Response to Comments on
Implementation of the 2008 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: State Implementation Plan
Requirements
February 13,2015
1
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 5
2.0 What are the SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS? 10
A. What is the deadline for submitting nonattainment area SIP elements due under Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) section 182 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS? 10
1. Suggest consolidated SIP submittal at 36 months after designation 10
2. Support consolidated SIP submittal due 30 months after designation 11
3. Do not support consolidated SIP submittal 12
4. Incorporate planning for the next ozone standard 14
5. Marginal area RACT 15
6. RACT Implementation deadline 16
7. Timely issuance of SIP guidance and rules 16
8. Multi-state nonattainment areas 17
B. What are the requirements for modeling and attainment demonstration SIPs? 18
1. Marginal areas 18
2. Moderate areas 19
3. Modeling guidance 24
4. Capturing high emissions days in inventories 24
5. Modeled attainment test 35
6. Future years to model 41
C. What are the RFP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS? 44
1. 2008 ozone nonattainment areas for which no portion of the area has
previously been required to meet the 15 percent RFP requirement
for VOC 45
2. 2008 ozone nonattainment areas where portions have a previously
approved 15 percent VOC reduction plan 57
3. Non-creditable reduction calculations 62
4. Alternative VOC-weighted RFP approach 64
5. Alternative Air quality approach 68
6. Baseline year for RFP 73
7. Emissions outside the nonattainment area 85
D. How do RACT and RACM requirements apply for 2008 ozone NAAQS
nonattainment areas? 94
1. RACT SIP 95
2. CTGs and ACTs 97
3. RACT determinations 101
4. Averaging over a nonattainment area 104
5. Trading within a nonattainment area 105
6. Regional trading program 106
7. Consideration of the limited impact of VOC emissions in some areas 110
8. MACT 115
9. RACM in areas that are NOx-limited 116
E. Does the 2008 ozone NAAQS result in I/M programs? 117
1. Do not support check engine light proposal 117
1
-------
2. Alternative I/M programs 118
3. Substitute for I/M program 120
4. Flexibility needed for future I/M programs 121
5. Onboard diagnostic (OBD) testing 122
6. Support acceleration simulation mode (ASM) testing 123
7. Incorporation of Diesel Vehicles in I/M Program 124
8. Funding for Vehicle Repair and Replacement Programs 125
9. Separate rulemaking needed for I/M 126
10. Timing of I/M SIP 126
11. Oppose implementation of additional I/M programs 127
F. How does transportation conformity apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS? 128
1. Requirements for VOC motor vehicle emissions budgets 128
2. Elimination of conformity requirements 128
3. Comment beyond the scope of the rulemaking 133
G. What requirements for general conformity apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS? 133
1. Emission budgets for General Conformity should not be mandated 133
2. Support proposal to not make revisions to general conformity
regulations 134
H. What are the requirements for contingency measures in the event of failure to meet a
milestone or to attain? 134
1. 1 year's worth of progress 134
2. Reliance on already-adopted rules 135
3. Flexibility to use NOx or VOC measures 137
4. Extreme nonattainment areas 138
5. Innovative measures 140
I. How do the NSR requirements apply for the 2008 ozone NAAQS? 140
1. General NSR requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 140
2. Offsets 154
3. lnterpollutant Offset Substitution 156
4. Economic Development Zones 161
5. SIP Submittal Date for Nonattainment NSR rules 162
J. What are the emission inventory and emission statement requirements? 162
1. Emissions inventory 162
2. Emissions statement requirements 166
K. What are the ambient monitoring requirements? 167
1. Cost of monitoring programs 167
2. Ambient monitoring rule 167
L. How can an area qualify for a 1-year attainment deadline extension? 169
1. Support proposal 169
M. How will the EPA address transport of ozone and its precursors for rural
nonattainment areas, multi-state nonattainment areas and international transport? ... 169
1. Rural areas 169
2. Methane as a Precursor 170
3. International transport 170
4. Interstate transport requirements 172
2
-------
N. How will the section 182(f) NOx provisions be handled? 176
O. Emissions Reduction Benefits of Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and
Programs, Land Use Planning and Travel Efficiency 176
1. Energy efficiency/renewable energy policies and programs 176
2. Land use planning 178
3. Travel efficiency 179
P. Efforts to Encourage a Multi-Pollutant Approach When Developing 2008 Ozone SIPs... 184
1. General support for a multi-pollutant approach 184
2. Do not support a multi-pollutant approach 185
Q. How does this proposed rule apply to tribes? 185
1. VOC controls 188
2. Emission reduction credits 189
3. NOx substitution 189
4. Areas with a previously submitted 15 percent VOC reduction plan 190
5. lnterpollutant Offset Substitution in the OTR 190
S. Are there any additional requirements related to enforcement and compliance? 191
T. What are the requirements for addressing emergency episodes? 191
U. How does the "Clean Data Policy" apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS? 192
1. Support clean data policy 192
V. What assistance programs is the EPA considering for implementation of the 2008
ozone NAAQS? 192
1. Ozone Advance 192
W. What is the deadline for states to submit SIP revisions to address the CAA section
185 penalty fee provision for Severe and Extreme areas? 195
1. Support the proposed schedule 195
X. Other Comments 195
1. Federal control measures 195
2. Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 197
3. Flexibility 202
3.0 What is the EPA proposing to address anti-backsliding issues related to
transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS? 203
A. Revocation—general 203
B. Transition from the 1-Hour to the 1997 Ozone NAA 203
C. NonattainmentNSR 203
D. Section 185 Fees 203
E. Contingency Measures Requirement 203
F. What is the EPA proposing regarding anti-backsliding requirements for the 1-hour
and 1997 ozone NAAQS? 203
G. Timing of 1997 Ozone NAAQS Revocation and Related Anti-Backsliding
Requirements 203
1. Support revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS 203
2. Do not support revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS 204
3. Comments regarding the date of revocation 206
4. Redesignation after revocation 208
5. Continued attainment after revocation 208
3
-------
H. What are the applicable requirements for anti-backsliding purposes following the
revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS? 209
1. General 209
2. New Source Review 218
3. Section 185 fees 219
I. Application of Transition Requirements to Nonattainment and Attainment Areas.... 221
1. Requirements for Areas Designated Attainment for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS and Maintenance for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS 222
2. Areas Designated Attainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and
Nonattainment for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS 226
3. Areas Designated Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and
Maintenance for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS 228
5. Table 2 requirements—clarifications 230
J. Satisfaction of Anti-Backsliding Requirements for an Area 230
1. Formal redesignation satisfies anti-backsliding requirements 230
2. Redesignation Substitute satisfies anti-backsliding requirements 233
1. General 239
2. Section 51.1118 240
L. What is the relationship between implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
the CAA Title V permits program? 240
1. Support for first approach for Title V permitting threshold 240
2. Support for the second approach for Title V permitting threshold 241
4.0 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 245
A. Environmental Justice 245
5.0 Other Comments 247
A. General 247
1. Improving the CAA 247
2. Most proposed rule elements are unnecessary 247
3. Menu of Control Measures 247
B. Support for other commenters 248
C. Codification error 248
D. Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 248
2. Section 51.1118 240
L. What is the relationship between implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
the CAA Title V permits program? 240
1. Support for first approach for Title V permitting threshold 240
2. Support for the second approach for Title V permitting threshold 241
4.0 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 245
A. Environmental Justice 245
5.0 Other Comments 247
A. General 247
1. Improving the CAA 247
2. Most proposed rule elements are unnecessary 247
3. Menu of Control Measures 247
4
-------
B. Support for other commenters
C. Codification error
D. Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin
248
248
248
1.0 Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule on June 6, 2013 (78 FR 34178), to
facilitate implementing the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) (the
"2008 ozone NAAQS") that were promulgated on March 12, 2008. This proposed rule addressed
a range of state implementation plan (SIP) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including
requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP),
reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonably available control measures
(RACM), new source review (NSR) requirements in nonattainment areas, emission inventories
and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the SIP.
Other issues also addressed in the proposed rule were the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and anti-backsliding requirements that would apply when the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked.
As noted in the proposal, the EPA will work closely with air agencies to provide assistance and
flexibility in implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS consistent with the implementation
approaches that are adopted in the final implementation rule.
Included in this document are summaries of the comments received on the proposed rule and the
EPA's responses. Comments are arranged consistent with the relevant sections of the proposed
rule.
Table 1. Explanat
ion of Acronyms and Frequently Used Abbreviations
Acronym
Long Name
ACT
Alternative Control Techniques
CAA
CAA
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CSAPR
Cross State Air Pollution Rule
CTG
Control Techniques Guideline
EGU
Electric Generating Units
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
FR
Federal Register
HEDD
High Electric Demand Days
MACT
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
MATS
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NNSR
Nonattainment New Source Review
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
NSPS
New Source Performance Standards
NSR
New Source Review
5
-------
PPB
Parts per Billion
PSD
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RACM
Reasonably Available Control Measures
RACT
Reasonably Available Control Technology
RFP
Reasonable Further Progress
SIP
State Implementation Plan
TPY
Tons per Year
6
-------
Table 2. List of Commenters and Associated Docket Numbers
Docket Number
C '<» in men 1 er Name
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0119
J. Anderson
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0122
Tauna M. Szymanski and Lucinda Minton Langworthy,
Hunton & Williams LLP on behalf of the Utility Air
Regulatory Group (UARG)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0127
Kipp A. Coddington, Environmental & Energy Counsel,
American Automotive Leasing Association (AALA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0128
Thomas Karol, Federal Affairs Counsel, National
Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0129
Mathew Page, Vice President, Smith Aldridge, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0130
Michael G. Dowd, Director, Air Division, Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0131
Kimberly A. Scarborough, Environmental Policy Manager
- Air, PSEG Services Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0132
Zak Covar, Executive Director, Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0136
Larry Greene, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control
Officer, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0137
Ronald W. Gore, Chief, Air Division, Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0138
Anonymous public comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0139
Brad Poiriez, President, California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0140
Pharr Andrews and Andrew Hoekzema, Co-Chair, Clean
Air Coalition Advisory Committee (CACAC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0141
John A. Paul, Administrator, Regional Air Pollution
Control agency (RAPCA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0142
Michael Bradley, Director, The Clean Energy Group
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0143
E. Christopher Abruzzo, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0144
Jane Kozinski, Assistant Commissioner, Environmental
Management, State of New Jersey
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0145
Lorraine Krupa Gershman, Director, American Chemistry
Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0146
Arthur N. Marin, Executive Director, Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0147
Seth Barna, Director, Chemical Products and Technology,
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0148
Michael Villegas, Air Pollution Control Officer, Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0149
Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG)
7
-------
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0150
Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0151
Leslie Ritts, Counsel, National Environmental
Development Association's Clean Air Project
(NED A/CAP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0152
Scott Nally, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection
agency
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0153
Keith Bentley, Chief, Air Protection Branch,
Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department
of Natural Resources
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0154
Todd Parfitt, Director, State of Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0155
George S. (Tad) Aburn and Lynn A. Liddington, Co-
Chairs, Criteria Pollutants Committee, National
Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0156
Carlos Swonke, P.G., Director, Environmental Affairs
Division, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0157
George S. (Tad) Aburn, Director, Maryland Department of
the Environment (MDE)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0158
Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and Chief
Environmental Officer, Dominion Resources Services,
Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0159
Tokesha M. Collins, Ken Miller LLP, Counsel for the
Louisiana Chemical Association (LCA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0160
Richard W. Corey, Executive Director, California Air
Resources Board (CARB)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0161
Thure Cannon, President, Texas Pipeline Association
(TP A)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0162
Lisa M. Jaeger, Counsel, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, on
behalf of the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0163
Joseph J. Martens, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0164
Michael Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central
Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0165
Robert J. Morehouse and Shannon S. Broome, Points of
Contact on behalf of The Air Permitting Forum
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0166
Lucinda Minton Langworthy and Tauna M. Szymanski,
Hunton & Williams LLP on behalf of the Utility Air
Regulatory Group (UARG)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0167
J. Wick Havens, Interim Executive Director, Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0168
Ali Mirzakhalili, P.E., Director, State of Delaware
Department of Natural Resources & Environmental
Control, Division of Air Quality
8
-------
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0169
Myra C. Reece, Chief, Bureau of Air Quality, South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0170
Peter Zalzal and Graham McCahan, Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0171
Zachary L. Craft, Baker Botts, LLP, on behalf of The 8-
Hour Ozone SIP Coalition (identical to comment 0173)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0172
John S. Lyons, Director, Kentucky Division for Air
Quality, Energy and Environment Cabinet, Kentucky
Department of Environmental Protection
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0173
Zachary L. Craft, Baker Botts LLP on behalf of BCCA
Appeal Group (BCCA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0174
Michael O. Lebeis, Senior Environmental Engineer,
Environmental Management and Resources, DTE Energy
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0175
Bart Sponseller, Director, Bureau of Air Management,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0176
J. Dillard
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0177
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection (DEEP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0178
Kyra L. Moore, Director, Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (DNR)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0179
Sheila C. Holman, Director, North Carolina Division of
Air Quality (NCDENR)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0180
Earthjustice et al.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885-0181
Mark Macarro, Tribal Chairman, Pechanga Indian
Reservation
9
-------
2.0 What are the SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
A. What is the deadline for submitting nonattainment area SIP elements due under Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) section 182 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
1. Suggest consolidated SIP submittal at 36 months after designation
Comment: Commenters (0130, 0132, 0137, 0156 and 0175) supported the flexibility offered by
a consolidated approach and stated the deadline for such a submittal should be 36 months
following the effective date of designations. Commenters suggested, the timeline for the
combined submittal be at the maximum statutory timeline for the attainment plan, in the case of
Moderate nonattainment areas 36 months from designation.
Commenter (0130) stated that, RACT determinations are highly contentious, facility-specific
control determinations involving negotiation of control requirements and which must be SIP
revisions with public notice requirements. The Commenter (0130) stated that, the deadline of 24
months from designation is impossible to meet and 30 months would be difficult as well. The
Commenter (0130) stated that, RFP plans are difficult to create and finalize in 36 months and
attainment plans, with modelling demonstrations, are significant efforts that need every bit of 36
months for proper development.
Commenter (0132) stated that, the EPA does not provide a rationale for why 30 months provides
for a de minimis delay, but 36 months does not. The Commenter (0132) stated that, submitting
the attainment demonstration to the EPA in 30 months, instead of 36 months, would not advance
attainment of the standard because the EPA's implementation deadlines for RACT, RACM and
RFP control measures are independent of the SIP submittal date. Commenter (0132) stated that,
the delayed release and finalization of the implementation rule and revised modeling guidance
warrant a 36-month deadline given the length of time needed to have stakeholder meetings,
proposal and adoption of the SIP and rule revisions.
Commenter (0156) supported the consolidated approach because it would streamline
administrative processing, increase meaningful public involvement, and it should also reduce the
number of conformity determinations required by SIP actions (e.g. within 24 months of a new
budget or a SIP revision).
Commenter (0137) supported the EPA's proposal to align deadlines for the attainment SIP and
any required new inspection and maintenance program (I/M) SIP so that both are due at the time
the attainment SIP is due.
10
-------
Response: Although we proposed a consolidated approach for the state's choice to consolidate
SIP submittal requirements for their respective areas into a SIP due at 30 months after
designation, we are not finalizing that approach given the uncertainty regarding the statutory
basis for providing such flexibility. Rather, the EPA is finalizing the approach that the various
SIP elements are due based on the timeframes provided in CAA section 182.
The final rule requires all areas to submit the various elements of the SIP in the period of time
provided by the statute. The time period specified in section 182 for the emission inventories and
RACT SIPs is 2 years, 3 years for 15 percent RFP plans and Moderate area attainment
demonstrations, and 4 years for 3 percent per year RFP plans and attainment demonstrations
from Serious and higher areas. The specified time period for states to submit each required
element will run from the effective date of an area's nonattainment designation for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
2. Support consolidated SIP submittal due 30 months after designation
Comment: Commenters (0139, 0143, 0144, 0146, 0150, 0152, 0154, 0155, 0157, 0158, 0160,
0166, 0169, 0172, 0177 and 0179) generally supported the EPA's flexible approach.
Commenters (0143, 0146, 0150, 0154, 0155, 0157, 0166 and 0177) supported this flexibility if
the EPA is able to establish a firm legal basis before finalizing the proposed rule and requested
that the EPA carefully explain the policy and legal basis for these options in the final rule, to
avoid the uncertainty of litigation.
Commenter (0152) generally supported the EPA's attempts to incorporate more flexible
approaches but believed the proposal falls short of the flexibility needed to implement the CAA
effectively—for example, the alignment of the attainment demonstration SIP with the emission
inventory and RACT SIPs due earlier.
Commenter (0177) stated, the 30-month option provides a more realistic timeframe for
completion of inventories and adoption of any new RACT regulations and added that, if this
flexibility is included in the final rule, the EPA should make it clear that any associated RACT,
RACM or other control measures must be implemented according to mandated CAA deadlines
to ensure expeditious attainment.
Commenter (0179) indicated a preference for the second option because it allows states to
undertake a less burdensome planning process, including having one period for public review
and opportunity for public hearing for all the SIP elements involved. Commenter (0179) added
that, states should be given sufficient time to adopt rules in the event the EPA issues updates to
Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) or Alternative CTG.
Commenters (0158 and 0166) supported giving states the option to follow the statutory deadlines
or to submit a consolidated SIP within 30 months, but stated the EPA should make clear in the
final rule that it is not requiring states to submit consolidated SIPs within 30 months since such a
11
-------
requirement would be contrary to the Act, which provides for later deadlines for certain SIP
elements.
Commenter (0166) supported the EPA's proposal allowing the use of existing, already-prepared
inventories and previously established schedules.
Response: The EPA appreciates the support of the Commenters. However, we are not including
the consolidated approach in the final rule. We proposed the consolidated approach to provide
flexibility to states in order to balance such flexibility with what the CAA specifically requires.
Several Commenters questioned the legal basis for providing such flexibility in the consolidated
approach (See section below for details). The EPA agrees and is not providing the consolidated
approach in the final rule. The final rule requires all areas to submit the various elements of the
SIP within the period of time provided by the statute.
3. Do not support consolidated SIP submittal
Comment: Keep the SIP submission schedule consistent with the CAA
Commenters (0151, 0159, 0163 and 0168) stated their preference is to adhere to the period of
time provided by the statute. Commenter (0151) expressed concerns regarding the use of
modeling efforts under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and stated that it may make
better sense for local authorities to stick to the established SIP submittal schedule and examine
closely the emission inventory baseline before deciding which actions must be taken in the
overall SIP strategy for attainment and then providing time to model those results. Commenter
(0151) suggested accepting the fact that states could be late on their first 2008 SIP inventory
submissions and keeping to the normal SIP submission schedule.
Commenters (0151 and 0163) questioned the viability of the "state's choice" alternative because
the required SIP elements create a significant workload that may be difficult for states to
complete within 30 months.
Commenter (0151) noted that, one of the dates that must be met sooner rather than later is not
even discussed in the proposal— for states to adopt/make nonattainment NSR (NNSR)
applicable in expanded nonattainment areas or adopt NNSR requirements within 18 months, as
required by the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA (Phase 2 Ozone Plan).
Commenter (0168) concluded that, this alternative should not be adopted because it is providing
flexibility that is inconsistent with the CAA, inconsistent with prior rules and is not needed given
the EPA's classification scheme. Commenter (0168) stated that, the proposal would impact only
areas classified as Moderate and higher, and given that most areas are classified as Marginal, it
would have little utility. Further, the Commenter noted that, those states with areas currently
classified as Moderate and above already have significant experience preparing emission
inventories and have been through at least one round of RACT SIPs.
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA may not extend the deadlines because the proposed
extensions would unlawfully rewrite the statute and be arbitrary. Commenter (0180) stated, the
12
-------
EPA's policy arguments cannot override Congress's intent and cited NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d
1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Commenter (0180) disagreed that, the 6-month delay is 'We
minimis" and argued that when Congress establishes an explicit submittal deadline, the EPA
lacks authority to override it and cited Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 467-69 (D.C. Cir.
2013) and Pub. Citizen v. FTC, 869 F.2d 1541, 1557 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Commenter (0180), citing
SCAQMD, 472 F.3d at 886-88, 894-95, stated, Congress amended the Act to limit the EPA's
discretion and to expedite attainment of the NAAQS, thus the delay is thus contrary to
Congress's intent. Commenter (0180) stated that, because the proposal breaks the law to achieve
an end that could be lawfully achieved and is irrational and arbitrary. Commenter (0180) also
stated that, the text of §51.1115 should reflect the preamble statement which indicated the
preferred alternative would only be available for Moderate and higher areas.
Response: After considering comments questioning the legal supportability of the consolidated
approach, the EPA has concluded that we do not have a sufficient statutory basis to provide this
flexibility. Therefore, the final rule includes only the option of submitting SIP elements on their
statutory deadlines, as this approach is the one that is most clearly supported by the CAA.
Additionally, we note that there is no need to modify §51.1115 as suggested by the Commenter
because we are not finalizing the consolidated approach.
Comment: Use the actual date of designation
Commenter (0180) contended that to be consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA), the trigger
date for the submission obligations must be when the designations are made, not some later
"effective date" the EPA arbitrarily assigns. Commenter (0180) claims the proposed extensions
would unlawfully rewrite the statute and be arbitrary if the trigger dates are based on the
"effective date" of designations as the trigger for the nonattainment SIP submission obligations
instead of the signature date by the EPA administrator for the 2008 ozone nonattainment
designation action. Commenter (0180) argued that, the submission obligations originally ran
from date of enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments - November 15, 1990.
Response: We disagree with the Commenter that the CAA mandates the SIP submittal due dates
in subpart 2 must run from the date the designations are signed instead of from the effective date
of designations and classifications. As an initial matter, the SIP deadlines in subpart 2 for the 1-
hour ozone standards, as set forth in section 182, are established as a specified period of time
(months or years) from November 15, 1990, the date of enactment of the CAA Amendments of
1990, and also generally the date it became effective. The EPA notes that the SIP deadlines for
areas initially designated nonattainment for new/revised 8-hour standards are not directly
addressed by the CAA. Instead, EPA logically refers to section 181(b)(1), which addresses new
nonattainment designations for the 1-hour standards, to derive reasonable deadlines for SIP
obligations associated with designations and classifications under the new/revised 8-hour
standards. Section 181(b)(1) indicates that".. .any absolute, fixed date applicable in connection
with any such requirement is extended by operation of law by a period equal to the length of time
between November 15, 1990, and the date the area is classified. We believe that provision can be
reasonably interpreted to mean the effective date of the designation and classification, and we
have historically interpreted it as such for ozone-related SIP obligations and attainment
deadlines, and also similarly for other pollutants. See, 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR)
13
-------
51.902, Table 1 (specifying that the attainment periods in the Table for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are "years after the effective date of nonattainment designation")
After the comments were submitted, the D.C. Circuit has confirmed that the better reading of the
CAA is that the clock for determining when attainment is due begins when an area's designation
becomes effective, not at some later time. NRDC v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 12-1321 (Dec. 23,
2014). To provide clarity to states after the D.C. Circuit court decision, the EPA is modifying 40
CFR 51.1103 consistent with that decision to establish attainment dates that run from the
effective date of designation, i.e., July 20, 2012.1 This is the same approach the EPA used in
past ozone implementation rules and the approach the court indicated was consistent with
Congressional intent.2 The maximum attainment dates for nonattainment areas in each
classification under the 2008 NAAQS based on the July 20, 2012 effective date are as follows:
Marginal - 3 years from effective date of designation; Moderate - 6 years from effective date of
designation; Serious - 9 years from effective date of designation; Severe - 15 years (or 17 years)
from effective date of designation; and Extreme - 20 years from effective date of designation.
4. Incorporate planning for the next ozone standard
Comment: Commenter (0151) suggested, the agency should re-propose this portion of the SIP
Requirements Rule and "key" the 2008 NAAQS SIP to planning for the next ozone NAAQS.
Commenter (0151) stated that, one alternative might be to actively anticipate that the EPA will
1 We are finalizing this approach without additional notice-and-comment. As noted, we took
comment in the original proposal on two approaches: the option we promulgated and which the
court rejected, and the option we are promulgating here. Moreover, the court decision strongly
indicates that the approach we are promulgating here is the only approach that is consistent with
Congressional intent. In light of the need for certainty for the states and regulated parties, the fact
that we previously solicited comment on the approach we are adopting here, and the limited
discretion the court believes EPA has been provided under the Act, we believe additional
comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
2 We note that during the comment period on the May 2012 rule establishing the attainment
dates, a few commenters claimed that the attainment period should run from the time the
designations actions were signed by the Administrator rather than the effective date of
designation. In the final May 2012 rule, we responded to this comment explaining why we
believed the arguments the commenters raised were not supported by the statute. Regardless we
note that whether the attainment date runs from the date of signature or the effective date of
designation, the attainment year will be the same, as an attainment showing is based on the most
recent three full years of ozone data available. Thus, for example, under either approach, the
relevant years for demonstrating attainment for a Marginal area will be 2012-2014 and for a
Moderate area, 2015-2017.
14
-------
need to make a deficiency finding on the first half of states' SIP planning obligations and issue a
generic SIP call (as it has done in the past for other NAAQS), which would provide at least 18
months and possibly additional time for preparation of the 2014 emission inventory, RACT and
infrastructure SIP, allowing additional time for ozone planning to catch up with the new
standard. Commenter (0151) stated that, this 2008 NAAQS SIP Requirement Rule is an
important link to achieving the anticipated revised ozone NAAQS and should be viewed in that
context. Commenter (0151) suggested that, in finalizing this rulemaking the EPA should
endeavor to minimize duplicative state legacy ozone SIP planning requirements for both the
1997 and 2008 NAAQS.
Commenter (0151) stated that, it would be reasonable to conclude that Congress meant only to
apply 182(b) as minimum requirements to the SIP planning cycle immediately following the
1990 CAA Amendments and thereafter, presumed that states would resume SIP planning under
Title 1 Subpart 1, consistent with the Court's determination in South Coast, supra, that section
172(e) in Title 1 serves as the backstop against backsliding. Applying this legal theory,
Commenter (0151) stated, allows the EPA to suspend multiple SIP-planning efforts for former
ozone standards, concentrating on attainment of the most recent NAAQS, dispensing obsolete
elements like RVP or all- volatile organic compounds (VOC) RFP and allowing states to tailor
RFP planning without layering on multiple requirements that have no meaning except to penalize
states and business.
Commenter (0169) stated, the shortened timeframe between finalizing the 2008 ozone NAAQS
implementation rule and the expected proposal of a revised ozone NAAQS provides the EPA
with an excellent opportunity to implement a co-proposal process. Commenter (0169) stated that,
this is the perfect opportunity for the EPA to utilize many of the "lessons learned" from the
Full/Life Cycle Analysis Project (FCAP/LCAP) which began during the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
proposal process.
Response: The EPA has not promulgated a revision to the 2008 NAAQS and designations for
that standard would occur 2 (and up to 3) years following promulgation of any NAAQS revision.
SIPs for any such revised standard would not be due until well after SIPs are required to be
submitted for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For this reason EPA believes it is premature, impractical,
and not legally supported by the CAA to further delay planning obligations for the 2008 standard
in order to consider obligations associated with a future, yet to be determined standard.
5. Marginal area RACT
Comment: Commenter (0180) stated that, because the EPA has (correctly) determined that
implementation of the 2008 standard is governed by subpart 2, the rule must require states to
submit, within 6 months of designation, the RACT provisions required for Marginal areas under
42 U.S.C. § 751 la(a)(2)(A). Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA's proposed RACT
implementation deadline also does not assure consistency with the statute with respect to areas
that are designated nonattainment for the 2008 standard in the future. Commenter (0180) stated
that, to be consistent with the Act and prior EPA rules and policy, RACT controls for Marginal
areas must be implemented before the start of the ozone season in the year in which the
attainment deadline falls.
15
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that states must submit RACT corrections or
additions for Marginal areas within 6 months of designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The
EPA clarifies that the obligations under § 182(a)(2)(A) section apply only to nonattainment areas
designated before 1990. The 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule takes the same position as
the 1997 ozone implementation rule for the application of the RACT "fix-up" obligations under
§ 182(a)(2)(A). The 1997 ozone implementation rule took the position that § 182(a)(2)(A) only
applies to pre-1990 nonattainment areas. The RACT fix-up provision under § 182(a)(2)(A) for a
nonattainment area classified as Marginal under the 2008 ozone NAAQS would only apply to
those areas for which the EPA issued a RACT SIP Call before the 1990 CAA Amendments.
6. RACT Implementation deadline
Comment: Commenter (0180) stated, the proposed implementation deadline is unlawful and
arbitrary as to the RACT requirements in section 182(a)(2)(A) for Marginal areas, as it would
post-date the attainment deadline for such areas by more than 2 years.
Response: The EPA agrees with the comment that implementation deadline of 54 V2 months
applies to states required to implement RACT for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008
NAAQS. The EPA does not agree that RACT is required for the designated nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal.
Comment: Commenter (0180) believed that the EPA must rephrase the outside implementation
deadline for RACT for sources covered by section 182(b)(2)(B) and (C) as 54 V2 months after the
date of nonattainment designation for the 2008 standard.
Response: The EPA agrees with the comment that RACT rules should be implemented by the
respective state within 54 V2 months after the date of nonattainment designation for the 2008
standard.
7. Timely issuance of SIP guidance and rules
Comment: Commenters (0139, 0150, 0153, 0155, 0157, 0163, 0169, 0175 and 0178) requested
that the EPA issue guidance necessary for nonattainment areas to complete their SIP submittals
on a timely basis.
Commenter (0139) stated that, states need to know what they are required to do as they prepare
their SIP submissions. Commenter (0163) urged the EPA to update outdated guidance (e.g.,
RACT, Emissions Inventory) that states use in preparing their SIPs; most of these documents
were prepared two decades ago to address the 1-hour ozone standard and are inadequate for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0150) stated, it is important to identify the test method in the
rule, so that industry will know how compliance will be measured and for the EPA to include
SIP implementation guidance as quickly as possible, so that states will know how the adequacy
of their SIP revisions will be measured. Commenter (0169) stated, it is difficult to have
meaningful public participation when the state cannot address stakeholder and community
questions because the EPA has not finalized guidance and other requirements necessary to
16
-------
implement the standards. Commenter (0175) stated that, states may be unable to meet the CAA
deadlines if these rules are not issued in a timely manner.
Commenter (0130) stated that, in areas where reductions in VOC ozone precursors are shown to
have minimal effects on ozone air quality, the EPA should update its redesignation request and
maintenance plan guidance to reflect this science. Commenter (0130) added that, states also need
other types of guidance on the analysis and regulation of High Electric Demand Days (HEDD)
units, including RACT analyses and other types of controls which generally are not cost effective
given current guidance on the calculations of cost/ton metrics.
Commenters (0139, 0141, 0150, 0153, 0155, 0157, 0169 and 0175) stated that, SIP guidance
should be proposed and finalized on the same time schedule as the proposal and finalization of
the standard itself. If the EPA is not able to simultaneously release both a NAAQS and the
implementation rule (proposed and final), Commenter (0169) suggested that, the effective date
for the standard should be delayed until the implementation rule is finalized.
Commenter (0154) implored the EPA to propose implementation guidelines when the EPA
finalizes an NAAQS. Commenter (0154) stated that, failure on the EPA's part to issue timely
rules, sets the states up for failure, invites lawsuits by frustrated interest groups and leads us all
down a path where we spend most of our time fighting over missed deadlines, rather than
focusing on environmental protection. Commenter (0139) requested the EPA's prompt action on
SIP submittals that have already been received.
Response: The EPA issues NAAQS implementation guidance to aid air agencies in efficiently
meeting their CAA obligations even though the Act does not mandate the EPA to issue such
guidance (with a few exceptions). The EPA strives to issue these guidance and rules with clarity
and in a timely manner, as we understand the challenges that states face in implementing actions
to meet the intent of the statute. To improve our performance in this regard, over the past year, a
joint EPA-state work group has been focusing on the timing of issuing guidance needed for
states to meet their NAAQS implementation CAA deadlines. The work group's efforts have led
to the development of an optimal schedule for the EPA to target for developing and issuing any
implementation guidance and rules, as necessary, which the EPA intends to follow.
8. Multi-state nonattainment areas
Comment: Commenter (0159) supported the EPA's interpretation of the requirements for multi-
state nonattainment areas, noting that it would be patently unfair for a cooperative and fully
engaged state to be penalized for the actions, or lack thereof, of another state that is part of the
same multi-state nonattainment area.
Commenter (0169) did not support the EPA's proposal that multi-state nonattainment areas adopt
the same SIP submittal deadline and viewed this as impractical in light of South Carolina's past
experience with the York County 1997 ozone nonattainment area (York County area) which is
part of the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina (Metrolina)
nonattainment area. Commenter (0169) stated that, states often have differing regulatory
processes and legislative timeframes, which make SIP submittal deadlines impossible to
17
-------
coordinate across state lines.
Response: These comments were made in response to the EPA's proposed option to allow states
to choose between the statutory SIP due dates or a consolidated approach with all SIP
requirements due at 30 months from the designation effective date. The proposed option would
have allowed the states the option to choose between the statutory or consolidated SIP due dates.
The EPA proposal required states in a multi-state area to choose the same SIP due date option.
The EPA is finalizing the approach requiring that all SIPs are due according to the statutory
deadlines. We believe since the consolidated approach is not being finalized then the
Commenter's concern is not an issue with the states not having a choice between different SIP
due date schedules because all states in the multi-state area will be on the same statutory SIP due
date schedule.
B. What are the requirements for modeling and attainment demonstration SIPs?
1. Marginal areas
Comment: Support proposal
Comm enter (0163) stated, they agreed with the EPA's proposal and had requested a
reclassification to Moderate based on a demonstration (with modeling) that the New York City
metropolitan area is unlikely to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal attainment
deadline.
Response: Under the CAA section 181(b)(3) states are able to request a voluntary
reclassification to a higher level. However, in this scenario, the state requesting a voluntary
reclassification is one of several states in a multi-state nonattainment area. In line with CAA
§182(j)(l) addressing multi-state nonattainment areas, the EPA believes that the states should
behave in a coordinated manner when working toward attainment. For the EPA to honor any
request for a reclassification of a multi-state area, the EPA has interpreted §182(j)(l) to require
all states that are part of a multi-state nonattainment area to support the request.
Comment: CSAPR Model
Comm enter (0159) agreed with the EPA's position that Marginal areas should implement such
controls as needed to get the necessary emissions reductions to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS
within 3 years, but did not support the EPA's recommendation that such areas use the CSAPR
model to examine whether they will timely attain the 2008 standard.
Response: The EPA recommended that states with Marginal areas look at available information
(including modeling) to help determine if the area is likely to attain the NAAQS within 3 years.
This was a recommendation and imposed no modeling or attainment demonstration requirements
on Marginal nonattainment areas. The EPA is not "promoting" the use of the CSAPR modeling
or any other specific technical information. We simply listed the CSAPR modeling as possibly
providing useful information to the states. That may or may not be the case for any particular
Marginal nonattainment area. There may be other information, including more recent modeling
analyses that are more relevant to a particular area. Regardless, states with Marginal areas are not
18
-------
obligated to submit an attainment demonstration or complete a modeling analysis for these areas.
