
-24%
-91%
-64%
-84%
-3.3
-9.3
-3.7
-5.0
-5.3
-4.7
-14.7
-11.0
-5.0
-3.3
-2.7
-3.3
-5.3
-7.0
-12%
-9%
-6%
NA
-4%
-12%
-10%
-10%
-11%
-5%
-11%
-8%
-13%
-10%
39
-------
Table 3-1: Summary of Air Quality Study Information
Percent
Improvement In
8-Hour DV
(2001-2003 to
2005-2007)
Percent
Improvement In
AQI Days (2001-
2003 to 2005-2007)
Change In Number
of Average AQI
Days (2001-2003 to
2005-2007)
Percent Improvement
In Seasonal Ozone
Average,
Meteorologically
Controlled (2001-2003
to 2005-2007)
Attainment EAC Program Areas
Austin, Texas
Berkeley-Charleston-
Dorchester, South
Carolina
Mountain Area of
Western North
Carolina (Asheville)
Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma
Lower Savannah-
Augusta, South
Carolina-Georgia
lulsa, Oklahoma
-5%
3%
-5%
0%
0%
-4%
-11%
0%
-81%
143%
-100%
-22%
-0.3
0.0
-4.3
3.3
-0.3
-1.3
0%
-1%
-6%
-6%
3%
-6%
Source: AQS and meteorological analysis by the Air Quality Assessment Group, OAQPS, using the
method described in Camalier, L., Cox, W., Dolwick, P., 2007. The effects of meteorology on
ozone in urban areas and their use in assessing ozone trends. Atmospheric Environment 41, 7127-
7137.
40
-------
Estimated Emissions Reductions from Control Measures
This section provides information for EAC areas on the estimated emission reductions from
state and local EAC measures and overall from Federal measures. Federal measures include
programs such as EPA rules for motor vehicle standards (i.e., Tier 2 and non-road diesel
engines). State measures include programs such as inspection and maintenance (I/M), lower
Reid vapor pressure, and Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) controls for
VOCs. It is important to keep in mind that many EAC local measures were implemented that
could not be easily quantified, if at all. They were implemented with the goal of effecting
lifestyle and other changes that could, in turn, help reduce emissions contributing to ozone
levels. Examples of these measures are:
Bike racks and trails at work sites (Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia);
Encouragement of carpooling (Columbia, South Carolina (Midlands Area));
Energy efficient buildings (Fayetteville, NC);
Timing of refueling vehicles (Roanoke, Virginia); and
Truck stop anti-idling program (San Antonio, Texas).
This subsection discusses five areas relating to control measures:
Measures Implemented in Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas;
Measures Implemented in Attainment EAC Program Areas;
Control Measure Emissions Reductions in Perspective;
Control Measure Implementation; and
Non-Ozone Air Quality Benefits.
Measures Implemented in Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas
The 14 nonattainment-deferred areas implemented a range of state and local measures, spanning from
as few as four in Denver, Colorado23 to as many as 35 in Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, South
Carolina (Appalachian Area). In the 14 areas, the number of local measures that were implemented
ranged from zero in Denver, Colorado to as many as 35 in the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, South
Carolina (Appalachian Area). Across all 14 nonattainment-deferred EAC Program areas, 258 state and
local measures were implemented. (See Table 3-2 and Appendix B, Tables B-5 to B-25.)
All 14 of the nonattainment-deferred areas implemented state and local measures that had estimated
emissions reductions associated with them. Of the local measures, the percentage that had quantified
emissions reductions associated with them ranged from zero percent in Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort
Collins-Loveland, Colorado that had no local measures to 100 percent in Berkeley and Jefferson
Counties, West Virginia. Five of the 14 areas had one percent or less of quantified NOX and VOC
emissions from local measures. Four of the 14 nonattainment-deferred areas had 10 percent or greater
of their quantified NOX and VOC emissions from local measures. Six areas had 10 percent or greater
of their quantified NOX and VOC emissions from state measures. All 14 areas had 35 percent or more
of their quantified NOX and VOC emissions from Federal measures, while twelve areas had 50 percent
or more and 8 areas had 80 percent or more. The 14 nonattainment-deferred areas relied largely on
state and national measures for their modeled attainment demonstrations.
23 These were State of Colorado, federally-enforceable measures adopted as rule revisions, resulting in permanent emissions
reductions of 58,765 tons per year of VOC and 6,935 tons per year of NOX (see Appendix B, Table B-8).
41
-------
Table 3-3 contains a list of the eight local EAC measures in the four of the 14 nonattainment-deferred
area SIPs that individually contributed 5 percent or greater of their quantified NOX and VOC emissions
reductions to their respective SIPs.
Measures Implemented in Attainment EAC Program Areas
The six attainment areas included in the study implemented a range of state and local measures,
spanning from as few as one in Tulsa, Oklahoma to as many as 44 in Lower Savannah-Augusta, South
Carolina-Georgia. In four of the six areas, the number of local measures that were implemented ranged
from zero in Mountain Area of Western North Carolina (Asheville) to 42 in Lower Savannah-Augusta,
South Carolina-Georgia. Across all six attainment EAC Program areas, 130 state and local measures
were implemented. (See Table 3-2 and Appendix B, Tables B-5 to B-25.)
Four of the six attainment areas included in the study implemented measures that had emission
reductions associated with them. Of the local measures, the percentage that had quantified emissions
reductions associated with them ranged from zero percent for Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester, South
Carolina and Mountain Area of Western North Carolina (Asheville) to 100 percent for Tulsa,
Oklahoma. One of five of the six attainment areas included in the study had 21 percent of its quantified
NOX and VOC emission reductions from local measures, while the remainder had two percent or less.
These five had 4 percent or less of their quantified NOX and VOC emission reductions from state
measures. Of four of the six attainment areas included in the study, one had 78 percent of its quantified
NOX and VOC emission reductions from national measures, while the remainder had 96 percent or
more. The six attainment areas included in the study relied largely on estimated NOX and VOC
emissions reductions from state and national measures for their modeled attainment demonstrations.
Table 3-4 contains a list of the three local EAC measures in two of the six attainment EAC area SIPs
that individually contributed five percent or greater of their quantified NOX and VOC emissions
reductions to their respective SIPs.
42
-------
Table 3-2: Summary of Control Measure Emission Reduction Study Information
Geographic Area
Number of
Measures
Implemented
Local
State
Emission Reductions
Percentage of
Local Measures
Quantified
Percentage of Estimated Quantified NOX and VOC
Emissions From:
Local Measures
State
Measures
National
(Federal)
Measures
Of the Quantified NOX and
VOC Emissions,
Percentage From State or
National Measures that
Were Modeled
Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas
Berkeley and Jefferson Counties,
West Virginia
Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia
Columbia, South Carolina
(Central Midlands Area)
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort
Collins-Loveland, Colorado
Fayetteville, North Carolina
(Cumberland County)
Frederick County, Virginia
Greensboro-Winston Salem-
High Point, North Carolina
(Triad Area)
Greenville-Spartanburg-
Anderson, South Carolina
(Appalachian Area)
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir,
North Carolina (Unifour Area)
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol,
Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee
Roanoke, Virginia
San Antonio, Texas
Washington County, Maryland
(Hagerstown)
7
14
27
0
24
7
27
35
12
2
11
24
10
12
0
6
2
4
2
3
2
0
3
5
4
5
3
7
100%
57%
37%
0%
17%
57%
41%
20%
33%
50%
100%
46%
70%
83%
65%
9%
13%
0%
4%
10%
1%
24%
0%
1%
4%
3%
9%
1%
0%
18%
0%
54%
8%
7%
2%
0%
5%
10%
3%
16%
38%
32%
35%
73%*
87%
46%*
88%
83%
97%
77%
95%
89%
93%*
81%
52%
66%
35%
91%
87%
100%
96%
89%
99%
77%
99%
99%
96%
98%
91%
82%
43
-------
Table 3-2: Summary of Control Measure Emission Reduction Study Information
Geographic Area
Number of
Measures
Implemented
Local
State
Emission Reductions
Percentage of
Local Measures
Quantified
Percentage of Estimated Quantified NOX and VOC
Emissions From:
Local Measures
State
Measures
National
(Federal)
Measures
Of the Quantified NOX and
VOC Emissions,
Percentage From State or
National Measures that
Were Modeled
Attainment EAC Program Areas
Austin, Texas
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester,
South Carolina
Mountain Area of Western North
Carolina (Asheville)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Lower Savannah-Augusta, South
Carolina-Georgia
Tulsa, Oklahoma
39
39
0
3
42
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
21%
0%
0%
66%
2%
100%
21%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
4%
0%
78%
Insufficient data
96%
100%
79%
100%
100%
100%
Insufficient data
4%
0%
96%
96%
*The estimates of the percentage contributions of national (Federal) measures are higher than they should be because they reflect
emissions reductions for one state measure for each area that the study was unable to subtract out due to insufficient information. See
Appendix C for more details.
44
-------
Table 3-3: Four Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas with Five
Percent or Greater of Quantified NOX and VOC Emissions Reductions
from Eight Individual Local Measures
Nonattainment-Deferred
EAC Program Area
Berkeley and Jefferson
Counties, West Virginia
Columbia, South Carolina
(Central Midlands Area)
Greenville-Spartanburg-
Anderson, South Carolina
(Appalachian Area)
San Antonio, Texas
Local Measure
Ozone action day program
Public awareness program
Bicycle/pedestrian measures
Voluntary -ground freight industry
Reduce NOx emissions from South Carolina
Electric and Gas - 2 coal fired boilers
Develop stakeholder group - regulatory
development
Transco (gas pipeline company) - early
implementation of Phase 2 emission
reductions
Reduced Stage I vapor recovery exemption
level from 125k gal/mo to 25k gal/mo
Percent of Quantified
NOX and VOC
Emissions Reductions
17%
26%
5%
14%
11%
14%
5%
6%
Table 3-4: Two Attainment EAC Program Areas with Five Percent or Greater of
Quantified NOX and VOC Emissions Reductions from Three Individual Local Measures
Nonattainment-
Deferred EAC
Program Area
Austin, Texas
Lower Savannah-
Augusta, South Carolina-
Georgia
Local Measure
I/M Onboard Diagnostics & Low Income
Repair Program
Degreasing controls
Open burning ban -ozone season (Georgia)
Percent of Quantified NOX
and VOC Emissions
Reductions
6%
5%
Insufficient data*
*Using the data the study had available, this percentage is 48 percent. However, due to
insufficient data for this area, the study could not include a complete quantification of
the emission reductions benefitting the area in this report. Therefore, the 48 percent
overstates the measure's contribution and would be lower if we had more complete
information on emission reductions.