Comment: Bump-up concern
Commenter (0169) questioned both how to prove to the EPA that York County has attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS and how to defend the area against a mandatory "bump-up" despite the SIP
Requirements Rule suggestion that states "use available modeling information to examine the
likelihood of whether a Marginal area would attain within 3 years." Similarly, given the current
status of the CSAPR per the DC Circuit Court's opinion in EME Homer City Generation v. EPA
(DC Cir. 2012), Commenter (0169) considered it largely inappropriate for the EPA to suggest
states rely on modeling from the CSAPR and to assume that states have the ability to model as
suggested in the rule. Commenter (0169) added that, in the letter denying the Department's
request for reconsideration of the 2008 ozone NAAQS designation for York County, Lisa P.
Jackson (former EPA Administrator) stated, "York County is properly designated nonattainment
because of its contribution to ozone nonattainment in the Charlotte, N.C.-Rock Hill, S.C., area."
Response: The EPA is not promoting the use of the CSAPR modeling. Rather, we simply listed
the CSAPR modeling as possibly providing useful information to the states. That may or may not
be the case for any particular Marginal nonattainment area. There may be other data, including
more recent modeling analyses that are more relevant to a particular area. But either way, states
with Marginal areas are not obligated to submit an attainment demonstration or complete a
modeling analysis for these areas. Regarding the issue pertaining to York County, the County is
part of a multi-state nonattainment area. In line with CAA §182(j)(l) addressing multi-state
nonattainment areas, the EPA believes that the states should behave in a coordinated manner
when working toward attainment.
2. Moderate areas
Comment: The EPA exceeded its authority
Comm enters (0151 and 0173) stated that, the EPA exceeded its authority to require states to
utilize photochemical grid modeling for 2008 ozone SIP demonstrations.
Commenter (0173) added that, for the EPA to require photochemical modeling for Moderate
nonattainment areas undermines states' discretion under the statute. Commenter (0173) asserted
that, Courts have routinely noted that states have broad discretion in fashioning their control
strategies where the CAA does not make a specific prescription (citing Union Elec. Co. v. EPA,
427 U.S. 246 (1976); and Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975). Commenter (0173) stated, the
EPA's authority to prescribe requirements for Moderate nonattainment area SIPs is restricted to
that which is specified by the CAA, which does not include photochemical modeling.
Commenter (0173) also opposed the proposed expansion of photochemical modeling
requirements because it would worsen existing bottlenecks in the SIP development and approval
process. Commenter (0173) asserted, the EPA should not require more areas to submit modeled
attainment demonstrations where the EPA cannot keep up with the existing rate of SIP
submissions.
19
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the Commenters and believes that EPA has the authority to
require states to use appropriate modeling to predict the effect of emissions on air quality of any
NAAQS, as we did for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. States are required to submit an attainment
demonstration for Moderate areas. Since photochemical modeling is the most scientifically
rigorous technique to determine NOx and/or VOC emissions reductions needed to show
attainment of the NAAQS, we are requiring photochemical modeling for all attainment
demonstrations, including those for Moderate areas. However, in concert with the flexibility
applicable to Serious and above areas under section 182(c)(2)(A), EPA will consider on a case-
by-case basis other analytical methods that are at least as effective as photochemical modeling.
The CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires Serious nonattainment areas to submit an attainment
demonstration which includes photochemical modeling or any other analytical method
determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective. Section 182(j)(l)(B) also requires
multi-state nonattainment areas to use photochemical grid modeling (or any other analytical
method determined by the Administrator to be at least as effective) for their SIPs. Since 182(j)
applies to all nonattainment areas, not just Serious and above, we have interpreted this provision
to also apply to multi-state Moderate nonattainment areas.3
The specific authority to require photochemical modeling for Moderate nonattainment areas is
derived from section 110(A)(2)(k) which gives the Administrator the authority to require air
quality modeling for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of emissions of
any air pollutant for which there is an established NAAQS. Here, the EPA is requiring states to
use photochemical modeling to predict the amounts of NOx and/or VOC reductions that are
needed to show that the area will attain the ozone NAAQS. Since the EPA has the legal authority
to require photochemical modeling, and there is no technical reason to differentiate between the
rigor of the attainment demonstration for all Moderate and above areas, the EPA continues to
believe that it is appropriate to require an attainment demonstration based on photochemical
modeling (or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator to be at least as
effective) for all Moderate areas.
Comment: State discretion
Commenter (0152) stated that, modeling should be left at the state's discretion because the state
is in the best position to determine if, and when, a more in-depth analysis than required by statute
may be necessary and it should not be mandated by the EPA in all instances.
Response: The EPA believes that a minimum requirement for all Moderate and above
nonattainment areas is to submit an attainment demonstration that is based on photochemical
modeling or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator to be at least as
3 The photochemical grid modeling requirement does not apply to multi-state Marginal areas
because Marginal areas are not required to submit an attainment demonstration.
20
-------
effective. Although photochemical modeling is the most scientifically rigorous technique to
determine NOx and/or VOC emissions reductions needed to show attainment of the NAAQS,
states still have discretion to propose to EPA other techniques that would fulfill the attainment
demonstration obligation. Since states need EPA approval of alternative analytical methods, they
should work closely with the EPA to determine the most appropriate option(s) for the attainment
demonstration.
Comment: Rural wintertime exemption
Commenter (0154) stated that, there are now a number of rural areas in the country with
wintertime ozone attainment issues and recommended that the EPA exempt rural wintertime
ozone nonattainment areas from the photochemical modeling requirement for the same reason—
that a wintertime PGM or proven alternative analytical method has not been developed.
Comm enter (0154) stated, the EPA clearly has a lead responsibility to develop and test models
that can be used consistently across the nation.
Response: The EPA recognizes that the causes of rural wintertime ozone exceedances are
different than typical summer exceedances. However, the CAA does not distinguish between
summer and winter ozone areas. Areas with wintertime violations are designated as
nonattainment based on the same classification tables as all other nonattainment areas. They
therefore must meet all of the appropriate CAA requirements for their particular nonattainment
classification.
Nonattainment areas classified as Moderate and above, even those that may experience
wintertime ozone problems, are required to submit an attainment demonstration. However there
is flexibility in determining analytical methods to be used in developing the demonstration. The
EPA will consider the nature of the ozone problem in reviewing available models and potential
alternative methods for demonstrating attainment. There is also ongoing research which has
successfully identified model science enhancements which have improved photochemical model
performance in wintertime ozone situations. Some of these science updates may be available for
states to use in their attainment demonstrations by the time modeling is needed for areas with
wintertime ozone problems.
Comment: Alternatives to photochemical modeling
Commenters (0173, 0175 and 0179) requested that, the EPA support states in using alternatives
to photochemical grid modeling for their attainment demonstrations.
Commenter (0175) stated that, while photochemical modeling is an important and long-used tool
for ozone SIP planning, it also has key limitations. For example, Commenter (0175) claimed
modeling relies heavily on limited spatial and temporal information on emissions and
meteorology and often cannot be precisely calibrated to reflect measured air quality data and that
some control strategy elements may be difficult to assign to emissions at a distinct point and
time. Commenter (0175) stated that, an example of a successful SIP that relied on an alternative
to photochemical modeling was the Houston area's SIP, approved by the EPA in 2006, which
demonstrated that a photochemical model could not replicate the events involving rapidly formed
21
-------
ozone that then drove the area's design value. Commenter (0175) stated, the Houston SIP relied
in part on photochemical modeling, but also included assessments of ambient monitoring data,
aircraft studies and other tools to support a change from the previous control strategy, including a
tailored strategy to reduce emissions of selected highly-reactive VOC species by approximately
36 percent. See TCEQ, Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress and Attainment Demonstration Follow-Up
SIP for the Houston/Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Area (Rule Log No. 2002w046a-SIP-AI)
(Dec. 13, 2002).
Response: The EPA agrees that additional information, including alternative techniques, could
be used to help demonstrate that an area will attain the NAAQS. Photochemical modeling is the
most technically credible tool to estimate emissions reductions needed to show attainment.
However, other tools, such as ambient data and emissions analyses can be used to supplement
modeling. In addition, as the Commenter notes, modeling conducted by other groups, including
multi-jurisdictional organizations and the EPA, can be used as part of the attainment
demonstration.
In some cases, regional or national photochemical modeling may be sufficient to serve as the
modeling analysis for the attainment demonstration. In that case, the EPA could consider
appropriate regional or national scale photochemical modeling as having satisfied the
"photochemical modeling" requirement for Moderate and above areas. Photochemical modeling
conducted by a third party needs to be well documented and shown to be appropriate for the area.
But since it is photochemical modeling, it would not need to be approved as "an equivalent
method".
Comment: Support for weight-of-evidence
Commenter (0160) supported allowing Moderate areas to use an alternative attainment
demonstration approach such as weight-of-evidence (WOE). Commenter (0160) suggested this
approach could include a combination of regional air quality modeling and data analysis
techniques. Commenter (0160) noted that, in California, some rural Marginal areas may become
Moderate in the future making it important to include this alternative attainment demonstration
approach in the final rule. Commenter (0160) added that, use of air quality modeling done for
upwind areas, transport analyses and other technical information could be included in a WOE
approach. Commenter (0160) appreciated the flexibility to address SIP planning for Moderate
nonattainment areas in a manner that is tailored to specific situations, providing an alternative to
resource-intensive modeling for each Moderate area.
Response: The EPA agrees that an alternative attainment demonstration approach may in some
cases substitute for photochemical modeling (with proper approval). But we wish to clarify that
the EPA does not use the term "weight of evidence" (WOE) to specifically refer to such an
approach. As used by EPA, WOE refers to a set of analytical information that supplements a
modeled attainment demonstration. While there are analyses that could be included in a typical
WOE demonstration that could potentially serve as alternative analytical method to
photochemical modeling, WOE itself does not serve as an alternative. States are encouraged to
submit WOE information to supplement their attainment demonstration. Any state contemplating
22
-------
an alternative analytical method to substitute for photochemical modeling must identify and
document the method and seek formal approval from the EPA.
Comment: Do not support weight-of-evidence
Commenter (0180) stated that, because WOE determinations have often led to litigation or SIP
disapproval, this method wastes limited state and EPA resources and impedes achievement of
emissions reductions. Although the Commenter cited two cases in which the EPA prevailed
regarding WOE, the Commenter (0180) stated that, the cases nonetheless indicate the limits of a
weight of evidence approach and asserted the EPA's guidance appears to violate the directive of
Environmental Defense v. EPA, where the demonstration would, contrary to the court's
admonition, "abandon the model all together."
Commenter (0180) stated that, the guidance would go far beyond legal bounds if the EPA
allowed the modeled attainment test to be supplemented with evidence of unusual events that
were not the "but for" cause of an exceedance. Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA must look at
monitored values that reflect air quality at the time of the measurement, not values that are
arbitrarily lowered if the state or the EPA believes the reading to be too high on a certain day.
Commenter (0180) stated, Congress provided a mechanism through exceptional events (EE) for
those situations to be addressed after they have occurred, once the facts can be evaluated, not in
an anticipatory and speculative manner as the EPA describes it. Commenter (0180) objected to
the EPA's WOE approach because it appears to be designed to let states specifically ignore years
like 2012 and the impacts of climate change in general.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that WOE analyses should not be allowed to
support attainment demonstrations. While modeling is still the critical component of an
attainment demonstration, there is always uncertainty associated with modeling results. WOE
analyses are meant to support and supplement the modeling results. Many types of information
can be used to demonstrate that expeditious attainment is likely. These include alternative
modeling applications, ambient data analyses and trends, emissions analysis and trends and in
some cases additional emissions controls that were not directly accounted for in the modeling
demonstration.
The Commenter notes cases where the EPA both approved and did not approve attainment
demonstrations based on the combined strength of modeling and weight of evidence analyses.
These examples illustrate that WOE arguments are sometimes convincing and sometimes not.
EPA has approved attainment demonstrations with WOE demonstrations and has also dis-
approved demonstrations where the overall evidence does not support an approval. Contrary to
the Commenter's assertion, the EPA is not skeptical of WOE demonstrations. We recognize that
some attainment demonstrations and WOE are convincing and some are not. The fact that we do
not always approve attainment demonstrations is not a reason to abandon the WOE concept.
In addition, the Commenter notes several court cases that support the ability to use WOE in
evaluating attainment demonstrations. Since the EPA clearly has the legal authority to do so and
since there are numerous technical reasons to evaluate as much data and information as
23
-------
appropriate, the EPA will continue to allow states to use WOE in support of modeled attainment
demonstrations.
Comments related to the Exceptional Events (EE) are addressed in section 2.B.5.
3. Modeling guidance
Comment: Commenters (0132, 0152 and 0154) requested that, the EPA update its ozone
modeling guidance as soon as possible since modeling must be completed well in advance of SIP
submission. Commenter (0152) stated that, too often the EPA modeling guidance is issued too
late for states to meaningfully apply it to SIP submittals that are on strict deadlines.
Response: The EPA agrees with the Commenters that, revised ozone photochemical modeling
guidance is needed. A revised draft has been released for public comment and a final version will
be released soon after the final implementation rule is published.
4. Capturing high emissions days in inventories
Comment: Use a summer day emissions inventory
Commenters (0143, 0144, 0146 and 0167) stated that, the EPA should include the requirement in
the rule that the baseline inventory for RFP and contingency measures should be a summer day,
rather than an annual inventory. One Commenter (0167) commented that, a "high ozone season
day" inventory be required. The Commenter indicated that, the EPA states in the proposed rule,
"On December 4, 2008, the EPA promulgated the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements
(AERR) rule (40 CFR 51, Subpart A). The AERR requires states to submit comprehensive
statewide 3-year cycle emission inventories (2008, 2011, 2014, etc.) regardless of an area's
attainment status. The EPA indicates it would be appropriate for states with periodic inventory
obligations under 182(a)(3)(A) to rely on their 3-year cycle inventory as described in the AERR
to satisfy their 182(a)(3)(A) periodic inventory obligation." Ozone concentrations are most likely
to be higher in the summer time since ozone concentrations are dependent on atmospheric
conditions typical of a summer day. States depend on accurate summer day emissions of NOx
and VOC to develop atmospheric modeling runs. An accurate account of summer daily
emissions is necessary for Pennsylvania's planning effort. The Commenter believed that, this is
especially important if an air agency will also be required to model the effect of HEDD units
which could elevate ozone concentrations on certain summer days. (0143)
Another Commenter (0144) contended that, current inventory guidance is inconsistent. The
proposal and background section references the air emissions reporting requirements (AERR) for
the purposes of defining the data elements for the emissions inventories for ozone relevant data
element requirements, but the simultaneous AERR proposed amendments are removing the
ozone related definitions and guidance. The background section of the proposal also references
the EPA August 2005 inventory guidance document. This 2005 guidance document references
and includes the consolidated emissions reporting rule (CERR), which no longer exists. States
need clear guidance and definitions on ozone inventory development that is no longer obsolete.
(0144)
24
-------
Another Commenter (0146) requested that, the EPA expressly state that the baseline inventory
for RFP and contingency measures be based on a summer day inventory, not on annual
emissions. Such specificity was expressed in the previous ozone implementation rule as follows:
"Consistent with the manner in which [rate of progress (ROP)] plans under the 1-hour ozone
standard were developed, the RFP baseline for 2002 will have a typical summer day tons/day
basis. As such, the attainment year target will also be a typical summer day target." If the intent
of the language in the proposal was to allow such elements to be based on annual inventories,
then the EPA is misguided. If this is instead an error of omission, then the EPA must clarify the
requirements with language consistent with that used previously. (0146)
Commenter (0167) stated that, the EPA's proposed rule does not clearly state the baseline
inventory requirements. The EPA's proposed rule mentions only annual data inventory. OTC
states firmly believe that a high ozone season day inventory is also required. The EPA should
expressly state that the baseline inventory for RFP and contingency measures be based on a
summer day inventory. (0167)
Response: The EPA agrees that the baseline inventory for RFP should be based on an actual
summer day inventory, which is consistent with the existing AERR requirements of 40 CFR Part
51 (the AERR). The EPA also partly agrees with the comment to use a "high ozone season day"
inventory. In particular, the EPA agrees with the concept of an "ozone season day" inventory,
because some areas have been observed to have exceedances during periods other than the
summer season, which is typically when violations occur. Otherwise, the EPA believes that the
existing definition is sufficient, which is supported both by those Commenters asking for a return
to use of "summer day" emissions as well as by the progress achieved to date for reducing NOx
and VOC with the existing inventory approaches. Thus, the EPA disagrees with the addition of
the word "high" to the "ozone season day" emissions.
Consequently, the EPA has included in the final rule the requirement that the inventories
required by the CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 182(b)(1)(B) include actual ozone season day
emissions, but has otherwise used a definition consistent with the "summer day" emissions
definition previously in 40 CFR Part 51. Thus, ozone season emissions are defined in this final
rule as an average day's actual emissions for a typical ozone season work weekday. Also
consistent with 40 CFR Part 51, this final rule specifies that the "ozone season" is defined by the
state in consultation with the regional office. This approach adopts the previous approach in 40
CFR Part 51 for the period defined as "summer," but replaces "summer" with "ozone season."
The EPA also clarifies that the concept of "ozone season" for inventory purposes is not the same
"ozone season" as that used for monitoring requirements. In general, the EPA expects that the
period used for defining the ozone season for computing emissions inventories will be shorter
and aligned with periods of the most significant ozone exceedances.
Comment: Require maximum daily emissions
Commenters (0144 and 0146) recommended that, the EPA address whether maximum daily
emissions should be included in SIP planning. The Commenter (0144) stated that, the EPA
should require a maximum daily actual emissions inventory during the ozone season to more
accurately depict the cause of ozone exceedances, which are not predicted by an annual or
25
-------
typical ozone season day inventory; such an inventory would more accurately capture HEDD
units and distributed generation units. (0144). Another Commenter (0146) expressed that, the
EPA should consider requiring maximum daily emissions, such as HEDD emissions, during the
ozone season to more accurately depict the cause of ozone exceedance. These emissions are not
currently captured in an annual or typical ozone season day inventory.
Response: While the first Commenter used the term "actual" in the comment and the second
Commenter did not, we are assuming that based on the context in which these comments were
given, both Commenters would like maximum actual emissions to be used as part of SIP
planning. The context of both of these comments were for using emissions during HEDD
periods, which we address in the response to the next comment summary.
In the final rule, we have indicated the need for areas to use emissions that are consistent with
periods that have ozone exceedances. These periods can include HEDD periods for areas where
emissions are higher during HEDD events. Rather than change the wording to include
"maximum," we have elected to take a similar approach as in past rules as encouraged by
Commenter 0146. As described in the response to the previous comment, we are requiring ozone
season day emissions, the definition for which the EPA believes achieves the intent of these
Commenters to use emissions estimates from periods of high ozone.
Comment: Require HEDD emissions in SIP planning
Commenters (0167 and 0168) recommended that the EPA require that HEDD emissions
inventories be included in SIP planning. The Commenters recommended, as part of the high
ozone day inventory, states need to factor in HEDD data into their modeling to appropriately
factor in the impact of HEDD. The OTC states request that EPA take steps to account for and
address peak emissions that contribute to high ozone days. (0167). Commenter (0168) agrees
with the EPA proposal that, these emissions must be appropriately accounted for in modeling.
Because of their significance we recommend that the EPA take a stronger stance in the proposal
and clearly require areas to specifically address HEDD not only in modeling, but also in all other
SIP requirements, to include ROP calculations and RACT determinations. (0168)
Response: The EPA agrees with the Commenters that HEDD emissions should be included in
SIP inventories where appropriate. The EPA also agrees with the principle of a Commenter's
(0168) recommendation to include HEDD-related emissions in non-modeling inventories, but the
EPA believes that such emissions are already required based on existing definitions and continue
to be required by the final rule.
The final rule requires a base year inventory for the nonattainment area in accordance with the
CAA 182(a)(1) and 182(b)(1)(B) requirements for states to develop current and baseline
inventories of actual emissions for the nonattainment area as part of SIPs. This "base year
inventory for the nonattainment area" is used to form the baseline for ROP/RFP calculations and
for motor vehicle conformity, as well as to provide an ozone season average overview of the
current emissions sources. The emissions required for this base year inventory are ozone season
day emissions as defined above and the spatial extent includes only the nonattainment area.
26
-------
Furthermore, the final rule relies on 40 CFR Part 51 for defining which emissions are to be
included in emissions inventories reported to the EPA. The current requirement for emission
inventories in 40 CFR 51.20 (a) states: "All anthropogenic stationary sources must be included in
your inventory as either point or nonpoint sources." In addition, 40 CFR 51.20(d) further
clarifies that "Nonpoint source categories or emission events reasonably estimated by the state to
represent a de minimis percentage of total county and state emissions of a given pollutant may be
omitted." The EPA believes that for nonattainment areas for which emissions sources inside the
area contribute emissions during HEDD periods, those emissions sources would not pass the de
minimus test of 40 CFR 51.20 (d) and should therefore be included in the base year inventory for
the nonattainment area. The EPA additionally recommends that the use of the phrase "typical"
does not prevent areas from including emissions associated with HEDD events, particularly if the
conditions causing nonattainment typically include HEDD-related emissions within the
nonattainment area.
States are encouraged to examine emissions data and other information to determine if HEDD
emissions sources need to be considered in their plan. As is the case with other emissions
sources, it is inherently a state responsibility to develop emissions inventories, perform modeling
(where necessary) and submit an attainment demonstration that shows how the state will attain
the ozone NAAQS. It is also the state's responsibility to ensure that the emissions and modeling
accurately represent the conditions that form ozone in the area and will show that they will attain
the NAAQS by their attainment date (for Moderate and above areas).
The EPA has also considered the possibility that the intent of these comments may include
seeking to compel other states to include HEDD-related emissions in their inventories. Such
emissions estimates could be needed by downwind states from upwind states to help characterize
the downwind state's nonattainment problems. However, since the purpose of the CAA 182(a)(1)
and 182(b)(1)(B) emissions inventory requirements are to characterize the emissions within a
nonattainment area that are needed for SIP development purposes for that nonattainment area,
the EPA does not believe it should compel states to include HEDD-related emissions if those
emissions are not relevant for bringing their own nonattainment area(s) into compliance. The
resulting approach in this final rule allows for HEDD emissions to be included, but does not
require them.
Comment: Create guidance and require emissions from the distributed generation sector
for SIP planning
Commenter (0130) urged the EPA to provide specific guidance on the quantification of
emissions from the distributed generation sector. The Commenter claimed widely available data
from sources such as PJM seem to indicate that this emissions sector may be a segment of the
emissions inventory that is currently under-estimated by the NONROAD model. Also important
is the temporal and spatial profiles for this sector, which are poorly understood and could be
important to air quality modeling. The Commenter contended it is known that such units operate
during HEDD events and may emit NOx in quantities that could be of concern in the short term,
yet no federal guidance exists for the quantification, temporalization and spatial allocation of
emissions in the base year or the future attainment years from this category. Without such basic
information, estimating the impact on ozone air quality from this sector using EPA-approved
27
-------
models is not possible. (0130)
Commenter (0144) stated, the EPA should require data from uncontrolled diesel engines used for
demand response purposes as a part of a demand side management program be incorporated into
the inventories and the modeling.
Response: The EPA agrees with the comments that distributed generation emissions could be
important in some nonattainment areas. The EPA also agrees with the comment that emissions
from uncontrolled diesel engines should be included in emissions inventories and modeling, but
the EPA also believes that states are already required to do so under 40 CFR Part 51. The EPA
disagrees with the comments that no guidance is provided for these sources of emissions and that
it is not possible for states to estimate the impact on ozone from this sector without additional
information from the EPA.
As described in the response to the comments above (See "Require HEDD emissions in SIP
planning"), the governing rule for which sources to include in emissions inventories is found in
40 CFR Part 51. As with HEDD emissions, the EPA believes that these sources of emissions are
already required and do not pass the de minimus test for being able to be excluded from
inventories. Thus, the EPA concludes that the governing emissions reporting regulations already
require the reporting of emissions from distributed generation where such emissions are
important for analysis of ozone nonattainment. Because of the intermittent and smaller capacity
of these sources, the EPA anticipates that they would be included as nonpoint sources, as an
individual generator may be unlikely to meet the potential-to-emit point source reporting
thresholds included in 40 CFR Part 51. However, states are permitted to get more detailed than
required and include these sources as point sources.
Furthermore, the EPA disagrees with the implication that the EPA is required to provide
information and emissions approaches for a given category prior to a state being able to include
emissions in their SIP planning from that category. As is the case with other emissions sources, it
is inherently a state responsibility to develop emissions inventories, perform modeling (where
necessary) and submit an attainment demonstration that shows how the state will attain the ozone
NAAQS. It is also the state's responsibility to ensure that the emissions and modeling accurately
represent the conditions that form ozone in the area and will show that they will attain the
NAAQS by their attainment date (for Moderate and above areas). While the EPA can assist in
preparing these estimates by publishing emission factors, compiling national inventories and
producing emissions models, any lack of such information does not remove the state
responsibility of complete emissions inventories for SIP planning purposes.
In addition to the comments on the rule requirements, this comment also reflects on the EPA's
guidance documents. While comments on the EPA's guidance does not directly impact the
outcome of the rule, the EPA addresses these comments here to be complete.
The EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that, no federal guidance exists for the
quantification of emissions in the base year or the future attainment years for this category.
Emissions from generator engines are covered in AP-42, Chapter 3, Section 3 provides emissions
methods for these engines. As stated in that section: "The engine category addressed by this
28
-------
section covers a wide variety of industrial applications of both gasoline and diesel internal
combustion (IC) engines such as aerial lifts, fork lifts, mobile refrigeration units, generators
[emphasis added], pumps, industrial sweepers/scrubbers, material handling equipment (such as
conveyors) and portable well-drilling equipment." The emission factors for NOx and other
pollutants included in this AP-42 section are provided in two forms: power output (emissions in
lb/hp-hr) and fuel input (emissions in lb/MMBtu). To use these emission factors, state and local
air agencies can conduct surveys of their area to obtain the necessary activities of power output
and/or fuel input. Such surveys are a typical part of the SIP planning process, especially for new
or unfamiliar source categories.
The Commenter asserts that, the NONROAD emissions model underestimates the emissions
from the distributed generator sector of the emission inventory. The EPA disagrees with the
Commenter's assertion. The NONROAD model only calculates emissions from a generator that
is "trailer or skid mounted self-contained engine\electric generator designed to supply electric
power at a job site. (User's Guide for the Final NONROAD2005 Model, EPA420-R-05-013,
December 2005, Table B-6)4 Therefore, NONROAD2008 should not be used to calculate
emissions from generators that are installed at a fixed location. This is consistent with the
definition of a nonroad engine, which states in part that an internal combustion engine is not a
nonroad engine if the engine...remains or will remain at a location for more than 12 consecutive
months or a shorter period of time for an engine located at a seasonal source. (40 CFR part 89.2)
The EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that, no federal guidance exists for
temporalization and spatial allocation of the distributed generation sector. These emissions
allocation steps are particularly relevant for inventories used for modeled attainment
demonstrations and temporal allocation may be important for estimation of ozone season
emissions for the nonattainment area inventories. While the Commenter is correct that, there is
no formulaic approach provided by the EPA for use in distribution generation emissions, the
general guidance on temporal and spatial allocation of the emissions provided in the modeling
guidance applies sufficiently for this sector. In addition, to the extent that distributed generation
emissions are included in a state's inventory as a nonpoint source, the EPA provides several
spatial allocation surrogates that could be appropriate for this type of industrial/commercial
source. In addition, local survey data would benefit the spatial allocation approaches. Lastly,
temporal allocation of these types of emissions is highly specific to a given episode and
electricity generation and so those local conditions should be considered. The EPA does not
believe that any default temporal profiles would sufficiently describe the temporal nature of
these sources given their specificity, intermittent use and variability from one ozone season or
episode to the next. For areas where such distributed generation emissions are significant, such a
local-specific approach is consistent with the temporal allocation guidance provided in the
modeling guidance.
4 The user's guide is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2005/420r05013.pdf
29
-------
Comment: State discretion
Commenter (0152) stated that, it should be up to the states to decide if HEDD days necessitate
modeling.
Response: The EPA agrees that it is up to the states to decide if HEDD issues (selection of
modeling time periods, emissions generation and control strategies) are important in their area
and attainment demonstration. This final rule does not impose any new HEDD-related
requirements for SIPs. It simply raises the issue so that states are aware that HEDD emissions
could be important on some days in some areas. States are encouraged to examine emissions data
and other information to determine if HEDD emissions sources need to be considered in their
plan. As is the case with other emissions sources, it is inherently a state responsibility to develop
emissions inventories, perform modeling (where necessary) and submit an attainment
demonstration that shows how the state will attain the ozone NAAQS. It is also the state's
responsibility to ensure that the emissions and modeling accurately represent the conditions that
form ozone in the area and will show that they will attain the NAAQS by their attainment date
(for Moderate and above areas).
Comment: Reporting of HEDD emissions by industry for use in modeling
Commenter (0143) stated that, the EPA should utilize its existing authority under section 114 of
the CAA to require owners or operators of all HEDD units to report their daily NOx emissions to
the EPA and the EPA should publish that data for states to use in their atmospheric modeling
analysis.
The Commenter believed that, the EPA indicates that the episode selection for the modeling
should be used to address HEDD emissions timeframes by each state in which HEDD issues
exist. The Commenter pointed that, in the proposed rule, the EPA stated, "Since NOx emissions
from electric power generation are a significant contributor to the total NOx emissions for many
ozone nonattainment areas, states that experience this phenomenon should be careful to fully
account for it by ensuring that these emissions are included in photochemical modeling of
episode days on which the phenomenon occurs. In order to properly account for HEDD
emissions, careful attention should be paid to the temporalization of emissions to the specific day
and hour of the day when these emissions occur (78 FR 34186)." The Commenter believed that,
the EPA, however, fails to use its authority under section 114 of the CAA to either require
reporting from companies that contract HEDD units or obtain the information that they are
proposing the states obtain to perform the analysis and modeling. If companies were required to
submit information to the EPA on the location of generating units with a power rating below 25
megawatts, the associated emissions information from these units could be appropriately
analyzed and modeled to determine if smaller HEDD units have an impact on air quality. This is
especially important for distributed generation that is participating in a Demand Response
Program. The EPA should request data from owners/operators of sources that do not currently
report data to states or the EPA. After the EPA obtains this information, this data should be
provided to states so they can use the data to determine appropriate control measures as needed.
(0143)
30
-------
Response: Section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) mandates States to include in their SIP a requirement that
owners and operators of each stationary source of VOC and NOx emissions must provide to the
state a showing of actual emissions of VOC and NOx from that source. The EPA acknowledges
that it could use its authority under Section 114 of the CAA to require additional reporting of
emissions when appropriate; however, adding such a reporting requirement would be outside of
the scope and context of the final rule. Additionally, neither the CAA nor the EPA has
determined a way to subcategorize electricity generating units into a class, as the Commenter
suggest, of "HEDD units." The EPA agrees that some units are used predominantly during
HEDD periods, but classification of units based on when they are used is not a trivial exercise
that the EPA believes can be resolved as part of this response. Nor can it be resolved as part of
this rule.
The EPA disagrees that it needs to require additional reporting of location of generating units
with a power rating below 25 megawatts. This information is available already through the
database provided by the EPA entitled the "National Electric Energy Data System" database. The
most current version (version 5.13) of this database is publicly available at
http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/BaseCasev513.html and includes a user's guide. While
the database does not explicitly include latitude longitude, it does include the state and county
code and the ORIS Plant Code field that the EPA has used to match to the National Emissions
Inventory, which does include the latitude/longitude locations.
Further, the EPA notes that one key aspect of the EPA's identification of this issue in the
preamble to this rule is that episodes selected for the modeled attainment demonstration should
include HEDD periods and associated emissions when it is appropriate to do so. While the EPA
agrees that quantifying all emissions associated with HEDD periods is difficult, the EPA believes
that in most if not all cases, existing data collection programs provide enough information to
identify the HEDD periods. After such identification, air agencies should then work to better
quantify the emissions from important extra sources of emissions during these periods. The EPA
points to existing EPA programs that require the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring
System (CEMS). While the emissions from all units operating during HEDD periods are not
captured by the CEMS, the EPA believes that enough information is captured to identify HEDD
periods and to determine if such periods are potentially contributing to ozone formation.
The EPA acknowledges challenges to estimating additional emissions during HEDD periods, but
points to the following mechanisms as reasonable approaches to collecting more information.
First, air agencies should collaborate with their state energy and public utility commission
counterparts, who may have established (or can establish) mechanisms for information collection
and sharing. Air agencies may also need to assess the demand response programs in their area by
working directly with utilities and independent system operators (ISOs). Second, starting in 2015
the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) (40 CFR
Part 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ and 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ), also called the RICE rules,
will require owners/operators of emergency engines participating in emergency demand response
programs to report the dates and times that the engines operate for emergency demand response
as well as engine information such as horsepower and model year. While the RICE rules do not
require the reporting of NOx emissions or information about non-emergency programs, they will
31
-------
start to help provide information useful for understanding the activity of these back-up
generators and engines, which may also be helpful for ozone planning purposes.
Comment: States need guidance on HEDD periods for modeling issues
One Commenter (0130) stated that, states need other types of guidance on the analysis and
regulation of units operating during HEDD periods. The Commenter provided an example that,
since these units have relatively low ozone season emissions, RACT analyses and other types of
controls generally are not cost effective given current guidance on the calculations of cost/ton
metrics. Federal regulation and/or guidance on the application of various CAA requirements to
these units would allow states to develop strategies for their control and would standardize the
approach to these units across regions. (0130)
Commenters (0131, 0144 and 0177) recommended that, the EPA update its guidance to account
for the potential for high contributions of emissions during HEDD.
Commenter (0131) referenced a study by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESC AUM. Air Quality, Electricity and Back-up Stationary Diesel Engines in the Northeast.
August 2012) and stated that, given the potential of high contributions of NOx emissions during
high electricity demand days, the EPA should revise its guidance to require consideration of
emissions from emergency generators that participate in emergency demand response programs,
particularly given their potential impacts on HEDDs and implications for attainment. The
Commenter added that, the EPA should provide guidance on how states should quantify the
amount of additional capacity dispatched during HEDD events that is attributable to exempt
emergency generators, in light of the EPA's acknowledgement that little data exist on the number
or location of such generators at this time. At the very least, the EPA should publish assumptions
that states can use in the absence of such data to accurately assess the contribution from exempt
emergency RICE participating in demand response programs to regional ozone formation, which
assumptions, if used in a state's photochemical modelling, will be deemed acceptable by the EPA
for purposes of attainment demonstration. (0131)
Commenter (0144) agrees that, HEDD emissions should be properly accounted for. The
Commenter contended that, the EPA should update its modelling guidance to ensure accounting
for daily peaks in HEDD usage and ozone levels.
Commenter (0158) stated that, the EPA suggests that states experiencing the phenomena of
HEDD should make efforts to include emissions during these days in photochemical modeling
but believed the EPA should make clear that states must continue to follow the procedures
identified in current EPA photochemical modeling guidance for ozone episode selection for
attainment demonstration modeling purposes. The Commenter maintained that, while HEDD
may coincide with high ozone days, HEDD events should not be the driving force behind
episode selection. The Commenter pointed out that, the EPA also states it will consider whether
additional updates to current photochemical modeling guidance are needed to address modeling
of HEDD. The Commenter endorsed to the extent that, the EPA revises existing guidance to
address HEDD issues, such revisions should be undertaken through a public review and
comment process.
32
-------
Commenter (0177) encourages the EPA to consult with all eastern U.S. regional grid operators,
state and regional modeling partners to obtain specific HEDD emissions profiles and develop
explicit HEDD procedures for incorporation into the modeling guidance. The Commenter also
notes that, the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC) has gathered and
analyzed available Electric Generating Unit (EGU) data to develop a tool that projects hourly
growth rates in EGU generation during peak-demand times. The commenter claims this
information could prove useful in developing appropriate procedures to more accurately simulate
HEDD emissions in photochemical modeling. (0177)
Response: To address these comments, the EPA has assumed that all Commenters are referring
to the modeling guidance and not the emission inventory guidance (some Commenters
specifically state this while others do not). The EPA also notes that these are comments on
guidance rather than comments on the ozone implementation proposal for which this response to
comments document is intended. Nevertheless, the following response is included for the
purposes of completeness and to provide these Commenters with more information regarding the
EPA's intentions for guidance related to HEDD emissions.
The modeling guidance provides information for states to use in creating the emissions for their
modeled attainment demonstrations. This is in contrast to the emissions inventory guidance,
which provides information for states to use in creating the nonattainment area inventories for
the base year and projected attainment year. The inclusion of HEDD-related emissions in the
nonattainment area inventories is addressed in the response above to separate comments on
including such emissions in the nonattainment area inventories (See "Comment: Require HEDD
emissions in SIP planning").
The EPA believes that in answering these questions, it is important to clarify that the EPA has no
expectation that the same emissions will be used in the nonattainment area inventories as are
used in the modeled attainment demonstration. To the contrary, the EPA expects that these
inventories will not be consistent in many cases. The inventories should be consistent where
consistency makes sense, but there are valid reasons why the inventories would not be the same.
These reasons are related to the purpose of the inventories.
The purpose of the base year inventory for the nonattainment area is to form the baseline for
ROP/RFP calculations and for motor vehicle conformity, as well as to provide an overview of
the emissions sources in the nonattainment area relevant to the nonattainment problem.
In contrast to the base year inventory for the nonattainment area, the purpose of the inventory
used for the modeled attainment demonstration is to represent the actual emissions during the
modeled episode. As many Commenters have noted, this period may include higher emissions
from smaller electricity generating units that operate only on high electricity demand days and
distributed generation sources. Since modeled attainment demonstrations use high ozone periods
rather than an ozone season average conditions to help ensure future attainment, the emissions
during those periods are unlikely to match the ozone season day emissions included in the
inventories for the nonattainment area. The EPA believes that existing guidance and this final
rule allow for inclusion of the HEDD-related emissions and distributed generation emissions in
33
-------
both the nonattainment area inventories and the inventories used for the modeled attainment
demonstrations.
In addition, the EPA does intend to update the photochemical modeling guidance to specifically
mention high electricity demand days as an issue when selecting time periods to model,
generating emissions for modeling and selecting control strategies. Since attainment
demonstration modeling and SIP submittals are the responsibility of the states, it is up to
individual states to determine the importance of HEDD emissions in their nonattainment area
(and the surrounding region) and whether HEDD emissions and emissions controls need to be
considered in their demonstration. This responsibility includes collecting information needed to
estimate emissions of these sources. As with any other source of NOx or VOC emissions, it is
also up to the states to determine a set of controls that will demonstrate attainment by their
attainment date.
Comment: Climate change
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA needs to require states to model meteorology that reflects the
impacts of climate change. Commenter (0180) stated, for example, 2012 was a very hot year for
a large part of the country and had very high ozone levels and states should be using 2012
meteorology in their modeling as it represents what may become more common as we suffer the
effects of climate change.
Response: The modeling guidance contains details on "episode selection" for ozone modeling
applications. States should refer to the guidance when choosing base year modeling periods. In
general, states should model ozone periods which are generally conducive to ozone formation
and which are representative of observed design values. There have been several recent summers
with above normal temperatures in some parts of the country. However, the impact of climate
change on the meteorology in any particular year in any particular area is unclear. Therefore, we
believe the current guidance recommendations are sufficient. Base modeling periods should be
selected based on several criteria, the severity of meteorology being one of them.
In addition, recent research indicates that there could be an ozone "climate penalty" in the future.
Assuming temperatures will rise in the future due to climate change and that other
meteorological variables may also become more conducive to high ozone concentrations, there
could potentially be a need for more stringent emissions reductions to counteract the higher
ozone potential from warmer conditions. However, there are significant uncertainties in the
impacts of climate change on air quality. Generally, the analytical horizon for climate
applications is on the order of 20 to 100 years, while the horizon for attainment demonstrations is
typically shorter. Additionally, the forcing mechanisms that drive near-term natural variability in
climate patterns (e.g., El Nino, North American Oscillation) have substantially larger signals
than the driving forces related to climate change over short time spans. Research also suggests
that the variability between climate modeling platforms is larger than the variability between
modeled climate scenarios. Given the relatively short time span between base and future year
meteorology in most SIP demonstrations, the EPA is not requiring states to explicitly account for
long-term climate change, but does suggest states consider potential impacts in their specific
34
-------
areas, when impacts are believed to be important.
5. Modeled attainment test
Comment: Modeling in unmonitored areas
Commenters (0137, 0151 and 0152) did not support the EPA's proposal that states model
unmonitored areas. Commenter (0137) stated that, if a state has a monitoring plan that has been
approved by the EPA, then use of the modeled attainment test in unmonitored areas should only
be performed at the discretion of the state. Commenter (0152) stated that, attainment tests should
be performed at monitored locations where real world checks can occur to confirm the accuracy
of the model. Commenter (0151) stated that, additional modeling of areas that lack monitors only
should be done if the state has a reason to believe that a number of people are likely to be
exposed to ozone concentrations above the standard or there are large and/or clustered VOC/NOx
emitters that may be contributing to those excursions unhealthful air. Commenter (0151)
asserted, the EPA already presented guidance adopting such a strategy for modeling of the SO2
NAAQS. Even though ozone is a regional pollutant, in contrast to SO2, which tends to have more
localized effects, Commenter (0151) believed, that requiring statewide modeling is neither
needed nor required by the Act.
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA should clarify in its regulations that the ozone attainment
demonstration modeling must include a receptor grid that covers the entire nonattainment area
and that the design value for all receptors in the attainment year must be below the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Commenter (0180) asserted that, 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1) provides that nonattainment
SIPs must provide for "attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards" and that
42 U.S.C. § 751 la(c)(2)(A) contains a similar requirement. Commenter (0180) stated that, only
modeling for modeling receptors at ambient monitoring locations is arbitrary and capricious
because it ignores whether there will be attainment throughout the nonattainment area except for
the tiny percentage of the nonattainment area where the ambient monitors are located.
Commenter (0180) believed, this could result in subjecting millions of people to unsafe ozone
levels because they happen to live, work or exercise in areas not right next to an ambient
monitoring location.
Response: The EPA continues to require a modeling analysis of future year ozone
concentrations in locations with current or recent ozone monitors. In the proposed rule, the EPA
also recommended for states to perform an attainment test in unmonitored areas. The
recommended attainment test methodology for unmonitored areas has been used in 8-hour ozone
SIPs developed for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The EPA continues to believe that this is a valid
approach. To make it easier for states to apply the attainment tests, both the monitor-based test
and the unmonitored area test have been incorporated in a software package called the "Modeled
35
-------
Attainment Test Software."5
Under the CAA section 110(a)(2)(B), all states are required to have an approved monitoring
plan. The EPA's monitoring requirements for ozone are designed to ensure a robust nationwide
monitoring network in both nonattainment and attainment areas. Air agencies have done this by
maintaining their ozone networks in accordance with the EPA's network design criteria. These
criteria provide that Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSA's) have at least one ozone monitoring
site located in a location of expected maximum concentration. Thus, by assuring compliance
with the NAAQS at the expected highest concentration area, air quality is protected throughout
each CBS A. However, due to limited resources, there are limits to the number of air quality
monitors that can be deployed and it therefore may be useful to consider, what, if any additional
monitoring needs there may be as agencies prepare their implementation plans.6
The EPA proposed to require states to follow the existing modeling guidance which
recommended a modeled attainment test where states demonstrate attainment at ambient
monitors. The guidance also recommends that states conduct further analyses based on the
modeling results to determine whether there are unmonitored areas that merit additional analysis
or investigation. We believe this approach was appropriate, but the requirements for the
unmonitored area analysis in the 2007 modeling guidance were not entirely clear. We are
therefore clarifying the treatment of model results in unmonitored areas and will update the
modeling guidance to reflect the latest recommendations on handling and documenting the
results of an unmonitored area analysis. In the final rule, the attainment test must be performed at
current or recent monitor locations. An unmonitored area analysis is not required as part of the
attainment demonstration. However, we continue to recommend states perform an unmonitored
area analysis and encourage states to use information available to them to determine the
likelihood of violations in unmonitored areas. This may be especially important in areas with a
relatively sparse ozone monitoring network or in locations where information such as modeling,
emissions, or other monitoring data may indicate potential high ozone concentrations in areas
that are currently unmonitored.
The EPA does not believe that the CAA requires states to specifically determine through
modeling that attainment has been shown in unmonitored areas. The CAA section 172(c)(1)
5 The Modeled Attainment Test Software is available for no charge at:
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/modelingappsjnats.htm.
6 Annual monitoring network plans and 5-year assessments are required by regulation in section
58.10. The 5-year monitoring network assessment is a comprehensive evaluation of the
monitoring agencies ambient air monitoring network, while the annual plans describes the
existing network and changes being proposed to support implementing recommendations from
the most recent 5 year assessment as well as any applicable changes from revisions to NAAQS.
36
-------
requires the SIP to provide for attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the CAA section
182(b)(l)(A)(i) requires the SIP to provide for annual reductions in emissions of VOC and NOx
as necessary to attain the NAAQS. The EPA requires states to show that they are attaining the
ozone NAAQS by showing that they are attaining at monitoring locations which are
representative of air quality in the entire nonattainment area.
Determining future year attainment at monitoring locations is consistent with how attainment of
the ozone NAAQS is determined for purposes of designations and redesignations. The EPA
promulgates designations for ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas based primarily on ambient
data measured at monitors.7 Although the EPA considers other forms of information for purposes
of evaluating areas with sources that contribute to those monitored violations for inclusion within
the nonattainment area boundaries, the fundamental basis for a designated nonattainment area is
the presence of one or more monitors with data showing violations of the NAAQS in question.
Similarly, determinations of attainment of the ozone NAAQS for purposes of redesignation
actions are based primarily on monitored data. When all ozone monitors in a nonattainment area
measure attainment of the NAAQS, the area is eligible to submit a redesignation request,
assuming compliance with the other requirements for redesignation. The EPA's approval of a
redesignation request is subject to meeting the requirements of the CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).
Among those requirements is that the area has attained the NAAQS. For the ozone NAAQS, this
determination is based on ambient data measured at the ozone monitors in the area in question.
Thus, neither ozone designations nor redesignations are premised upon whether there are
violations of the NAAQS at unmonitored locations throughout a given area. Therefore,
consistent with how ozone areas are designated and redesignated, the EPA is only requiring that
states show attainment at ozone monitoring locations as an element of their attainment
demonstration for the ozone NAAQS.
In addition, the "relative" attainment test for ozone uses ambient ozone monitoring data,
combined with future year modeled percentage changes in ozone concentrations, to project future
year design values. Since the attainment test relies on ambient monitoring data, an analysis of
future year concentrations in unmonitored areas can only be accomplished by interpolating
ambient data to a particular location where there is no existing monitor or recent monitoring data.
Therefore, in the context of an attainment demonstration, the projection of future year ozone
concentrations in unmonitored locations is inherently more uncertain than projections in
monitored locations due to the fact that the ambient concentrations from which these projections
are developed are unknown in the unmonitored locations.
States should consult with their EPA Regional Office to determine if an unmonitored area
analysis should be conducted for a particular nonattainment area. Where an unmonitored area
analysis is performed, states should use the unmonitored area analysis results to develop an
assessment of the likelihood of violations in unmonitored areas. The nature of the assessment
7 Determinations are based on design values which is an average of 3 years of ambient data. A
monitor must have 3 years of ambient data to be used to determine compliance with the NAAQS.
37
-------
depends on the local area modeling, but could include, as appropriate, elements such as an
evaluation of the emissions inventory, the existing ambient data for the area and meteorological
model inputs to determine if the modeled violations in unmonitored areas appear to be credible.
If potential violations are found to be credible, additional steps may include imposition of
enforceable emissions reductions at nearby emission sources or a commitment to deploy special
purpose monitors and/or saturation monitors in the area (in order to further evaluate the
problem). The state should document the assessment, including analyses of emissions,
meteorological inputs and ambient data and/or make a commitment to establish special purpose
monitors as part of the attainment demonstration. Special purpose ambient air monitoring data
that is collected after the attainment demonstration is submitted should be summarized for use in
the area's 5-year monitoring assessment and where appropriate, annual monitoring network
plans.8
Comment: Regional modeling
Commenter (0141) stated, RAPCA does not have direct responsibility for the modeling and
attainment demonstration; that responsibility falls to Ohio EPA. Given the limited resources
available to many agencies today, the Commenter recommended maximum flexibility on this
issue including the allowance of regional modeling plans covering large area as conducted either
by the EPA or regional planning organizations such as LADCO.
Response: The EPA intends to allow flexibility regarding the nature of the modeled attainment
demonstration. We understand that there are limited resources to conduct modeling. We urge
RAPCA to closely coordinate with Ohio EPA, the EPA and LADCO to ensure that any
attainment demonstration modeling requirement is adequately satisfied for the area.
Comment: Discourage across-the-board reductions
Commenter (0151) requested that, the EPA actively discourage states from imposing another
round of proportional "across-the-board percentage VOC and/or NOx reductions" on stationary
sources based on their estimate of needed area-wide ozone reductions in the final rule because
regulators now know so much more about the interactions of NOx, VOC and the reactivity of
different VOC in different air-sheds. A number of jurisdictions, according to Commenter (0151),
thought such an approach was more politically viable for meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but it
appears arbitrary legally and even less likely to work for meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
could result in more pollution. Commenter (0151) believed, states have to be encouraged to take
a look at the reactivity of the VOC and the likely impact of VOC reductions on actual ozone
concentrations before requiring addition controls for the sake of controls.
8 All states are required to have an annual monitoring plan which meets the siting criteria for
ozone monitors (40 CFR 58.10).
38
-------
Response: States should use science-based judgments to determine the appropriate mix of NOx
and VOC controls that are necessary to bring an area into attainment. The purpose of an
attainment demonstration is to identify the emissions reductions that are needed by states to
attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. However, as detailed in the RFP, ROP and
RACT sections of the final preamble, the CAA section 182 requires a certain percentage
reduction in area-wide VOC and/or NOx emissions for Moderate and above areas for RFP. See
sections C and D in Part 2 of this document for more details. Any additional VOC and/or NOx
reductions needed to show attainment can come from any source sector, in any amount that is
found to lead to expeditious attainment.
Comment: EE proposal
Commenters (0130, 0132, 0159 and 0173) generally supported the EPA's approach for the
upcoming Modeling Attainment Test guidance, footnote 20 (78 FR 34186), that may allow the
adjustment of air quality data to remove the effect of EE from the ozone design values.
Commenter (0130) added that, guidance on the application of the Exceptional Events Rule
(EER) to ozone exceedances is needed.
Comm enter (0132) stated, the adjustment of monitored ozone values needs to be carefully
evaluated and should only be based on scientifically validated unusual natural events and
catastrophic occurrences, whether human-caused or not. Regarding the EPA's suggestion, at
Footnote 20, of an alternative method for calculating future design values for WOE
determinations by adjusting monitored air quality days if influenced by unusual natural or
anthropogenic events, Commenter (0132) stated that, without specific and limited definition
criteria, any day could be interpreted to be influenced by an unusual event.
Commenter (0132) supported the exclusion of days impacted by major industrial accidents, such
as refinery fires, as well as foreign transport or other unusual natural events or events outside the
control of the state, from the calculation of baseline design values, since it would be
inappropriate to include effects of such rare but extreme events in the development of control
strategies.
Commenter (0151) requested the EPA to address how states should handle EE that contribute to
ozone nonattainment in this round of SIP planning. Commenter (0151) noted that, the EPA
proposed revisions to its EE policy in 2012 and that a final policy is critical for states to flag and
exclude excess ozone values caused by EE from 2008 NAAQS SIP planning.
Commenter (0180) stated, the EER was overbroad and the guidance goes beyond legal bounds,
swallowing the WOE demonstration and the attainment demonstration. Commenter (0180)
believed the EPA seems to acknowledge as much, since the agency "expects that there will be
limited situations where this potential adjustment would make a difference between future year
estimated attainment and nonattainment." Commenter (0180) stated, the EER is an example of
the harms wrought by similar exclusions and asserted Congress crafted a narrow definition of
"exceptional event," reserving the term for certain extraordinary natural events and for human
activities that are "not reasonably controllable or preventable" and "unlikely to recur at a
39
-------
particular location." 42 U.S.C. § 7619(b)(1)(A).
Response: The EPA does not intend to update its guidance on attainment demonstrations,
Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality
Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze (April 2007), to permit states to supplement their
attainment test with evidence that could include recently monitored values that have been
adjusted to better represent the air quality that would have existed in the absence of any unusual
natural or anthropogenic events (if any) that influenced (ozone/PIVh.s) concentrations on the
monitored day(s). While analysis of ambient data related to EE can be an appropriate component
of a weight of evidence demonstration, EPA believes it is premature to formally allow such
ambient data adjustments without first addressing this issue through revisions to the EER
anticipated to be proposed in mid-2015 and finalized in mid-2016. The photochemical modeling
guidance will continue to recommend adjustments to ambient data as allowed under the EER and
as otherwise appropriate as part of a weight of evidence analysis.
Comment: Request for clarification
Commenter (0155) requests that, the EPA clarify in footnote 15 on p. 34185, relative to multi-
state nonattainment areas, that the requirement to prepare an attainment plan applies only to
Moderate and above areas and not to all multi-state nonattainment areas.
Response: The EPA agrees that the requirement to prepare an attainment plan only applies to
Moderate and above areas. Marginal nonattainment areas are not required to submit an
attainment demonstration and are therefore not required to perform photochemical modeling.
Comment: Flexible modeling approach
Commenter (0162) endorsed a flexible attainment demonstration approach that recognizes the
site-specific nature of each nonattainment area and the need to tailor emission reduction
strategies based on local, site-specific factors. Commenter (0162) supported the use of science-
based judgments to determine the appropriate mix of NOx and VOC controls that are necessary
to bring a nonattainment area into attainment on schedule rather than having to rely on an across-
the-board VOC reduction strategy. Commenter (0162) stated that, ample evidence shows that a
tailored control program is much more effective in reducing ozone concentrations than an
inflexible, across-the-board program and such a program should apply to RACT/RACM control
decisions as well as any new RFP requirements.
Commenter (0162) further supported a flexible modeling approach that would allow states
preparing attainment SIPs to take credit for emission reductions from existing federal programs
and for on-the-way federal programs that will be implemented before the first attainment
deadline, thus minimizing need for additional state-specific control requirements.
Response: The EPA agrees in part and disagrees in part with the comments. The EPA agrees
that states should use science based judgments to determine the appropriate mix of NOx and
VOC controls that are necessary to bring an area into attainment. The purpose of an attainment
demonstration is to identify the emissions reductions that are needed by states to attain the
40
-------
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. This can include emissions reductions from Federal
programs that achieve emissions reductions before the area's attainment date. However, as
detailed in the RFP, ROP and RACT sections of the preamble, the CAA section 182 requires all
Moderate and above areas to meet certain minimum percentage reductions in VOC and/or NOx
emissions in the nonattainment area. See sections C and D of Part 2 on this document for more
details. Any additional VOC and/or NOx reductions needed to show attainment can come from
any source sector, in any amount that is determined to be expeditious attainment.
Comment: Over-prediction by models
Commenter (0159) stated that, the agency should not push states to rely on the EPA's models as
part of attainment demonstrations and did not support the use of modeled data when monitored
data is available. Commenter (0159) asserted that, current models for attainment demonstrations
have an unacceptably high margin of error. Commenter (0159) noted that, just recently, the
model used by the EPA as part of the CSAPR rule had to be technically adjusted several times to
"address discrepancies in unit-specific modeling assumptions that affect the proper calculation of
Transport Rule state budgets and assurance levels in" several states, including Louisiana. See
EMEHomer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 19 (D.C. Cir. 201 2). See also 77 FR 10,324
(Feb. 2 1, 201 2). Commenter (0159) asserted that, the EPA's models over predict air quality
problems.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the Commenter. Photochemical grid modeling is the most
technically credible scientific technique to estimate future NOx and VOC emissions reductions
that are needed to attain the NAAQS in an expeditious manner. Ambient monitoring data cannot
be used to project future ozone concentrations. To clarify, when the commenter uses the term
"model," it appears that they are referring to the Integrated Planning Model (IPM), which is used
to generate future year emissions from EGUs. These are among many emissions inputs used in
photochemical models. When performing photochemical modeling, states must project EGU
emissions to the future modeling year, but they are not required to use IPM. Although IPM has
been used extensively by the EPA in modeling analyses to support national rules, states have the
flexibility to use whatever model or projection technique they believe is most credible to
generate future year emissions for input to a photochemical model.
6. Future years to model
Comment: Commenter (0130) suggested that, the EPA consider the difficulty and practicality of
changing attainment years in their discussion of RACM and of attainment year determination.
Commenter (0130) agreed that, this is a literal interpretation of the CAA requirements for
RACM and attainment dates, but stated that, in practice, base years and future projection years
must be chosen well in advance of the actual development of the RACM analysis and the
attainment SIP submittal; due to the extensive work needed to develop a defensible base year
inventory and meteorological data files for input into the CMAQ model.
Commenter (0159) supported the proposal that, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, control measures
relied upon to demonstrate attainment should be implemented by the beginning of the last full
ozone season prior to the area's attainment date. Commenter (0173) requested that, the EPA
41
-------
clarify that the ozone season to be modeled should be the ozone season during the attainment
year. Commenter (0179) agreed that, the future modeling year should be selected such that all
emissions control measures relied on for attainment will have been implemented by that year.
Commenter (0152) disagreed with the EPA's statement that control measures relied upon to
demonstrate attainment should be implemented by the beginning of the last full ozone season
prior to the area's attainment date. Commenter (0152) believed there may be scenarios where this
is not plausible or necessitated; e.g., there could be a reliance on shutdowns from large sources to
demonstrate attainment and the shutdown date may not fall precisely at the beginning of the last
full ozone season. Commenter (0152) stated, it should not matter when the control measure is
implemented if the demonstration shows attainment by the attainment date.
Commenter (0159) did not support a rule that, requires nonattainment areas to demonstrate
attainment prior to the dates set forth in the CAA section 181(a). To the extent that this proposal
could be viewed to require that the demonstration of attainment be required earlier than is
required by statute, Commenter (0159) objected to this proposal.
Response: Most Commenters supported the proposal to allow modeling of the last year of the
statutory attainment date. As requested, by way of clarification, for a Moderate area with a 6-
year attainment date the state would be able to model the 6th year after designation. Controls
needed for attainment must be in place by the beginning of the ozone season that is being
modeled. The EPA agrees with these Commenters that modeling of the final year of the statutory
attainment date is reasonable. Even though attainment is determined by averaging 3 years of
ambient data, states do not have to model 2 years before the attainment date to show modeled
attainment. Since the design value is an average of 3 years of data, attainment can still be shown
even if concentrations exceed the NAAQS in one or two of the 3 years used to determine
attainment (as long as the 3 year average is less than the NAAQS). Therefore, it can be
appropriate to model any of the 3 years used to determine attainment. Also, if ambient data
shows attainment level concentrations in the final statutory attainment year, a state may be
eligible for up to two 1-year extensions of the attainment date, if the area meets the criteria for
such extensions. Therefore, modeling attainment level concentrations for the last year permitted
by statute is acceptable.
We disagree that it is not also necessary to analyze potential emissions controls in earlier years as
part of a RACM analysis. Despite the maximum statutory attainment date, all attainment dates
are "as expeditious as practicable." In spite of Commenters' discussion that modeling or
analyzing emissions controls in earlier years is difficult, time consuming and/or not necessary,
the attainment demonstration must include a demonstration that attainment cannot be advanced.
The EPA wants to clarify that a RACM analysis could include modeling of earlier attainment
years, but modeling is not required.
States are not required to submit an attainment demonstration for Marginal areas and therefore
are not expected to submit modeling to support their attainment date. Because attainment
demonstrations are not required, Marginal areas are also not subject to specific RACM or RFP
42
-------
requirements. But even though they do not have to do a RACM analysis, all nonattainment areas,
including Marginal, have to attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable.
One Commenter questioned whether all emissions reductions needed for attainment need to be in
place by the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. They argued that it should not matter
when the control measure is implemented if the demonstration shows attainment by the
attainment date. The EPA believes the explanation in the proposed rule was appropriate, which
says that control measures relied upon to demonstrate attainment should be implemented by the
beginning of the last full ozone season prior to the area's attainment date. To be clear, emissions
control measures may be implemented during the last full ozone season or in later years, but
emission controls that are used to demonstrate attainment in the modeled attainment
demonstration must be implemented by the beginning of the last full ozone season.
Comment: Modeling to advance the attainment date
Commenter (0180) noted that, most SIPs only model attainment for the final year and do not
provide any data necessary to evaluate the potential for earlier attainment. To carry out the
statute that RACM be implemented and provide for attainment, as expeditiously as practicable,
42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(1), Commenter (0180) asserted, the EPA must require that modeling also
demonstrate what emissions reductions would be necessary to advance attainment by each year
remaining in the period. Commenter (0180) believed this additional data essential to lawful and
rational decisions regarding RACT and RACM, and the demonstration that the "as expeditiously
as practicable" mandates in the statute are met.
Response: The EPA agrees that states must perform a RACM analysis to determine if the
attainment date can be advanced. However, the EPA disagrees that modeling for multiple years
must be used to estimate the ozone reductions that can be achieved from potential RACM
controls. The EPA believes that it is not reasonable to require states to model each and every
year to determine the appropriate attainment date. Developing and modeling future year
inventories is a time-consuming and resource intensive process. Multiple emissions models are
needed in order to generate year-specific emissions for the various emissions sectors (e.g.,
mobile, non-road, non-EGU point, EGU point, etc.). In some cases it may be reasonable to
model one additional interim year before the maximum statutory attainment date. However, in
most cases, the air quality benefits of an identified set of RACM controls can be estimated
through development of transfer factors (factors to relate tons of emissions reductions in the area
to ozone concentration changes in the area). For example, states can model across the board
percentage reductions in NOx and/or VOC emissions to determine the impact of emissions
reductions on ozone concentrations in the area. This modeling can be performed with a single
attainment modeling platform, which is much less resource intensive than modeling additional
future years. The identified potential emissions reductions available from RACM can be
compared to the magnitude of the modeled ozone reductions from the sensitivity analyses to
determine if all such controls will advance attainment by at least a year. In some cases, emissions
reductions from identified RACM measures may be so small that modeling would not be
necessary to determine that attainment would not be affected by the available local controls. The
EPA strongly recommends that states discuss the selection of the future year(s) to model with the
43
-------
appropriate EPA regional office as part of the modeling protocol development process.
Comment: Support original 4-year timeline for developing a meaningful attainment
demonstration
Commenter (0157) stated, the EPA severely underestimates the time required to produce a
meaningful attainment demonstration and believed the original 4-year timeline allows sufficient
time to select a proper base year and provide the time needed to quality assure the variety of
inventories needed to complete the modeling demonstration. Commenter (0157) attached a long-
term study of ozone showing that every 3 or 5 years an ozone season occurs with a greater than
average number of ozone violations, often followed by a lower than normal year.
Thus, Commenter (0157) stated, it is important to select a year that will demonstrate the selected
control measures that will provide adequate relief even in a high pollution year. Commenter
(0157) believed, the EPA appears to disregard the cyclic nature of ozone in development of
several areas in this guidance. Although the most recent triennial inventory year can be selected,
Commenter (0157) stated that, year is not always the most appropriate year to select as a base
year to ensure the attainment demonstration is adequate to protect against high ozone pollution
years. Although it may take longer to select a year that ensures more than average ozone
pollution, Commenter (0157) stated, the resulting control scenario is more robust and protective.
Commenter (0157) asserted, the OTC states have been concerned that current modeling does not
accurately represent HEDD emissions and have developed new models to better represent the
electricity generation sector. These models, according to Commenter (0157) will be tested in the
upcoming attainment demonstrations under this standard and may require additional time to
model successfully and that, as generators may be one the categories regulated for RFP purposes
under this standard, this is a very significant part of the attainment demonstration.
Response: Section 182 contains two attainment demonstration submittal dates, 3 years from the
designation date for Moderate areas (182(b)) and 4 years from the designation date for Serious
and above areas (182(c)). The Phase 2 rule established regulations (See 40 CFR 51.908(a)) that
required all attainment demonstrations to be submitted within 3 years of designation. However,
the EPA proposed in the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 NAAQS to allow the original CAA
deadlines of up to 3 years for Moderate areas and up to 4 years for Serious and higher classified
areas. While EPA agrees that the development of emissions inventories and modeling for
attainment demonstrations can be a lengthy process, the statute does not allow for more than 3
years for a Moderate area attainment demonstration. However, since the statute does allow up to
4 years to submit a Serious (and above) area attainment demonstration, in the final rule we are
allowing the full amount time granted by the statute for such areas. Therefore, EPA is finalizing
the attainment demonstration submittal dates as proposed; up to 3 years from the effective date
of designation for Moderate areas and up to 4 years from the effective date of designation for
Serious and above areas.
C. What are the RFP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
44
-------
NOTE: The CAA contains three separate provisions regarding RFP. Section 172(c)(2) under
subpart 1 contains a general requirement that nonattainment plans require RFP, while sections
182(b)(1) and (c)(2) under subpart 2 contain specific percent reduction targets for Moderate and
above and Serious and above areas, respectively. Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA requires all
ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate and above to submit a SIP which describes, in
part, how the areas will achieve an actual VOC emissions reduction of at least 15 percent during
the first 6 years after being designated as nonattainment. The portion of the SIP revision that
illustrates the plan for the achievement of this emission reduction was subsequently defined as
"rate-of-progress (ROP) plan" in the past. In this document, the EPA will refer to the
requirements for Moderate and above areas identified in the CAA section 182(b) that requires a
15 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the baseline emissions over the 6-year period
between designation and the Moderate area maximum attainment date as the ROP requirement.
Also, the EPA will refer to the requirements for Serious and above areas contained in section
182(c)(2), which require an additional 3 percent per year beginning 6 years after designation
until the attainment date, as the RFP requirement.
1. 2008 ozone nonattainment areas for which no portion of the area has previously been
required to meet the 15 percent RFP requirement for VOC
Comment: Support showing of 15 Percent VOC reduction from 1990
Commenter (0130) stated that, for areas without a previously submitted 15 percent VOC
reduction plan from 1990, the EPA should use national emission inventories to show that all
areas of the United States (U.S.) have substantially met this CAA requirement, rather than
requiring each area to make a submittal on the topic. Commenter (0130) stated that, the EPA
should be able to use available data to show that this requirement has been substantially met by
all areas. Commenter (0146) stated that, the EPA can best provide flexibility and ease state
burdens for developing 15 percent plans by providing states with 15 percent plan templates,
supporting documentation on federal measures that can help demonstrate already achieved VOC
reductions. Commenter (0152) stated that, the 15 percent RFP requirement should be gauged
against only the 1990 baseline in all circumstances as the EPA's proposal is inconsistent and not
the intent of the CAAA. Commenter (0159) supported allowing an area to meet the 15 percent
RFP requirement in whole or in part with NOx reductions in lieu of VOC reductions if that area
can demonstrate that it has in fact achieved a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions from a
1990 baseline. Commenter (0163) stated that, areas within the OTR, including new
nonattainment areas, that have already implemented VOC control measures, such as RACT,
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, and Stage II or comparable measures, in
response to statutory requirements, can be assumed to have met and would not have to document
meeting the 15 percent RFP requirement.
45
-------
Response: Designated 2008 ozone nonattainment areas9 that have neither been subject to nor
have adopted and implemented a SIP providing for the section 182(b)(1) 15 percent VOC
emission reductions, will be subject to the 15 percent ROP requirement in section 182(b)(1). We
are finalizing that where a state has previously submitted, adopted and implemented a SIP
providing for a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions from a nonattainment area's baseline
emissions within 6 years following the baseline emissions inventory year, that area is allowed to
meet the 15 percent ROP requirement in whole or in part with NOx reductions in lieu of VOC
reductions. For 2008 ozone nonattainment areas, the EPA is not finalizing either of the
approaches that would have allowed areas that have not previously provided a 15 percent VOC
emission reduction within six years to meet the 15 percent ROP requirement in whole or in part
with NOx reductions in lieu of VOC reductions.
Comment: Supports inclusion of NOx reductions in progress demonstrations.
Commenter (0160) agreed with the proposed alternative that would allow newly classified
Moderate areas to substitute NOx for VOC in the 15 percent plans and further stated that, since
the enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments, the scientific understanding of the relative roles of
VOC and NOx control has improved and strongly supports the inclusion of NOx reductions in
progress demonstrations. (0160)
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenter's support. The EPA has interpreted the
requirements of subpart 2 as they would apply to areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We are now
following the same interpretation with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With respect to RFP
requirements, we interpret the 15 percent VOC emission reduction requirement in section
182(b)(1) such that an area that has already met the 15 percent requirement for VOC reductions
under either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (for the first 6 years
after the RFP baseline year for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS) would not have to fulfill that
requirement again. Instead, such areas would be treated like areas covered under section
172(c)(2) if they are classified as Moderate for the 2008 standard and would need to meet the
RFP requirements under section 182(c)(2)(B) if they are classified as Serious or above for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.10 For the purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is interpreting
section 172(c)(2) to require such Moderate areas to obtain 15 percent ozone precursor emission
reductions over the first 6 years after the baseline year for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and is
interpreting section 182(c)(2)(B) to require such Serious and above areas to obtain 18 percent
ozone precursor emission reductions in that 6 year period. Under the section 172(c)(2) and
9 Hereafter in the discussion of RFP requirements within this section, when we use the term
"2008 nonattainment area" we mean "nonattainment area classified as Moderate or higher under
the 2008 ozone NAAQS."
10 Similar interpretations were made for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule, (70 FR 71615, November 29, 2005) and were upheld in NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
46
-------
182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirements, N0X emission reductions could be substituted for VOC
reductions.