Control Measure Emissions Reductions in Perspective
For the 20 EAC Program areas included in the study, the study compared quantified NOX emissions
reduction estimates for local measures to (1) 2002 NOX emissions in the area, (2) 2002 NOX emissions
in the state in which the area is located, and (3) the emission reduction achieved in that state through the
NOX SIP call. For 17 of the 20 areas the ratio of the emissions for all three of these comparisons
represented five percent or less (See Table B-26, Appendix B). The three areas for which one or more
of the ratios is above five percent are:
45
-------
Berkeley and Jefferson Counties, West Virginia;
Columbia, South Carolina (Central Midlands Area); and
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, South Carolina (Appalachian Area).
For 15 of the 20 areas the NOX emissions reductions for local measures represent 2.5 percent or less
than the respective point of comparison. The two areas with one or more comparisons between 2.5 and
5 percent are:
Austin, Texas and
Frederick County, Virginia.
The study also compared quantified VOC emissions reduction estimates for local measures to 2002
VOC emissions in the area and in the state in which the area is located. For 18 of the 20 areas the ratio
of the emissions for the two comparisons represented five percent or less. The two areas for which one
or both of the ratios is above five percent are:
Austin, Texas and
Berkeley and Jefferson Counties, West Virginia.
For 15 of the 20 areas, the VOC emission reductions for local measures represented two and a half
percent or less. The three areas with one or more comparisons between 2.5 and 5 percent are:
Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia;
Frederick County, Virginia; and
San Antonio, Texas.
Control Measure Implementation
According to the EAC progress reports and SJPs, all measures committed to by the states in the 20 areas
included in the study but 14 were implemented by December 2005.24 The 14 measures not
implemented by December 2005 are listed in Table 3-5 and are also included in Appendix B, Tables B-
5 to B-25. The 14 measures represent 4 percent of the total 388 state and local measures implemented
for the 20 areas included in the study with seven in nonattainment-deferred areas and seven in
attainment areas. As Table 3-5 indicates, seven of the 14 measures were implemented after 2005. Only
one of the measures was modeled in an area attainment demonstration.
24 For purposes of EAC measures, implementation meant that areas committed, at a minimum, to begin implementing
measures no later than December 2005. Considering the variety of programs and technologies adopted into the SIPs, EPA
recognized that certain measures required phased implementation on a specific schedule and that all of those activities were
not expected to occur by December 2005.
46
-------
Table 3-5: EAC Program Area Measures Not Implemented by December 2005
EAC Program
Area
Control Measure
State or
National
Measure?
Implementation
Date
Emissions
Reductions
Quantified
Measure
Modeled?
Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas
Chattanooga, TN-
Georgia
Denver, Colorado
Greenville-
Spartanburg-
Anderson, South
Carolina
(Appalachian Area)
Roanoke, Virginia
Accelerated
replacement of on-
road vehicles
Reduce flash VOC
emissions from
condensate
collection at various
natural gas facilities
Encourage
community schools
Improve landscape
at county facilities
School bus retrofits
Ethanol alternative
fuel vehicles
Biodiesel ready
trucks
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
2006*
December 31,
2007
Insufficient
information to
determine date
Insufficient
information to
determine date
2006
2007
2007
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Attainment EAC Program Areas
Austin, Texas
Berkeley-
Charleston-
Dorchester, South
Carolina
Lower Savannah-
Augusta, South
Carolina-Georgia
Power Plant
Reductions-
enforceable
commitments by
area power plants
Educational
programs
Schools-add
sidewalks, increase
bus usage; restrict
vehicle idle times
Educate public -
festivals, lecturer,
brochure
Seek information on
alternative fuels
Replace vehicles
with latest emission
reduction vehicles
Install Intelligent
Transportation
Systems equipment
along major routes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
December 31,
2006
Insufficient
information to
determine date
Insufficient
information to
determine date
Insufficient
information to
determine date
Insufficient
information to
determine date
Insufficient
information to
determine date
Post 2007**
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
47
-------
*While this measure was implemented in 2006, as approved by the SIP, procedures were in place in
2005 to accelerate replacement of non-road vehicles. Actual replacement occurred in 2006.
**A master plan for this area was completed in May 2002 that contained plans to install Intelligent
Transportation Systems equipment along major routes. When EPA approved the SIP in 2004, the
equipment installations were not expected until post 2007.
Non-Ozone Air Quality Benefits
The study lacked data regarding non-ozone air quality benefits so these benefits were not quantified.
However, according to 12 of the individuals consulted EAC Program activities directly generated
environmental benefits in addition to ozone reduction. Seven of the individuals consulted stated that
the EAC Program has reduced PM2.5 (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers) through such programs as alternative fuels, open burning bans, freight partnership, diesel
and school bus retrofits, and idling reduction. The EAC Program has also led to efforts to reduce PM2.5
that are underway in three additional areas. In addition, EAC Program activities are also responsible
for generating reductions in air toxics, NOX, and VOCs.
Air Quality Modeling for EAC SIPs
The study reviewed the SIP modeling demonstrations to determine whether the air quality modeling
predicted attainment with or without the local EAC measures. The attainment demonstrations did rely
largely on state and national measures for their attainment demonstrations and not local measures.
The study addressed whether the modeling could provide any insight into what degree "local" EAC
measures contributed to any improvements in air quality in EAC Program areas. Because the states for
the most part did not include local measures in their modeling, the study determined that the only
reliable way to quantify the air quality impacts of EAC local measures would be to model the
incremental contribution of those measures. The study did not possess the resources to perform that
modeling and, thus, could not reliably answer that question.
For the question of how the air quality improvements projected in the state's EAC modeling compare to
the observed air quality improvements, actual 2007 air quality data (on an 8-hour DV basis) was
compared to predicted 2007 air quality data, based on air quality modeling in the EAC SIPs. Eighty-
five percent of the EAC Program areas that were included in the study predicted better or the same air
quality for 2007 as was observed, as shown in Table 3-6. In projecting from their base years to 2007,
the state-submitted EAC modeling projections had an average error of about 0.003 ppm. Where the
model projections deviated from what was observed, the eventual air quality tended to be cleaner than
what was predicted; that is, the modeling projections tended to be conservative (average projection bias
was 0.0014 ppm). Where the model projections overestimated the amount of air quality improvement,
the areas still came into attainment in 2005-2007, although in some cases only by very small amounts
(e.g., Nashville predicted 0.082 ppm, actual was 0.084 ppm). Overall, the level of ozone improvement
anticipated was achieved.
48
-------
Table 3-6: Comparison of Projected Air Quality Improvements Projected by EAC SIP Modeling
to Monitored Air Quality Measured as 8-hour Ozone Concentrations,
From 2001-2003 to 2005-2007,14 Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas
and Six Attainment EAC Program Areas
EAC Program Area
2007 SIP
Predicted
DV (ppm)
Observed ZOOS-
ZOO?
DV (ppm)
Observed Air
Quality Cleaner
Than Predicted?*
Nonattainment-Deferred EAC Program Areas
Berkeley and Jefferson Counties,
West Virginia
Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia
Columbia, South Carolina
(Central Midlands Area)
Denver-B oulder-Greeley-Fort
Collins-Loveland, Colorado
Fayetteville, North Carolina
(Cumberland County)
Frederick County, Virginia
Greensboro-Winston Salem-
High Point, North Carolina
(Triad Area)
Greenville-Spartanburg-
Anderson, South Carolina
(Appalachian Area)
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir,
North Carolina (Unifour Area)
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol,
Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee
Roanoke, Virginia
San Antonio, Texas
Washington County, Maryland
(Hagerstown)
0.082
0.084
0.080
0.085
0.078
0.082
0.084
0.084
0.075
0.084
0.082
0.080
0.084
0.081
0.075
0.084
0.082
0.085
0.082
0.073
0.083
0.083
0.078
0.083
0.084
0.076
0.082
0.079
Yes
Same
Same
Same
No
Yes
Same
Same
No
Same
Same
Yes
Same
Same
Attainment EAC Program Areas
Austin, Texas
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester,
South Carolina
Mountain Area of Western
North Carolina (Asheville)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Lower Savannah- Augusta, South
Carolina-Georgia
Tulsa, Oklahoma
0.083
0.071
0.077
0.080
0.077
0.084
0.080
0.074
0.079
0.080
0.067
0.080
Yes
No
Same
Same
Yes
Yes
Source: AQS and EAC SIPs
*Assume "same" if observed and predicted values are within 0.002 ppm or "yes" or "no" if
difference is greater than 0.002 ppm.
49
-------
Growth-Related Aspects of the Study
All but one of the 14 nonattainment-deferred areas - Fayetteville, North Carolina (Cumberland County)
- had population growth from 2002 to 2006 during EAC Program implementation. Two of the
nonattainment-deferred areas experienced a greater than 10 percent increase. Seven of the 14 areas
experienced estimated growth for the period equal to or greater than the rest of the state in which the
area is located, the region in which it is located, and the U.S. as a whole. All of the six attainment areas
experienced population growth from 2002 to 2006. Four of the attainment areas experienced a five
percent or greater increase. Two of the areas experienced estimated population growth for the period
equal to or greater than the rest of the state in which the area is located, the region in which it is located,
and the U.S. as a whole.
All but two of the 14 nonattainment-deferred areas - Berkeley and Jefferson Counties, West Virginia
and Frederick County, Virginia - were estimated to have experienced VMT growth from 2002 to 2006
during EAC Program implementation. Three of the areas experienced a greater than 10 percent
increase. Three of the 14 areas experienced estimated growth for the period equal to or greater than the
rest of the state in which the area is located, the region in which it is located and the U.S. as a whole.
All of the six attainment areas experienced VMT growth from 2002 to 2006. Three experienced a nine
percent or greater increase. Three of the areas experienced estimated VMT growth for the period equal
to or greater than the rest of the state in which the area is located, the region in which it is located and
the U.S. as a whole. (See Figure 3-3 and Appendix B, Tables B-27 to B-30.)
The percentage changes in Figure 3-3 for the South and the West consist of the following states:
Western States
Alaska;
Arizona;
California;
Colorado;
Idaho;
Montana;
Southern States
Alabama;
Arkansas;
Delaware;
District of Columbia;
Florida;
Georgia;
Kentucky;
Texas;
Virginia;
West Virginia;
Nevada;
New Mexico;
Oregon;
Utah;
Washington; and
Wyoming.
Louisiana;
Maryland;
Mississippi;
North Carolina;
Oklahoma;
South Carolina; and
Tennessee.
50
-------
Figure 3-4: Percentage Change in Population and VMT from 2002 to 2006 for
20 EAC Program Areas, the U.S. and the South and West
B<
E
Columbia, Sou
Denver-Bou
Fa
Greensboro-Winstor
eenville-Spartanburc
Hickory- M
Moun
jrkeley and ,
erkeley-Cha
th Carolina (
der-Greeley
yetteville, N(
1
Salem- High
l-Anderson,
organton-Le
Johnson Ci
tain Area of
Washingto
Un
Jefferson Co
rleston-Dorc
Chattanoo
Central Midi
-Fort Collins
) (Cumberla
n rGQG
Point, NC (1
SC (Appalac
noir, NC (Un
ty-Kingsport
Western NC
Na
Oklahorr
Re
San f
Savanr
i Co (Hager
South
West
ited States
Austin, TX
intio"1 WV
hester, SC
ga, TN-GA
inds Area)
Love., CO
IU OUUlllffi
iick Go, VA
riad Area)
hian Area)
ifour Area)
Bristol, TN
(Asheville)
shville, TN
a City, OK
anoke, VA
jitonio, TX
lah SC/GA
Tulsa, OK
Jtown), MD
1 1
i
i
I
1
i
I
i
i
i
|
i
i
i
i
I
1
1
1
^^^^^B
! '
1
1
1
! '
|
1
1
|
1
Percentage Change VMT 2002 to 2006
D Percentage Change Population 2002 to 2006
|
1
1
1
1
|
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
51
-------
Program Design Aspects of the Study
The study produced quantitative information in one area regarding program design: other aspects of the
EAC Program related to EPA resources. The methodology and information from the study of the EPA
resource estimates for the EAC Program versus the traditional approach are summarized in Table 3-7
(and described in detail in Table B-31). These are estimates made after completion of the EAC
program, as resources expended on the program were not specifically tracked during its
implementation.
Table 3-7 indicates that the study estimate for FTE to implement the EAC Program is 23.8. Table 3-7
also indicates that the study estimate for FTE to implement the traditional approach for the EAC areas
is 24.6 to 57.3. The FTE estimates for implementation of a hypothetical traditional approach vary
because of the differences across the regions in the FTE estimates for implementation of such an
approach. Based on these estimates, since 23.8 and 24.6 are roughly comparable and 57.3 is well above
those two numbers, the study information indicate that the EAC Program is as resource intensive (or
less, depending on the EPA region) as a hypothetical traditional program for FTE.
Table 3-7 indicates that the study estimate for Federal Register actions to implement the EAC Program
is 55. Table 3-7 also indicates that the study estimate for Federal Register actions to implement the
traditional approach for the EAC areas is 28 to 46. The reason for the variability in the Federal Register
actions for implementation of a hypothetical traditional approach is because of the variability across the
regions in the estimates of the implementation of such an approach. According to these estimates,
because 55 exceeds 46, the EAC Program is more resource intensive for Federal Register actions than
the hypothetical traditional program. This is due partly to the fact that the EAC Program necessitated
that EPA headquarters issue a number of Federal Register notices.
The estimates in Table 3-7 also indicate that the EAC Program is less resource intensive for Federal
Register cost than the traditional program. This is due to the fact that the EAC Program's Federal
Register actions were shorter than those of the traditional approach, despite being more numerous.
Table 3-7: EPA Resource Estimates for the EAC Program versus the Traditional Approach
Resource
FTE
Number of EPA Federal Register
Actions (pages)
Federal Register Cost*
Traditional Approach
24.6 to 57.3
28 actions (715 pages) to 46
actions (1,085 pages)
$349,635 to $530,565
EAC Program
23.8
55 actions (561 pages)
$274,329
Source: EPA headquarters and regional office Staff estimates made retrospectively after the
EAC Program ended, not during the EAC Program.
*Assumes current Federal Register of $489/page.
3.1.2 Qualitative Information
The study produced qualitative information for both the environmental and program design aspects of
the study.
52
-------
Qualitative Information for Environmental Aspects of the Study
The study produced information in one area: growth-related aspects of the study. Specifically, the
discussion of study information in this area covers NSR Program activity and Conformity Program
applicability.
NSR Program Activity
There are fundamental limitations to the ability to do a full quantitative analysis of the environmental
benefits, or loss of opportunity for benefits, from Nonattainment NSR Program requirements due to
implementing an EAC versus a traditional program. An analysis of this type would rely upon the
ability to estimate the effects that the Nonattainment NSR Program would be expected to have on
emissions over time, and compare that to the effects that occur absent the Nonattainment NSR Program.
Although the study had available some limited information about some permit actions in some EAC
areas, it cannot quantify, with a reasonable level of specificity, the differences in emissions for a given
pollutant or pollutants, if any, that result from Nonattainment NSR Program requirements not being in
place for EAC areas since it is not known:
Whether a given project that went forward in the EAC area would have gone forward in the
nonattainment area;
If the Nonattainment NSR Program would create incentives for sources to relocate outside the
nonattainment area, or to redesign or resize projects to avoid the Nonattainment NSR Program;
and
What the outcome of a nonattainment permitting process would have been (i.e., would the
control technology determination have been different under Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
(LAER) than under Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and from where would the
offsets have come).
Because of these and other difficulties, it is very difficult to model the likely changes in emissions or air
quality that could have occurred as a result of Nonattainment NSR Program requirements being in
place. Therefore, the study considered qualitative observations more appropriate when looking at EAC
programs and the potential emissions that may have been averted if Nonattainment NSR Program
requirements had been in place in these areas. Nonetheless, specific permit information can provide a
useful supplement to these conclusions when data is available. For that reason, the study provides the
information below. However, the study is not able to make a quantitative estimate based on this
information. While the Nonattainment NSR Program requirements have more stringent requirements in
many cases, EPA cannot assume a direct comparison between hypothetical Nonattainment NSR
Program and what actually occurred (i.e., between hypothetical LAER and actual BACT, or
hypothetical major NSR Program and actual minor NSR Program) for these individual sources is valid.
The study identified two categories of NSR Program permitting activity in the 14 nonattainment
deferred areas:
Projects where the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program applied (projected
emissions greater than either 250 tons per year or a PSD emissions significance rate) and the
Nonattainment NSR Program may have applied because the projected emissions exceeded 100
tons per year (Category 1); and
53
-------
Projects that were not subject to the PSD Program (projected emissions less than 250 tons per
year) but the Nonattainment NSR Program may have applied because either the projected
emissions exceeded 100 tons per year or met another Nonattainment NSR Program emissions
applicability test (Category 2).
The study addressed permitting activity from June 15, 2004 until April 15, 2008 by consulting with
EPA regional and, where appropriate, state permitting staff. In five of the 14 areas the study found that
there was no new source activity that triggered the PSD program requirements or that would have
triggered the CAA's Nonattainment NSR Program requirements had the areas been designated
nonattainment. The areas are:
Berkeley and Jefferson Counties, West Virginia;
Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Love, Colorado;
Frederick County, Virginia;
Nashville, Tennessee; and
Roanoke, Virginia.
Four of the 14 areas had eight new source permitting actions under Category One (plus one application
submitted) in which the applicant was subject to the PSD Program but may have been subject to the
Nonattainment NSR Program instead had the areas been designated nonattainment. The areas (and the
associated activity) are:
Columbia, South Carolina (Central Midlands Area)
o Lexington County
Permit issued in 2007 - Michelin Corporation - major PSD Program source for
VOC - increased VOC emissions by 110.9 tons per year, exceeding the PSD
Program significance rates for VOCs of 40 tons per year;
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, North Carolina (Triad Area);
o Forsyth County
Permit issued in 2005 - R.J. Reynolds - major PSD Program source for VOC -
increased VOC emissions by 3,495 tons per year, exceeding the PSD Program
significance rates for NOX of 40 tons per year;
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, South Carolina (Appalachian Area)
o Anderson County
Permit issued in 2005 - Santee Cooper - major PSD Program source for NOX -
increased NOX emissions by 217.2 tons per year, exceeding the PSD Program
significance rates for NOX of 40 tons per year
Permit issued in 2006 - Duke Energy Corporation - major PSD Program source
for NOX - increased NOX emissions by 84.1 tons per year, exceeding the PSD
Program significance rates for NOX of 40 tons per year
o Greenville County
Permit issued in 2007 - Michelin Corporation - major PSD Program source for
VOC - increased VOC emissions by 260 tons per year, exceeding the PSD
Program significance rates for VOCs of 40 tons per year; and
54
-------
San Antonio, Texas
o Bexar County
2004 permit issued - Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Texas - major PSD
Program source of VOC - increased VOC emissions by 75.6 tons per year,
exceeding PSD Program significant rates for VOC of 40 tons per year
2005 permit issued - City Public Service Spruce Power Unit No. 2- new major
PSD Program source - increased NOX emissions by 1,752 tons per year,
exceeding PSD Program major source threshold for NOX of 250 tons per year
o Comal County
2006 application submitted - Chemical Lime No. 1 - proposed NOX increase of
711 tons per year - permit not issued to date
2007 permit issued - TXI Operations, Hunter Plant - new major PSD Program
source - increased NOX emissions by 1,224 tons per year, exceeding PSD
Program major source threshold for NOX of 250 tons per year.
Two of the 14 areas had three new source permitting actions under Category Two in which the
applicant was not subject to the PSD Program but may have been subject to the Nonattainment NSR
Program had the areas been designated nonattainment. The areas are:
Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia
o Hamilton County
2005 permit issued - Caraustar Mill Group, Inc. (d/b/a Chattanooga
Paperboard) - major Nonattainment NSR Program source of NOX - increased
NO2 by 145.69 tons per year, which would have exceeded Nonattainment
NSR Program major source threshold for NOX of 100 tons per year
2005 permit issued - Aerisyn LLC - major Nonattainment NSR Program
source of VOC - increased VOC emissions by 120 tons per year, which
would have exceeded Nonattainment NSR Program major source threshold
for NOX of 100 tons per year; and
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, Tennessee
o Sullivan County
2005 permit issued - Aurora Hardwoods, Inc. - major Nonattainment NSR
Program source of VOC - increased VOC emissions by 249.9 tons per year,
exceeding Nonattainment NSR Program major source threshold for VOCs of
100 tons per year.