Comment: Do not support showing of 15 percent VOC reduction from 1990
Commenter (0180) stated that, an area which may have by now (or by the time of SIP submittal)
experienced a 15 percent cut in VOC emissions from the 1990 baseline cannot be deemed to
satisfy the 15 percent reduction mandate in section 182(b)(1) because emission reductions are
only creditable toward the 15 percent cut required in 1990 baseline emissions to the extent "they
have actually occurred, as of 6 years after November 15, 1990. . ." 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(b)(l)(C).
Comm enter (0180) stated, reductions are only creditable if they have occurred "from the
implementation of measures required under the applicable implementation plan, rules
promulgated by the Administrator, or a permit under" Title V. Id. Commenter (0180) asserted
that, option 2 does not satisfy the statutory requirements in section 182(b)(1).
Response: The EPA has interpreted the requirements of subpart 2 as they would apply to
nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We are now following the same interpretation
with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With respect to RFP requirements, we interpret the 15
percent VOC emission reduction requirement in section 182(b)(1) such that an area that has
already met the 15 percent requirement for VOC under either the 1-hour ozone NAAQS or the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (for the first 6 years after the RFP baseline year for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS) would not have to fulfill that requirement again. Instead, such areas would be treated
like areas covered under section 172(c)(2) if they are classified as Moderate for the 2008
standard and would need to meet the RFP requirements under section 182(c)(2)(B) if they are
classified as Serious or above for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.11 For the purposes of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the EPA is interpreting section 172(c)(2) to require such Moderate areas to obtain 15
percent ozone precursor emission reductions over the first 6 years after the baseline year for the
2008 ozone NAAQS and is interpreting section 182(c)(2)(B) to require such Serious and above
areas to obtain 18 percent ozone precursor emission reductions in that 6 year period. Under the
section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirements, NOx emission reductions could be
substituted for VOC reductions.
Comment: Generally support allowing use of NOx emission reductions
Commenters (0130, 0143, 0152, 0155, 0157, 0161, 0162, 0169, 0172, 0177, 0178 and 0179)
generally supported the proposed provision allowing states to meet the RFP requirements using
NOx emission reductions. Commenters (0130, 0143, 0160, 0161 and 0169) stated, this provision
reflects the latest science showing that NOx emission reductions are more effective than VOC
emission reductions in reducing ground level ozone concentrations. Commenters (0143, 0161)
11 Similar interpretations were made for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule, (70 FR 71615, November 29, 2005) and were upheld in NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
47
-------
stated that, finding reductions in VOC emissions could be increasingly difficult to achieve in
future years based on the current knowledge of VOC control technology and phase-in of current
regulations. This being so, Commenter (0161) stated that, fulfilment of RFP requirements would
be unnecessarily difficult if states were not allowed to substitute NOx reductions for VOC
reductions.
Commenters (0143 and 0178) stated that, substituting NOx emission reductions for a portion of
the needed VOC reductions is a practice that the EPA has approved in certain instances for the
purposes of RFP SIP revisions and they supported the continued use of substituting NOx for
VOC as appropriate in RFP plan analyses. To the extent that the EPA believes it has the legal
authority to allow NOx reductions to substitute for VOC reductions for RFP, commenters (0155
and 0157) supported this approach. Commenter (0152) stated that, each state, based upon its
analysis, should determine if NOx or VOC reductions are most beneficial towards achieving a 15
percent RFP requirement and urged the EPA to reconsider the proposal requirements.
Commenter (0152) stated that, a state should not be bound by a CAA requirement that is no
longer applicable based upon current science that was intended to address a different standard at
a different time and was developed when there was an entirely different inventory of emission
sources to address.
Commenters (0140, 0145 and 0160) agreed with the proposed alternative that would allow newly
classified Moderate areas to substitute NOx for VOC in the 15 percent plans. Commenter (0140)
stated that, restricting RFP emission reductions to VOC is not a reasonable interpretation of the
statute for areas like Texas where ozone is NOx -limited and where ozone transport typically
accounts for well more than half of an area's ozone levels on high ozone days. Commenter
(0145) stated these alternatives give nonattainment areas more flexibility in working towards
attaining the ozone NAAQS, particularly those areas that have already achieved VOC reductions
and need to obtain additional reductions. Commenter (0172) stated that, although the CAA
requires RFP reductions to be VOC, the Commenter supports the substitution of NOx reductions
for VOC in the 15 percent RFP SIP.
Commenter (0179) agreed with the EPA that, due to the success of VOC control measures over
the past 20 years in certain areas of the U.S., future reductions in anthropogenic VOC may have
little to no impact on ambient ozone levels. Commenter (0179) believed that addressing NOx
levels could have a greater impact on attainment of the ozone standard and will help carry out
Congress' intent to reduce ozone levels while allowing for flexibility in applying section 182(b)
and is a narrow yet feasible method of making RFP toward ozone attainment.
Response: The EPA appreciates the support of the Commenters. We are finalizing as proposed,
such that 2008 nonattainment areas that have met the CAA requirement for a 15 percent ROP
VOC reduction plan for the entire area are not required to fulfill that requirement again. This
decision is consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's reasoning in NRDC v. EPA.12 In that case,
12 See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009),
48
-------
concerning the EPA's same interpretation for implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the Court
held that section 182(b)(1) is ambiguous and that it was reasonable for the EPA to interpret it not
to require areas that had already met the 15 percent VOC emission reduction requirement to
obtain another 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions. Instead, for purposes of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS and for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA interprets the RFP requirement
of section 172(c)(2) to require an area classified as Moderate to achieve an average 3 percent
reduction in VOC and/or NOx per year for the first 6 years following the baseline year and the
RFP requirement in section 182(c)(2)(B) to require the same thing for areas classified as Serious
or higher. Thus, areas that had previously met the 15 percent VOC-only requirement under
section 182(b)(1) are subject instead to provisions that allow NOx to substitute for VOC to
satisfy the RFP requirements.
Comment: Reservations about substituting NOx for VOC
Commenters (0158, 0166 and 0174) expressed reservations about substituting NOx emission
reductions for VOC reductions. Commenter (0166) stated, that for policy, economic and
scientific reasons, the EPA should not place a higher overall priority on NOx reductions than
VOC reductions to attain the ozone NAAQS. The Commenter added, that given that substantial
reductions have been made in emissions of both VOC and NOx, decisions on whether to
emphasize VOC or NOx controls now must be scientifically justified on a case-by-case basis.
Commenter (0166) cited and attached a technical report, explaining the state of scientific
understanding of the relative contributions of NOx and VOC to ozone formation and claimed
there is no scientific basis for favoring NOx emission reductions over VOC reductions in
nonattainment areas nationwide. The Commenter suggested that, decisions concerning whether
to emphasize NOx or VOC controls must be made on an area-by-area basis.
Commenter (0174) stated that, their biggest concern with the current proposed implementation
plan is the assumption that the EPA makes that NOx emission reductions can be substituted for
VOC emission requirements, mandated by the RFP portion of the rule. Commenter (0174)
believed VOC emission reductions in many nonattainment areas will lead to greater progress
reducing ground-level ozone at the critical ozone monitoring site(s) than NOx emission
reductions. Commenter (0174) stated, detailed photochemical modeling analyses are needed to
confirm which ozone precursor is more effective, prior to choosing an effective strategy to
achieve this NAAQS, especially in and downwind of the urban core of many large metropolitan
areas in the Midwest.
Commenter (0158) questioned, whether the EPA has the authority under the CAA to allow NOx
reductions as a substitute for VOC reductions with respect to the initial 15 percent VOC RFP
requirement in all areas where the requirement must be met for the first time. The commenter
argued, that section 182(b)(1)(A) of the CAA specifically requires a 15 percent VOC reduction
for Moderate and above nonattainment areas and does not make any provisions for any
substitution of NOx reductions for these initial VOC RFP requirements. The CAA, under section
182(c)(2)(C), allows only Serious and above nonattainment areas to substitute NOx reductions
for required VOC reductions, but allows such substitution only for the 3 percent per year
reductions required under section 182( c )(2)(B) after initial 15 percent VOC reduction is met.
The Commenter further argued that the assertion that additional VOC reductions in
49
-------
nonattainment areas will be difficult to achieve and have little effect on further reducing ozone,
given the variety of national and local VOC controls measures that have been imposed on mobile
and stationary sources and have substantially reduced VOC emissions, does not properly
recognize that significant NOx reductions have also been achieved throughout the country
through both local-scale measures, such as RACT in nonattainment areas and regional programs
such as the Acid Rain (Title IV) Program, the NOx SIP Call and Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR). Commenter (0158) believed that, to the extent the EPA does allow NOx for VOC
substitutions for meeting the initial 15 percent RFP requirement, it should only be allowed on a
case-by-case basis with a technical demonstration from the state that such a substitution is
scientifically justified.
Response: The EPA agrees that today's understanding of the role of NOx reductions would
suggest that, in some areas, it would be relatively more efficient to focus attainment planning
efforts on achieving reductions in NOx rather than VOC emissions. However, the CAA section
182(b)(1) expressly requires the 15 percent ROP plans to reduce emissions of VOC. It does not
provide discretion to meet these requirements by reducing emissions of other pollutants. Where
Congress intended to allow such a substitution, it specifically provided so, such as in section
182(c)(2)(C) which allows NOx to be substituted for VOC in the 3 percent annual RFP plans for
Serious and above areas.
We are finalizing as proposed, such that 2008 nonattainment areas that have met the CAA
requirement for a 15 percent ROP VOC reduction plan for the entire area are not required to
fulfill that requirement again. This decision is consistent with the D.C. Circuit Court's reasoning
in NRDC v. EPA.13 In that case, concerning the EPA's same interpretation for implementing the
1997 ozone NAAQS. the Court held that section 182(b)(1) is ambiguous and that it was
reasonable for the EPA to interpret it not to require areas that had already met the 15 percent
VOC emission reduction requirement to obtain another 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions.
Instead, for purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and for purposed of the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
the EPA interprets the RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) to require an area classified as
Moderate to achieve an average 3 percent reduction in VOC and/or NOx for the first 6 years
following the baseline year and the RFP requirement in section 182(c)(2)(B) to require the same
thing for areas classified as Serious or higher. Thus, areas that had previously met the 15 percent
VOC-only requirement under section 182(b)(1) are subject instead to provisions that allow NOx
to substitute for VOC to satisfy the RFP requirements. As explained in the proposal, we believe
there are two policy reasons for interpreting this ambiguous provision in this manner. First, both
our understanding of the effects of reductions of VOC and NOx on ambient ozone levels and the
technical tools to help predict what combinations of reductions of ozone precursors will be most
effective in ozone reduction have improved. Since the purpose of the RFP provisions in sections
172 and 182 is to foster the achievement of RFP toward attainment, we believe that it makes the
most sense to allow states to credit toward the RFP requirement those reductions that an area
most needs to reach attainment. Second, as explained more fully in the proposal, the mix of
13 See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009),
50
-------
emissions across the country and in specific areas is very different than it was in 1990 because of
various measures and developments that have substantially reduced the anthropogenic VOC
emissions inventory such that additional area-specific VOC reductions will be increasingly
difficult to achieve.
Comment: NOx substitution in the OTR
Commenter (0159) did not support the third option, as the Baton Rouge Area is not located
within the OTR, which means that the implementation of this proposal would result in the Area
being unable to participate in this portion of the SIP Requirements Rule. Commenter (0161)
objected to the EPA's proposal to finalize a rule that would allow NOx substitution only in
nonattainment areas that are located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) and that would be
subject to the 15 percent RFP requirement for the first time based on a nonattainment designation
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0161) asserted that, the preamble fails to articulate any
reasonable basis upon which to allow only a subset of nonattainment areas to substitute NOx
reductions for VOC reductions and that none exists. Commenter (0161) believed all
nonattainment areas should be allowed to take advantage of this alternative, not just a few
nonattainment areas in the northeastern part of the U.S.
Response: The EPA has reconsidered its proposal and now believes it does not have authority
under the CAA to allow NOx substitution for VOC emissions reductions for the 15 percent ROP
in any area, including an area located in the OTR. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing as
proposed the flexibility to allow areas in the OTR to substitute NOx for VOC to meet the 15
percent ROP requirement.
Comment: Do not support allowing NOx substitution
Comm enters (0163, 0166, 0168 and 0180) stated that, section 182(b)(1) does not allow
substitution of NOx reductions for VOC reductions to meet the 15 percent requirement.
Commenter (0163) stated, new Moderate nonattainment areas must meet this CAA requirement
and, therefore, are subject to the 15 percent VOC RFP requirement from the time the area is
subject to this section of the CAA. Commenter (0166) stated that, section 182(b)(1)(A) of the
CAA requires Moderate (and higher) nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision that requires
reduction of VOC emissions by 15 percent and does not allow any NOx emission reductions to
be substituted for the required VOC emission reductions. That provision requires a state with a
Moderate or higher nonattainment area to: submit a [SIP revision] to provide for VOC emission
reductions ... of at least 15 percent from baseline emissions .... Such plan shall provide for
such specific annual reductions in emissions of VOC and oxides of nitrogen as necessary to
attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone by the attainment date
applicable under this Act. (Emphasis added.) The Commenter added that, under section
182(c)(2)(C), the Act allows substitution of NOx emission reductions for required VOC
reductions only for the 3 percent per year reductions required under section 182(c)(2)(B) after
the 15 percent RFP demonstration required by section 182(b)(1). Because the EPA has failed to
demonstrate it has discretion to allow for substitution of NOx emission reductions for the 15
percent reduction of VOC emissions in an area that has never adopted and implemented a SIP
providing for such VOC emission reductions, UARG urged the EPA to adopt "Alternative 1"
51
-------
under its proposed 40 CFR § 51.1110(b). Alternative 1 mandates that nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or above that have yet to satisfy the requirement for a plan to reduce VOC
emissions by 15 percent adopt a plan providing for such reduction of VOC emissions to
demonstrate RFP toward attaining the ozone NAAQS. The Commenter pointed out that, in
NRDC v. EPA, however, the D.C. Circuit did not hold - and nothing in that decision implies -
that an area that had never adopted or implemented a 15 percent VOC emission reduction SIP
provision may avoid the statutory requirement for such a SIP provision. Thus, nothing the D.C.
Circuit said in that case supports substitution of NOx emission reduction for VOC emission
reduction in an area for which the state never adopted or implemented a SIP provision that
required a 15 percent reduction in VOC emission. The Commenter stated that, if the EPA
nevertheless adopts aNOx-for-VOC substitution approach for areas without an existing plan for
reducing VOC emissions by 15 percent, there is no basis for only one part of the country - the
OTR - being granted the NOx-for-VOC substitution option for the initial 15 percent VOC
reductions while denying the rest of the country the option. The EPA has not adequately
explained why there is any greater legal or policy justification for allowing NOx emission
reductions to satisfy the 15 percent VOC emission reduction requirement under section 182(b)(1)
in the OTR as opposed to the rest of the country. Furthermore, if the EPA does adopt the option
only for the OTR, any expansion of the OTR should not result in NOx-for-VOC substitutions in
new areas unless the rest of the country is similarly granted the option.
Commenter (0168) did not support substitution of NOx reductions for VOC reductions in
15 percent RFP plans. Commenter believes that, RFP must be calculated and complied with as a
percentage of base year inventory emissions, which is consistent with the plain reading of the
CAA and with prior EPA interpretations and has resulted in the necessary control of both VOC
and NOx emissions in the covered areas.
Commenter (0180) stated that, the first option is the only option permissible under the statute.
The Commenter added that, the mandate for a 15 percent VOC cut hardly prevents the EPA or a
state from requiring NOx cuts in addition to the VOC reductions. The Commenter further stated
that, even if the EPA could lawfully allow substitution of NOx reductions for the VOC reductions
required by section 182(b)(1), the EPA cannot lawfully or rationally allow such substitution in
areas where the EPA has granted NOx waivers under subsection 182(f) or otherwise limited the
requirements for NOx control under that subsection.
Response: The CAA section 182(b)(1) expressly requires the 15 percent ROP plans to reduce
emissions of VOC. It does not provide discretion to meet these requirements by reducing
emissions of other pollutant precursors. Where Congress intended to allow such a substitution, it
specifically provided so, such as in section 182(c)(2)(C) which allows NOx to be substituted for
VOC in the 3 percent annual RFP plans for Serious and above areas. Also, for nonattainment
areas that have met the CAA requirement for a 15 percent ROP VOC reduction plan for the
entire area are not required to fulfill that requirement again. Instead, for purposes of the 1997
ozone NAAQS and for purposed of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA interprets the RFP
requirement of section 172(c)(2) to require an area classified as Moderate to achieve an average
3 percent reduction in VOC and/or NOx for the first 6 years following the baseline year and the
RFP requirement in section 182(c)(2)(B) to require the same thing for areas classified as Serious
52
-------
or higher. Thus, areas that had previously met the 15 percent VOC-only requirement under
section 182(b)(1) are subject instead to provisions that allow NOx to substitute for VOC to
satisfy the RFP requirements.
Comment: EPA should develop information regarding when NOx emission reductions can
be substituted for VOC reductions
Commenter (0166) stated that, although it may make sense in certain areas (to the extent that
substitution of NOx reductions for VOC reductions is legally permissible) to allow states to
require greater NOx reductions than VOC reductions, there is insufficient data on these issues
available for states to make informed decisions about when NOx emission reductions would
justifiably be substituted for VOC emission reduction requirements. The commenter urged the
EPA to develop the necessary information that may allow for better NOx-versus-VOC
comparisons and decision-making.
Response: The EPA has already developed the information requested by the commenter. The
EPA developed the NOx Substitution Guidance, December 1993, that provides a procedure that
can be applied to meet the section 182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirement as well as the section
182(c)(2)(C) equivalency demonstration requirements. This guidance is intended to facilitate
implementation of the most effective ozone precursor control strategies, while meeting the intent
of the CAA RFP provisions. This document can be accessed at the following web address:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/tl/memoranda/noxsubst.pdf. The EPA, on August 5, 1994, issued a
memorandum titled, Clarification of Policy for N()x Substitution, John S. Seitz, Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which issues a clarification on NOx substitution for ROP
plans, specifically, what the EPA will accept as evidence that NOx substitution for VOC
reductions is a viable approach. This memorandum can be accessed at the following web
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/tl/memoranda/clarisub.pdf.
Comment: Disagree with 15 Percent RFP Requirement
Commenter (0152) stated that, a 15 percent RFP requirement is outdated and not necessitated
under the current ozone standard using recent baselines. The Commenter added that meeting a 15
percent RFP requirement can be a difficult challenge. The 1990 CAA Amendments required RFP
to address the 1-hour ozone standard at a time when the baseline was significantly higher and
there were more cost effective reductions available. Even then it was a challenge to show where
RFP could occur, but today it would be even more challenging because significant reductions in
VOC, and NOx, have occurred since the 1990 CAA Amendments.
53
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees. The regulation must comply with the CAA. Section 182(b)(1) of
the CAA explicitly requires that ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or higher
submit a ROP plan to achieve a 15 percent reduction in VOC baseline emissions over a 6-year
period following the baseline year.
2. 2008 ozone nonattainment areas which previously met the 15 percent RFP requirement
for VOC
Comment: New 15 percent VOC plan not required
Commenters (0145, 0146, 0151, 0158, 0159, 0160, 0163, 0166, 0169 and 0179) agreed with the
EPA's proposal that 2008 nonattainment areas that have already met the CAA requirement for a
15 percent VOC reduction plan are not required to fulfill that requirement again. Commenters
(0146, 0151 and 0166) agreed that, this is a reasonable approach and that it is consistent with the
decision in NRDCv. EPA, 571 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
Commenter (0151) stated, the proposed approach will reduce the burden on state agencies in the
next rounds of SIP planning and that Congress did not intend the 1990 Amendments to the Act to
create repetitive implementation of the same requirements that Congress listed in 1990 to ensure
state and the EPA actions took place for ozone reduction. The Commenter added that, evidence
in the record recounts that during discussion of adoption of these measures, members of
Congress simply doubted the ability of the EPA and/or the states to prescribe the measures that
would be capable of bringing ozone values down in the country. Therefore, just as it did with
implementation of the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) program, the Congress prescribed the
measures that would be required for the next round of ozone SIP revisions. In contrast to the
HAP program, however, here is no further evidence that Congress meant for the 15 percent RFP
or the 3 percent ROP requirements to re-apply every time that the ozone standard was revised. In
fact, once a state has obtained approval of its 15 percent RFP (and ROP plan if in an area with a
worse ozone issue), Congress thought that most areas of the country would attain the ozone
standard. This makes it even less likely that members of Congress intended the states to have to
adopt another 15percent RFP plan for reducing stationary source emissions. Moreover, it is
unlikely that after a round of RACT and RFP for most areas once designated nonattainment for
the ozone NAAQS, further reductions of ozone precursors would be available on this scale.
Commenter (0163) state, the pertinent requirement of the CAA is to reduce VOC by 15 percent
in an area once it is subject to this section of the CAA. If a state has already produced a 15
percent RFP plan for VOC, it has met the CAA obligation and can be allowed to substitute NOx
for the 15 percent RFP requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0180) supported
the EPA's proposal (78 FR at 34189/1) to require, for Moderate areas that previously met the 15
percent VOC reduction requirements in section 182(b)(1), an additional 15 percent emission
reduction in VOC and/or NOx in Moderate and above areas to meet the ROP requirement in
section 172(c)(2).
Response: The EPA acknowledges that 15 percent VOC reductions are required for all Moderate
and above areas, but we continue to maintain that if a state has submitted, adopted and
implemented its nonattainment area ROP/RFP emissions reduction plan to meet the requirements
54
-------
of section 182(b)(1)(A) for either the 1-hour standard or the 1997 8-hour standard, they will not
have to meet it again for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA believes the CAA is quite clear that
the SIP must provide for a 15 percent reduction in baseline VOC emissions within 6 years of the
baseline inventory year for some period after 1990 in an area subject to 182(b)(1)(A). It is the
EPA's position that states must only submit ROP SIPs if the EPA has not already approved a
state's 1-hour or 1997 ozone SIP ROP Plan. We believe that this is consistent with the decision
in NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2009), and this policy will reduce the burden on state
agencies in SIP-planning for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We believe Congress did not intend the
1990 Amendments to the Act to create repetitive implementation of the same requirements that
Congress listed in 1990 to ensure state and EPA actions took place for ozone reduction. The EPA
believes that the CAA plainly does not require that a second ROP SIP providing for 15 percent
reduction in VOC baseline emissions under a revised ozone standard. Instead, for purposes of the
1997 ozone NAAQS and for purposed of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA interprets the RFP
requirement of section 172(c)(2) to require an area classified as Moderate to achieve an average
3 percent reduction in VOC and/or NOx for the first 6 years following the baseline year and the
RFP requirement in section 182(c)(2)(B) to require the same thing for areas classified as Serious
or higher. Thus, areas that had previously met the 15 percent VOC-only requirement under
section 182(b)(1) are subject instead to provisions that allow NOx to substitute for VOC to
satisfy the RFP requirements.
Comment: Disagree with the EPA's two proposed approaches
Commenter (0152) stated that, treating the entire area as if no RFP requirement had applied was
nonsensical and without basis and that RFP should only occur from the 1990 baseline in all
circumstances and only a 15 percent requirement should be applicable over a 6-year period.
Response: The EPA believes that states must only submit RFP SIPs if the EPA has not already
approved a state's ROP/RFP Plan. The EPA believes that the CAA plainly does not require that a
second ROP SIP providing for 15 percent reduction in VOC baseline emissions within 6 years of
the baseline inventory year under a revised ozone standard.
Comment: Require an additional 15 percent VOC plan
Commenter (0180) stated that, although the Court in NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir.
2009), held the EPA could permissibly read the statute as requiring SIPs to provide for the 15
percent VOC reduction only once, the Court did not address the question of whether mere EPA
approval of a prior 15 percent ROP SIP would satisfy the 15 percent requirement for a
subsequent NAAQS, or whether the area would have to show it actually achieved the 15 percent
VOC reduction within the 6 years required by the statute. Commenter (0180) asserted that, to be
creditable, the 15 percent reduction must have actually occurred within 6 years of November 15,
1990 due to implementation of measures required under the SIP, rules promulgated by the EPA,
or Title V permits. Accordingly, Commenter (0180) believed, the EPA cannot treat previously
approved ROP plans as satisfying the 15 percent ROP requirement unless the state also shows
that the required VOC reductions were actually achieved as required by section 182(b)(1)(C).
55
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the Commenter. We have maintained in the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS implementation rule and in the proposed 2008 NAAQS SIP requirements rule
that if a state has already submitted, adopted and implemented its 15 percent ROP/RFP plan for
an area to reduce VOC emissions for the either the 1-hour standard or the 1997 8-hour standard,
the state should not be required to meet that requirement a second time for that area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS but instead the area will be subject to the other applicable RFP provisions of the
CAA.
Comment: Support using NOx emission reductions in areas that have already satisfied the
15 percent VOC reduction requirement
Commenters (0139, 0150 and 0163) supported the EPA's proposal to allow areas that have
already satisfied the 15 percent VOC reduction requirement of the CAA section 182(b)(1) to use
NOx reductions in lieu of VOC (78 FR 34178, 34187 col. 2). These Commenters stated that, in
many areas, NOx reductions are far more effective than VOC reductions in making progress
toward attainment and NOx substitution is a logical means of achieving the purposes of the RFP
requirement which is to ensure steady progress towards the goal, since it will provide more
progress than would relying on VOC reductions. Commenters (0139 and 0150) stated that, given
the advancement in scientific knowledge since the 1990 Amendments demonstrating that in
many areas NOx reductions are far more effective than VOC reductions, the EPA may
reasonably conclude that the requirement for VOC RFP reductions need only be met once, and
any remaining RFP requirements may be set as the Administrator may reasonably require, as
under Subpart 1 (CAA § 172(c)(2); CAA §171(l)-definition of RFP). Commenter (0139) stated,
the EPA has the ability to authorize the use of equivalent planning procedures under § 172(c)(8);
therefore, the EPA may reasonably interpret the RFP requirements to allow such substitution.
Commenter (0150) added that, some may argue that NOx substitution may only be used for RFP
requirements beyond the first 6 years, as referred to in CAA §§ 182 (c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C).
However, this position ignores the fact that the EPA proposes to allow NOx substitution for the
first 15 percent RFP requirement only for those areas that have already satisfied that requirement
in an earlier approved ozone plan. The EPA is not required to apply each and every requirement
of Subpart 2 according to a literal application of its terms. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the
CAA is ambiguous as to the interaction between Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 with regard to a revised
ozone standard and explained that it would defer to the EPA's reasonable resolution of the
ambiguity. Whitman v. American Trucking Ass 'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 484 (2001). The Court noted
that some parts of Subpart 2 may be ill-suited to implementing the revised standards, such as the
statutory attainment deadlines and would require some interpretation.
Response: In previous responses, we have stated that, if a state has already submitted, adopted
and implemented its 15 percent ROP/RFP plan to reduce VOC emissions in a nonattainment area
for either the 1-hour standard or the 1997 8-hour standard, the area should not be required to
meet that requirement a second time for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Instead, such areas would be
treated like areas covered under section 172(c)(2) if they are classified as Moderate for the 2008
standard and would need to meet the RFP requirements under section 182(c)(2)(B) if they are
56
-------
classified as Serious or above for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.14 For the purposes of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the EPA is interpreting section 172(c)(2) to require such Moderate areas to obtain 15
percent ozone precursor emission reductions over the first 6 years after the baseline year for the
2008 ozone NAAQS and is interpreting section 182(c)(2)(B) to require such Serious and above
areas to obtain 18 percent ozone precursor emission reductions in that 6 year period. Under the
section 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirements, NOx emission reductions could be
substituted for VOC reductions.
2. 2008 ozone nonattainment areas where portions have a previously approved 15 percent
VOC reduction plan
Comment: Support the proposed approaches
Commenter (0163) stated that, if a nonattainment area is expanded to include new jurisdictions,
the RFP plan for this area must include either a separate 15 percent VOC reduction for the new
jurisdictions or a reduction equal to that separate 15 percent VOC requirement from the entire
nonattainment area. The Commenter added that, the requirement to reduce VOC emissions
cannot be eliminated in its entirety except as provided for in CAA section 182(b)(l)(A)(ii).
Response: The Commenter is correct to recognize that, the EPA cannot simply eliminate the 15
percent emission VOC reduction requirement of section 182(b)(1). We have already stated that
for nonattainment areas with an approved 15 percent ROP/RFP plan for a previous ozone
standard, a state will not be required to submit, adopt and implement a second 15 percent plan
under section 182(b)(1) for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Comment: Do not support the second proposed approach
Commenter (0180) stated that, the second option is not permissible under the Act. Commenter
(0180) stated that, a prior 15 percent plan for just part of the 2008 nonattainment area cannot be
deemed to satisfy the 15 percent requirement for the 2008 nonattainment area, because that
"area" is different from the area encompassed by the prior 15 percent plan. Commenter (0180)
asserted that the prior plan could not have purported to provide for a 15 percent cut from baseline
emissions in an "area" that was not even defined at the time of the prior plan, nor does the statute
allow for dividing up "the area" into multiple sub-areas with separate 15 percent ROP plans or
requirements. Commenter (0180) stated, the statute requires the SIP to calculate the total amount
of actual VOC emissions from all sources in "the area" - meaning the nonattainment area (not
just some portion thereof) - and provide for a 15 percent reduction from that total baseline.
Commenter (0180) stated that, even if option 2 was otherwise permissible (which it is not), it
14 Similar interpretations were made for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Phase 2 Ozone
Implementation Rule, (70 FR 71615, November 29, 2005) and were upheld in NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
57
-------
would be illegal and arbitrary to let the sub-area claim credit for emission reductions from
outside the sub-area without having to also add emissions from outside the sub-area to its
baseline. Commenter (0180) stated that, unless the EPA is proposing to require that the non-
former ROP sub-area assure a net 15 percent cut from new baseline emissions for the entire 2008
nonattainment area, it cannot - consistent with section 182(b)(1) - allow the sub-area to claim
credit for reductions outside the sub-area. Commenter (0180) asserted that, if the EPA is going to
create sub-areas within the nonattainment area, each with its own 15 percent reduction
obligation, then the required VOC emission reductions must come from inside each sub-area
respectively. See NRDC, 571 F.3d at 1257 (statutory mandate for reductions "in the area"
requires "that any reductions emissions derive from reductions at sources within a particular
area").
Further, Commenter (0180) stated that, although NRDC held that the EPA could read the statute
as requiring a SIP to provide for the 15 percent VOC reduction only once, option 2 does not
assure such a result as there is no assurance that the entire 2008 nonattainment area will in fact
achieve a total 15 percent VOC emissions cut either from a 1990 baseline or a 2011 baseline for
the whole area. Commenter (0180) concluded that, the EPA offers no rationale for how its
proposed option 2 approach is consistent with the Act or advances its purposes.
58
-------
Response: We agree with the commenter that the first option, to treat the entire 2008
nonattainment area as having never met the 15 percent requirement, is permissible under the
CAA. However, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that the second option, to treat a
portion of the 2008 nonattainment area as having met the 15 percent requirement, and a portion
as still needing a 15 percent plan is not allowable. We believe that the portion of a nonattainment
area that has a previously approved 15 percent ROP plan has satisfied the ROP requirement for
that area and we have maintained that areas or portions of areas that have already met the 15
percent VOC emission reduction requirement for a previous ozone standard are not required by
the CAA to meet that requirement a second time for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA recognizes that the new portions of the nonattainment area that have not met the 15
percent VOC emission reduction requirement are subject to section 182(b)(1). We disagree with
the Commenter that a prior approved 15 percent plan for just part of the new 2008 nonattainment
area cannot be deemed to satisfy the 15 percent requirement for the 2008 nonattainment area
simply because that area is different from the area encompassed by the prior 15 percent plan. The
final rule offers states two options for addressing the 15 percent ROP requirement. First, the state
could choose to treat the entire area as an area that never met the 15 percent requirement and
meet the requirements as described in the final rule. Second, the state could choose to treat the
2008 nonattainment area as divided into two portions: the former non-ROP plan portion and the
former ROP plan portion. For the former non-ROP plan portion of the 2008 nonattainment area,
the plan would establish a separate 15 percent VOC reduction requirement under section
182(b)(1). However, it is important to recognize that VOC emissions reductions to meet the 15
percent requirement must come from within the boundaries of the non-ROP plan portion.
Additionally, the ROP plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the new non-ROP plan portion
remains responsible for achieving the 15 percent VOC reductions.
The second option in the final rule differs from the second approach described in the proposed
rule in that we make it clear that the approved RFP plan portion cannot entirely provide for a 15
percent reduction from baseline emissions in the entire area. We believe that the CAA provides
the EPA with the authority to define ROP plan areas and non-RFP plan areas if the new non-RFP
areas become subject to section 182(b)(1) and the 15 percent emission reduction credits come
from within the non-RFP section.
Comment: Clarification needed for the second proposed approach
Commenter (0132) requested clarification concerning the VOC reduction target stipulation for
the existing counties: The Commenter asked, if states would be allowed to set a VOC target for
existing counties that is not reduced from the base year VOC target? In this case, there would be
a "VOC target" for the existing counties, but no further VOC reductions would be required, and
the 15 percent reduction requirement for those counties could be demonstrated with NOx
reductions only. Alternately, would states choosing to use VOC emission reductions from the
entire 2008 nonattainment area to satisfy the newly designated portion's initial 15 percent VOC
reduction requirement be required to then demonstrate an additional VOC reduction for the
existing portion's 15 percent NOx and/or VOC reduction requirement, beyond the base year VOC
target? Please clarify whether the language describing the second approach in Section III.C.2.e of
the proposal is meant to be read as either of the above interpretations, or if the EPA intended a
59
-------
completely different interpretation.
Response: In consideration of nonattainment areas that include portions consisting of all or a
piece of one or more nonattainment areas for a previous NAAQS and which achieved their ROP
plan to reduce VOC by 15 percent combined with portions that have never been subject to or
have not fulfilled the 15 percent ROP plan requirements, the EPA has reevaluated the proposed
second approach that allows states to choose to use VOC emission reductions from a designated
2008 nonattainment area that can demonstrate 15 percent ROP VOC emission reductions
previously achieved in an older portion of the nonattainment area to satisfy the newly designated
portion's initial 15 percent VOC reduction requirement. In consideration of the comments
received, the EPA has concluded that the approach should be modified. The EPA recognizes that
the new portions of the nonattainment area that have not met the 15 percent VOC emission
reduction requirement should be subject to section 182(b)(1). We find merit with the
commenter's suggestion where they argued that prior approved 15 percent ROP plans for a
previous nonattainment area cannot be applied to the new 2008 nonattainment area and cannot be
deemed to satisfy the 15 percent requirement for the 2008 nonattainment area in cases where the
entire area is different from the area encompassed by the prior 15 percent plan.
The final rule offers states two approaches for addressing the 15 percent RFP requirement. First,
the state could choose to treat the entire area as an area that never met the 15 percent requirement
and meet the requirements as described in the final rule. Second, the state could choose to treat
the 2008 nonattainment area as divided into two portions: the former non-RFP plan portion and
the former RFP plan portion. For the former non-RFP plan portion of the 2008 nonattainment
area, the plan would establish a separate 15 percent VOC reduction requirement under section
182(b)(1). However, it is important to recognize that VOC emissions reductions to meet the 15
percent requirement must come from within the boundaries of the non-RFP plan portion.
Additionally, if a portion(s) of the nonattainment area was not subject to an approved 15 percent
plan for either the 8-hour standard or the 1-hour standard, referred to as a non-RFP plan portion,
then section 182(b)(1) applies to that non-RFP plan portion(s) of the 2008 ozone nonattainment
area and the initial ROP requirements may be met by achieving 15 percent VOC reductions.
The second option in the final rule differs from the second approach described in the proposed
rule in that we make it clear that the approved RFP plan portion cannot entirely provide for a 15
percent reduction from baseline emissions in the entire area. We believe that the CAA provides
the EPA with the authority to define RFP plan areas and non-RFP plan areas if the new non-RFP
areas become subject to section 182(b)(1) and the 15 percent emission reduction credits come
from within the non-RFP section.
Comment: Serious and above areas
Commenters (0139, 0155 and 0157) supported the RFP requirements as proposed in the 40 CFR
51.1110, which comports with CAA section 182(c)(2)(B). The commenter added that, for the
1997 standard, 40 CFR 51.910(a)(l )(ii)(B) went beyond the authority of the CAA and required
nonattainment areas classified Serious and above to get 18 percent reductions during the first 6
years rather than 15 percent and also required Serious and above areas to submit RFP SIPs for
the period after the first 6 years in 3 years after designation, rather than the 4 years allowed by
60
-------
the CAA. Unfortunately, the preamble language in the proposed rule (78 FR 34189 col. 1)
confuses the matter by sounding like the EPA might be proposing requirements similar to those
for the 1997 standard. CAPCOA strongly supports the EPA's proposed CFR regulatory
language, which comports with the CAA section 182(c)(2)(B). RFP requirements beyond those
in section 182(c)(2)(B) are not authorized by the CAA for areas classified Serious and above.
Response: The final rule allows submission of the RFP plan up to 4 years from the date of
designation. We do not believe the RFP provisions of subpart 2 of the CAA provide relief from
the requirement to obtain the specified percent reductions from the RFP baseline within the time
frame specified in those provisions.
Comment: RFP in expanded fold) nonattainment areas
Commenter (0151) stated that, it does not support either alternative because it believes that the
15 percent VOC RFP requirement applied only once after adoption of the 1990 CAA
Amendments and that the Congress did not intend for a state to adopt a new RFP plan either
when the ozone standard is revised or when a state expands an ozone area for an existing or a
revised standard, once the EPA approved the initial RFP. The commenter urged, the EPA to
require a state only to demonstrate that the major sources will be subject to RACT and that other
federal and state controls on other sources, including unconventional, minor and mobile sources
will result in progress (i.e., obtains reductions in excess of the already approved RFP
demonstration.). If any RFP demonstration is required for expanded nonattainment areas," the
EPA only should require a state to demonstrate that "additional reductions" have been made
beyond the original 15 percent RFP and major sources in these areas meet RACT.
Commenter (0169) stated the EPA should use its discretionary authority to provide states with
deference when determining how to treat new nonattainment areas which encompass old
nonattainment areas, as each area is unique in its needs and potential for reductions. Commenter
(0169) provided the following additional points. The Commenter stated they appreciate the
EPA's attempt at addressing various scenarios to make the SIP Requirements Rule as useful to
states as practicable. The commenter, however, believes the EPA should use its discretionary
authority to provide states with deference when determining how to treat new nonattainment
areas which encompass old nonattainment areas, as each area is unique in its needs and potential
for reductions. The Commenter believes that, the provisions spelled out in Section 111 ,C.2.e of
the SIP Requirements Rule will not only impact RFPs but also emission inventory reporting,
emissions statements, transportation conformity, etc. As such, the commenter would like to
applaud the EPA for its efforts, but caution the EPA to fully consider the ramifications of the
proposed provisions. (0169)
Response: It is the EPA's position that if a portion of a nonattainment area for the 2008 NAAQS
was not subject to an approved 15 percent plan for either the 1-hour or the 1997 NAAQS, then
section 182(b)(1) applies to that portion of the 2008 NAAQS area and may be met by one of two
approaches described in the rule, which are as follows: The state could choose to treat the entire
area as an area that never met the 15 percent requirement, or the state could choose to treat the
2008 nonattainment area as divided into two portions: the former non-RFP plan portion and the
former RFP plan portion. For the former non-RFP plan portion of the 2008 nonattainment area,
61
-------
the plan would establish a separate 15 percent VOC reduction requirement under section
182(b)(1) of subpart 2. However, VOC emissions reductions to meet the 15 percent requirement
may come from source located anywhere within the 2008 nonattainment area, provided that the
former RFP plan portion of the area also achieves its separate VOC reduction target as part of its
RFP plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. If the RFP plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the
former nonattainment area relies solely on NOx reductions, then the portion of the nonattainment
area never before subject to nonattainment requirements must still achieve the required 15
percent VOC reductions.
The EPA disagrees with the Commenter that, the 15 percent VOC RFP requirement should only
be applied once and that a state should not need to adopt a new RFP plan when a NAAQS has
been revised or when a state expands an ozone area. The EPA does not believe the statute
authorizes an area that has not already met the 15 percent requirement for the 1-hour or the 1997
standard to be exempt from that obligation, except as provided in section 182(b)(l)(A)(ii), which
specifies the circumstances under which a percentage of less than 15 may be used for purposes of
meeting the RFP requirements. The EPA followed a similar approach in the preamble and
regulatory text for the final Phase 2 Implementation Rule for the 1997 NAAQS (70 FR 71612,
November 29, 2005). Based on this reasoning, the EPA also disagrees with the Commenter that a
state should only be required to demonstrate that "Additional Reductions" have been made
beyond the original 15 percent RFP and that major sources in these areas meet RACT.
Additionally, the EPA notes that RACT requirements apply to sources in the entire
nonattainment area, not solely one portion. Therefore, in cases where the nonattainment area for
the 2008 NAAQS covers a geographic area that is larger than that of a previous NAAQS, states
would need to conduct a RACT analysis that evaluates all sources in the 2008 NAAQS
nonattainment area.
Lastly, the EPA appreciates the comment regarding the fact that each nonattainment area is
unique and has its own needs for reductions. The EPA will review all SIP submissions on a case-
by-case basis to evaluate the extent to which CAA requirements have been met.
3. Non-creditable reduction calculations
Comment: Support removing the calculation requirement
Commenters (0130, 0141, 0152, 0153, 0155, 0157, 0159, 0160, 0163, 0169, 0175 and 0179)
supported the proposal to remove the requirement of performing non-creditable reduction
calculations. Commenters stated that, these calculations are tedious and burdensome (0130,
0155, 0175, 0177 and 0179), they add no environmental benefit to the planning process (0130),
with fleet turnover, such emission reductions are de minimis for SIP planning purposes (0160),
and removing the requirement will streamline the RFP process somewhat and make the process
easier to explain to interested parties such as section 174 planning organization participants.
Commenter (0177) stated that, the pre-1990 calculation will be necessary if the EPA decides to
allow states submitting a first-time 15 percent RFP Plan to substitute NOx for VOC reductions.
According to the Commenter, the EPA indicated in the preamble (78 FR 34188) that states with
such nonattainment areas must first demonstrate that a 15 percent VOC reduction was achieved
62
-------
relative to a 1990 baseline. The Commenter indicated that since those nonattainment areas would
be required to look back to a 1990 baseline, the emission reductions from pre-1990 control
measures are not likely to be de minimis, so they would need to be considered.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenters' support in removing the requirement to
perform non-creditable reduction calculations. The final rule does not include a requirement to
perform non-creditable reduction calculations.
Comment: Clarification needed for non-creditable reduction calculations
Commenter (0132) stated, more clarification and consistency is needed throughout the section
discussing the requirements to account for non-creditable reduction calculations when
calculating RFP emission reduction targets. The Commenter stated that, the proposal indicated
that non-creditable emissions reductions, as specified in federal CAA (FCAA), § 182(b)(1)(D),
would no longer be calculated and removed from RFP emissions reduction targets because their
effects are considered de minimis. The Commenter agrees that these effects are de minimis.
However, the proposal also states that all SIP-approved or federally promulgated emissions
reductions that occur after the baseline inventory year, except those listed in § 182(b)(1)(D), are
creditable toward RFP. These sections seem to be inconsistent, and the requirements are
therefore unclear. The EPA should provide justification for why the non-creditable reductions
would not be de minimis for both purposes. Is the EPA proposing that states would no longer be
required to calculate non-creditable reductions for RFP targets but that non-creditable reductions
must still be removed from the emission reductions used to meet RFP targets? Or is the EPA
proposing that states would no longer be required to consider, due to their de minimis effects,
non-creditable reductions in RFP demonstrations?
Response: The final rule provides that states would no longer be required to calculate non-
creditable reductions in RFP demonstrations, due to their de minimis effects.
Comment: Do not support proposal for non-creditable reduction calculations
Commenter (0180) states that, the EPA is completely without authority to allow states to claim
ROP credit for control measures for which such credit is explicitly barred under CAA section
182(b)(1)(D). Commenter (0180) stated that, the prohibition on crediting such reductions is the
sort of extraordinarily rigid statutory provision that does not allow for de minimis exceptions.
Commenter (0180) asserted that, section 182(b)(1)(D) says unequivocally that the reductions
from the measures listed therein "are not creditable toward the 15 percent reductions. . ." 42
U.S.C. § 751 la(b)(l)(A). Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA has not demonstrated that the
impact of the non-creditable reductions will always be trivial - a prerequisite to invoking the de
minimis exception and failed to review the impact of this exception on any specific
nonattainment areas, relying instead on national modeling from which - it concedes - local
results may vary.
Response: The EPA disagrees. The statute provides that motor vehicle emission reductions
resulting from measures promulgated "by January 1, 1990," (which can only come from pre-
1990 vehicles), are "not creditable." To ensure that such emissions are not credited it is first
63
-------
necessary to calculate them. The EPA found that making such a calculation would be "a very
resource intensive process requiring multiple modeling runs and extensive staff time," and that
emissions from pre-1990 vehicles would be a very small part of the total emissions inventory by
the time the credits could first apply, in 2017. Thus it proposed to relieve states of the burden of
doing the calculations "based on the de minimis nature" of the potential credits.
The comment does not dispute the principle that agencies need not apply the literal terms of a
statute to mandate pointless expenditures in circumstances that can fairly be considered de
minimis. See Alabama Power v. EPA, 636 F.2d 323, 360 (D.C. Cir. 1979). But the comment
notes that this principle does not apply to "extraordinarily rigid" statutes, and baldly asserts that
the statement in section 182(b)(l)(D)(i) that emissions are "not creditable" is such a provision.
The comment offers no further explanation. It suggests no standard for determining when a
statute is too rigid for de minimis exemptions, does not explain how the use of "not" makes the
statute "extraordinarily" rigid and cites no instance when a provision like this has precluded use
of de minimis principles in otherwise appropriate circumstances. The EPA therefore rejects the
comment as unsupported.
The comment also claims that the EPA has not demonstrated that these circumstances are de
minimis. Without disputing the EPA's conclusions as to either the share of the emissions
inventory or the resource burdens of the calculations, the comment nevertheless claims that
because "local results may vary," the EPA must assess "specific nonattainment areas." The
comment does not identify any such area or offer any basis to believe that the impact of the
credits anywhere would be more than de minimis. Moreover, the EPA evaluated and concluded
that reductions associated with pre-1990 vehicles "everywhere will be a very small fraction of
the total on-road VOC emissions inventory by 2017." In sum, this comment, too, is unsupported
and the EPA rejects it.
4. Alternative VOC-weighted RFP approach
Comment: Support for the VOC-weighted approach
Commenters (0147, 0151, 0154, 0158, 0162, 0175 and 0179) supported the VOC-weighted
approach. Commenters (0147, 0151 and 0179) added that controlling VOC emissions based on
photochemical reactivity is a scientifically sound and appropriate means of addressing ozone
formation potential. Commenter (0147) provided the following additional points. They stated
that, scientific research shows that photochemical reactivity has a more direct correlation to the
ozone-forming potential (i.e., potential air quality impacts) of VOC emissions than does a simple
mass-based measure of emissions. Comparative photochemical modeling is described in (report
attached to comment 0147), Assessing Near-field and Downwind Impacts of Reactivity-based
Substitution. Reactivity-based VOC emissions limits, by considering the rate and mechanism of
photo-oxidation in the troposphere, are reflective of the actual processes that lead to ozone
formation. Relative photochemical reactivity thus provides a more rigorous scientific approach to
assessing an individual compound's potential contribution to ozone accumulation than
consideration of its mass alone. The Commenters stated that, accordingly, the EPA's approach is
scientifically sound and represents a significant step forward in ozone regulation. The reactivity
64
-------
method has already been adopted in other national, state and local ozone regulations such as the
current national aerosol coatings rule and the Texas highly-reactive VOC emissions cap and
trade program. These programs may serve as a legal and administrative precedent for other
reactivity-based standards. We have appended a whitepaper entitled Control of Ozone Formation
from Household and Commercial Product Use that outlines additional information on the
benefits and history of reactivity-based VOC regulation (report attached to comment 0147).
Commenter (0151) supported adoption of both of the proposed alternative approaches in the SIP
Requirements rule because they reinforce the states' ability to apply these constructs and because
they are far more practical and likely to be more successful in reducing ozone than the section
182(b) RFP 15 percent VOC reductions specified in the 1990 Amendments. The Commenter
stated that, as a consequence of this well-accepted appreciation of the relative contributions of
different VOC species and NOx to ozone formation, it would be unreasonable and arbitrary to
require states to impose control requirements on low-reactivity VOC where it will make little
difference in an area's ability to achieve the ozone standard. It would be particularly irrational to
control such minimally reactive VOC if it is feasible to reduce higher reactivity VOC or NOx
from other sources instead. This conclusion is borne out by marked improvement in ozone
nonattainment days following imposition of controls on highly reactive VOC in Texas. The EPA
has proposed to codify this understanding in the proposed RFP regulations at proposed 40 CFR §
11.1110 (a). The commenter added that Congress did not intend when it amended the CAA in
1990 to require the states to continue to peddle a proverbial "Section 182(b) hamster wheel"
every 5 years as the EPA reexamined and adjusted the ozone NAAQS. In that respect, we believe
therefore that the principal function of Title I, Subpart II is to prevent any state backsliding that
would be caused by removing features of approved RFPs and other mandate pollution controls
required by Congress in the 1990 Amendments. At the time of the 1990 CAA Amendments, the
Committees of the respective houses believed that many large VOC sources had not been subject
to RACT-controls and that for most nonattainment areas that 15 percent reductions in baseline
VOC would bring areas into attainment and that incremental additional rate-of-progress 3
percent reductions would ultimately be successful in resolving all but perhaps the most
intransient ozone nonattainment problems in peculiar geographically/meteorologically-
challenged areas. With this perspective, it should be concluded that subpart 2 was designed to
forcibly dictate the floor for all nonattainment SIP programs, but that thereafter as long as states
do not backslide from these requirements, additional measures are to be once again subject to
state's discretion under subpart 1 to adopt additional measures. Both alternatives that the EPA
describes in the proposal are wholly consistent with authorities set out in CAA section 172,
which allows the states thereafter to determine how and when the application of the alternative
would be useful in lowering ozone in a particular air shed. The commenter argued that both of
the proposed alternative approaches in the SIP Requirements rule are far more practical and
likely to be more successful in reducing ozone than the section 182(b) RFP 15 percent VOC
reductions specified in the 1990 Amendments. In combination with each other, they are likely to
be even more successful in achieving ozone reductions in some areas. For all the reasons
discussed on page 34190 of the NPRM, reducing NOx and highly reactive species of VOC are
likely to result in more ozone improvement than a 15 percent overall reduction in various VOC.
From a practical point, Dr. Douglas Carter's reactivity tables are readily available and generally
accepted. We believe they have been used successfully already in Texas SIP-planning to lower
65
-------
ozone levels closer to attainment.
Commenter (0152) generally supported the use of alternative approaches to achieving RFP and
believed more flexibility and common sense approaches are needed in today's regulatory
environment, as standards are getting lower and lower and available cost-effective emission
reductions are more difficult to find. However, Commenter (0152) stated, such approaches
should not be mandated by EPA and must be left to the state's discretion. Commenter (0154)
stated this alternative supports a common sense approach whereby states can focus reductions on
the particular VOC that are causing elevated ozone levels. Commenter (0162) stated, an across-
the-board VOC reduction program in an area with significant non-reactive VOC is likely to be
less effective than a tailored program focused primarily on highly-reactive VOC and noted that
the ability of the Houston CMSA to significantly reduce ozone concentrations demonstrates the
effectiveness of a VOC reactivity-based approach.
Response: The EPA appreciates the many comments it received on this issue. Commenters
asserted that scientific studies show that photochemical reactivity has a more direct correlation to
the ozone-forming potential (i.e., potential air quality impacts) of VOC emissions than does a
simple mass-based measure of emissions, and urge the EPA to allow states the option to use a
reactivity-based approach to RFP. The EPA agrees that the alternative approach ideas discussed
in the proposed rule and in the comments received are interesting and designed to achieve useful
goals. However, the EPA believes that much more work is needed in a separate effort to work
through the many scientific and legal issues involved before such an approach would be
determined appropriate. It can be argued that the RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) are
defined in section 171(1) as "annual incremental reductions in emissions," not reduction in
ambient pollutant levels. Also, section 182(b)(1) requires plans for Moderate and above areas
that provide for specific overall percentage reductions in emissions, and those reductions must be
achieved "from baseline emissions" regardless of the reactivity of the VOC being reduced. The
EPA recognizes that even though the science of reactivity has advanced to a point where it could
support policy directives, this alternative approach would be complicated to implement.
The EPA did not specifically include this alternative approach in the final rule, however the EPA
believes there is potential for this alternative to be implemented in the future. If a state or another
air quality management entity were to develop a weighted VOC approach that is adequately
supported by scientific studies and consistent with the CAA requirements, the EPA could
evaluate the program and the studies to determine if it could be readily implemented in a separate
rulemaking. The EPA believes that states and the agency will need time to understand and
consider the outcomes and whether it may be practical for the states to pursue this alternative,
possibly on a case-by-case basis. If the EPA determines in the future that such an approach
appropriately meets CAA obligations, it will be established in a separate rulemaking action.
Comment: EPA should suggest in the final rule what those "reactivity groupings or 'bins'"
would be or incorporate the reactivity scales adopted by California agencies
Commenters (0151, 0158, 0166 and 0175) suggested the EPA should establish default national
VOC weighting ratios. Commenter (0151) stated that, requiring states to make demonstrations
based on the relative reactivity of pollutants would be burdensome and unnecessary duplicative
66
-------
since any such demonstration would likely depend on the same detailed analysis of the
atmospheric chemistry and behavior of families of VOC. Commenter (0151) requested the EPA
to suggest in the final rule what "reactivity groupings or 'bins'" would be or incorporate the
reactivity scales adopted by California agencies. The commenter stated that, this is not to imply
that all nonattainment areas are the same, in the sense of their make-up of sources or the
predictability of emission reductions from certain sources. That analysis will need to be guided
by other local criteria that the states will need to use for implementing the RFP, such as the
NOx/VOC ratio and other variables involving monitors and terrain and weather. But at least
having the EPA classify three (or more as the science supports) tiers of VOC based on their
relative reactivity and assign ratios for comparison is simpler than burdening state governments
with overcoming the challenge of documenting why they chose to define the "reactivity bins"
themselves, allowing them to focus limited resources on unique issues related to their industrial
and area source emission inventories.
Commenters (0158 and 0166) supported the proposed option and stated that, if the agency does
provide this alternative RFP option in the final rule, it should allow states the option to use the
EPA-developed and provided default VOC weighting functions or to develop alternative state- or
area-specific weighting functions. Commenter (0175) stated, the EPA should establish default
national VOC weighting ratios through rulemaking and allow states the flexibility to establish
region specific VOC weighting ratios with review and approval from the EPA.
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenters' suggestions on ways to make the VOC
weighting approach a viable approach. However, the EPA also recognizes that there are lingering
legal issues, scientific unknowns and uncertainties associated with developing and implementing
defensible methods that allow the weighing of VOC emissions based on ozone reactivity for
purposes of meeting RFP requirements. The EPA recognizes such an approach would provide
states with increased flexibility. While interested in exploring ways to provide flexibility to states
where possible, the EPA has decided not to include this alternative approach in the final rule at
this time. The EPA believes there is potential for this alternative to be implemented in the future.
Comment: Concerns regarding the VOC-weighted approach
Commenters (0132, 0144, 0146, 01060 and 0166) expressed concerns related to the alternative
VOC-weighted RFP approach. Commenter (0132) stated, the proposal does not provide enough
detailed information on how a VOC-weighted approach would be practically implemented and
requested the EPA provide additional guidance and/ or clarification as to how the alternative
approaches would be implemented. Commenter (0144 and 0146) stated that, there is not enough
scientific data and guidance available to implement this approach, especially considering that
even low reactivity VOC do have adverse ozone impacts downwind. Commenter (0160) stated,
the proposed alternative to allow weighting of VOC emissions according to reactivity would be
of limited utility in California, unless it is expanded to weight the value of NOx reductions
relative to VOC reductions. Commenter (0166) stated that, to the extent legally permissible, the
EPA should clarify that it is looking for the best mix of both VOC and NOx emission reductions
when it states that "[t]he emission reduction targets for the area should be expressed in terms of
the pollutant (VOC or NOx) which, when reduced, is most effective in reducing ozone
concentrations in the area." 78 FR at 34,190/1.
67
-------
Response: The EPA agrees that there are concerns in implementing a VOC weighted approach.
The EPA also recognizes from concerns expressed by Commenters that, there may be lingering
legal issues and that the underlying science has some uncertainties associated with the reactivity
of VOC approach. The EPA recognizes the alternative VOC-weighted approach would provide
states increased flexibility in satisfying ROP/RFP requirements. However, the EPA has decided
not to include this alternative approach in the final rule at this time. The EPA believes there is
potential for this alternative to be implemented in the future and if the EPA decides tojnake this
approach available, it will do so in a separate rulemaking.
Comment: Do not support the VOC-weighted approach
Commenters (0146, 0163 and 0168) opposed this approach, stating that the CAA clearly requires
a percentage reduction "from baseline emissions" for purposes of RFP. Commenter (0163) added
that, the CAA specifies a percentage reduction and even provides for alternatives for using a
percentage less than 15 percent for RFP (CAA section 182(b)(l)(A)(ii). While reactivity-based
weighting is recognized in another section of subpart 2, it is not mentioned in this context.
Furthermore, this approach would presumably only be utilized by states to avoid either meeting
the 15 percent VOC reduction requirement or to permit the substitution of NOx prior to meeting
the 15 percent VOC requirement. Neither is allowed under the CAA.
Response: The EPA believes that it might be argued that there are legal barriers to implementing
the VOC reactivity-based alternative approach. The Commenter argues that, section
182(b)( 1 )(A)(ii) provides a specific reduction percentage with an alternative for using a
percentage less than 15 percent for ROP/RFP and prohibits the weighted VOC approach.
However, the EPA disagrees with the Commenter that states would use this approach only as a
means to avoid meeting the 15 percent VOC reduction requirement. The EPA believes there is
potential in this approach and if the EPA decides to propose a change, it will be undertaken in a
separate rulemaking action.
5. Alternative Air quality approach
Comment: Concerns regarding the alternative air quality approach
Commenters (0132, 0144, 0159 and 0166) expressed concerns related to the alternative air
quality based RFP approach. Commenters (0132 and 0166) stated, the proposal does not provide
enough detailed information on how an air quality-based approach would be practically
implemented. Commenter (0132) added that, for the air quality-based approach, without more
detail on how the EPA would expect states to translate RFP emissions reduction targets (tons)
into ozone air quality targets (ppb), it is difficult to provide comment. Based on the brief
summary provided by the EPA, the Commenter assumes, that additional photochemical
modeling would be required to achieve this translation. The EPA should provide additional
guidance and/ or clarification as to how both these alternative approaches would be
implemented. Commenter (0166) added that, the air quality alternative proposal appears to be
reasonable on its face, but it is not clear how it would work and the EPA should provide further
detail on this alternative in a supplemental notice (with an opportunity for public comment) if it
decides to adopt this approach in the final rule. It is not clear from the proposed rule to what
68
-------
extent an ambient measurement approach is consistent with the statutory definition of "RFP,"
which requires "annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant." CAA §
171(1). The EPA needs to provide in a supplemental notice additional legal justification for such
a proposal if it decides to proceed to adopt it. To the extent legally permissible, the EPA should
clarify that it is looking for the best mix of both VOC and NOx emission reductions when it states
that "[t]he emission reduction targets for the area should be expressed in terms of the pollutant
(VOC or NOx) which, when reduced, is most effective in reducing ozone concentrations in the
area." 78 FR at 34,190/1.
Commenter (0144) stated, there is not enough scientific data and guidance available to
implement this approach and, even low reactivity VOC do have adverse ozone impacts
downwind. The commenter stated that, it is not clear how a state would distinguish between
reductions from control measures, transport and natural or nonpermanent reductions. This
approach is more complicated and not as accurate as the current requirement in assessing control
measure benefits from individual control measures.
Response: It can be argued that the RFP requirements in section 172(c)(2) are defined in section
171(1) as "annual incremental reductions in emissions," not reductions in ambient pollutant
levels. Also, section 182(b)(1) requires plans for Moderate and above areas provide for specific
overall percentage reductions in emissions and those reductions must be achieved "from baseline
emissions" regardless of the air quality targets of the criteria pollutant being reduced. The EPA
recognizes that an alternative approach would be complicated to implement because the science
of the air quality targeting approach has to advance to a point where it could support policy
directives. The Commenters plainly contend that the CAA's RFP provisions do not appear to
provide for variations in the required percent reduction in VOC based on differences of ozone
forming potential. The requirement to obtain the required percent reduction of total VOC
remains, and if EPA decides to propose a change, it would be undertaken in a separate
rulemaking action.
Comment: Support for increased flexibility in air quality approach
Commenters (0132, 0136, 0139, 0140, 0150, 0151, 0153, 0160, 0161, 0175 and 0179) generally
supported the air quality approach. Commenters (0132 and 0161) stated this, approach provides
increased flexibility since it would provide an avenue by which VOC and NOx emissions could
be substituted for one another on an air-quality basis instead of on a percent-for- percent
emissions basis. Commenter (0132) endorsed this increased flexibility since it would provide an
avenue by which VOC and NOx emissions could be substituted for one another on an air-quality
basis instead of on a percent-for-percent emissions basis. Commenters (0136 and 0139) stated,
this approach would allow us to translate the region's RFP emissions reduction targets (tons) into
ozone improvement targets (ppb) based on air quality modeling or other appropriate analyses.
Commenter (0136) stated, the emission reduction targets for the area should be expressed in
terms of the pollutant (VOC or NOx) which, when reduced, is most effective in reducing ozone
concentrations in the area. Commenters (0150 and 0160) supported the proposal to allow use of
an air quality based approach to demonstrating RFP, especially if the proposal to disallow use of
emission reductions from outside a nonattainment area is finalized.
69
-------
Commenter (0160) stated, that this alternative would better reflect the air quality progress being
made in areas adjacent to the South Coast nonattainment area, such as Coachella Valley and the
Western Mojave Desert, which must rely on large upwind emission reductions to attain the
ozone standard. In addition, there may be other appropriate uses of air quality based progress
benchmarks to demonstrate RFP. States should have the opportunity to demonstrate that such an
approach is equivalent to or better than an emission reduction target. Such an alternative would
qualify as an equivalent planning procedure that can be approved under section 172(c)(8) and
should be included in the final rule.
Comm enter (0150) stated that, this approach would be very useful because their best technical
judgment is that the Coachella Valley will be able to meet the air quality improvement targets,
but would not necessarily be able to meet the RFP tonnage targets using emission reductions
solely from within the Coachella Valley nonattainment area. The Comm enter added that, the
EPA has requested comment on whether there is adequate legal basis to allow such an
interpretation. Again, the basic purpose of RFP is to ensure adequate and consistent annual
emission reductions to ensure progress toward attaining the standards. CAA § 171(1). The
requirement to reduce tons of emissions is, of course, intended to produce improvements in air
quality. The EPA's proposed air quality-based approach clearly qualifies as an equivalent
planning procedure that is not "less effective" than the bare requirement to reduce tons. Thus, the
EPA may approve it under CAA § 172(c)(8). It may be argued that under this section, the EPA
may only approve equivalent methods to those "specified by the Administrator," not those
specified in the CAA. But that argument assumes that each and every word of Subpart 2 is
directly applicable to the revised standard. As explained above, it is not. The EPA may
reasonably assume that Congress would have wanted states to be allowed to use measures of
progress that are directly related to the goal, i.e., air quality improvement.
Comm enter (0179) stated that, the approach is feasible given the current state of science and
modeling tools available to measure RFP in terms of ozone improvement targets. It can serve as
a menu of choices that states and the EPA can use to measure progress toward and to attain the
ozone standard. It would retain a state's accountability for making consistent incremental
progress while focusing on the most direct measurement of improvement, namely air quality. We
recognize that a similar approach is already included in the implementation rules that govern SIP
development for the June 6, 2012 court decision on PM2.5 NAAQS (40 CFR 51.1009(g) and (h)),
and the same logic could be applied for 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation. The Commenter
believes that sections 1 (b)(4) and 6(a) of the Executive Order 13563 could be applied to serve
the overall intent of the CAA to attain the NAAQS in an expeditious manner. In particular
section 1 (b)(4) states, "to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt" and section
6 (a) states, "To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall
consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective,
insufficient or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in
accordance with what has been learned. Such retrospective analyses, including supporting data,
should be released online whenever possible."
Commenter (0151) supported adoption of both of the proposed alternative approaches in the SIP
70
-------
Requirements rule because they reinforce the states' ability to apply these constructs and because
they are far more practical and likely to be more successful in reducing ozone than the section
182(b) RFP 15 percent VOC reductions specified in the 1990 Amendments. With respect to 2008
ozone nonattainment areas where portions have a previously approved 15 percent VOC reduction
plan, Commenter (0179) requested maximum flexibility in dealing with nonattainment areas.
Commenter (0179) stated that, air quality improvements are better accomplished with current
scientific understanding rather than mandates in a law from a generation ago that was aimed at
achieving compliance with a different air quality standard prior to emission reduction
achievements from many sources of VOC and NOx.
Commenters (0155 and 0157) stated, they had no comment on these specific proposals regarding
alternative approaches to achieving RFP or their legal merits, but noted that some state and local
agencies will face serious difficulties achieving the required RFP reductions by the prescribed
deadlines. Commenters (0155 and 0157) urged, the EPA to engage in meaningful and timely
dialogue with states and localities on this issue and to provide states and localities all legally
available flexibility in reaching attainment, provided there is no adverse effect on other states'
efforts.
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenters' support. We recognize that implementing
alternative approaches such as the weighing of VOC emissions based on ozone reactivity may
provide states increased flexibility in satisfying RFP requirements based on air quality
improvements rather than adopting control methods to meet prescriptive emission limits. Air
quality improvements recognize the benefits or reducing both VOC and NOx where one could be
substituted for another.
The EPA also recognizes that there are lingering legal and technical issues, unknowns and
uncertainties associated with allowing either the air quality improvement approach or the
weighting of VOC emissions based on ozone reactivity. It can be argued that the RFP
requirement in section 172(c)(2) is defined in section 171(1) as "annual incremental reductions in
emissions," not reduction in ambient pollutant levels. Also, in the section 182(b)(1) requires
plans for Moderate and above areas to provide for specific percentage reductions in emissions,
and those reductions must be achieved "from baseline emissions" regardless of how much ozone
levels are reduced. The EPA recognizes that this alternative would be complicated to implement
because it would require the state to determine the percentage emissions reduction and translate
that result into an air quality benefit and subsequently determine if control programs would result
or have resulted in an equivalent air quality benefit. However, Congress has expressly allowed
air quality benefits analyses to supplant emission control requirements in certain sections of the
CAA. For example, section 182(f) provides for waiver of certain NOx control requirements for
major sources where the EPA determines that net air quality benefits are greater in the absence of
NOx reductions from the sources concerned.
The EPA has not included these alternative approaches in the final rule, however, the EPA
believes there is potential for these alternatives to be implemented in the future. If EPA decides
to propose a change, it would be undertaken in a separate rulemaking action.
71
-------
Comment: Do not support air quality approach
Some Commenters (0146, 0154, 0163, 0168 and 0180) did not support the air quality approach.
Commenter (0146) opposed this approach, stating that, the CAA clearly requires a percentage
reduction "from baseline emissions" for purposes of RFP. Commenter (0154) stated, it is not a
requirement of the CAA, places a severe additional burden on the states to complete a difficult
and costly technical demonstration and was not developed in the spirit of Executive Order 13563
to improve regulation. Commenter (0163) stated that, because of the legal issues and other
complications, unknowns, uncertainties and questions, the EPA should not offer this alternative
and instead implement the CAA as written. The commenter added that, the alternative to convert
to an equivalent ozone improvement metric does not appear to be consistent with the CAA,
which requires a percentage reduction "from baseline emissions." In addition, this alternative
would be more complicated to implement than the requirement as specified in the CAA as it
would entail determining the percentage reduction, translating that into an air quality benefit and
then determining if the control programs developed would in fact result in an equivalent air
quality benefit. If an area is NOx limited, a reduction in VOC would result in a de minimis ozone
benefit which in turn would be equivalent to a de minimis NOx reduction. This would effectively
result in no NOx reductions being determined equivalent for RFP purposes. New York, therefore,
believes there is no sound policy or legal basis for this approach. In addition, this approach fails
to consider the impact of emissions from outside a given state on its ability to reduce ozone
levels. Furthermore, slower reacting VOC could lower ozone in the immediate area and create
more ozone downwind and ground level emissions have different impacts that elevated sources.
(0163)
Commenter (0168) did not support translating an area's RFP emissions reduction targets (tons)
into ozone improvement targets (ppb) based on air quality modeling or other appropriate
analyses. Commenter believes, that RFP must be calculated and complied with as a percentage of
base year inventory emissions, which is consistent with the plain reading of the CAA and with
prior EPA interpretations and has resulted in the necessary control of both VOC and NOx
emissions in the covered areas.
Commenter (0180) stated that, the alternative is not legally permissible, to the extent the EPA is
proposing to allow a nonattainment area to avoid providing for, or actually achieving, the
statutorily required percentage emission reductions as long as it achieves specified reductions in
ozone levels. Commenter (0180) asserted that, section 182(b)(1) requires plans for Moderate and
above areas to provide for specific percentage reductions in emissions, and those reductions must
be achieved regardless of how much ozone levels are reduced. Likewise, Commenter (0180)
stated the "RFP" required under section 172(c)(2) is defined in section 171(1) as "annual
incremental reductions in emissions" - not reductions in ambient pollutant levels. 42 U.S.C. §§
7501(1) and 7502(c)(2). In addition, Commenter (0180) stated, section 182(g) requires that
compliance with subsections 182(b)(1), (c)(2)(B) and (C), (d) and (e) be determined based on
whether the area "has achieved a reduction in emissions" equivalent to "the total emission
reductions required to be achieved" by those subsections. Id. § 751 la(g)(l). Commenter (0180)
concluded that, the language of the Act forecloses substitution of air quality improvements for
72
-------
the required percentage reductions in emissions, either in establishing SIP requirements or in
determining compliance with ROP requirements.