For six of the 14 areas the study lacked sufficient information to determine whether there was any
activity under Category Two:
Columbia, South Carolina (Central Midlands Area);
Fayetteville, North Carolina (Cumberland County);
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, North Carolina (Triad Area);
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, South Carolina (Appalachian Area);
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina (Unifour Area); and
San Antonio, Texas.
55
-------
For Washington County, Maryland (Hagerstown), no activity in Categories 1 and 2 were identified as
they would have not been subject to the Nonattainment NSR Program because Maryland is in the
Ozone Transport Commission and would have had to meet NSR Program requirements regardless of
participation in the EAC Program because it is treated as a moderate nonattainment area for NSR
Program purposes.
Conformity Program Applicability
Although they were participating in the EAC Program, six of the 14 nonattainment-deferred EAC
Program areas were subject to the CAA Conformity Program requirement during the EAC Program
(from June 14 2004 to April 15, 2008) for pollutants other than the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Those
pollutants were: the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the PMio NAAQS, the PM2.5 NAAQS and the carbon
monoxide NAAQS. Table 3-8 provides information on each area's Conformity Program status.
Federal actions in these areas may also have been subject to the environmental review process under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which has some overlap with the Conformity Program for
certain analyses. The NEPA requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their
decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and
reasonable alternatives to those actions.2
Table 3-8: Conformity Program Status of Nonattainment-Deferred EAC
Program Areas during Implementation of EAC Program
Nonattainment-Deferred EAC
Program Areas
Berkeley and Jefferson Counties,
West Virginia
Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia
Columbia, South Carolina
(Central Midlands Area)
Denver-B oulder-Greeley-Fort
Collins -Loveland, Colorado
Fayetteville, North Carolina
(Cumberland County)
Frederick County, Virginia
Greensboro-Winston Salem-High
Point, North Carolina (Triad Area)
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson,
South Carolina (Appalachian
Area)
Was the Conformity
Program in Effect for
At Least Part of EAC
Program
Implementation?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
What NAAQS Pollutant(s)?
Not applicable
PM2.5 NAAQS because area designated nonattainment for
PM2.5 (effective April 5, 2005)
Not applicable
1-hour ozone NAAQS (approved maintenance plan in place
with budgets for NOX and VOCs)
PM10 NAAQS (approved maintenance plan in place with
budgets for PMi0 and NOX)
Carbon Monoxide NAAQS (approved maintenance plan in
place with budget for Colorado)
Not applicable
Not applicable
1-hour ozone NAAQS (to be revoked after April 15, 2009)
PM2.5 NAAQS because area designated nonattainment for
PM2.5 (effective April 5, 2005)
Not applicable
25
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/index.html
56
-------
Nonattainment-Deferred EAC
Program Areas
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North
Carolina (Unifour Area)
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol,
Tennessee
Nashville, Tennessee
Roanoke, Virginia
San Antonio, Texas
Washington County, Maryland
(Hagerstown)
Was the Conformity
Program in Effect for
At Least Part of EAC
Program
Implementation?
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
What NAAQS Pollutant(s)?
PM2.5 NAAQS because area designated nonattainment for
PM2.5 (effective April 5, 2005)
Not applicable
1-hour ozone NAAQS (will be revoked after April 15,
2009)
Not applicable
Not applicable
PM2.5 NAAQS because area designated nonattainment for
PM2.5 (effective April 5, 2005)
Source: EPA regional office Conformity Program staff.
Qualitative Information for Program Design Aspects of the Study
The study produced information in four areas:
Efficiency of EAC Program;
Longer term impact;
Outreach and stakeholder interaction; and
Other aspects of the program.
Efficiency of EAC Program
Ten of the state and local agency officials consulted believe the EAC Program model is a more efficient
way to deliver clean air than the traditional nonattainment designation approach. The EAC Program is
considered by the individuals consulted to be more efficient because it is thought to generate cleaner air
quicker than the traditional approach. EAC Program areas are perceived to have an incentive to address
air quality issues earlier than they would otherwise. Individuals consulted believe that is why
participants preferred to take a proactive approach rather than a retroactive response to air quality
problems in their areas.
In addition, the individuals consulted believe the traditional nonattainment approach can create
resentment between states and localities. States bear criticism for administering the mandatory
measures required under nonattainment designation. The individuals consulted observed that local
stakeholders preferred to have some control over the types of measures that would be applied in their
areas. Also, localities are not believed to make an effort to improve air quality if they think that the
area will be designated nonattainment anyway.
Most importantly, the individuals consulted expressed the view that the EAC Program establishes better
working relationships between states and local stakeholders than occur in the traditional approach. As a
result, stakeholders appeared to focus better on developing and implementing control measures. They
also developed ownership of the air quality issues in their community. These factors contributed to the
perceived efficiency of the program.
The majority of the individuals consulted would like EPA to establish an EAC-type program for the
2008 ozone standard. The reasons for wanting to participate in another EAC Program, include:
57
-------
Strong incentives to come into attainment;
Ability to build on lessons learned during the first EAC experience;
Positive collaboration with educated stakeholders; and
Need to obtain emissions reductions from local measures.
Five of the individuals consulted believed that the efficiency of the EAC Program model depends on
the circumstances of individual programs. First, they regard the EAC Program to be a more efficient
method for improving air quality for areas that are relatively close to the standard. In these situations, a
few local measures, coupled with state, regional, and national programs, are all that is needed to bring
the area into attainment. But, the EAC Program is not considered to be the right approach for areas
further from the standard that need more measures to reach attainment. Second, the individuals
consulted stated that the efficiency of the EAC Program model must be studied on an area-by area
basis. They found that the extent of local involvement in a program has a major influence on the
efficiency of an EAC Program. Local measures may be more efficient in concept but will not work if
stakeholders are not engaged in the process.
One local agency could not determine whether the EAC Program is more efficient because it had never
participated in the traditional approach. However, it believed the EAC Program did speed up the pace
of emissions reductions in the area. Local stakeholders attempted to clean up the air as quickly as
possible.
One individual consulted stated that the EAC Program is not more or less efficient than the traditional
approach. Even so, the agency believed the EAC Program did produce benefits. The EAC Program's
collaborative approach did make the program effective. The public also became aware that it could
play a role in improving air quality.
One state agency noted that the EAC Program produced positive and negative impacts. The EAC
generated the following positive impacts: additional funding for ozone modeling; better outreach on
ozone action days; and, greater public air quality awareness. On the negative side, the agency became
frustrated with the procrastination of local areas in submitting required data for the state to complete
EAC progress reports to EPA.
A state agency implementing the traditional approach did not believe it was a more efficient approach
in a nonattainment area. The traditional approach did not generate support for environmental measures.
Conversely, the agency believed the EAC approach would have helped to change attitudes and generate
local support in the area. The CAA is considered to be punitive because the agency had to obtain
unnecessary VOC reductions under the traditional approach.
A local agency participating in the traditional approach in this state could not compare the two
approaches because it is not familiar with the EAC process. But, it noted that the redesignation process
takes a very long time under the traditional approach. The agency believed that shortening this time
period would greatly benefit local areas.
Rather than follow the traditional approach, five areas in another state decided to pursue voluntary
EAC-type activities. The state agency administering this program believed the traditional model is a
less efficient method of improving air quality. This is due to the restrictive nature of the traditional
58
-------
program. The agency believed that the EAC Program provided areas with the opportunity to utilize
control measures that work best for local conditions without imposing the regulatory burden. The
collaborative dialogue among participants provided for a more efficient method of reaching attainment
status. In addition, the agency believed that the selection criteria made the EAC a more efficient
approach than the traditional model because only areas that are likely to succeed are accepted into the
program.
EAC Program Resources versus Traditional Approach
Six of the individuals consulted believed that local areas spent more resources in the EAC Program than
they would have in the traditional program. This is because local stakeholders would not have been as
involved in the traditional method. The individuals consulted noted that industry would likely have
been the only stakeholder involved in the traditional process.
Four of the individuals consulted stated that the EAC Program did cost more time and resources
initially. However, they believed that the benefits from the EAC Program outweighed the costs by:
Saving resources in the long run;
Developing control measures that accommodate economic growth;
Developing good will among stakeholders;
Providing local control over program activities; and
Avoiding nonattainment status.
One of these individuals consulted did comment, however, that comparing resource expenditures is not
an appropriate method to study the EAC Program. The benefits of participating in the EAC were
considered to have outweighed the costs.
Five of the individuals consulted found it difficult to compare resource allocations under the two
different approaches. One state agency reportedly saved money and staff time while planning the EAC
Program but still had to allocate resources to SIP development. Another state agency believed that the
EAC Program approach required fewer resources at the state level than would be needed to conduct
rulemaking for a traditional SIP. However, it noted that the EAC Program required more resources at
the local level to engage stakeholders.
An agency in a different state noted that its EAC effort required more work and resource allocation up
front. However, it believed that the traditional approach would have required more state resources over
time. This is because local areas were more willing to contribute resources in the EAC approach
because they had greater responsibility for the program. In comparison, nonattainment areas had to rely
more heavily on the state for resources. So, the agency found it difficult to say whether one approach
was more costly overall than the other.
An agency in another state reported that staff responsibilities were redirected from technical SIP work
to working with local EAC Program areas. No additional state resources were committed to the EAC
program. In one respect, though, the agency believed that the EAC Program reduced the resource
burden. In its experience, more people became involved in "bureaucratic exercises" in the traditional
nonattainment process. Because the EAC Program did not contain comparable requirements, the
agency found that EAC participants were able to focus resources on implementing "air quality
improvement efforts". The agency considered this a more efficient use of limited resources.
59
-------
Instead of hiring any additional staff for the EAC Program, one County agency also added air quality
duties to the workload of existing staff. It also found that the EAC Program approach did make more
resources available than would have been available through the traditional approach. Local
stakeholders stepped up, took ownership of the program, and tried to implement control measures.
Three of the individuals consulted stated that the EAC Program did not save money or resources over
the traditional approach. One state agency noted that it had to allocate more staff time for the EAC
Program approach. An agency in another state said that additional resources were needed to complete
the EAC requirement for ongoing progress reports. It considered the reporting requirement
burdensome and very similar to the SIP approach.
Two of the individuals consulted stated that EPA needed to provide additional technical assistance and
education for participants to fulfill EAC Program requirements. Three of the individuals consulted
reported that they did not have the funding and/or technical expertise needed to complete modeling
requirements or implement local measures. One state agency pointed out that it could not have
performed the ozone modeling needed for the EAC areas without funding from their State Department
of Transportation. EPA Section 105 funding enabled the state to develop a modeling capability but it
did not provide the capacity to refine the system for the EAC Program Areas. The agency believed that
funding limitations, particularly for technical assistance, may have prevented interested parties from
participating in the EAC Program.
One local agency participating in the traditional approach found the process to be time consuming but a
great learning experience as well. Although it found that more staff time is required in the traditional
approach, the resource burden was not overtaxing. The state agency administrating the traditional
approach noted that this approach required fewer state resources initially to deal with a local
nonattainment area. In contrast, it found that the EAC process required a lot of resources up front but
has long-term benefits.
The local agency participating in a voluntary program rather than the traditional approach stated that the
voluntary measures cost the same as the traditional approach. The resource cost was sizeable but
unavoidable. In general, however, it considered that more local resources would be required for a
locally-driven, EAC-type approach than in the traditional approach. The state agency administering
this voluntary program believed that the resource allocation was burdensome but required by law.
Since modeling would have been required under the traditional approach, the modeling aspect of the
voluntary program was not considered to be more or less burdensome than the traditional model.
Although the voluntary EAC approach cost a little bit more upfront, however, the agency thought it
produced a greater yield of benefits.
EAC Program Flexibility
Fifteen of the individuals consulted believed the EAC Program gave local areas the flexibility to
develop their own approach. According to one state agency, the EAC Program's flexibility created an
intergovernmental dynamic that would not likely have occurred under the traditional approach. This
dynamic is credited with bringing a more willing and receptive response from the local area to the
program. A County agency stated that local flexibility was a strong selling point for bringing a
skeptical community showing resistance to an unknown program. Another state agency believed that
60
-------
the opportunity for flexibility in local decision making was critical for obtaining support for the
program.
The EAC Program areas in two states would have come into attainment through national measures
alone. By participating in the EAC Program, however, the states believed they had the flexibility to
develop control measures that were appropriate for their own areas. For example, an area may have
been interested in pursuing an anti-idling program originally to save fuel. Because the anti-idling
program would also provide air quality benefits, it may have made it easier politically for the area to
implement the program in the context of the EAC Program. In addition, the flexibility of the EAC
Program was considered to have provided an opportunity for local programs to include controversial
measures such as lowering the speed limits for truckers.
One local agency commented that the EAC Program's flexibility allowed localities to focus on specific
industries of interest. As a result, it did not have to spend resources on all sources in the area. A local
agency in another EAC Program area noted that the flexibility provided an opportunity to develop
measures that would be best for each individual source or sources. It believed that the local control
measures adopted in EAC Program areas could not have been mandated by states.
Three of the individuals consulted believe it is possible that the EAC Program may have provided
flexibility to local areas. Although more flexibility may have been available, one state agency
maintained that its EAC Program areas did not take advantage of the added flexibility. A local agency
stated that there was not much it could do at the local level. It believed that whatever emissions
reductions it generated would be a drop in the bucket compared to those coming from all the federal
and state programs.
The local agency and state agency that followed the traditional approach agreed that it does not give
local areas flexibility to develop their own approach. However, the local agency stated that it is
difficult for local areas to develop alternative approaches to complex issues when state government
already has a good approach.
A local agency participating in a voluntary program rather than the traditional approach believed that
the traditional approach does not provide flexibility to local areas. The state agency that administered
this approach noted that the CAA does not provide local flexibility in the traditional approach.
Threat of Nonattainment Designation as Incentive
Sixteen of the individuals consulted stated that the EAC Program would not have succeeded without the
threat of nonattainment designation or without the program being part of the larger SIP effort. They
believed that states and local areas needed motivation to participate in the program. Moreover, EAC
Program participants indicated that they entered the program to avoid the NSR and Conformity
Program requirements of nonattainment designation. They were also concerned about the impact of a
nonattainment designation on economic development. In addition, the individuals consulted thought it
would be difficult to get local stakeholders to participate in the program without the threat of
nonattainment.
Four of the individuals consulted were not certain whether the EAC Program would have succeeded
without the threat of nonattainment. They believed that some areas might have participated under the
right circumstances.
61
-------
One state agency commented that one of its EAC Program Areas would have participated without the
threat of nonattainment because it is a very environmentally-motivated area. The local agency agreed
that it would have participated in the EAC without the threat of nonattainment.
EAC Program Process-Related Goals and Requirements
Based on information contained in the bi-annual progress reports from the 14 nonattainment-deferred
and six attainment areas, all of the areas studied met their progress-related requirements. However, one
attainment area was late with some of their bi-annual progress reports.
Six of the individuals consulted stated that EPA should streamline the EAC biannual reporting process.
They believe that less frequent reporting would have the same or greater value than a biannual exercise.
In addition, EPA is encouraged to develop a simplified reporting process such as: a more quantitative
approach; a standard checklist; or a standard electronic form. However, six other individuals consulted
felt that the reporting requirements were not more burdensome than the traditional approach.
Longer Term Impact
EAC Provision for Longer Term Emission Reductions or Continued Action In The Future
Based on information contained in the progress reports from the 14 nonattainment-deferred and six
attainment areas, these areas have entities that will continue the EAC Program activities beyond April
2008.26
Nineteen of the individuals consulted stated that the EAC Program activities did provide for longer term
emission reductions or create a local "infrastructure" for further or continued action in the future.
Several of the individuals consulted noted that the EAC control measures would remain in place for the
foreseeable future. There are several reasons for this. They include the following:
EAC control measures may have been adopted without expiration dates or are intended to be
permanent;
Control measures that are included in SIPs will remain in effect as long as necessary;
Local areas may value the benefits of air quality measures put in place during the EAC
Program; and
Due to the anti-backsliding provision, it may be necessary to retain EAC Program control
measures to comply with the SIP.
The EAC is credited with creating an infrastructure for continued action in the future. One state agency
reported that air quality is among the elements in the smart growth principles adopted by planning
districts during the EAC Program. These measures have and will continue to remain in place after the
EAC Program. The agency believed it was important that the program was being implemented by
government entities that will remain in place long term.
An agency in another state noted that an EAC Program task force created during the EAC Program's
development and implementation formed a successor group after the program ended. About 80
members attend the regularly scheduled meetings. The new task force has already developed a
26 To clarify, the EAC control measures are part of the SIP and are, therefore, Federally enforceable and are to continue to be
implemented in the future regardless of whether an entity has been designated to continue EAC Program activities.
62
-------
document of control measures for planning agencies in the state. The agency stated that this document
prepared the groundwork for the next ozone standard.
Local areas in another state have indicated they are committed to keeping air quality programs going.
Financial support and the new standard will help keep those commitments alive. One local area, for
example, wants to expand air quality measures beyond ozone to address PM2.5 and greenhouse gases
(GHG). Another community has inquired about funding for woodstove changeout programs. A
different area has developed a website, conducted significant outreach, and committed to funding an air
quality coordinator.
An agency in another state believed that the EAC Program did provide a learning experience. It also is
credited with facilitating inter-state collaboration on air quality issues, particularly PM2.5 emissions.
However, the local EAC Program activities did not provide much capacity for continued action in the
future.
One local agency participating in the traditional approach believed that this approach created a close
working relationship between local stakeholders and the state. The relationship has proven to be
beneficial. In addition, local stakeholders learned from the experience. The state agency administering
this program believed that the EAC approach provided these benefits to a greater extent. It believed the
traditional approach is more short sighted and does not get local long-term emissions reductions.
According to a local agency participating in a voluntary program rather than the traditional approach,
the public received a great deal of information about air quality. This generated an awareness of air
quality issues. The EAC-type activities are credited with generating advocacy for increased bus routes,
especially to outlying areas. The state agency administering this voluntary EAC program noted that
the traditional approach locks in control measures and contingency measures for an extended period of
time. The traditional approach also provides for continued and more concrete control measures. Under
the voluntary approach, however, the agency notes that it created a Clean Air Coalition of regional
stakeholders that continues to function.
EAC Activities and Continued Reductions in Ozone
Sixteen of the individuals consulted believed that EAC Program activities resulted in continued
reductions in ozone and air quality improvement activities/policies that were not foreseen initially as
the EAC Program was implemented. Two of the individuals consulted could not determine at this time
whether unforeseen reductions would continue. Two other individuals consulted reported that EAC
Program activities did not lead to continuing unforeseen air quality benefits.
Four states maintained that the EAC Programs led to the development of policies and projects that
yielded continuing benefits that would not have occurred otherwise. These included:
A school bus anti-idling program;
Increased use of biodiesel;
Alternative modes of transportation;
Carpooling;
Expanded bus routes;
Policies requiring sidewalks and green-spaces;
Local capacity building;
63
-------
Cement kiln voluntary reductions;
Airport reductions;
Lawn mower trade-in programs;
Retrofits for compressor engines; and
A green building program.
In another state, the EAC Program established an atmosphere that helped create alliances to push the oil
and gas industry for emissions reductions. As a result, the EAC Program is credited with generating
large emissions reductions than would not have occurred without the program. The state agency
continues to ask for additional reductions from the oil and gas industry. It plans to ask for more
reductions from the industry in the future as well.
Three local areas reported that the EAC Program provided ongoing unforeseen air quality benefits such
as: a regional ride share website for twenty-two participating counties; an ozone watch/warning system;
greater use of greenways, bikeways and similar measures; closer and more trusting inter-governmental
relationships; and greater public awareness of air quality issues.
A local agency participating in the traditional approach stated that the traditional approach increased
public awareness of air quality issues. It believed that the growing awareness may lead to vehicle
emissions reductions if the public changes personal behavior patterns by driving less or filling up at
appropriate times. The state agency administering this traditional program did not think that there
would be any additional unforeseen reductions.
A local agency participating in a voluntary program rather than the traditional approach did not think
there would be additional unforeseen reductions. Most of the voluntary activities have already
concluded. The agency reported that one criticism of the voluntary approach is that it keeps initial
momentum going but falters once the initial catalyst has been removed. According to the state agency
administering the voluntary EAC program, desulfurization will result in mercury reductions that were
not foreseen. This will help improve mercury-impaired waters.