Commenter (0180) added that, where Congress has intended to allow an air quality benefits
analysis to supplant emission control requirements, it has expressly said so. Commenter (0180)
stated, the EPA's proposed air quality benefits approach would also be arbitrary and capricious
as there would be no requirement that the state establish that the reduction in ambient ozone
levels is not due to a random factor such as the weather, the economy or temporary voluntary
actions by certain polluters. For example, Commenter (0180) stated, that the 2008 to 2010 period
saw much lower ambient ozone levels due to weather and the recession, whereas, in 2012,
ambient ozone levels went back up, but the EPA had taken regulatory actions based on the lower
2008 to 2010 data so that many mechanisms to address the 2012 levels in a timely manner are
not in place.
Regarding, the weighting of the amount of ROP credit given for reductions of individual species
(or similar groups) of VOC based on their ozone forming potential, Commenter (0180) asserted
that section 182(b)(1) requires that plans for Moderate and above areas provide for VOC
"emission reductions. . . of at least 15 percent from baseline emissions," and defines "baseline
emissions" as "the total amount of actual VOC or NOx emissions from all anthropogenic sources
in the area. . ." 42 U.S.C. § 751 la(b)(l) (emphasis added). Thus, Commenter (0180) asserted the
statute requires a 15 percent cut in the total amount of actual VOC emissions, not some lesser
percentage reduction based on claims that some VOC have greater ozone-forming potential than
others.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenters' concerns. The EPA believes that while the
alternatives are a reasonable concept, the detailed information necessary to direct states on how
to implement either an air quality-based approach or a VOC-weighted approach is inadequate
and more research and investigation must be completed. The EPA has not included these
alternative approaches in the final rule, however, the EPA believes there is potential for these
alternatives to be implemented in the future and the EPA will consider the flexibility of suitable
methods to allow states to address RFP requirements. If EPA decides to propose a change, it
would be undertaken in a separate rulemaking action.
6. Baseline year for RFP
Comment: Support most recently available triennial inventory
Commenters (0143, 0159, 0163 and 0179) generally supported the use of the most recently
available triennial emission inventory at the time RFP plans are developed. Commenter (0143)
supported using the latest triennial inventory, provided the state's version of the inventory is
used for SIP submittal purposes when discrepancies exist between versions of the state's and the
EPA's inventory. The Commenter added that using the most up-to-date triennial inventory as a
base year inventory should reduce inventory development burden for states. Nevertheless, the
EPA in some cases refines or "augments" the triennial inventory that the DEP submits to the
EPA in ways that DEP does not support. For instance, DEP does not agree with an EPA
augmented version of emission estimates of Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale gas activity submitted
73
-------
by DEP. DEP strongly believes if DEP and the EPA cannot agree on some aspect of the triennial
inventory, DEP should be able to use the version of the inventory that DEP deems the most
accurate. For purposes of a SIP submittal, a reasonable version of DEP's inventory, produced
with due diligence should be approved by EPA.
Response: For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is specifying as the baseline year for RFP, the
calendar year for the most recently available triennial emission inventory at the time of
designation, which for areas designated nonattainment effective July 20, 2012 translates to 2011.
Additionally, the EPA is also providing states with the option of selecting an appropriate and
justifiable alternate year between the years of 2008 to 2012 as a baseline year for RFP. We
finalized a nearly identical interpretation for purposes of implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
See 40 CFR 51.910(d). For the 1997 ozone NAAQS, our regulations also provided that a state
has flexibility to use an alternative baseline year if it shows that the alternate year is appropriate
and justifiable. We believe it is appropriate to continue to apply these policies to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
Comment: Support use of 2011 baseline year
Some Commenters (0130, 0143, 0154 and 0175) generally supported use of 2011 as the base
year. Commenter (0130) stated that, use of the 2011 base year rather than 2007 is supportable for
many reasons, however, the EPA should acknowledge in its preamble that timing and resource
factors exist and that, unless additional resources are provided, documentation for the 2011 base
year as well as for future year inventories and modeling results will be minimal at best in SIP
submittals as resources are not available for developing in depth documentation. The Commenter
added that the CAMD data for 2011 partially reflects the EGU sector's growing reliance on
natural gas as a fuel source, as do 2011 activity data for the area and non-EGU point sectors. On-
road data for 2011 also reflect alterations in driving patterns due to the increases seen in the cost
of fuel. However, the EPA should realize that the development of a 2011 base year inventory is a
significant and costly undertaking for states and MPOs. Very little money exists for such efforts,
and timing is a significant issue. The preamble noted the following: ". . . As noted above, the
AERR Rule required states to report emissions for calendar year 2011 to the EPA by December
31, 2012. This is about 2.5 years before the attainment date deadline for 15 percent RFP plans to
be submitted. . ." The commenter argued that just because AERR inventories are submitted to the
EPA in that timeframe does not mean that regional inventories are then immediately available for
review by state staff nor have the data been processed via SMOKE for attainment modeling
demonstrations. Additionally, time must be provided for the creation of base year documentation
as well as for the development and documentation of future year inventories. To develop base
year inventories, the MOVES and NONROAD models must be run using area-specific inputs.
EGU data must be developed and quality assured. Data gaps within the NEI must be back filled
using defensible data sources. These are time consuming and resource consuming efforts. In the
attainment modeling, the use of a 2011 base year requires the design value data for 2013 be
available, since the recommended approach to modeling design values is to use a 5-year span. In
the case of 2011, this 5-year span would be 2009 through 2013. A switch to 2011 as the base
year would also necessitate the development of new meteorological data and base case model
performance analyses. Commenter (0175) supported using 2011 as an emissions base year
because it is a National Emissions Inventory (NEI) year and it was a fairly representative ozone
74
-------
season not biased by climatologically abnormal meteorological conditions.
Response: The EPA acknowledges the resource and timing challenges posed by the
implementation requirements and timing of the final rule. The EPA is making earnest efforts to
assist states in meeting the requirements of the rule. The EPA has created and released a
complete modeling platform using 2011 emissions data and other modeling components, and has
made this available to states for use and review in preparing their SIPs. While additional updates
may be needed in some areas, the EPA believes that the data provided to date should allow states
to meet their plan development obligations in an expeditious manner.
Regarding the use of local-specific mobile model inputs, the EPA has made every effort to
include such inputs in its 2011 modeling platform. Where states elect to further refine the EPA
approach for their areas, that may include modeled attainment demonstrations, but perhaps at the
cost of time and resources as the commenters point out.
The EPA appreciates the commenters' support for establishing the baseline year of 2011 for RFP
SIPs. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, we are finalizing as proposed a baseline year of 2011. While
2011 may be the most suitable year for many areas, we believe it is appropriate to provide some
flexibility to choose an alternate year that falls between the year the NAAQS was established
(2008) and the year of designation (2012 for the initial area designations). The final rule will
provide states with the option of selecting an appropriate and justifiable alternate year between
the years of 2008 to 2012 as a baseline year for RFP for areas designated nonattainment in July
2012. We finalized a nearly identical interpretation for purposes of implementing the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.910(d). For the 1997 ozone NAAQS, our regulations also provided that
a state has flexibility to use an alternative baseline year if it shows that the alternate year is
appropriate and justifiable. We believe it is appropriate to continue to apply these policies to the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
Comment: Flexibility on RFP base year
Commenters (0139, 0141, 0144, 0153, 0155, 0157, 0160 and, 0177) generally agreed with the
EPA's proposed flexibility on the base year for RFP reductions. Commenter (0144) supported
the flexibility in the rule for a state to use an alternative baseline year for RFP, including 2007.
The commenter stated that, the year 2007 was chosen as the regional baseline year for modeling
in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic States. Development of this SIP quality inventory was a significant
investment by the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic States. In addition, states that took early action on
control measures, such as updating 1990 RACT controls, should not be penalized. The same
rationale that the EPA applied in the selection of the 2002 base year could be applied in this
situation. (70 FR 71638, November 29, 2005) EPA stated in the 11/29/2005 rule, that while there
would be a difference in the RFP requirement based on the choice of the RFP baseline, there
should be little if any difference in terms of emissions reductions needed to demonstrate timely
attainment. If a state uses an earlier base year, the state can take credit for additional emission
reductions, and the state also has a higher baseline to start from and additional target years before
attainment. The commenter urged the EPA to allow for emission reduction credits from certain
control strategies made within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) states that occurred between
75
-------
2008 and the year of the baseline emissions inventory (2011), if 2011 is used as the baseline
inventory, so that states that made early reductions in ozone precursors are not economically and
environmentally disadvantaged.
Commenter (0140) urged, the EPA to allow states to use 1990 or another year relevant to the
adoption of emission reduction measures as the baseline (for the Austin-Round Rock area, it
would be 2002 or 2005 in conjunction with the EAC SIP). Commenter (0140) stated, the EPA
should allow states to model the baseline emissions used for setting RFP targets without
including emission reduction measures that were adopted prior to the baseline year (such as the
voluntarily adopted inspection and maintenance program in place in Travis and Williamson
Counties) so as not to penalize areas for taking proactive measures prior to being designated
nonattainment.
Commenters (0153, 0155 and 0157) supported the EPA's proposal to allow states the flexibility
of selecting a year prior to 2011 as the RFP baseline year with the understanding that this would
require an additional 3 percent emission reduction for each year prior to 2011. Commenter
(0160) supported the flexibility and noted that, the SCAQMD staff proposes to use 2012 as its
baseline year because it corresponds to baseline year for the 2016 regional transportation plan to
be prepared for the region. [Also see discussion later in this section.] Commenter (0177) agreed
that, this is a reasonable approach, as long as sufficient justification is provided and the alternate
baseline year does not significantly deviate from the design value period used to establish
designations.
Commenters (0149 and 0150) urged EPA to allow for a baseline year later than 2011 for RFP
calculation, if appropriate and justifiable. Commenters (0149 and 0150) added that, the draft rule
discussed provisions for use of a baseline year of 2011 or earlier for the emission inventory for
meeting the RFP requirement. However, the SCAQMD proposes to use the year 2012 as its
baseline year because it corresponds to the baseline year for the 2016 regional transportation plan
to be prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the seven-
county southern California region of which the SCAQMD is a part. Under state law, the
SCAQMD is required to use SCAG's demographic projections and transportation strategies in its
air quality plan. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 40460(b). Matching two different baseline years
creates a great deal of extra work and some uncertainty in the baseline inventory that can be
avoided by using the same year for both plans. SCAQMD staff would like to confirm our
understanding from EPA staff that the same timeframes for RFP still apply in this case; i.e., an
area with a baseline year of 2012 would have until the attainment date at the end of 2018 to
demonstrate 15 percent reductions.
Response: For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is providing that states should use as the
baseline year for RFP, the calendar year for the most recently available triennial emission
inventory at the time ROP/RFP plans are developed, which in the case of areas designated
nonattainment in 2012 translates to 2011. We are finalizing, as proposed, that all SIP-approved
or federally promulgated emission reductions that occur after the baseline emissions inventory
year from sources located in the nonattainment area are creditable for purposes of the ROP/RFP
requirements, provided the reductions meet the standard requirements for creditability and are
76
-------
not prohibited by section 182(B)(1)(D) of the CAA. We finalized a similar interpretation for
purposes of implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 51.910(d)) to the nearest calendar
year, however, we are allowing states to select baseline years from a limited range of alternate
years in the final rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We received support from Commenters that
2011 would be an appropriate baseline year while other Commenters urged the EPA to allow the
option of justifying an alternative baseline year, including 2012, 2008, 2007 and 1990. In
determining the appropriate alternate years, the EPA recognizes that some states may have
initiated certain control strategies between the year the standard was finalized (2008) and the
most recently available triennial emission inventory year (2011), and that, it would be
appropriate to recognize these recent investments in implementing early reductions to achieve
improved air quality. We also believe that allowing alternate baseline years prior to 2008 (e.g.,
1990 and 2007) would not be appropriate because we believe that it is necessary for RFP credit
for attainment planning to be tied as directly as possible to promulgation of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Emission reductions occurring prior to promulgation of the 2008 NAAQS from
measures adopted into the SIP prior to promulgation of the 2008 NAAQS are certainly helpful
for improving air quality and consequently, may lower the nonattainment classification of an
area and the base year emissions level. However, they are not unquestionably tied to attainment
planning for a standard that was not established final until 2008, and the associated
nonattainment designation for that standard which did not exist until 2012. Therefore, we have
determined these emissions reductions are not appropriate to be credited for fulfilling
nonattainment area RFP requirements. We also recognize that since we designated most areas on
April 30, 2012, with an effective date 60 days after publication in the Federal Register (FR), that
2012 (the designation year) is an appropriate alternative baseline year consistent with the subpart
2 structure. With these considerations, the EPA is finalizing that states may use an alternate year
(i.e., other than 2011) between the years of 2008 to 2012 that the state justifies as appropriate.
Lastly, the EPA confirms the commenter's understanding that the RFP timeframes for an area
with a baseline year of 2012 would have until July 20, 2018 to demonstrate 15 percent
reductions.
Comment: Additional 3 percent emissions reduction per year
Commenters (0153, 0155 and 0157) supported the EPA's proposal to allow states the flexibility
of selecting a year prior to 2011 as the RFP baseline year with the understanding that this would
require an additional 3 percent emission reduction for each year prior to 2011.
Commenters (0154, 0158 and 0166) stated the EPA should not penalize states for choosing early
baseline years in establishing and demonstrations RFP requirements. Commenters (0154 and
0158) recommended that the EPA allow for selection of an earlier baseline year, but drop the 3
percent per year penalty. Commenter (0154) questioned why the EPA imposes an additional 3
percent per year penalty for every year prior to 2011 selected for a base year—the penalty for
early reductions tells states that early reductions are a bad idea, that the state is better off waiting
until the EPA publishes an implementation plan. Commenter (0158) stated, it is not clear why
the EPA would penalize states for choosing an earlier baseline year, nor is it clear that such a
penalty is justified by the statute which simply requires a 15 percent VOC reduction below the
baseline year. Commenter (0166) stated, the EPA cannot properly penalize states (i.e., require
77
-------
more emission reduction than the required 6 percent) for choosing an earlier baseline year for
Moderate areas, because no such penalty is justified under the statute, which simply requires a 15
percent VOC reduction below the baseline year. The Commenter added that, under the proposed
rule, the choice of a 2011 baseline year would likely mean that the same baseline year generally
would be used for both RFP purposes and attainment demonstration modeling purposes because
the EPA guidance on attainment demonstration modeling recommends the use of the average of
the three three-year design value periods that include the baseline inventory year (e.g., for a 2011
baseline inventory year, the three three-year periods would be 2009-11, 2010-12 and 2011-13).
See EPA, EPA-454/B-07-002, "Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze," April
2007, at 22, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance sip.htm. The EPA should make
clear that a state may choose a different baseline period for attainment demonstration modeling if
the state concludes that that period is more meteorologically representative than the period that
would result from use of the RFP baseline year.
Commenter (0132) stated that, the EPA should more clearly define the "whatever additional
emissions reductions" requirement for January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 as a specific
percentage (such as 3 percent). The Commenter argued that, because RFP calculations are based
on emissions reductions (tons) and not ozone concentrations (ppb); it is difficult to define these
"whatever additional emissions reductions." For areas that choose a pre-2011 baseline year, the
EPA has proposed that the area is responsible for a specific 3 percent emissions reduction each
year after the initial 6-year period has concluded up to the beginning of the attainment year. The
EPA should apply the same requirement to Moderate areas that choose 2011 as a baseline year
(as recommended by the EPA's proposal) and require an additional 3 percent emissions reduction
for the final year before the attainment deadline. This approach would be more clear and
consistent between areas that choose 2011 as a baseline year and those that choose a different
year. It would also be more consistent with the EPA's proposal for Serious and higher
nonattainment areas to provide an additional average of 3 percent emissions reductions beyond
the initial 6-year period through the attainment year. If the EPA chooses to leave the "whatever
additional reductions needed" requirement in the final rulemaking rather than change it to a
specific percentage requirement, then the Commenter (0132) suggests that, the EPA also include
a method for calculating the requirement.
Response: The EPA believes it is reasonable to provide flexibility to states in selecting an
appropriate alternate baseline year within the authorities provided to the EPA by the CAA. In the
final rule, the EPA has selected a baseline year of 2011, but is also allowing states to select an
alternate baseline year that would occur no earlier than 2008 and no later than 2012. The EPA
believes this conforms with the language of both the CAA and the NEI cycle. As noted above,
the use of an alternative year for the baseline inventory for RFP does not change the requirement
to use 2002 as the baseline year for transportation conformity as described in 40 CFR 93.119.
The EPA disagrees with the Commenters' assertion that, the EPA is penalizing states for
selecting pre-2011 years as their baseline. The CAA contains three separate provisions regarding
RFP. Section 172(c)(2) under subpart 1 contains a general requirement that nonattainment plans
require RFP, while sections 182(b)(1) and (c)(2) under subpart 2 contain specific percent
78
-------
reduction targets for Moderate and above and Serious and above areas, respectively. A state
ROP-RFP plan must show increments of progress from the baseline emissions inventory year out
to the attainment date. We do not believe it is a penalty as described by the commenters.
However, we are certain that our policy is consistent with the CAA subpart 2 and 172
requirements because by allowing 2008-2010 reductions to be credited, we continue to provide
an incentive for early reductions prior to designations.
The RFP plan for a Moderate area must show increments of progress from the baseline emissions
inventory year (2011/2012) out to the attainment date (no later than July 20, 2018). The RFP
plan would first have to provide for a 15 percent emission reduction from the 2011/2012 baseline
year within 6 years after the baseline year. We have consistently indicated that Moderate areas
must "achieve" the reductions need to provide for attainment by July 20, 2018. Therefore, if
2011 is used as the base year for an RFP plan, a 15 percent reduction must be shown between
January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017, and "whatever additional reductions needed" must
occur by the end of 2018 in order for the area to attain. The final rule specifies that RFP for this
1-year gap period is whatever additional emissions reductions are needed to achieve the goal of
attainment. We believe that requiring Moderate areas using 2011 as a base year to obtain an
additional 3 percent per year during the 2018 attainment years where doing so is not necessary to
attainment would be more than Congress intended to require through the RFP requirements
under Part D of Subchapter I of the CAA Amendments of 1990. However, because a pre-2011
baseline would be voluntarily selected by a state and would create a larger gap period before the
attainment date than a 2011 baseline (as much as 2 to 4 years), we believe the language
"whatever additional emissions reductions are needed for attainment" is not specific enough to
ensure annual incremental progress through the latest attainment date. Therefore, we are
finalizing as proposed an additional 3 percent per year as a reasonable RFP reduction
requirement for a state that chooses to take advantage of the regulatory flexibility this regulation
offers by selecting a pre-2011 baseline. CAA Section 171(1) defines reasonable further progress
under Subpart D to include such annual emission reductions as "may reasonably be required by
the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air
quality standard by the applicable date." Consistent with that, the EPA concludes that it is
reasonable to require that if a state chooses to use an earlier baseline year, its total RFP emission
reduction obligation should be to ensure that additional reductions averaging 3 percent per year
for each year beyond the first 6 years until the year before the attainment year are provided for in
the RFP plan. However, the EPA continues to believe the 2011 NEI reporting year is the
preferred baseline year for RFP planning purposes.
Comment: Design value years
Commenter (0163) opposed allowing a state to use an alternative baseline year that falls outside
of the area's design value calculation. Commenter (0163) stated emissions reductions that fall
outside the years in which the design value was calculated are irrelevant to the designation of the
area and its progress towards attainment.
Response: While the situation noted by the commenter is unusual, the EPA wants to provide the
necessary flexibility to states to prepare their attainment plans, in some cases because of the
79
-------
resource constraints noted by other commenters. The design value used for the 2008 ozone
nonattainment designations finalized in 2012, was gleaned either from the years of 2009-2011 or
2010-2012. The 2008 ozone SIP requirements rule allows 2008 as an alternate baseline year
which would be outside the design value range noted by the commenter. The EPA acknowledges
that the commenter's scenario may be possible and it may be likely the areas designated
nonattainment in 2012 may have also been violating the new NAAQS with the 2008, 2009 and
2010 design values and all of these design values reflect emissions from 2008, even though the
area was not yet officially designated nonattainment. The EPA believes it is appropriate to credit
any emissions reductions from SIP-adopted measures that occur in 2008 and after toward
satisfying RFP requirements because these reductions contribute to attainment. Additionally, the
EPA believes that this policy provides an incentive for states to achieve additional reductions
prior to designations.
The EPA notes that states that choose to use an alternative RFP baseline are not relieved of their
obligation to achieve a 15 percent emission reduction within 6 years. Additionally, states that
choose an alternative baseline that comes before 2011 are required to achieve additional
emission reductions that average out to 3 percent per year for each additional year earlier than
2011. EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that emission reductions that fall outside
the years in which the design value was calculated are irrelevant. One of the criteria for emission
control programs that are made part of a SIP is that the reductions must be permanent. Therefore,
control programs begun any number of years prior to an attainment date assist towards the area's
goal of reducing emissions and achieving the NAAQS.
Comment: Baseline year multi-state agreement
Commenters (0163 and 0179) supported the multi-state proposal. However, Commenters (0144
and 0177) did not agree with the EPA's proposal that for a multi-state nonattainment area, all
states associated with the nonattainment area must consult and agree on the same alternate year
to use as the baseline year for RFP. Commenter (0144) stated that, the RFP demonstration is
state specific and does not rely on a regional inventory. Commenter (0177) provided the
following additional points. The Commenters argued that, the CAA 182(j)(l)(A) requires multi-
state areas to take all reasonable steps to consult and coordinate when developing SIP plans.
There may be reasonable and legitimate reasons justifying the use of different RFP baseline
years by the states in a multi-state area. For example, one state may want to take RFP credit for a
state control strategy implemented just prior to the "default" baseline year, thus justifying
expending the additional resources needed to generate an inventory for a year outside the
triennial emission inventory cycle. Meanwhile, another state in the multi-state area may not have
the same motivation, instead preferring to rely on the most recent triennial inventory as the RFP
baseline inventory. Generally, as long as each state within the multi-state area is able to
independently demonstrate RFP for its portion of the area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, RFP
should be achieved in the nonattainment area as a whole, especially when the sizeable emission
reductions expected from mobile source fleet turnover are considered.
Response: We received mixed reactions on our proposal to have states consult and agree on the
same baseline year when those states are associated with a multi-state nonattainment area. The
CAA requirement to establish a "default" baseline year for a multi-state area is an area-wide
80
-------
requirement. The EPA believes that accounting for multi-state emission reductions on an area-
wide basis for the same baseline year, satisfies the act. We also acknowledge that the choice of
baseline year for a multi-state area impacts the area-wide inventories necessary for the areas and
for nonattainment modeling that is conducted for the area. We believe that it would not make
practical sense for the areas to have multiple different baseline years because this would impact
attainment planning. We have finalized that for a multi-state nonattainment area, all states
associated with the nonattainment area must consult and agree on the same year to use as the
baseline year for RFP.
Comment: The baseline year must be 2012
Commenter (0180) stated that, the EPA's proposal to set 2011 as the presumptive baseline year
and further, to allow states to pick a baseline year other than 2011 for ROP purposes if
"appropriate and justifiable" is unlawful, as it is not consistent with the statute. Commenter
(0180) asserted that both the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit have made clear that the EPA
cannot construe the Act in a way that renders nugatory subpart 2's explicit restrictions on EPA
discretion or that substitutes the EPA's policy preferences for the approaches specified by
Congress. Whitman, 531 U.S. at 484-85; SCAQMD, All F.3d at 894-95, 902-03.
Commenter (0180) stated that, the EPA's proposal to let states pick an alternative baseline year
is also unlawful and arbitrary because it would apparently allow states to pick a baseline year
that predates nonattainment designations, thereby allowing states to claim ROP credit for
emission reductions that occurred before an area was even designated nonattainment, contrary to
the approach in section 182(b)(1) of the Act. Commenter (0180) asserted, that the proposed
approach would lead to attempts by states to game the selection of a baseline year to minimize
the emission reductions required to satisfy the percent reduction requirements and that the
proposed criteria for selecting an alternative baseline year are so vague and standard-less as to
render the proposal arbitrary.
Commenter (0180) added that, it would be particularly arbitrary to allow an area to use an older
baseline year if that area is late in submitting its ROP plan as this would undermine the Act's
progress requirements by allowing the area to arbitrarily delay submission of the ROP plan and
then, rely on reductions that occurred in the interim (due to no plan requirements or other effort
on that area's part) in order to provide less in the way of total emission cuts than would
otherwise have been required. Commenter (0180) asserted that such an approach would also
effectively allow these areas to illegally delay achievement of the 15 percent target, because the
EPA has typically (and illegally) approved 15 percent ROP plans based on their purported
achievement of the 15 percent reduction by the time of ROP plan approval - even if that
approval occurs years after the 6-year period following the baseline allowed under the statute.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the Commenters' claim that, the CAA provides no flexibility
in allowing a choice of a baseline year for RFP. Further, the EPA disagrees with the
Commenter's implication that the rule provides unlimited choice to states to choose
inappropriate years for the choice of an RFP baseline year. The final preamble states ".. .a state
has flexibility to use an alternative baseline year if it shows that the alternative year is
81
-------
appropriate and justifiable." The requirement that the year be "appropriate and justifiable", along
with the requirement that the EPA approve attainment plans, allows the EPA to ensure that
inappropriate years will not be used. To clarify the intent of the "appropriate and justifiable"
wording, the EPA has further added the explanation to the rule that says, "The inventory should
be representative of the emission source contributors understood to have resulted in a
nonattainment designation for the area."
The EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that 2012 must be the base year for RFP
plans for consistency with the timeframes within the 1990 amendments to the CAA because it
overlooks a critical aspect of emission inventory development and updating prescribed by this
law. In addition to requiring a base year emissions inventory, the 1990 amendments to the CAA
set in place a requirement for periodic updates to the base year inventory on a 3 year cycle,
beginning with 1993. Since that time, most states have prepared emission estimates of stationary
and mobile sources on a 3 year cycle, and the EPA has made this a regulatory obligation for all
states within its Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR).
The EPA disagrees with the Commenter's claim that 2012 is the only viable year for an RFP
baseline. The EPA has flexibility in determining how to interpret provisions of the statute for
purposes of implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Nothing in the statute explicitly or implicitly
suggests that all areas must use the same baseline year. The purpose of the RFP requirement is to
ensure areas achieve percentage reductions in emissions that will help an area attain the NAAQS
and to not delay emission reductions until close to the attainment date. Thus, we believe a
baseline year that is reasonably close to the designation date and within the implementation
timeframe of the revised NAAQS will ensure that the goal of the RFP provisions is met. We note
also, that regardless of the baseline year selected, the final regulations provide that areas must
continue to achieve annual percentage reductions up to the attainment year. This will further
ensure that the purpose of the RFP provisions is fulfilled. We do not believe it is reasonable to
select a baseline year for RFP purposes that predates both the revisions to the NAAQS in 2008
and nonattainment designations.
We disagree with the Commenter's assertion that by allowing alternative selections for the
choice of a base year, we are awarding states RFP credit for emission reductions that occurred
before an area was designated nonattainment. We received support from commenters that 2011
would be an appropriate baseline year while other Commenters urged, the EPA to allow the
option of justifying an alternative baseline year, including 2012, 2008, 2007 and 1990. In
determining the appropriate alternate years, the EPA recognizes that some states may have
initiated certain control strategies between the year the standard was finalized (2008) and the
most recently available triennial emission inventory year (2011) and that, it would be appropriate
to recognize these investments in implementing early reductions to achieve improved air quality.
We also believe that allowing alternate baseline years prior to 2008 (e.g., 1990 and 2007) would
not be appropriate because we believe that it is necessary for RFP credit for attainment planning
to be tied as directly as possible to promulgation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Emission reduction
measures adopted into the SIP prior to promulgation of the 2008 NAAQS are certainly helpful
for improving air quality and consequently, may lower the nonattainment classification of an
area, but are not readily tied to attainment planning for a specific standard and the associated
82
-------
nonattainment designation that did not yet exist and therefore, are not appropriate to be credited
for fulfilling nonattainment area RFP requirements. We also recognize that since we designated
most areas on April 30, 2012, with an effective date 60 days after publication in the FR, that
2012 (the designation year) is an appropriate alternative baseline year consistent with the subpart
2 structure. With these considerations, the EPA is finalizing that states may use an alternate year
(i.e., other than 2011) between the years of 2008 to 2012 that the state justifies as appropriate.
We provide this incentive and remind commenters that this flexibility in choosing a baseline year
is tempered by a 3 percent addition that we believe is necessary to ensure the CAA's requirement
of progress is nonetheless.
The EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that allowing states to specify an
alternative RFP baseline is arbitrary and that the criteria for states to justify an appropriate year
are vague and arbitrary. The EPA's approach for allowing states to select and justify an
appropriate alternate baseline year is the same RFP SIP requirement we established for the 1997
ozone standard, and we refer the Commenter to our more detailed treatment of this topic in
materials developed for that standard, such as our November 29, 2005 final implementation rule
(See 70 FR 71637).
The EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that the EPA should not approve RFP plans
that demonstrate the RFP milestone has been achieved, but was not achieved by the relevant
milestone date. First and foremost, the EPA only approves RFP plans that comply with the Clean
Air Act. Secondly, we believe that once a statutory deadline has passed and has not been
replaced by a later one, it is reasonable to require the plan to comply with the act "as soon as
possible." See Delaney v. EPA, 898, F.2d 687, 691 (9th Circuit, 1990). EPA has interpreted this
requirement to be "as soon as practicable." Therefore, in some instances the EPA may determine
that circumstances surrounding the delayed achievement of RFP reductions merit approval of a
plan demonstrating delayed achievement of the RFP milestone, and that, this is a more
appropriate course of action than disapproval of an original plan that did not meet this
requirement. The EPA evaluates such actions on a case by case basis, and only approves such
actions after a public notice and comment period has been offered.
Comment: Support for credit from SIP and federally promulgated measures
Commenters (0159, 0161and 0179) supported the proposal that, emission reductions resulting
from SIP approved or federally promulgated measures occurring after the baseline emissions
inventory year would be creditable toward RFP requirements, provided that the reductions are
enforceable, quantifiable, permanent and surplus. Commenter (0159) noted that, this
interpretation has been adopted by the EPA in the past, most notably during the process of
implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and such approach is required under federal regulations,
40 C.F.R. § 51.910(a)(2). Commenter (0161) argued that, there is no reason to disallow RFP
credit for reductions simply because they were required by the EPA. These are significant
reductions that clearly will result in progress toward NAAQS attainment. It would be
inappropriate to require sources to comply with these new controls but then to withhold RFP
credit for the air quality improvements that will result therefrom. The EPA has authority under
the CAA to allow states to credit SIP-approved and federally promulgated reductions toward
83
-------
RFP requirements. In 42 U.S.C. §7511a(b)(l)(D), Congress listed the emissions reductions that
are not creditable toward RFP requirements. Because Congress specifically set forth those
reductions that it believed were inappropriate to credit toward fulfillment of RFP requirements,
its failure to exclude other reductions, such as those contemplated by the EPA in this rulemaking,
shows that Congress did not intend to prevent states from taking RFP credit for such reductions
[See TV A v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 188 (1978)]. Allowing RFP credit for federally required
reductions would be within the EPA's authority and would appropriately recognize the air quality
improvements that are being achieved through controls such as those contained in the new NSPS
for oil and gas sources.
Response: In the final rule, the EPA is allowing states to credit federally required reductions,
occurring within the nonattainment area and that aligns with the requirements of sections 182(b)
and 182(c). The EPA believes that Congress did not intend to prevent states from taking RFP
credit for these reductions because Congress specifically set forth reductions that were deemed
inappropriate to credit toward fulfillment of RFP requirements and no other reductions have been
set forth.
Comment: Baseline inventory for RFP should be a high ozone summer day
Commenters (0144, 0146 and 0167) stated that, the EPA should include the requirement in the
rule that the baseline inventory for RFP and contingency measures should be a high ozone
summer day, rather than an annual inventory. Together, these Commenters stated that, the
current inventory guidance is inconsistent: the ozone rule proposal and background section
references the air emissions reporting requirements (AERR) for the purposes of defining the data
elements for the emissions inventories for ozone relevant data element requirements, but the
simultaneous AERR proposed amendments are removing the ozone related definitions and
guidance; further, the background section of the ozone rule also references the EPA August 2005
inventory guidance document, but this 2005 guidance document references and includes the
consolidated emissions reporting rule (CERR), which no longer exists.
Comm enter (0146) stated, specificity was expressed in the previous ozone implementation rule
as follows: "Consistent with the manner in which [ROP] plans under the 1-hour ozone standard
were developed, the RFP baseline for 2002 will have a typical summer day tons/day basis. As
such, the attainment year target will also be a typical summer day target." Commenter (0146)
stated, if the intent of the language in the proposal was to allow such elements to be based on
annual inventories, then the EPA is misguided; if this is instead an error of omission, then the
EPA must clarify the requirements with language consistent with that used previously.
Response: The EPA concurs that the current inventory guidance is outdated. The EPA intends to
provide updated draft inventory guidance early in 2015 that reflects the updated AERR final rule,
84
-------
signed by the Administrator on February 6, 2015,15 and other developments occurring since the
2005 version of that guidance. The guidance will define all data fields relevant for ozone
attainment plans, including the ozone season day emissions fields that will be required for ozone
attainment plan emission inventories.
The EPA will also modify the language of the rule to reflect "ozone-season day" emissions
rather than "summer-day" emissions, since not all ozone exceedances occur in the months
commonly referred to as "summer." In fact, some area violations occur in the winter season
under very specific conditions.
The EPA concurs with the comment that this rule needs to clarify that ozone season day
emissions are required for proper implementation of the ozone NAAQS. The EPA does not
concur that "high" ozone season day is necessary in all cases, and so the final rule allows states
to work with their regional offices to define the days included in the ozone-season day emissions
calculation. The purpose of this latitude is for states to create emissions that will be appropriately
representative of the ozone problem for their nonattainment area(s). While the EPA has removed
the requirement to report daily and seasonal emissions in the AERR final rule, signed by the
Administrator on February 6, 2015, the ozone season day emissions will be required as part of
the ozone implementation rule. The final rule has been updated to reflect that proper wording.
7. Emissions outside the nonattainment area
Comments: Supporting EPA's proposed approach for RFP
Commenters (0159 and 0163) noted that, the EPA's proposed approach is legally correct, insofar
as it applies to RFP. Commenter (0146) stated that, the majority of NESCAUM states generally
oppose allowing RFP credit for emissions reductions that occur outside of the nonattainment area
(78 FR 34191), on the grounds that RFP reductions tie back to baseline emissions described in
section 182(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, which references emissions "in the area." Commenter (0161)
stated that, nonattainment areas seeking reductions needed to fulfill RFP requirements should
obtain those reductions from sources located within the nonattainment area, not from sources
outside the nonattainment area. Commenter (0180) stated that, the EPA correctly proposes that
states may not take credit for VOC or NOx reductions occurring outside the nonattainment area
for purposes of meeting the 15 percent and 3 percent ROP requirements. The Commenter stated
that, allowing credit for outside the area reductions is contrary to the Act as construed by the
D.C. Circuit Court. The Commenter also believed that, the EPA's solicitation of comments on
whether there is clean legal rational for allowing credit for reductions outside the nonattainment
area to satisfy the RFP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS was nonsensical.