Outreach and Stakeholder Interaction
EAC Air Quality Task Forces
Based on information contained in the bi-annual progress reports, the 20 areas included in the study did
have air quality task forces except for three of the attainment areas: Mountain Area of Western North
Carolina (Asheville); Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Mountain Area had a
group but it included only government representation. For the areas that had task forces, all had diverse
representation from at least three sectors except for Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia and Nashville,
Tennessee. Chattanooga addressed their task force needs through the public transportation planning
organization, which did not have representation from least three sectors.
Ozone Awareness Outreach
Based on information contained in the bi-annual progress reports from the 14 nonattainment-deferred
and six attainment areas, the 20 areas included in the study did conduct ozone awareness and all but one
- Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia - had a coordinator.
64
-------
Stakeholder Engagement
Seventeen of the individuals consulted stated that the EAC Program did engage local stakeholders in
the program. The diverse range of local stakeholders included local governments, elected officials, the
media, councils of governments, industry, local businesses, utilities, chambers of commerce,
environmentalists, and other organizations. One state agency noted that it had to reach out to
stakeholder groups, which are not customarily involved in air quality issues. Another state agency
maintained that public engagement in the process was the largest benefit of the EAC Program. A local
agency stated that the program generated a greater level of engagement from a wider range of local
stakeholders than found in other issues. Another local agency summarized the importance of engaging
local stakeholders in the process. It stated that, in general, suggestions from local stakeholders are
better received than ideas from government. The EAC is credited with improving the working
relationships between states and local stakeholders. It is believed that the improved relationships and
the flexibility given to local areas provided opportunities to consider measures that would not have been
discussed outside of the EAC Program.
The individuals consulted believed that the EAC Program produced the following additional benefits.
1. Prior to the EAC Program, local stakeholders were considered to have a limited awareness of air
quality issues. Because of the EAC Program, however, elected officials, citizens, and other
local stakeholders became more aware of air quality issues. The increased level of public
awareness may not have occurred under the traditional approach. One state agency noted that
local stakeholders are now discussing air quality issues amongst themselves. It also credited the
EAC Program for creating clean air advocates at the local level.
The EAC also is credited with increasing the involvement of local stakeholders in air quality
issues. Stakeholders had to take part in the initial stages of the program to meet the EAC
schedule. Besides getting involved more quickly, stakeholders also participated in air quality
issues to a greater extent than they would have under the traditional approach.
A local agency noted that citizens now discuss aspects of air quality that they would not have
known about prior to the EAC Program. At stakeholder meetings, for example, citizens are
aware of particulates, the new standards, and other air quality issues. In addition, the public is
aware that personal actions, such as exchanging gas cans and lawn mowers, can improve air
quality.
2. The EAC Program process is credited with strengthening the relationship between states and
local stakeholders. One state agency maintained that its relationship and communication with
local stakeholders was not nearly as strong prior to the EAC Program. Another state agency
acknowledged that it had an outreach program to local areas prior to the EAC Program.
However, the EAC Program enhanced its outreach effort. The EAC generated broad
stakeholder representation in each of the participating areas. As a result, the agency believed
the state's outreach efforts are better now.
One state agency believed that its enhanced relationship with stakeholders has already provided
important benefits. The state legislature must approve all proposed regulations. Before
receiving legislative approval, however, the state has to demonstrate stakeholder support for a
regulation. The agency was able to tighten the open burning ban and NOX reduction regulations.
65
-------
But, the agency stated that it would have not have been able to obtain the stakeholder support
needed to get the regulations passed without the improved relationships from the EAC Program.
3. The EAC Program is credited with creating an infrastructure for stakeholder involvement in
future air quality issues. Seven of the individuals consulted noted that stakeholder groups
remain involved in air quality issues. Three of the stakeholder groups are working with states
on implementation of the PM2.5 standard. One local agency stated that its entire metropolitan
area has been working proactively on PM2.5 issues for the past year. Many of the same people
who were involved in the EAC are now working on PM2.5. The relationships established during
the EAC Program are credited with making collaboration on PM2.5 much easier.
One County agency stated that it could not have afforded to pay for the technical expertise provided by
stakeholders participating in the EAC Program. Technical experts from industry and the state continue
to help the County with EPA guidance, other air quality issues, and community events.
One state agency maintained that the infrastructure developed through the EAC Program will help it
meet the new ozone standard quicker. It plans to do more of the same activities developed during the
EAC Program to meet the new standard. Moreover, the state is very interested in developing the EAC
Program concept. It is exploring whether states and localities can build upon previous programs to
continue the EAC.
Two of the individuals consulted found it difficult to determine whether the EAC Program increased
stakeholder involvement. According to one individual consulted, local stakeholders participated
extensively in the EAC Program. However, air quality issues were already important to stakeholders
before the areas became involved in the EAC Program. The other individual consulted did not track
stakeholder involvement.
Due to the rural nature of the region, one EAC Program area did not have much stakeholder
participation. The local agency stated that air quality issues were not that important to the general
public.
One local agency in one area participating in the traditional approach stated that it engaged local
stakeholders. Participants included metropolitan planning organization committees, local government,
and business. However, there was not much public participation. The state agency administering the
traditional program noted that the approach did not engage stakeholders in the same area but not in
another. The lack of stakeholder engagement in that area was thought to be due to the lower level of
resources spent by the state in the area.
A local agency that participated in an EAC-type voluntary approach rather than the traditional approach
stated that the voluntary approach brought together elected officials and various other stakeholders. The
state agency that administered the voluntary EAC-type approach agreed that local stakeholders were
engaged in the process.
Other Aspects of the Program
EAC Requirements versus CAA Nonattainment Area Requirements
Table B-32 lays out in detail the requirements for EAC Program areas alongside the requirements the
14 nonattainment-deferred areas could have faced had they not pursued the EAC Program and instead
66
-------
were designated nonattainment. Specifically, the table presents an outline of the general Subparts 1 and
2 requirements of the CAA. The presentation of the requirements in the table and the discussion here
serves historical purposes only. Following the April 2004 area designations, the implementation
program for the 8-hour standard had to be revised in light of a court decision that affected how areas
were classified. This may have affected some of the EAC Program Areas if they had been designated
nonattainment in April 2004 instead of participating in the EAC Program. Most of the Subpart 1
requirements in Table B-32 no longer apply to the areas that were originally placed under Subpart 1.
EPA is currently developing rulemaking to address the requirements for the areas that were originally
placed under Subpart 1. However, for historical purposes only the study performed a comparison of
Subpart 1 nonattainment area requirements versus EAC area requirements, which is presented here.
(The Marginal Subpart 2 areas are not included in the comparison here but can be found in Table B-32.)
In some respects, the EAC Program required more stringent requirements than a Subpart 1
nonattainment program. In other respects, however, the Subpart 1 program required more stringent
requirements. And, in yet other ways, the requirements for the two types of areas were comparable.
Here are the major differences in requirements:
In a few respects, the EAC Program required more stringent requirements than a Subpart 1
nonattainment program:
Earlier date for submission of an attainment demonstration SIP;
Earlier attainment date;
Earlier date for compliance with emission reductions needed for attainment; and
Planning milestones such as progress reports for planning, which, if not met, would have caused
the termination of the EAC deferral of the nonattainment designation.
In many respects, the Subpart 1 nonattainment program required more stringent requirements than the
EAC Program:
Nonattainment area NSR;
General Conformity Program;
Transportation Conformity Program including, but not limited to, the following requirements:
o Consultation between air quality and transportation agencies on both the SIP and the
transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program
o Transportation and emissions modeling requirement
o Build/no build test
o Hot spot test
o Emission budget tests
o "Freezes" if certain requirements are not me;
RACT;
Attainment had to be achieved as "expeditiously as practicable";
Failure to submit a SIP would ultimately result in sanctions and Federal Implementation Plans;
and
Longer period (10 years) for showing of maintenance with the standard if state/area requested
redesignation to attainment.
67
-------
o EAC Program areas only required to demonstrate maintenance of the standard for
five years (although states for almost all of the EAC Program areas in the Southeast
(EPA Region 4) submitted maintenance plans for 10 years).27
In two respects, the requirements for Subpart 1 and EAC Programs were comparable:
An attainment demonstration using photochemical grid modeling, although the EAC modeling
required that fewer episodes are modeled and
Preparation of a revised SIP if the area failed to attain by its attainment date.
In addition, the Subpart 2 nonattainment classification would have been more stringent than the EAC
Program in the case where an area (such as a marginal area) failed to attain by its attainment date. In
that instance, it would have been reclassified to at least the next highest classification. The area would
then have been subject to additional mandatory source control measures and planning requirements.
However, a marginal area would not have been required to submit an attainment demonstration or to
have satisfied other planning requirements.
Finally, it is worth noting that, pursuant to authority under Section 110 of the CAA, EPA has long
required states to submit emission inventories to EPA as part of their SIP. The inventories have to
contain information regarding the emissions of criteria pollutants and their precursors (e.g., VOCs).
This applies to EAC and non-EAC Program areas in states. In 2002 EPA simplified and consolidated
emission inventory reporting requirements, established new reporting requirements related to PM2.5 and
regional haze, and established new requirements for the statewide reporting of area source and mobile
source emissions.28
3.2 Observations
3.2.1 Overall Observations Resulting from the Study
Because of the study's limitations, it is difficult to draw hard findings and conclusions. However, the
study was able to make a number of observations about emission reductions, changes in air quality, and
issues related to program design and process.
Overall, a number of states in the Northeast had serious concerns about the approach. The EAC
program was generally popular with participating state and local officials. These officials indicated the
EAC Program model provided the right combination of incentives, flexibility, and structure and was
used to foster a collaborative environment that:
1) Encouraged local stakeholders to take ownership of the ozone air quality issue and to develop
and adopt local measures;
2) Increased awareness of ozone air quality issues with key stakeholders and, to a degree, with the
public; and
27 EPA Region 4 worked with almost all of the participating EAC states in the Southeast - North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Tennessee but not Georgia - to voluntarily agree to develop and submit maintenance plans that extended to 2017, 5
years past the year 2012 minimum date for EAC areas.
28"Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule," 67 Federal Register 39602-39616,
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/cerr/cerr.pdf, June 10, 2002.
68
-------
3) Helped establish working relationships between state environmental agencies and local
government that may prove beneficial for future implementation of air quality standards.
Emission Reductions
For the vast majority of the areas included in this study, the EAC Program appeared to successfully
encourage the development and adoption of quantifiable, local emission reduction control measures by
the December 2005 deadline. Ninety-six percent of the total 388 measures implemented for the 20
areas included in the study were implemented by the EAC December 2005 deadline, according to EAC
progress reports and SIPs. Estimated emission reductions from local measures collectively constituted
an estimated nine percent or more of quantified NOX and VOC emissions reductions in seven of 18
EAC Program areas included in this study for which complete emissions reductions data were available
(the remaining reductions were achieved from national and state measures). The local measures were
"directionally correct" and should assist the areas in maintaining the ozone NAAQS.
According to many state and local officials, the program also resulted in quantifiable emission co-
reductions of other pollutants, including particulate matter and/or air toxics.
Air Quality
The study analyzed the air quality improvements experienced by EAC Program areas in the eastern
U.S. by comparing them to improvements achieved in nearby nonattainment areas that did not
participate in the EAC program. (This could not be analyzed in the Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas
EAC areas, because there were not ozone nonattainment areas located near enough to provide a
comparison.) The analysis found that the changes in air quality in eastern EAC Program areas were
consistent with those observed in non-EAC areas. Additionally, consistent with the expectation that
most progress towards ozone attainment in the East would come generally from national measures such
as vehicle standards and power plant controls, it appears that, based on air quality data, local EAC
measures adopted and implemented in EAC Program areas in the East did not produce an early,
demonstrable incremental improvement in air quality. Relative to non-EAC Program areas, the
information compiled appears to indicate that, for EAC areas in the East, progress toward meeting the
air quality standards on time was not adversely affected by two factors: (1) the absence of some or all
of the nonattainment area requirements that traditional nonattainment areas face, or (2) population and
vehicle miles traveled growth that most of the areas experienced during EAC Program implementation.
Relative to non-EAC Program areas, these two factors also did not appear to adversely affect the ability
of EAC areas in the East to attain the NAAQS by December 2007 (or earlier for many EAC areas).
The fact that local measures did not produce an early, demonstrable incremental improvement in air
quality can be explained in part by the fact that quantified NOX and VOC emissions reduction estimates
from local EAC measures represented a small part of emissions overall: (1) in EAC Program areas; (2)
in states in which they are located, and (3) as compared to reductions achieved in each state through the
NOX SIP call. The best way to measure the impact on air quality of the EAC local measures - and
whether they contributed to the areas attaining early - would be to conduct incremental air quality
modeling of the emissions reductions from those measures. Short of that, the reductions are so small
relative to the emission reductions from federal and state measures that their impact is indiscernible.
All but one of the EAC areas did attain the ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2007; in fact, 15 of the 20
EAC areas attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2004 - prior to the required 2005
implementation date for the EAC control measures.
69
-------
This study looked at ozone air quality through 2007. And while almost all the EAC areas met the
ozone NAAQS before 2007, it remains to be seen what will happen to ozone air quality levels in these
areas as they grow in the next 5 to 10 years. Ozone air quality in many of the areas will continue to be
influenced by, among other things, state and national programs to reduce NOX and VOCs. Some state
and local officials believe that local measures should benefit air quality in the future. EAC Program
areas were required to develop plans to demonstrate how they would address emissions growth and
maintain meeting the ozone NAAQS for five years (to 2012). They did so, and almost all the states in
the southeastern U.S (EPA Region 4) with EAC Program areas submitted maintenance plans for 10
years.
The study also looked at whether the air quality modeling provided insight into what degree the "local"
EAC measures contributed to additional improvements in air quality, beyond the improvements
provided by the state and national measures. The only reliable way to quantify the air quality
improvements from the EAC local measures is to model the local measures independently of the state
and national measures. But the modeling performed for the EAC SIPs did not provide such an analysis.
For this study the information available only allows for a review of whether the actual air quality
improvement achieved is consistent with the level of improvement predicted by the model. After
making this comparison, this study observes that the estimates in the modeled demonstration are
consistent with the air quality achieved. Therefore, the modeling provided reasonable information.
It was beyond the scope of this study to analyze the improvements in short-term or long-term air quality
that would have otherwise occurred in the affected EAC areas if they had followed the traditional
requirements under the CAA associated with a nonattainment designation. For example, several of the
nonattainment-deferred areas experienced new stationary source activity that may have been subject to
permitting requirements under the CAA nonattainment NSR program had the same activities been
undertaken while these areas had a designation of nonattainment. The proposed emissions increases for
some of those sources were controlled under the CAA's PSD Program. As noted above, this study did
not quantify emission changes in EAC versus non-EAC areas and is, therefore, unable to provide
information on the impact on emissions of the absence in EAC areas of some or all of the
nonattainment area requirements that traditional nonattainment areas face, including those of the
Nonattainment NSR Program.
State and local agencies consulted did believe the EAC approach to be well suited for nonattainment-
deferred areas that were new to the ozone air quality issue and had ozone air quality levels relatively
close to the standard. Those areas did not face the same degree of ozone air quality challenge faced by
some of the nation's largest areas and so, in that regard, their air quality problems were more
manageable. EAC Program participants in these areas took ownership of their air quality problem in a
way that was not likely, in the opinion of the state and local agencies consulted, to have occurred to the
same degree under the traditional approach, absent a concerted EAC-type effort or unless the
community was already active on environmental issues.
Program Design and Process
Some EAC Program areas did not experience the "collaborative environment" the EAC Program model
fostered in other EAC Program areas. Based on the study discussions, several possible reasons
emerged to help explain this:
70
-------
Insufficient technical support for EAC Program areas from EPA and the states;
Insufficient state or local agency leadership to help start and/or shepherd the EAC Program
process;
Lack of public interest due to insufficient information about local air quality issues; and
Ozone air quality problem believed to be solvable due to state and national measures alone so
there was not much action perceived to be needed locally.
The state and local agencies implementing the EAC Program reported that, in order to succeed, the
EAC program needed (1) the threat of reinstatement of the nonattainment designation as the
consequence of failure to meet EAC Program requirements and (2) for the EAC Program to be part of
the larger SIP program. The majority of state and local agencies consulted believed that states and local
areas needed motivation to participate in the program for it to succeed.
The EAC Program required as much EPA staff resources or less than the staff resources EPA estimated
would have been needed to implement the regular program for the same areas. The question of whether
the EAC Program saved estimated human resources varied by EPA region. The study lacked data to
assess the resource impact of the EAC program on the participating state and local agencies.
3.2.2 Specific Observations
Quantitative Observations
Environmental Aspects
The following seven quantitative observations relate to environmental aspects of the EAC Program
study. They are based on a quantitative information gathered for 20 EAC Program areas - 14
nonattainment-deferred and 6 designated unclassifiable/attainment - and, thus, pertain to those areas.
Observation 1: In the East air quality changes in EAC Program areas were consistent with air
quality changes in non-EAC 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in the same region. Based on a
study of meteorologically-controlled air quality data from 2001-2003 to 2005-2007, air quality changes
in EAC Program areas in the East are consistent with changes in non-EAC Program areas in the East.
Any pre-program concern that ozone air quality in EAC Program areas would suffer as compared to
non-EAC Program areas does not appear in retrospect to have been justified, at least with respect to air
quality measured through 2007. (The study did not quantify emission changes in EAC versus non-EAC
areas and is, therefore, unable to comment on the impact on emissions of the absence in EAC areas of
some or all of the nonattainment area requirements that traditional nonattainment areas face.) The
study lacked adequate sites with meteorologically-controlled ozone air quality data to enable us to make
comparisons for areas in the Central Southwest. Therefore, the study cannot comment on how those air
quality gains in that region compare to other non-EAC ozone areas there. The study did not compare
two individual cities because it is very difficult to determine if they are comparable. Comparing the
range of reductions between two groups is more reasonable, as the study did for areas in the East.
Observation 2: States relied largely on state and national measures for their attainment
demonstrations. Despite having quantified local measures, and, thus, satisfying one of the criteria
necessary for a measure to be included in the attainment demonstration, states chose for the most part
not to include those measures as part of the attainment demonstration. The study did not explore why
states chose to include some measures in the attainment demonstration but not others.
71
-------
Observation 3: The overwhelming majority of the EAC Program areas included in the study
attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS despite growth in population and VMT. Nineteen of the 20
EAC Program areas included in the study that attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 2007
did so despite most of them experiencing estimated growth in either VMT or population or both during
implementation of the EAC Program (in several cases these growth rates met or exceeded national and
regional growth rates). In fact, 15 of the 20 EAC areas attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
December 31, 2004, prior to the required 2005 implementation date for the EAC control measures. (It
is also important to note that the remaining 9 attainment areas for which the study did not compile
quantitative information also maintained their attainment status with respect to the 8-hour NAAQS
through December 2007.)
Observation 4: The EAC Program successfully encouraged local areas in the adoption and
development of meaningful, local control measures in the majority of the EAC Program areas
included in the study, representing a significant percentage of quantified NOX and VOC emissions
in several of the areas included in the study. Despite the uncertainty inherent in emission reduction
estimates, the estimated individual and collective emissions reductions from these local measures
constituted significant percentages of quantified NOX and VOC emissions in those areas. These
measures are what the study terms "directionally correct". While they should help the areas maintain
their ozone air quality levels, these measures did not produce a discernible, incremental change in
ozone air quality levels that helped the areas meet the EAC requirement of attaining early by December
2007 (a requirement every area except Denver met). Twelve of nineteen nonattainment-deferred and
attainment EAC Program areas included in the study that had complete emission reductions data had
less than nine percent of their quantified emission reductions from local measures. This is likely due to
one or more factors:
Local measures were not adopted, which was the case for two areas;
Attainment was demonstrated without including local measures;
Certain measures did not lend themselves to quantification; and
State determined that the potential emissions reductions were not great enough to justify the
effort EPA requires to document those projected emissions reductions.
Observation 5: Ninety-six percent of the total 388 measures implemented for the 20 areas
included in the study were implemented by the EAC December 2005 deadline, according to the
EAC progress reports and SIPs. Conversely, four percent (i.e., 14 measures) of the 388 measures
were not implemented by the EAC December 2005 deadline. Of the 14 measures not implemented by
December 2005, one had quantified NOX and/or VOC emissions reductions associated with them and
seven were implemented after 2005 in 2006 or 2007. Only one of the measures was modeled in an
area's EAC SIP attainment demonstration.