Commenter (0146) stated that, the majority of NESCAUM states generally oppose allowing RFP
15 AERR Final Rule signed by the Administrator on February 6, 2015 is available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/aerr/final_rule_preamble.pdf
85
-------
credit for emissions reductions that occur outside of the nonattainment area (78 FR 34191), on
the grounds that RFP reductions tie back to baseline emissions described in section 182(b)(1)(B)
of the CAA, which references emissions "in the area."
Commenter (0163) maintained that the RFP provisions specify the minimum level of reductions
required in the area. The CAA section 182(b)( 1 )(A)(ii) details what an area must do to obtain
less than the minimum (15 percent) reduction. In addition, CAA section 107(d)(l)(A)(i) states
that the nonattainment area would be any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient
air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the NAAQS. Taken together, it is clear that the
RFP reductions need to be from the nonattainment area.
Comm enter (0180) opposed RFP credit for emissions outside the nonattainment and stated that,
allowing credit for such "outside" reductions is contrary to the Act (citing NRDC, 571 F.3d at
1256). Commenter (0180) asserted that, the agency says it believes "there may be cases where
the most beneficial and cost-effective reductions are from sources located outside the
nonattainment area boundaries," See id., but even if that is true, it cannot override Congress'
specification that the reductions to satisfy the percentage ROP requirements must come from
within the nonattainment area.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenters' comments in support of the proposed
approach that, states may not take credit for emissions reductions from outside the nonattainment
area for purposes of meeting the ROP/RFP requirements under sections 182(b) and 182(c). The
EPA generally agrees with the supporting comments and, for the reasons outlined in the proposal
and in light of supporting comments, is finalizing the proposed approach.
Comments: Opposing EPA's proposed approach for RFP - Legal Rationale Comments
Commenter (0140) recommended that, the EPA allow states to use areas outside of the
boundaries of the nonattainment area yet within the Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), which
are already part of a SIP and supposedly represent the "airshed" for a given area, to credit
emission reductions toward satisfying RFP. The Commenter (0140) stated that, restricting RFP
emission reductions to the boundaries of the nonattainment area is not a reasonable interpretation
of the statute for NOx-limited areas and where ozone transport typically accounts for well more
than half of an area's ozone levels on high ozone days. The Commenter recommended, that the
EPA allow states to use the entire AQCR (or AQCRs if the boundaries cross AQCR boundaries)
in which a nonattainment area is located to set the baseline and target emission levels; and to
allow states to also include in the baseline and target emission levels an adjacent AQCR if
modeling demonstrates that emissions from that AQCR are causing an average contribution of
over 0.75 ppb or over 0.99 ppb to ozone standard violations within the nonattainment area.
Commenter (0140) argued that, the authority for allowing emission reductions within an AQCR
can be found in section 107(c) of the CAA, which states that the Administrator designates as an
air quality control region "any interstate or intrastate area which he deems necessary or
appropriate for the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards." The
Commenter stated that, since these regions are formally adopted as part of the SIP, they represent
meaningful boundaries that are "necessary" or "appropriate" for the attainment of any air quality
86
-------
standard, including the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Commenter further stated that, the language in
this section does not indicate that just because a smaller geographic area within an air quality
control region is designated as nonattainment for a specific pollutant, emission reductions
elsewhere within the air quality control region are not also "necessary" or "appropriate" for
making RFP towards attainment of a standard within the nonattainment area. The Commenter
suggested that, a legal basis for an even broader geographic area can be found in the definition of
"RFP" in section 171(1). The Commenter argued that, there is no mention of the emission
reductions being restricted to only the boundaries of the nonattainment area, and indeed, this
language would presumably require emission reductions from outside of the nonattainment area
if those emission reductions were used by the state to demonstrate "such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may
reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date." The Commenter
similarly believed that, section 182(b)(l)(A)(i) does not specifically require that the emission
reductions occur within the boundaries of a designated nonattainment area, but rather that "such
plan shall provide for such specific annual reductions in emissions of VOC and NOx as
necessary to attain the national ambient air quality standard for ozone by the attainment date
applicable under this act." Commenter (0151) believed that, it would be good policy to allow
outside the area reduction credits toward satisfying RFP, even if the emissions are not in a state's
emission inventory and the Commenter believed that, the CAA section 110(h) supported this
policy. The Commenter further stated that, since this rule would already allow states to take
credit under EPA's transport modeling for upwind reductions under state and other federal CAA
measures (e.g., auto standards, NSPS and maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
requiring VOC and NOx reductions outside the state, it seems that the legal theory is already in
place to credit upwind reductions.
Commenters (0139, 0148, 0150 and 0160) supported allowing nonattainment areas to take RFP
credit for emission reductions that occur in upwind areas and suggested consideration of a
"transport couples" approach. Specifically, one Commenter (0139) recommended that, the EPA
redefine the term "area" for purposes of the RFP requirement. The term "area" should be
considered to include the entirety of the "transport couple" area. Commenter (0148) urged, the
EPA to continue allowing nonattainment areas to take RFP credit for emission reductions that
occur in upwind areas, especially in cases where it can be shown that: 1) emissions from
transport are contributing to the nonattainment status of the downwind area; and, 2) an area
included emission increases as well as reductions from outside the nonattainment area in its RFP
calculations. The Commenter specifically indicated, the consequences of being adjacent to the
State of California's South Coast Air Basin that transports air pollution that contributes to ozone
violations in the downwind area. The Commenter added that, air pollutants from the South Coast
Air Basin are periodically blown offshore then carried to the coastal cities of Ventura County
and further inland. The Commenter further stated that, South Coast air pollutants can also affect
a downwind area by way of a direct inland route from the San Fernando Valley during periods
when winds blow from the east. Conversely, and not surprisingly, Ventura County emissions can
affect ozone levels in the South Coast Air Basin when winds blow air pollutants from the our
coastal areas, eastward into the San Fernando and Santa Clara River Valleys, thereby
contributing to elevated ozone there. The Commenter continued to point out that, pollutant
87
-------
transport among areas in Southern California is well documented by the California Air
Resources Board and is the primary reason for including most of Southern California in the 1997
Southern California Ozone Study (SCOS) modeling domain used for the Southern California
components of California's 8-hour ozone SIP. The Commenter stated that, other ozone
nonattainment areas in California and the country are similarly interconnected through air
pollutant transport couples. The Commenter further stated that, many of these areas are
nonattainment largely because of transport from nearby upwind areas and could therefore find
demonstrating RFP a great challenge. The Commenter believed that, given that many
nonattainment areas are affected by transported air pollutants, it is technically sound and good
public policy to allow emission reductions generated in one area to be counted towards RFP in
adjoining areas in cases where such pollutant transport relationships between the areas have been
verified. Commenter (0139) also stated that, in the case of RFP, the demonstration is intended to
be a collective "area" demonstration and that by allowing outside area reductions to be included,
the EPA would be authorizing additional area emissions to be included and subject to the 15
percent RFP obligation if the emissions meet certain other criteria (the additional areas must be
Moderate or above classification and contribute to attaining the standards).
Commenter (0150) noted that, unlike the definition of RACT involved in the NRDC case, there
is no express requirement that RFP reductions come from within the "area." The Court in NRDC
relied on specific statutory language requiring nonattainment plans to include: "The
implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions from
existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of RACT)
.... " The Commenter believed, the Court ruled that the CAA expressly required RACT to be
imposed on existing sources in the area; the requirement could not be satisfied by obtaining
equivalent or greater reductions from outside the area. In contrast, there is not language expressly
requiring that RFP must be obtained from sources "in the area." The basic definition of RACT is:
such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by
this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date. CAA §
171(1); 42 U.S.C. §7501(1). The Commenter further stated that, with regard to ozone, there are
two different RFP requirements. The Commenters stated that, first, the plan must provide for
VOC emission reductions, within 6 years, of "at least 15 percent from baseline emissions." §
182(b)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 751 la(b)(l)(A). The Commenter stated that, second, the plan must
"provide for such specific annual reductions in emissions of VOC and NOx as necessary to attain
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by the attainment date..." The Commenter
indicated that, neither requirement contains the term "in the area." The Commenter stated that,
since the EPA agrees that areas can rely on upwind reductions for attainment, 78 FR 34101 col.
2, the EPA has the flexibility to set the targets for the second RFP requirement at whatever levels
will allow attainment, taking into consideration the reductions occurring in upwind areas. The
Commenter concluded that, the second requirement may be administered in a reasonable manner
even if all the reductions are required to come from inside the area. The Commenter further
stated that, the only basis for any concern that reductions must come from within the
nonattainment area is the fact that the term "baseline emissions," from which the plan must
reduce emissions by 15 percent in the first RFP requirement, is defined to mean "the total
amount of actual VOC or NOx emissions from all anthropogenic sources in the area during the
88
-------
calendar year 1990..." § 182(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C.; § 751 la(b)(l)(B). The Commenter pointed out
that, this is the only sense in which the term "in the area" is used in the RFP provisions of the
Act. The Commenter argued that, if the reductions are calculated from a baseline that includes
only emissions "in the area" the reductions must also come from within the area. Of course, the
Act does not expressly so state. But even assuming this conclusion is correct, EPA has the
flexibility to interpret the term "in the area" to allow for the concept of the "transport couple
area" discussed above. Commenter (0139) also recommended that, the EPA redefine the term
"area" for purposes of the RFP requirement and that the term "area" should be considered to
include the entirety of the "transport couple" area. Commenter (0139) provided the following
additional statements on the legal rationale for allowing out-of-area reductions to be counted
toward the 15 percent RFP.
Commenter (0139) understood that, section 182(b) uses both the terms "in the nonattainment
area" at section 182(b)( 1 )(A)(ii)(I) and "in the area" at section 182(b)(1)(B). The Commenter
added that, section 182(b)(1)(B) does not so restrictively define the term "in the area" as to mean
just the particular nonattainment area of interest. In fact, with respect to RFP, it does not
explicitly define the term at all. It merely says "in the area" without defining the geographical
boundaries of the "area." The Commenter concluded that, the intent of this section is to allow a
larger area than the subject nonattainment area based on the specific air quality circumstances in
question and that the EPA does have authority to interpret the term to mean two or more
geographic areas for which emission transport couples have been established. Such areas could
be considered one area for purposes of both central RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A),
the 15 percent from baseline requirement, and the annual reductions in emissions for timely
attainment requirement, provided that there are enforceable mechanisms in place to guarantee
that the upwind emissions actually occur. Doing so would establish consistency between these
two RFP mandates and help areas meet their RFP obligations more cost-effectively than the
EPA's current RFP proposal.
Commenter (0166) stated that, RACT by definition refers to sources "in the area," The CAA §
172(c)(1), and the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA latched onto that language, confirming that
areas cannot go outside their boundaries for RACT purposes. However, the case did not address
RFP requirements in this regard, so it does not control here. Furthermore, the statutory
provisions addressing RFP do not explicitly state that such reductions must in all cases take place
within the area. See CAA §§ 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1). The Commenter added that, to the extent a
nonattainment area does seek credit for RFP purposes with respect to emission reductions
occurring outside the area, though, the state should also expand the emissions inventory
establishing the baseline by covering the area being used for RFP purposes. The Commenter
further believed, if the EPA takes this approach, it must be prepared to disallow NOx-for-VOC
emission reduction substitutions where they are not appropriate or justified, such as in core urban
areas. The Commenter maintained that, in core urban areas, VOC emission reductions are
demonstrably more effective and therefore, it would be inappropriate to substitute NOx emission
reductions outside the core urban area for VOC emission reductions inside the core urban area.
Commenter (0150) pointed toward the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recent decision that,
although there is a presumption that a term appearing in several places in a statute is to be read
89
-------
the same way each time, the presumption "readily yields" based on differences in the context in
which the words are used. Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102, 142(D.C.
Cir. 2012). The Commenter believed, that the Court in that case interpreted a similar term: "in
any area to which this part applies." Id. The Commenter further argued, that moreover, words
that can have more than one meaning are given content by their context. Whitman, supra, 531
U.S. at 466. The Commenter concluded that, in this case, the EPA would be justified in treating
the language relative to RFP differently from the way it treat as the language relative to RACT,
because by definition, it is possible for all sources in a downwind area to comply with RACT.
The Commenter believed that, this is because RACT is defined as "the lowest emission
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility." 44 FR 53762
(Sept. 17, 1979). In contrast, it may not be possible for a downwind area to attain the 15 percent
reduction. Even though the sources are fewer in the downwind area, and thus, the 15 percent
target is smaller, if the sources are primarily mobile sources, such as in the Coachella Valley, and
the area has no ability to reduce emissions from those sources, it may not be possible to attain the
15 percent. The Commenter concluded, that in this case, the EPA could use the term "in the area"
when referring to "baseline emissions" for RFP purposes to refer to a "transport couple area."
The Commenter believed that, as noted earlier, this approach addresses the concerns the
environmental group expressed about the EPA's earlier approach and is consistent with the intent
and purpose of the RFP requirement. The Commenter believed that, a literal interpretation of the
term "in the area" as proposed by the EPA could produce absurd results. Such an interpretation
would require the EPA to disapprove a plan based on failure of the downwind area to have 15
percent reductions "in the area" even if the plan provides for (1) more than 15 percent reductions
in total pollution in the area; (2) more than 15 percent emission reductions within the "transport
couple area"; and (3) attainment on or before the required date. EPA may rely on the concept of
"absurd consequences" to avoid even a "plain meaning" of a statute; thus, it may certainly rely on
such consequences to allow it to use the concept of "transport couple area" as being the "area"
referred to in the definition of baseline emissions for RFP purposes. See EPA's discussion in the
GHG Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
Commenter (0161) stated their belief that states should not step outside the boundaries of
nonattainment areas to achieve emission reductions to satisfy RFP requirements. The Commenter
maintained that, the CAA provides that, with certain listed exceptions, emissions reductions are
creditable toward RFP requirements to the extent that the reductions resulted from
implementation of measures required under the applicable implementation plan, EPA rules, or a
Title V permit. 42 U.S.C. § 751 la(b)(I)(C). The Commenter stated that, the listed exceptions do
not pertain to out-of-area reductions. 42 U.S.C. § 751 la(b)(l)(D)(i-iv). The Commenter further
stated that, because the CAA contains no exception that would disallow credit for out-of-area
reductions, the EPA has discretion to allow states to credit out-of-area emissions reductions
toward fulfillment of RFP requirements.
The Commenter stated that, the EPA would be incorrect to apply this holding to the present
rulemaking, however, because the holding is limited to specific the CAA language regarding
RACT requirements. The Commenter believed that, the CAA unambiguously requires that a SIP
provide for "reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area" as may be obtained
90
-------
through the adoption of RACT, and the Court's decision followed directly from this
congressional directive in CAA section 182(c)(1). The Commenter believed that, the Court's
holding does not pertain to RFP requirements and it, therefore, has no bearing on the way that
RFP requirements are to be interpreted or applied. The Commenter concluded that, the EPA
should not view NRDC v. EPA as expressing any limit on the agency's authority to allow RFP
credit for out-of-area reductions. The Commenter further stated, their belief that Congress did
not intend to prohibit RFP credit for out-of-area reductions is also shown by the language that it
used in CAA section 172(c), where general nonattainment plan provisions are set forth. The
Commenter stated that, it has been noted before that the RACT provision set forth at section
172(c)(1) specifically requires reductions from sources "in the area." But in the subsection that
immediately follows, section 172(c)(2), the RFP provision is set forth and it states merely that
"plan provisions shall require RFP, section 172(c)(2)] with no "in the area" limitation. The
Commenter believed that, Congress knew how to limit SIP requirements to in-area sources when
it wanted to, as it did in the RACT provision in subsection (c)(1). The fact that it chose not to
engraft such limiting language in the RFP provision in subsection 172(c)(2) is further indication
that Congress did not intend to prevent states from crediting out-of-area reductions toward RFP
targets. [See Russello v. U.S., 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983).] The Commenter also considered it
significant that, the CAA lists four specific types of emissions reductions under section
182(b)(l)(D)(i)-(iv) that are not creditable toward fulfillment of RFP goals and that Congress
could have included reductions from out-of-area sources among these non-creditable reductions,
but it did not do so. The Commenter concluded that, if Congress had intended to disallow credits
from outside the nonattainment area, it could have expressly disallowed it as it did for RFP credit
for four other specific categories of emission reductions
Commenter (0151) believed that, the "inside the area" limitation comes from the definition of
"baseline inventory" in CAA section 182(b)(1)(B). Therefore, the commenter supported the
EPA's earlier rulemaking, never completed, that allowed states to add these sources outside of
the state to their emission inventory. The Commenter stated that, the question, then, could morph
into whether addition of the source for which credit is being taken to the emission inventory
triggers additional RFP, if a state's original plan was approved. The Commenter did not believe
that, additional RFP measures are required in an expanded nonattainment area.
Response: In the proposed SIP Requirements Rule, 78 FR at 34191, we proposed that"...
.states may not take credit for VOC or NOx reductions occurring outside the nonattainment area
for purposes of meeting the 15 percent and 3 percent RFP requirements of sections 172(c)(2),
182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B)." This approach means that ROP credit for meeting the 15 percent VOC
requirement for Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas in section 182(b)(1) and the
additional 3 percent per year RFP requirement for Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas
in section 182(c)(2)(B) can come only from emissions reductions from within the nonattainment
area. In the preamble to the proposal, the EPA noted that it would be sound policy to allow areas
to use outside the area reductions to meet RFP requirements, but concluded that in light of
NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1545 and the language of the CAA there is no legal basis for allowing
credit for emissions reductions outside the nonattainment area for satisfying ROP/RFP
requirements. In the proposed rule, we also stated that, if the EPA received comment providing a
clear legal justification for this approach, we would consider including this approach in the final
91
-------
rule. We received several comments supporting this approach, including suggested legal
arguments, but after carefully considering them, we have concluded that no comment provided a
persuasive legal rationale for that approach and therefore, are finalizing the approach outlined in
the proposal of not allowing out of area credit.
The RFP requirements in CAA 182(b)(l)(A)(i) and 182(c)(2)(B) require that nonattainment SIPs
provide for emission reductions from "baseline emissions." And CAA section 182(b)(1)(B)
defines baseline emissions as "the total amount of actual VOC or NOx emissions from all
anthropogenic sources in the area." The RFP language in 182(b)(1)(B) and 182(c)(2)(B) is
almost identical to the language in the CAA's RACT provision that the D.C. Circuit held
required that reductions come from within the nonattainment area and not "from sources outside
the nonattainment area." NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d at 1256. Accordingly, EPA has concluded that
it has no legal basis for allowing credits for reductions outside the nonattainment area.
Comment: Suggestions that would allow out of area reductions
Commenters suggested various mechanisms and rationales for allowing out of area reductions.
Some suggested allowing credit for emission reductions from an area larger than the
nonattainment area but related to or affecting it, such as the same airshed or an air quality control
region or a "transport couple area." These comments emphasized the close connection between
air quality within the nonattainment area and emissions from outside that area but within the
larger unit proposed for consideration. The Commenters also argued that, controlling emissions
from outside a nonattainment area may be a very effective way to of improving air quality within
that area and that statutory references to "the area" do not necessarily refer only to the
"nonattainment area." To some extent, these comments were either policy arguments in support
of allowing out of area credits, or suggestions about how best to implement a program allowing
such credits. But, upon examination, they did not provide a legal rationale that, in light of the
language of the statute and the reasoning in NRDC, would support doing so.
Another Commenter suggested that, the CAA section 107(c) provides the EPA the authority to
allow outside the area reduction credits for satisfying RFP requirement. The EPA disagrees with
this rationale because CAA section 107(c) enables EPA to designate air quality control
"regions," as necessary or appropriate for the attainment or maintenance of NAAQS. That
process is distinct from and has no effect on the legal requirement to designate nonattainment
"areas" and develop SIPs providing RFP toward attainment in those areas. As already noted,
RFP requires reduction from baseline emissions in the nonattainment area.
Commenters also argued that, requirements for reductions from "the area" do not necessarily
require reductions from within the nonattainment area. The EPA disagrees with this reasoning
because, as noted sections 182(b)(1)(B) and 182(c)(2)(B) require reductions "from baseline
emissions," and baseline emissions come from sources "in the area." EPA does not believe it
would be plausible to argue some references to "the area" in section 182, which deals with SIPs
for nonattainment areas, do not refer to nonattainment areas, or that some uses of the term have
that limitation but that others do not. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of virtually
identical language referring to the "area" in NRDC as referring to the nonattainment area for
92
-------
RACT, confirms that the RFP language refers to nonattainment areas.
Another Commenter suggested that, the CAA section 110(h) provided for crediting measures
outside the ozone nonattainment area toward attainment. The Commenter did not suggest any
basis for this argument, and we are not convinced that our policy as stated in the final rule is
influenced by section 110(h), and we are also not convinced that this rule provides the necessary
legal support for allowing out of area reduction credits to satisfy RFP requirements.
Another argument some Commenters suggested for not construing references to "the area" as
applying to the nonattainment area is that NRDC, and thus, the decision's reasoning, is only
relevant to RACT and does not necessarily apply to RFP. The NRDC v. EPA decision construed
"reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area" to refer to sources in the
nonattainment area for purposes of meeting RACT nonattainment SIP requirements under CAA
172(c)(1). The comment necessarily argues that nevertheless the RFP nonattainment SIP
requirement for reductions from "baseline emissions," CAA 182(b)(l)(A)(i) and 182 (c)(2)(B)
which CAA 182 ((b)(1)(B) defines as emissions from "sources in the area" does not refer to
sources in the nonattainment area. The EPA does not believe it is plausible to argue that the same
words, "sources in the area," applied in the same context, nonattainment SIP requirements, can
have different meanings such that RACT applies to reductions from sources in the nonattainment
area but the RFP applies to reductions from sources outside the nonattainment area.
The EPA requested comment on whether there is a defensible legal rationale for allowing credits
for out of area reductions. We did not receive any comments that provide a viable legal rationale
for doing so, and therefore, we are not including the approach to allow areas to credit "outside
the area" emissions reductions for ROP/RFP fulfillment. None of the comments we received
persuaded us that the reasoning in the "background" section of the preamble was incorrect or that
the reasoning in NRDC regarding RACT does not apply to RFP, or that some other defensible
reading of the statute is possible. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the interpretation that states
may not take credit for VOC or NOx reductions occurring from sources outside the
nonattainment area for purposes of meeting the 15 percent ROP and 3 percent RFP requirements
of sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B). This approach means that ROP credit for meeting
the 15 percent VOC requirement for Moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas in section
182(b)(1), and the additional 3 percent per year RFP requirement for Serious and above ozone
nonattainment areas in section 182(c)(2)(B), or for meeting the RFP requirement of section
172(c)(2) for Moderate areas that met the 15 percent requirement for a previous NAAQS can
come only from emissions reductions from sources located within the nonattainment area.
Commenters (0129, 0139, 0140, 0141, 0148, 0149, 0150, 0151, 0152, 0153, 0160, 0169, 0172,
0175 and 0179) generally supported consideration of emissions reductions outside a
nonattainment areas stating that, the EPA should allow states to consider reductions from
transport sources when calculating RFP reductions if the baseline similarly includes
contributions from transport sources. Commenters also agreed with the EPA's assessment that,
there may be cases where the most beneficial and cost-effective reductions are from sources
located outside the nonattainment area boundaries and, in such cases, it would be good policy to
credit the emission reductions toward meeting RFP requirements. Generally, Commenters urged,
93
-------
the EPA not to act as though nonattainment areas are isolated from adjacent areas and not
impacted by emissions and emission reductions in neighboring areas. Commenter (0166) stated
that, RACT by definition refers to sources "in the area," CAA § 172(c)(1), and the D.C. Circuit
in NRDC v. EPA latched onto that language, confirming that areas cannot go outside their
boundaries for RACT purposes but did not address RFP requirements in this regard. Commenter
(0146) stated that, the NESCAUM states would support providing some RFP credit for energy
efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE) measures instituted in the nonattainment area but
whose reductions may not necessarily occur in that area. Commenter (0169) stated that, allowing
RFP credits for out-of nonattainment-area sources is consistent with EPA's Roadmap for
Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs into State and Tribal
Implementation Plans ("Roadmap" page 15 and 16) which is referenced throughout the proposed
SIPs Requirements Rule.
Commenters (0146, 0163 and 0168) generally stated that, if emissions reductions necessary for
RFP and attainment were to come from a nearby area, then the nonattainment area should be
expanded to include that area and all of its emissions in the baseline.
Commenter (0146) stated, the NESCAUM states would, however, support providing some RFP
credit for energy efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE) measures instituted in the
nonattainment area but whose reductions may not necessarily occur in that area. Commenter
(0146) stated, this support is conditioned on the availability of sound evidence that: (1) those
measures would produce public health benefits; and (2) the approach does not conflict with the
CAA.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenters' suggestions. The EPA continues to recognize
that emissions of ozone precursors can impact wide geographic areas. In some cases observed
concentrations of ozone arise predominantly from sources within the nonattainment area while in
other cases, ozone concentrations in one particular area may be influenced by sources across a
broad area extending outside a particular nonattainment area. The EPA recognizes that ozone
travels over long distances, and that, distant emissions of ozone can influence area's air quality.
An area may be classified nonattainment in large part due to distant sources impacting the area.
The EPA's past procedures for addressing these situations was to allow emission reductions,
originating at distant emission sources and influencing downwind areas, to credit these out of the
area emission reductions toward the affected area in fulfilling RFP obligations to attaining the
NAAQS standards. With our previous RFP policy, it was the EPA's intent to define RFP
requirements in terms of emissions reductions that can be expected to provide generally regular,
constant improvement in air quality in the nonattainment area. However, the EPA's preferred
policy to allow ROP credit for "outside" reductions was refuted by the D.C. Court in the NRDC
case, therefore, the agency believes we cannot lawfully allow credits for emissions reductions
occurring outside of a nonattainment area to apply to ROP/RFP requirements in the area.
Therefore, the final rule will require ROP/RFP reductions to be achieved from "baseline
emissions," defined as emissions "in the area."
1). How do RACT and RA CM requirements apply for 2008 ozone NAAQS nonattainment
94
-------
areas?
1. RACT SIP
Comment: RACT "Fix Up": Marginal area pre-1990 RACT rules
Commenter (0132) stated, the EPA should make clear any requirements regarding RACT for
Marginal nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commenter requested
that, the EPA clarify that if a state has already made corrections to any applicable pre-1990
RACT rules that have been approved by the EPA as a SIP revision, then the state has already
satisfied its obligation under § 182(a)(2)(A) for a Marginal nonattainment area for purposes of the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0132) stated that, if the EPA is considering a different
interpretation for Marginal nonattainment areas under § 182(a)(2)(A) for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, then the EPA should propose a supplemental notice of rulemaking and an additional
comment period so that states have adequate opportunity to review and comment.
Commenter (0180) stated, the rule must require states to submit, within 6 months of designation,
the RACT provisions required for Marginal areas under 42 U.S.C. § 751 la(a)(2)(A). Commenter
(0180) stated that, neither the preamble nor the regulatory text in the proposal expressly directs
Marginal areas for the 2008 standard to submit SIP revisions to meet pre-1990 RACT
requirements. 78 FR at 34191; See also 42 U.S.C. § 751 la(a)(2)(A). Because the EPA has
(correctly) determined that implementation of the 2008 standard is governed by subpart 2,
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA must require states to comply with all subpart 2
requirements, including the RACT mandate for Marginal areas.
Response: The EPA clarifies that the obligations under § 182(a)(2)(A) section apply only to
nonattainment areas designated before 1990. The 2008 ozone NAAQS implementation rule takes
the same position as the 1997 ozone implementation rule for the application of the RACT "fix-
up" obligations under § 182(a)(2)(A). The 1997 ozone implementation rule took the position that
§ 182(a)(2)(A) only applies to pre-1990 nonattainment areas. The RACT fix-up provision under
§ 182(a)(2)(A) for a nonattainment area classified as Marginal under the 2008 ozone NAAQS
would only apply to those areas for which the EPA issued a RACT SIP Call before the 1990
CAA Amendments.
Comment: Another round of RACT revisions is neither required by law nor necessary
Commenter (0151) stated that, the EPA's final rule should not require major sources to adopt
another round of new or incremental RACT or RACM. Commenter (0151) is claiming that,
Congress should have considered that the short period of time between ozone NAAQS revisions
would not allow a facility to recoup the investment in the original pollution control before
requirement to reconsider if the next round of newer controls is required. The Commenter also
contents that, it would be enormously burdensome for states to adopt new RACT SIPs and
resubmit them for EPA approval. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS revisions, the Commenter claims
another round economy-wide technology evaluation would not reveal significant additional
technology-based reductions. The Commenter suggested in lieu of another round of RACT
analysis, the overall ability of a state to adopt a more tactical approach to RACT and SIP-
95
-------
planning, such as the proposed ozone reduction targets discussed in the Notice for RFP. The
Commenter noted that such flexibility should provide states with the ability to determine that
"incremental RACT or RACM" adjustment is not "reasonable" if additional control is
minimally-effective at reducing emissions because of the size of a particular facility (or sources
within the emitting facility), the number and/or types of "other" sources in the nonattainment
area, or the relative reactivity of the VOC/NOx species that are emitted by local sources and
should not require a comprehensive demonstration or showing for each type of industrial source
in the 2008 ozone emission inventory. Importantly, requiring "additional controls for the sake of
controls" runs counter to the EPA's recognition elsewhere in the Notice that NOx and/or the
control of reactive VOC species are a more effective and therefore "reasonable" strategy for
attaining the ozone standard. Thus, the EPA's final rule should not require major sources to
adopt new or incremental RACT or RACM, particularly if it would not be particularly effective
at reducing ozone in the nonattainment areas. (0151)
Response: The EPA disagrees. First, the CAA includes a requirement that an attainment plan
must provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable, including such
reductions that may be obtained through RACT. Second, the EPA believes the RACT SIP
provides cost-effective emission reductions that are necessary to attain the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable. Furthermore, as pointed out by a Commenter (0168), an initial
round of RACT emission reductions in areas upwind of NAAs can be important to attainment of
the NAAQS in the downwind area, regardless of whether the downwind area has gone through
prior rounds of RACT SIPs.
The EPA recommends that states refer to the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and the EPA's Menu
of Control Measures as resources for recent technical information. States must provide adequate
documentation that they have considered control technology that is economically and
technologically feasible, including consideration of information submitted during the state's
public comment period.
Excluding a round of RACT determinations differs considerably from excluding a portion of the
RFP requirements; i.e., the 15 percent VOC emissions reduction requirement. While the EPA
believes it is appropriate in some cases to not require a 15 percent VOC emissions reduction a
second time, additional RFP provisions continue to apply and help provide for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable. That is, if a state has already met the 15 percent VOC emission
reduction requirement for the 1-hour standard for an area, then it should not be required to meet
that requirement a second time for the 8-hour standard but instead will be subject to the other
applicable RFP provisions of the CAA (70 FR 71635). This provision is a logical means of
achieving the purposes of the RFP requirement which is to ensure steady progress towards
attainment and it was upheld in NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). The EPA's
proposal to allow states to consider whether additional RACT is required for VOC sources
based, for example, on the incremental reactivity of VOC species, similarly does not waive the
overall RACT requirement, since RACT would apply to all major NOx sources even if some
VOC sources were not required to conduct a RACT analysis.
The EPA disagrees with the Commenter that Congress did not realize the implications of setting
96
-------
the 5-year NAAQS review cycle would result in the requirement for RACT revisions with each
NAAQS review to be implemented. While there is no explicit requirement in the CAA for states
or EPA to periodically review and revise technical assistance for meeting RACT requirements,
the CAA clearly includes a requirement that an attainment plan must provide for the
implementation of RACT. The EPA believes the RACT SIP requirement conforms closely to the
clearly articulated goal of the CAA that states implement measures that provide for attainment of
the ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable.
Comment: Support RACT emission reductions
Commenter (0168) stated that, experience has shown that properly implemented RACT achieves
significant cost effective emission reductions and sets an effective baseline level of emission
control, and that, experience also shows that for many source sectors the most bang-for-the-buck
is achieved in the first round of RACT. Commenter (0168) noted that, while they agree that the
periodic update of a RACT SIP is beneficial, and that, the periodic review and update of RACT
is good air quality policy, Delaware notes that 1) little reduction in emissions in their state is
anticipated, 2) this review will take substantial time and resources to complete and most
importantly, 3) the first round of RACT has yet to be implemented in many of the upwind areas
that are the primary cause of the state's ozone air quality problems.
Response: The EPA agrees that the initial round of RACT implementation can be especially
effective in achieving emission reductions, however the periodic update of a RACT SIP can also
be beneficial. The EPA acknowledges that as a state with previous nonattainment areas and part
of an ozone transport region, Delaware has been subject to RACT requirements under the 1979
and 1997 ozone NAAQS and that many Delaware sources currently may have beyond-RACT
controls, in which case it is possible that little reduction in Delaware emissions may be expected
due to another round of RACT reviews. The EPA also agrees that implementation of emissions
controls, including RACT (where required), in areas upwind of NAAs can be important to the
ability of the downwind NAA to attain the NAAQS.
2. CTGs and ACTs
Comment: Update CTGs and ACTs and other RACT Guidance
Commenters (0144, 0146, 0155, 0157, 0163, 0167, 0177 and 0180) encouraged the EPA to
update the CTG and ACT documents.
Commenter (0155) recommended that, with respect to RACM and RACT, the EPA provide all
legally available flexibility for reaching attainment.
Commenters (0144, 0146, 0163, 0167, and 0177) stated, the CTG and ACT guidelines need to be
updated in order to set a nationwide baseline for presumptive norms and provide consistency in
states' RACT determinations for CTG and ACT source categories.
Commenter (0144) stated that, although the proposal (page 34192) indicates states should use
97
-------
current EPA guidance including CTGs and ACTs in making RACT determinations, many of the
CTGs and ACTs are outdated and no longer represent RACT due to technological advances.
Commenter (0146) stated, the EPA's NOx RACT guidance and many of its CTGs are nearly 20
years old and to allow states, especially those with new nonattainment areas, to develop SIPs and
rules based on outdated assumptions about available control technologies would undermine
progress and public health protection.
Commenter (0167) stated that, the potential inequities using outdated RACT guidance may
compel some states to expend limited resources reviewing and commenting on other states
proposed SIPs. Commenter (0167) stated, such national guidance may provide air quality
agencies with leverage needed to complete rule adoption where state law or stakeholder
resistance may otherwise present obstacles to unilateral state action.
Commenter (0167) stated, the EPA must as part of RACT, or as a separate action, require
sources that have installed pollution control equipment continue to operate such equipment.
Commenter (0177) stated, this piecemeal approach will likely result in drastically different
interpretations of appropriate RACT levels across the country and compel states to expend
considerable resources on RACT determinations. (0177)
Commenter (0153) recommended that, the EPA use its authority under section 183(b) and revise
all existing CTGs (or otherwise make a blanket policy change) so that they do not cover VOC
sources in a NOx- limited area as long as the area makes NOx reductions toward attainment.