Observation 6: For the majority of EAC Program areas, quantified NOX and VOC emissions
reduction estimates from local measures represented a small fraction of 2002 emissions overall in
the respective EAC Program area, in the state in which the EAC area is located, and as compared
to reductions achieved in that state through the NOX SIP call. Comparing emissions reductions
from local EAC measures to these other emissions values helps to explain, at least partly, why the
improvements in air quality in EAC Program areas in the East are consistent with changes in air quality
in non-EAC Program areas. The comparison helps to put the relative value of those estimated
reductions into perspective against all emissions contributing to ozone formation. There arguably were
72
-------
EAC measures adopted and implemented in EAC Program areas that might not have been considered
had the areas been designated traditional nonattainment. But, in relative terms, the measures did not
reduce total emissions very much and, thus, did not produce measurable incremental improvements in
air quality.
Observation 7: Air quality modeling contained in the SIPs for the 20 EAC areas included in the
study predicted improvements in air quality that were generally consistent with the eventual
observations. The study addressed whether the modeling provided insight into what degree the "local"
EAC measures contributed to additional improvements in air quality, beyond the improvements
provided by the state and national measures. The only reliable way to quantify the air quality
improvements from the EAC local measures is to model the local measures independently of the state
and national measures. But the modeling performed for the EAC SIPs did not provide such an analysis.
For this study the only assessment that could be performed was to determine whether the actual air
quality improvement achieved is consistent with the level of improvement predicted by the model.
After making this comparison, the study observes that the estimates in the modeled demonstration are
consistent with the air quality achieved.
Program Design Aspects
The observation is related to the quantitative, programmatic aspects of the EAC Program study. It is
based on a quantitative study of EPA resources expended relative to the whole EAC Program consisting
of 29 areas - 14 nonattainment-deferred and 15 designated unclassifiable/attainment - and, thus, pertain
to those areas.
Observation 8: The EAC Program required as much EPA human resources or less than a
hypothetical traditional approach depending on the EPA region implementing the program. For
EPA, the answer to the question of whether the EAC Program saved estimated human resources varied
by EPA region. The study lacked data to quantitatively assess the resource impact of the EAC program
on the state and local agencies.
Qualitative Observations
Environmental Aspects
The following two observations are related to the qualitative review of the environmental aspects of the
EAC Program study. Observation 9 is based on information from EPA regional office and state agency
permitting databases. Observation 10 is derived from information gathered though consultations with
state and local agency officials.
Observation 9: Less than half of the nonattainment-deferred areas experienced new stationary
source activity that may have been subject to permitting under the CAA nonattainment NSR
program had the same activities been undertaken while these areas had a designation of
nonattainment. Six of the 14 nonattainment-deferred areas experienced new stationary source activity
that may have been subject to permitting under the CAA nonattainment NSR program had the same
activities been undertaken while these areas had a designation of nonattainment, (this could be an
underestimate given the lack of compete information on permitting activity). The proposed emissions
increases from the new and modified sources in four of the six areas were controlled under the CAA's
PSD program. (The study did not quantify emission changes in EAC versus non-EAC areas and is,
therefore, unable to comment on the impact on emissions of the absence in EAC areas of some or all of
73
-------
the nonattainment area requirements that traditional nonattainment areas face, including nonattainment
NSR.)
Observation 10: The state and local agencies implementing the EAC Program believe that the
EAC activities generated direct environmental benefits other than ozone reduction. A majority of
the individuals consulted reported that EAC activities directly generated environmental benefits other
than ozone reduction. The largest benefit came from reductions of PM2.5 through such programs as
alternative fuels, open burning bans, freight partnership, diesel and school bus retrofits, and idling
reduction. EAC activities also generated reductions in GHG, air toxics, NOX, and VOCs. However,
several individuals consulted stated that no additional environmental benefits were generated directly
from the EAC activities. This is partly because EAC control measures were selected from a list of
existing state rules. In these cases, no local measures were developed for the EAC.
Program Design Aspects
The following four qualitative observations are based on a qualitative review of the program design
aspects of the EAC Program study. The observations draw on information gathered through
consultations with state and local agency officials.
Observation 11: The state and local agencies implementing the EAC Program believe that the
EAC Program, in order to succeed, needed (1) the threat of reinstatement of the nonattainment
designation as the consequence of failure to meet EAC Program requirements and (2) for the
EAC Program to be part of the larger SIP program. The majority of the individuals consulted
believed that states and local areas needed motivation to participate in the program for it to succeed.
For many states and local areas, EAC participants were motivated to enter the program as
nonattainment-deferred areas specifically to avoid the NSR and Conformity Program requirements for
their 8-hour ozone areas. Those areas were also concerned about the impact of a nonattainment
designation on economic development.
Observation 12: The state and local agencies implementing the EAC Program believe the EAC
Program gave local areas the flexibility to develop their own approach to meeting the 8-hour
ozone standard that might not otherwise have been present under the traditional approach. The
majority of the individuals consulted stated that the EAC Program gave local areas the flexibility to
develop their own approach. They believed that the opportunity for flexibility in local decision-making
was critical to obtaining support for the program.
Observation 13: The state and local agencies implementing the EAC Program believe the EAC
Program effectively engaged and involved local stakeholders in the program and created positive
working relationships. The majority of the individuals consulted supported this statement. The
diverse range of local stakeholders engaged in the EAC Program areas included local governments,
elected officials, the media, councils of governments, industry, local businesses, utilities, chambers of
commerce, environmentalists, and other organizations. According to the individuals consulted, the
EAC Program model produced numerous intangible benefits, such as a greater public awareness of air
quality issues and local stakeholder participation in air quality improvement than would have occurred
under the traditional approach. The EAC Program is also credited with: (1) improving the working
relationships between states and local stakeholders, and (2) helping create an infrastructure for
stakeholder involvement in future air quality issues. The improved relationships and flexibility are
74
-------
believed to have created an environment for local areas to consider measures that would not have been
discussed outside of the EAC Program.
Observation 14: The state and local agencies implementing the EAC Program believe that it is
expected to result in continued reductions in ozone and air quality improvement activities and
policies that were not foreseen, initially, as the EAC Program was implemented. The majority of
the individuals consulted believed that: (1) EAC efforts would lead to continued reductions in ozone
and air quality improvement activities and policies that were not originally foreseen; and (2) programs
adopted by the EAC would continue providing additional reductions beyond those already achieved or
create a local "infrastructure" for further or continued action in the future. It is believed that some of
the policies, projects and activities would not have occurred without the EAC Program. Several of the
individuals consulted noted that the EAC control measures would remain in place for the foreseeable
future. In addition, local organizations that did not address air quality issues prior to the EAC Program
are now considering air quality issues in their areas.
3.2.3 Study Results Where Information is Insufficient or Too Ambiguous to Make an
Observation
Observations did not emerge from information in three areas where the study lacked sufficient
information or the information was too ambiguous:
Program design aspects
o EAC program efficiency;
Environmental aspects
o EAC program requirements versus Subpart 1 requirements; and
o Conformity Program.
Program Design Aspects
EAC Program Efficiency
Based on the consultations with state and local officials, the EAC model is believed to be a more
efficient way to deliver clean air quicker than the traditional nonattainment designation approach.
However, the impact of the EAC Program on state and local resources is unclear, including whether the
EAC approach saved money and resources for state and local agencies over the traditional approach.
The majority of the individuals consulted believe the EAC model is a more efficient way to deliver
clean air quicker than the traditional approach. Several of the individuals consulted believe that the
EAC is a more efficient method for areas that: (1) are relatively close to the standard, and/or (2) have
significant local stakeholder involvement.
Several of the individuals consulted believe that local areas spent more resources in the EAC Program
than they would have in the traditional program. This is because local stakeholders are not as involved
in the traditional method. However, these individuals consulted believed that the EAC benefits
overshadowed the costs by:
Saving resources in the long run;
Developing control measures that accommodate economic growth;
Developing good will between stakeholders;
Providing local control over program activities; and,
Avoiding nonattainment status.
75
-------
Several other individuals consulted found it difficult to determine the impact of the EAC on state and
local resources. They were divided on whether the EAC approach saved money and resources over the
traditional approach. A few individuals consulted found that the EAC Program did not save money or
resources over the traditional approach.
Environmental Aspects
EAC Program Requirements versus Subpart 1 Requirements
In comparing the differences between the EAC program and Subpart 1 area CAA requirements, the
study did not arrive at a observation as to which approach would have produced the greater emission
reductions and air quality improvement. As the qualitative information indicates, some requirements
were more stringent for EAC Program areas and some more stringent for Subpart 1 areas. Relative to
non-EAC Program areas, air quality in EAC areas in the East was not adversely affected by two factors:
(1) the absence of some or all of the nonattainment area requirements that traditional nonattainment
areas face or (2) by the fact that most of the areas experienced population and VMT growth during
EAC Program implementation. Relative to non-EAC Program areas, these two factors also did not
adversely affect the ability of EAC areas in the East to attain the NAAQS by December 2007 (or earlier
for many EAC areas). However, it remains to be seen what will happen to ozone air quality levels in
these areas as they grow in the next five to 10 years. Ozone air quality in many of the areas will
continue to be influenced by, among other things, state and National programs to reduce NOX and
VOCs. Moreover, EAC Program areas were required to demonstrate maintenance of the standard for
five years (to 2012), although almost all the states in the Southeast (EPA Region 4) with EAC Program
areas submitted maintenance plans for 10 years. These plans are in place to address emissions growth
to ensure attainment of the ozone standard.
With respect to the relative burden of the CAA requirements, the individuals consulted clearly viewed
not having to implement the Nonattainment NSR and Conformity Programs as a burden reduction.
However, several state and local agencies consulted felt that reducing EAC Program's reporting
requirements could have eased the resource burden of the EAC Program further. Other individuals
consulted felt the benefits of the EAC Program outweighed the burden.
Conformity Program
The study lacked sufficient information on which to base a Conformity Pro gram-specific observation as
to the emissions and/or air quality impacts of not requiring the Conformity Program in EAC areas.
Such an analysis was beyond the scope of this study. The study did find information that the
Conformity Program applied in about one-half of the 14 EAC nonattainment-deferred areas for at least
one criteria pollutant other than the 8-hour ozone standard. Six of the 14 nonattainment-deferred EAC
Program areas were subject to the CAA Conformity Program requirement during the EAC Program
(from June 14 2004 to April 15, 2008) for pollutants other than the 8-hour ozone NAAQS: the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, the PMi0 NAAQS, the PM2.5 NAAQS and the carbon monoxide NAAQS.
76
------- |