Commenter (0163) supported updating the EPA's outdated RACT guidance including its April
16, 1992 RACM Policy.
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA needs to update its NOx RACT guidance because the
proposal says states should consider more recent information although the EPA does not propose
to update any of its existing RACT guidance documents, many of which are badly outdated.
Commenter (0180) believed, the EPA's failure to update those documents is unlawful and
arbitrary, as is its directive to states to use such outdated guidance documents. See 42 U.S.C.
§751 lb(c). Commenter (0180) added that, the RACT requirement is not met by allowing sources
to rely on guidance as to the lowest emission limitation that the source was capable of meeting
decades ago with control technology that was (purportedly) reasonably available back then.
Given the substantial contribution to ozone nonattainment from NOx emissions from utility
boilers (see, e.g., 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011)), Commenter (0180) was particularly concerned
about continued reliance on the EPA's grossly outdated 1992 and 1994 RACT guidance for
utility boilers. See 57 FR 55620, 55625 (Nov. 25, 1992); Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Mgmt. Div., EPA, to Regional Air Directors, "Cost-Effective NOx
RACT" (Mar. 16, 1994).
Further, regarding the basic requirements for RACT SIP submittals (78 FR at 34192/3),
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA needs to clarify that: a) states must (not merely "should")
provide adequate documentation that they have considered all control technologies, including
98
-------
post-combustion controls and fuel switching, that are economically and technologically feasible,
and must further show that the technology chosen as RACT provides the lowest emission
limitation; b) the analysis of economic and technological feasibility must be based on
information that is current as of the time of development of the RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and it is not sufficient for states to rely on previous RACT determinations without
considering more recent information; c) states must consider controls that public comment
identifies as meeting the definition of RACT and must provide a reasoned justification for
rejecting such controls in favor of less stringent controls; and d) controls that have been achieved
in practice by other existing sources in the same source category must ordinarily be considered
technologically and economically feasible.
Commenter (0180) stated that, NOx RACT should be based on an emission limit no less stringent
than 0.070 lb/MMBtu. Commenter (0180) asserted that taking even the highest emission rate
that, the EPA has set with no post-combustion control, 0.5 lb/MMBtu and applying the 90
percent control from SCR, an emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu should be RACT. Commenter
(0180) suggested, the EPA could add a 40 percent "safety factor" and recommend that NOx
RACT be set at 0.070 lb/MMBtu. Commenter (0180) asserted that, a review of the
RACT/BACT/LAER clearinghouse demonstrates that numerous PSD permits for coal-burning
boilers were issued during the "coal rush" of the first decade of this century with emission limits
of 0.07 lb/MMBtu and that actual data confirms that 0.070 lb/MMBtu is easily achievable. (See
Exhibit B to these comments.)
Commenter (0180) stated that, the NOx RACT limit should be based on an averaging time of no
longer than 24 hours, ideally, based on a 1-hour or 8-hour averaging time to protect the 8-hour
averaging time of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0180) asserted, this is especially
important for coal burning EGUs because electricity demand tends to be highest on hot, summer
days and these are also times when ozone is the worst. Thus, Commenter (0180) concluded that,
without short-term averaging times, EGUs will emit NOx at higher levels at precisely the times
when the ozone problem is the worst and then comply with a longer-term average emission limit
by lowering their NOx emissions at times when the ozone problem is not as severe.
Response: The agency developed many of the CTGs and ACT documents over a period from the
late 1970s to mid-1990s. The CTG's recommend "presumptive norms" of control for each source
category, but individual sources may have alternative RACT requirements imposed by making
an adequate infeasibility demonstration (44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979). The CTGs address
entire source categories and entire industry processes and describe what requirements the EPA
generally will approve as RACT.
The EPA recommends the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and the EPA's Menu of Control
Measures as resources for recent technical information, but does not require consultation by each
state with these resources. Rather, states need to provide adequate documentation that they have
considered control technology that is economically and technologically feasible, including
consideration of information submitted during the state's public comment period. States should
refer to the existing CTGs and ACTs for purposes of meeting their RACT requirements, as well
as all relevant information (including recent technical information as well as information
99
-------
received during the public comment period) that is available at the time that they are developing
their RACT SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We believe that there is sufficient information
available to states to inform their RACT determinations.
The EPA disagrees that failure to update the CTG documents is unlawful and arbitrary. Under
CAA section 183(c), CTGs and ACTs are to be revised and updated "as the Administrator
determines necessary." Additionally, we disagree with the statement that the EPA issued a
"directive" to states to use outdated guidance documents. Rather, the issued guidance through the
preamble to the proposed rule, stating the following: "States should use current EPA guidance
and any other information available in making RACT determinations. The EPA recognizes that
existing CTGs and ACTs for many source categories have not been revised in a number of years.
However, in many cases, more recent technical information is available in other forms, such as
the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse." (78 FR 34192). We agree with the Commenter that, in some
cases, it may not be appropriate for states to rely solely on a CTG document for purposes of
meeting their RACT requirements, which is why we encouraged states in the preamble to the
proposed rule to consider additional information that may be available.
The EPA appreciates the Commenter's thoughtfulness regarding recommended cost-
effectiveness and emission limits as well as averaging times for certain sources. We will take this
input into consideration if we are updating any CTG documents in the future.
Comment: CTG for oil and gas equipment
Commenter (0170) requested that, the EPA issue CTGs for oil and gas equipment to assist states
in meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS as part of the Ozone Implementation Rule. (Commenter
incorporated by reference the document filed with the "In re Petition for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to 1) Promptly Require Oil and Gas Owners and Operators to Monitor for
Ozone and 2) To Issue CTGs for Oil and Natural Gas Operations in Non-Attainment Areas"
(December 19, 2012), EPA Doc. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4608.) Commenter believes
that, CTGs provide a valuable framework allowing the EPA to issue guidance on cost-effective
emission reduction technologies for the oil and gas sector and provide important air quality
planning tools for communities that are seeking to reduce emissions and achieve compliance
with the NAAQS along with those attainment areas that are pursuing reductions under the EPA's
Ozone Advance Program.
Response: The EPA is evaluating issues raised in the petition submitted to the EPA that is noted
in the comment (Doc. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-4608).
Comment: RACT implementation timing
Commenter (0152) was concerned that, the EPA's proposed requirement to have RACT in place
by January 1, 2017, may not provide enough time for implementation. Commenter (0152)
believed, RACT requirements require regulation development with prior notice of
implementation deadlines and that if the EPA needs to further develop additional CTGs for the
current ozone standards, states may not have ample time to develop regulations that provide
sufficient time for sources to implement RACT.
100
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees with the Commenter that, a requirement for RACT to be in place
by January 1, 2017, for areas designated nonattainment effective July 20, 2012, (and all areas of
the OTR) does not allow enough time for implementation. The EPA believes that the January 1,
2017, date would allow a sufficient amount of time for states to make determinations and for
sources to meet RACT requirements on the time-table originally anticipated under the 1990
CAA Amendments, consistent with the Moderate area attainment date of July 20, 2018.
The EPA appreciates the Commenter's concerns regarding the need for sufficient time for
sources to meet RACT requirements. On consideration of the comment, the EPA believes that
the proposal language may not have been clear with regard to RACT implementation deadlines.
Thus, we provide more clarity in the paragraphs that follow.
First, the EPA notes that the requirement to develop a RACT SIP applies only to areas that are
designated as Moderate or above (i.e., Serious, Severe, or Extreme). For such areas that were
designated on July 20, 2012, RACT SIPs are due within 2 years of the effective date of
designation, by July 20, 2014. Sources subject to RACT in those areas would then need to
implement RACT by January 1, 2017.16 If an area is reclassified from Marginal to Moderate at
some later date, then at that time that area would become subject to the RACT requirement, and
the EPA would set new SIP submission and RACT compliance dates on a schedule that the EPA
will establish in the applicable notice and comment rulemaking reclassifying the area. For areas
that are newly redesignated to nonattainment, the RACT SIP is due no later than 2 years from the
effective date of designation and the implementation deadline is no later than January 1st of the
5th year after the effective date of redesignation.
Second, we wish to clarify that the January 1, 2017, RACT implementation deadline would not
automatically apply to sources covered by future CTGs. If a new CTG is developed, all current
Moderate or above areas would be required to revise their SIPs for the sources covered by the
CTG within the period set forth by the EPA in issuing the CTG document (See section 182(b)(2)
of the CAA), which would occur through notice and comment rulemaking. This will give sources
lead time to comply with the new requirement.
3. RACT determinations
Comment: Supplement use of old CTGs and ACTs
Commenter (0168) agreed with the proposal that, technological feasibility should be based on
information that is current as of the time of development of the RACT SIP for the 2008 ozone
16 We note that the RACT compliance date does not change relative to the RACT SIP
submission. This compliance date is fixed, such that if a state submits a RACT SIP past the July
20, 2014 deadline, then sources would still have to comply with the RACT requirements by
January 1, 2017.
101
-------
NAAQS - that it is not sufficient for states to rely on previous RACT determinations without
considering more recent information.
Commenter (0172) supported flexibility in implementing the RACT requirements noting that, the
EPA stated in the proposal that many CTGs and ACTs are nearly two decades old and more
recent information such as BACT determinations should be taken into consideration for RACT.
Response: The EPA agrees with the Commenters.
Comment: Certification of existing RACT
Comm enter (0153) stated that, the EPA should provide a clear indication of situations where a
state may conclude that existing RACT meets RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS since, without
such clarification, regional offices may find it difficult to approve a state submittal that contains
such a conclusion.
Commenters (0144 and 0146) stated that, although in some cases a recent RACT analysis may
result in such a certification, in no instance should 1-hour ozone (120 ppb) RACT be considered
RACT for the 2008 8-hour ozone (75 ppb). Commenter (0144) stated that, such certifications of
20-year old RACT determinations put states that have implemented more stringent RACT
measures at a disadvantage for attainment. Commenter (0144) supported the statement in the
proposal (page 34192) "it is not sufficient for states to rely on previous RACT determinations
without considering more recent information." Commenter (0146) stated that, RACT
certifications for the 2008 ozone NAAQS must be based on a full RACT analysis, as required
under the CAA, and under no circumstances should RACT for the previous 1-hour standard be
considered RACT under the 2008 NAAQS.
Commenter (0159) supported the finding by the EPA that, in some cases, states may conclude
that sources already subject to RACT for the 1-hour and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS are also meeting
the 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement.
Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA noted that in some cases, states may
conclude that sources already addressed by RACT determinations for the 1-hour and/or 1997
ozone NAAQS may not need to implement additional controls to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS
RACT requirement. The EPA disagrees with the comments that RACT for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS should not be considered RACT for the 2008 8-hr ozone NAAQS. In areas subject to
the major source RACT requirement under the 1-hour and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS, states may in
some cases, after careful assessment, conclude that a new RACT determination under the 2008
standard would result in the same or similar control technology as the initial RACT
determination under the 1-hour or 1997 standard because the fundamental control techniques, as
described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still applicable.
The EPA acknowledges the request for further information about circumstances that may lead a
state to conclude that existing RACT controls meet the RACT requirement for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. We provide further clarity regarding this issue in the paragraphs that follow. However,
the EPA disagrees with the Commenter that, the EPA Regional Offices may find it difficult to
102
-------
approve a state conclusion that existing RACT meets RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Given
the unique circumstances for each nonattainment area, the EPA intends to review each RACT
SIP on a case-by-case basis. We strongly encourage states to work with their Regional Offices in
determining RACT for purposes of meeting the RACT requirements for the 2008 NAAQS.
In cases where controls were applied due to the 1-hour or 1997 ozone NAAQS RACT
requirement, we expect that any incremental emissions reductions from application of updated
RACT controls may be small and, therefore, the cost for advancing that small additional
increment of reduction may not be reasonable. In contrast, a RACT analysis for uncontrolled or
partially controlled sources would be much more likely to find that updated RACT-level controls
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS are economically and technically feasible.
The CTGs and ACTs for VOC were completed over a period from the late 1970s to mid-1990s.
The EPA also issued additional CTGs in 2006, 2007 and 2008. In some cases these CTGs
updated previously issued CTGs and in other cases, they covered new categories of sources. The
CTGs are still used to presumptively define VOC RACT.
The EPA issued NOx ACT documents between 1992 and 1995. In September 2000, updates to
the NOx ACT documents were completed for stationary internal combustion engines and cement
kilns. The NOx and VOC ACTs describe available control techniques and their cost
effectiveness, but do not define presumptive RACT levels as the CTGs do. Updating the ACTs
would not, by itself, change the EPA's NOx or VOC RACT guidance, but it could provide
information that would lead to a new conclusion as to which control measures constitute RACT
for a specific source or source category. Progress has been made in improving the cost
effectiveness of some NOx and VOC controls.
We recognize that many of the CTGs/ACTs have not been revised in quite some time and thus
may not provide the most accurate picture of current control options. Therefore, we advise states
to consider new information that has become available before certifying that a prior 1-hour ozone
RACT determination or a 1997 ozone RACT determination, even where controls were required,
still represents an appropriate RACT level of control for the 2008 ozone program. In the
alternative, the state should revise the SIP to reflect a modified RACT requirement for specific
sources or source categories. In cases where additional information is presented, for example, as
part of notice-and-comment rulemaking on a RACT SIP submittal, states (and the EPA) would
necessarily consider the additional data in reviewing what control obligation is consistent with
RACT.
In portions of 2008 ozone nonattainment areas where control technologies for major sources or
source categories were previously reviewed and controls applied to meet the RACT requirement
under the 1-hour or the 1997 standard, states should review and, if appropriate, may accept the
initial RACT analysis as meeting the RACT requirements for the 2008 standard. Absent new
data or public comments indicating that the previous RACT determination is no longer
appropriate, the state may conclude that additional SIP controls are not necessary to meet the
RACT requirement for these sources for the 2008 standard. In such cases, the state's SIP revision
submitted after notice and comment should contain a certification, with appropriate supporting
103
-------
information, (including consideration of new data), indicating that these sources are already
subject to SIP-approved requirements that still meet the RACT obligation. There are cases where
the initial RACT analysis under the 1-hour standard or the 1997 standard for a specific source or
source category concluded that no additional controls were necessary. In such cases, a new
RACT determination is needed to consider whether more cost effective control measures have
become available for sources that were not previously regulated. A re-analysis may determine
that controls are now economically and technically feasible and are necessary to meet the RACT
requirements.
Comment: Alternate control technology for RACT
Commenter (0129) encouraged the EPA to provide the states the flexibility to consider alternate
control technology when developing their RACT SIP, provided adequate justification for the
technical and economic feasibility of such approaches is also provided.
Response: When developing their RACT SIPs, states must consider control technology that is
economically and technologically feasible and is based on the most recent information available.
In the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA acknowledged that some CTGs and ACTs are
outdated and provided examples of more recent technical information sources that states may
refer to when developing their RACT SIPs. We would also encourage states to work closely with
their respective Regional Offices should they need assistance locating additional information
sources that may be helpful in developing their RACT SIPs.
Comment: Controls that have been achieved in practice
Commenters (0144 and 0180) supported the statement in the proposal where the EPA "generally
considers controls that have been achieved in practice by other existing sources in the same
source category to be technologically and economically feasible."
Response: The EPA agrees with the Commenters.
4. Averaging over a nonattainment area
Comment: Commenter (0144) did not support a nonattainment area-wide weighted NOx
averaging demonstration that exempts HEDD EGUs from NOx control. The Commenter stated
that, an exemption of HEDD EGUs from NOx control does not reduce NOx emissions when and
where such reductions are necessary to attain the ozone NAAQS.
Commenter (0180) stated that, the EPA's definition of RACT plainly requires each individual
source to apply control technology to achieve the lowest emission limitation that each particular
source is capable of meeting considering technology and economic feasibility. Commenter
(0180) stated that, substitution of area-wide averaging for source-specific RACT also flouts the
language of section 182(b)(2) of the Act, which requires SIPs for Moderate and above areas to
require implementation of RACT "with respect to ... [a]ll VOC sources in the area covered by
any CTG issued before November 15, 1990," and "[a]ll other major stationary sources of VOC
104
-------
that are located in the area." 42 U.S.C. § 751 la(b)(2). Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA cannot
supplant these statutory directives with an area-wide averaging program that allows some
sources to avoid installing RACT controls at all.
Response: The EPA's existing policy recognizes that states can meet NOx RACT requirements
by submitting as part of their NOx RACT SIP submittal a demonstration that the weighted
average NOx emission rate from sources in the nonattainment area subject to RACT achieves
RACT-level reductions. We note, however, that this policy does not include an exemption for
HEDD EGUs from NOx control.
The EPA disagrees with the comment that "area-wide averaging is not a legally permissible
method for complying with" RACT and that RACT requires reductions from "each and every
source" in an area. The EPA believes that the statute, as interpreted by the court in NRDC v.
EPA, allows each state the option of demonstrating that its program achieves RACT level
reductions by showing emission reductions greater than or equal to reductions that would be
achieved through a source-specific application of RACT in the nonattainment area. NRDC v.
EPA interprets the CAA as requiring that each nonattainment area must achieve "RACT-level
reductions," which is to say the reductions that would be achieved "if RACT-level controls were
installed in the area." 571 F.3d at 1258. In sum, nothing in the CAA or in NRDC v. EPA requires
that "each and every" source in the area employ RACT or individually achieve RACT-level
reductions.
The Commenter attaches too much significance to the EPA's reference to RACT as the lowest
emission limitation that "a particular source" is capable of meeting. 78 FR 34191 n. 33. The
Commenter suggests that this requires that each particular source meet the limitation, but EPA
does not agree with this. The quoted language does no more than reflect the fact that source-
specific control assumptions would need to be developed in order to determine the overall
reduction level that would be achievable in a nonattainment area through source-specific
application of RACT. Moreover, as noted in the proposal, the EPA believes states are in a better
position than EPA to conduct this analysis (78 FR 34193). Consistent with previous guidance,
the EPA continues to believe that RACT can be met on average by a group of sources within a
nonattainment area rather than at each individual source. Therefore, states can show that SIP
provisions for these sources meet the ozone RACT requirement using the area-wide averaging
approach.
5. Trading within a nonattainment area
Comment: Commenters (0132 and 0163) supported allowing states to rely on participation in a
nonattainment area cap and trade program to satisfy RACT requirements.
Commenter (0132) believed that for sources located within a nonattainment area, cap and trade
programs that are limited to that nonattainment area can provide additional flexibility to affected
sources while still achieving significant emission reductions that satisfy RACT.
Commenter (0163) believed that it is possible to design and implement a trading program for
105
-------
RACT that achieves enforceable, contemporaneous emissions limitations equal to RACT. Such a
program could allow multiple sources within a nonattainment area to enter into an enforceable
permit to comply with an overall weighted average RACT emission limit based on their
operation over a single day. This assures that RACT is met in the area each day.
Response: Unless there are federal or state regulations, or permit(s) issued to a source containing
a condition or conditions precluding such use, the EPA agrees with the Commenter that, states
may rely on a cap-and-trade program that is limited to a nonattainment area for purposes of
meeting RACT for sources located in the nonattainment area. In order to rely on such a cap and
trade program for purposes of meeting the RACT requirements, the state should demonstrate that
the program achieves reductions greater than, or equal to RACT and that, the program ensures
that all necessary reductions will occur within the nonattainment area. For example; See 30
Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 117, sections 9800(a)(1) and (2).
6. Regional trading program
Comment: Support the option that a regional trading program may meet RACT
Commenters (0158, 0159, 0163 and 0166) supported the proposed option that would allow states
to demonstrate that compliance with a regional trading program, such as CAIR, by affected
sources within a nonattainment area will satisfy RACT requirements for those sources.
Commenter (0159) supported this approach, as it focuses on sources within the non-attainment
area that produce locally beneficial emissions reductions. Commenter (0166) encouraged the
EPA to approve SIPs that make a showing to that effect and stated that the EPA also should
assist states in making these determinations by providing tools and data that will allow states to
do so.
Response: The EPA thanks the Commenters for their thoughtful comments in support of the
proposed approach, which would allow states to demonstrate that compliance with a regional
trading program by sources within the nonattainment areas are satisfying RACT requirements for
the nonattainment area. A SIP that includes such an analysis will be reviewed by the EPA on a
case-by-case basis to evaluate the extent to which the analysis demonstrates that source
participation in the trading program in fact achieves emission reductions within the
nonattainment area that are equal to, or greater than, application of RACT in that nonattainment
area. The EPA encourages states to work with their respective EPA Regional Offices to seek
guidance when conducting their local area analyses.
Comment: Do not support the option that a regional trading program may meet RACT
Commenters (0144, 0146, 0163, 0168, 0180 and 0177) did not support the proposal that states
have the option of demonstrating that compliance with a regional trading program by certain
sources within a nonattainment area will achieve RACT level reductions for those sources within
that nonattainment area.
Commenter (0144) stated that it does not support ozone season trading of NOx emissions. A
trading program that allows higher NOx emissions on high ozone days makes it difficult for
106
-------
states that are subjected to upwind sources of NOx to achieve the ozone standard.
Commenter (0146) stated that neither states nor the EPA can guarantee such reductions either
locationally or temporally through a regional cap-and-trade program; instead, the EPA needs to
thoroughly review source-specific RACT certifications and require the operation of all
implemented RACT controls.
Comm enter (0163) disagreed with this approach because a regional trading program such as
CAIR does not include requirements for enforceable, contemporaneous reductions required by
CAA section 172 (c)(6). Commenter (0163) stated that while RACT requires source-by-source
application of controls with a daily or 30-day rolling average, CAIR is a multi-state, seasonal and
annual program and, with the banking and trading provisions of CAIR, there is no certainty that
emissions would remain below RACT levels from one year to the next. The commenter further
stated that it is possible to design and implement a trading program for RACT that achieves
enforceable, contemporaneous emissions limitations equal to RACT. New York has instituted
such a program, which allows multiple sources within the New York City nonattainment area to
enter into an enforceable permit to comply with an overall weighted average emission limit
based on their operation over a single day. This assures that RACT is met in the area each day.
Commenter (0168) stated that the EPA's past reliance on trading programs to fulfill substantive
requirements like RACT and best available retrofit technology (BART) have resulted in many
significant sources remaining uncontrolled in upwind areas, which significantly and negatively
impact air quality in some downwind areas. The Commenter recommended that RACT apply to
every stationary source on a unit-by-unit basis.
Commenters (0144 and 0177) stated that the EPA should ensure that NOx sources with
previously installed air pollution control equipment are required to fully operate those controls
during the ozone season. The Commenters pointed out that some sources that are upwind
contributors to downwind nonattainment areas turn off their NOx controls and simply buy NOx
allowances to meet their emissions requirements. This adversely impacts air quality in downwind
areas.
Commenter (0180) cited NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009) for the proposition that
the Clean Air Act does not allow states to rely on the participation of a source in a regional
trading program to satisfy RACT requirements.
The Commenter stated that the EPA needs to clarify that such a demonstration is not sufficiently
made merely because a source has installed controls to comply with a regional trading program,
or is predicted to reduce its emissions to an assumed level since a source can install emission
controls and then simply choose not to operate such controls on a given day or during a given
time period as long as it has enough allowances under the regional trading program to cover its
emissions. Commenter (0180) stated that, under CAIR, a source with RACT-level controls could
shut down entirely and sell its allowances to other sources in the nonattainment area that do not
have RACT-level controls. Commenter (0180) stated, the Act mandates that SIPs "require"
implementation of RACT but that a "prediction" that sources are likely to choose to limit their
107
-------
emissions to RACT levels within a nonattainment area under a trading program that does not
require them to do so - and that in fact allows them to avoid implementing RACT controls -
does not satisfy these statutory requirements.
Response: The EPA agrees that mere participation in a regional trading program, such as CAIR,
by sources in a particular nonattainment area is not sufficient for purposes of demonstrating that
those sources have met their RACT requirements for the nonattainment area. As explained in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the statute provides that RACT SIPs must demonstrate that
RACT-level emission reductions are achieved within the relevant nonattainment area. Thus, it
does not allow states to rely upon the participation of a source in a regional cap-and-trade
program to satisfy RACT requirements without a demonstration that that participation results in
emission reductions equivalent to those achieved through the installation of RACT controls.
Additionally, the EPA agrees that states may not merely claim that a source has met RACT by
installing controls as part of a regional trading program. States must, as part of their RACT SIP
submission, demonstrate that the controls put in place at a source are in fact RACT.
The EPA disagrees with those commenters that say that states should not have the option to
demonstrate that compliance with a regional trading program by sources in a nonattainment area
achieves RACT-level reductions within the nonattainment area. In NRDC v. EPA, the case cited
by Commenters, the D.C. Circuit noted that a determination that RACT was satisfied by
compliance with a regional trading program might be permissible for an area if accompanied by
a technical analysis demonstrating that the program in fact "results in greater emissions
reductions in a nonattainment area than would be achieved if RACT-level controls were installed
in that area."17 In other words, the Court rejected the notion that a regional trading program
intended to eliminate interstate transport of emissions consistent with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
could automatically constitute the RACT-level of control required by section 172(c)(1), but held
open the possibility that an analysis could be conducted to determine whether such a program
would result in the same or higher level of emissions reductions in individual nonattainment
areas. We note that this is an option available to states, not a requirement, and if a state so
chooses, it may establish RACT requirements on a unit-by-unit basis and not provide for area
wide averaging. In such cases, a review of the past level of control achieved by units with SCR,
SNCR, or any other type of NOx control would be relevant to the review of RACT under the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA disagrees, however, with any comments that RACT requires a source-by-source
application of controls and any implication by the commenters that, the proposal should address
whether controls are required to be operational at all times at sources in the nonattainment area.
RACT can be met on average by a group of sources within a nonattainment area rather than at
each individual source. Nothing in the CAA or in NRDC v. EPA requires that each and every
source in the area employ RACT or individually achieve RACT-level reductions. Further, the
17 571 F.3d 1245,1258 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
108
-------
EPA's NOxRACT guidance (NOx Supplement to the General Preamble, 57 FR 55625,
November 25, 1992) encouraged states to develop RACT programs that are based on "area wide
average emission rates." Additional guidance on area-wide RACT provisions is provided by
EPA's January 2001 economic incentive program guidance titled, "Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs." Thus, the EPA's existing policy recognizes that states may
demonstrate as part of their NOx RACT SIP submittal that the weighted average NOx emission
rate from a group of sources in the nonattainment area subject to RACT meets NOx RACT
requirements.
Regarding the Commenters' concerns about enforceability and the timeframe within which
RACT controls should be applied (i.e., daily or 30-day rolling average), the EPA notes that
through the final rule, we merely provide the option for states to make a demonstration that
sources' participation in a trading program achieves equivalent or greater emission reductions
within the nonattainment area as RACT-level controls would. The preservation of this option
does not prejudge the substance of what those demonstrations will contain, and the specific
arguments raised by commenters are more properly addressed in the context of the case-by-case
determinations of whether the demonstrations meet the RACT requirement.
Comment: Is CAIR equivalent to RACT?
Commenter (0152) believed CAIR or other regional trading programs should continue to be
equivalent to RACT for EGUs without the need for analysis beyond what EPA has already
prepared. If challenged, Commenter (0152) stated, the EPA will be in a position to better explain
to the courts why this is appropriate compared to prior decisions regarding the NOx SIP Call.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that CAIR or other regional trading programs
should continue to be automatically treated as equivalent to RACT for EGUs without the need
for an analysis. In NRDC v. EPA (571 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009), the Court rejected the notion
that a regional cap-and-trade program intended to eliminate interstate transport of emissions
consistent with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) could automatically constitute RACT-level control as
required by section 172(c)(1).The Court specifically held that the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation
Rule allowing use of the NOx SIP call to constitute RACT without any locally applicable
analysis regarding the equivalence of NOx SIP Call and RACT reductions: "is inconsistent with
the CAA ... in allowing participation in a regional cap-and-trade program to satisfy an area-
specific statutory mandate." The Court emphasized that: "the RACT requirement calls for
reductions in emissions from sources in the area; reductions from sources outside the
nonattainment area do not satisfy the requirement. . . Accordingly, participation in the NOx SIP
call would constitute RACT only if participation entailed at least RACT-level reductions in
emissions from sources within the nonattainment area." This reasoning applies equally to any
trading program that allows trading across nonattainment area boundaries. Therefore, the EPA
could not, consistent with the NRDC opinion (NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245) approve a SIP that
found compliance with CAIR to satisfy RACT requirements but did not included the necessary
analysis showing that sufficient reductions in the nonattainment area would be achieved under
the trading program.
109
-------
Additionally, the EPA disagrees with the Commenter that, there is no need for an analysis
beyond what the EPA has already prepared. To the extent that the Commenter is referring to the
Supplemental Technical Analysis that EPA conducted to assess whether compliance with CAIR
could satisfy the NOx RACT requirement for EGUs in certain geographic areas,18 the EPA no
longer believes that this analysis provides an adequate demonstration that participation in the
CAIR is projected to achieve equal or greater annual emissions reductions from EGUs than
source-by-source RACT for certain specific areas. The EPA has concluded that the analysis's
across-the-board assumptions regarding what constitutes RACT for all sources in all
nonattainment areas were inadequate and did not consider whether more advanced control
technologies, such as post-combustion controls (e.g.. selective catalytic reduction or selective
non-catalytic reduction), might at some time be technically and economically feasible for
specific sources in some areas.
7. Consideration of the limited impact of VOC emissions in some areas
Comment: Support consideration of limited impact of VOC controls in areas that are NOx-
limited
Commenters (0129, 0130, 0132, 0136, 0137, 0140, 0151, 0159, 0161, 0162, 0169, 0172, 0178
and 0179) generally supported an approach that would allow state RACT determinations to take
into consideration the limited impact of VOC emission reductions on reducing ozone
concentrations in some areas.
Commenters (0132 and 0179) stated, the EPA has historically interpreted CAA, § 172(c)(1) as a
requirement that the SIP incorporate all RACM that would advance an area's attainment date (57
FR 13498) and, since §172(c)(l) and §182(b)(2) include RACT as a subset of the broader
RACM requirement, the Commenter supported allowing state RACT determinations to take into
consideration whether the associated VOC emission reductions would advance the area's
attainment date.
Commenter (0129) suggested that, this substitution be allowed on a source category basis rather
than a case-by-case basis to avoid unnecessary financial burdens on state agencies.
Commenter (0130) stated that, imposition of VOC controls in areas that are NOx-limited is
burdensome to both the regulated entity as well as the state, which must determine, implement,
and enforce these controls.
18 See "Technical Support Document for Phase 2 of the Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Notice of Reconsideration; NOx RACT for EGUs
in CAIR States - Supplemental Technical Analysis," December 2006.(Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0079, item number EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079-1044.2) (Supplemental Technical
Analysis).
110
-------
Commenters (0151, 0153) agreed with the EPA that, N0X reductions also may be quicker to
implement and can be made at lower cost.
Comm enter (0169) stated that, it is burdensome and inappropriate for individual states to be
asked to define thresholds for "ineffective" and to define a test for concluding that the effect of
additional VOC reductions would be negligible; rather, the EPA is tasked with these types of
decisions, not states, to ensure national consistency is met.
Commenters (0129, 0132, 0136, 0152, 0161 and 0169) stated that, this approach would allow
states the flexibility to tailor RACT requirements to the geographically-specific limitations of
each nonattainment area.
Comm enter (0129) stated that, given the agency's recognition of the utility of NOx control
technology for reducing ozone, they strongly encourage the final rule to include an explicit
requirement that state RACT determinations allow substitution of NOxRACT rules for VOC
RACT rules in geographic areas where biogenic and mobile source VOC production exceeds the
VOC contribution from stationary sources.
Comm enter (0153) stated, this flexibility should be limited to cases where it can be scientifically
demonstrated that additional VOC controls are ineffective in reducing ambient ozone
concentrations.
Comm enter (0161) stated that, states should have the flexibility to implement a SIP tailored to
the particular circumstances present in nonattainment areas in each state and that the EPA has
authority under the CAA to implement rules giving states this flexibility, because Congress has
delegated to the EPA identification and implementation of RACT requirements (See 78 FR
34191). Commenter (0161) stated that, allowing states to tailor RACT to the specific
circumstances of the nonattainment area would be a reasonable exercise of agency discretion
[See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984)].
Commenter (0178) supported state, flexibility in order to avoid the situation in which small
additional VOC reductions actually yield a disbenefit to the ozone air quality concentration
through the corresponding NOx increases from RACT-required add-on thermal-oxidizing
controls.
Commenter (0130) stated that, these modifications should extend beyond section 182(b)(2)
RACT requirements to those required for areas within the OTR.
Commenter (0140) stated, the EPA should allow states to demonstrate that adoption of VOC
RACT rules would not be "reasonable" if, as a whole, adoption of such rules for a nonattainment
area would not reduce ozone levels "significantly." The Commenter argued that, "significantly"
can be defined as an average contribution of over 0.75 ppb (1 percent of the level of the standard,
which EPA used for defining a "significant" air quality contribution for the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule) or 1 ppb (which would definitely be enough of an impact to make the difference
between an area attaining or not attaining the standard) for all days when 8-hour ozone is
111
-------
modelled to exceed 75 ppb. For example, the University of Texas at Austin's (UT's) modelling
of 25 percent and 50 percent reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions only reduced 8-hour
ozone levels at Travis County's key regulatory ozone monitor by an average of 0.17 ppb and
0.35 ppb, respectively, across all of the days with an ozone violation during the June 2006 ozone
episode developed by TCEQ. Likewise, APCA modelling on the same episode indicated that
emissions from the Austin-Round Rock MSA only accounted for 21 percent of the ozone levels
modelled at the key regulatory monitor in the MSA on high ozone days in the June 2006 episode,
while other emissions from other areas of the state accounted for 26 percent of the ozone levels
modelled within the MSA.
Commenter (0151) stated, the agency should assure states in the final rulemaking that even if
there is not a more reactive VOC species or a NOx source, the fact that it is relatively ineffective
to control certain VOC with minimal photochemical ozone potential also should be considered in
determining if RACT exists for that source. The EPA should address the situation where a state
determines not to regulate the source of a low reactive VOC but the state still cannot demonstrate
timely attainment of the NAAQS.
Comm enter (0153) stated that; the evaluation of what is economically feasible should consider
the cost/ton, impact/ton and cost/impact for NOx and VOC. The commenter suggested that a
demonstration should be provided for all point and area VOC sources in the nonattainment area.
The commenter further suggested that a demonstration should involve running a photochemical
grid model twice, once with all point and area VOC emissions and again with the point and area
VOC emissions zeroed out. If the impacts are less than 1 percent of the NAAQS (0.75 ppb), then
all RACT sources are "ineffective" at reducing ozone concentrations and the effect of additional
VOC reductions would be "negligible." If VOC reductions are shown to be "ineffective", then
the impact on public health and welfare would be "negligible." The commenter suggested that
the EPA should set clear, unambiguous, minimum requirements for approvable scientific
demonstrations so that state agencies can design, perform, and document their demonstrations
with a reasonable assurance of the EPA approval. The commenter concluded that definitive
requirements will also allow the EPA to promptly review and act on state demonstrations.
Commenter (0179) stated that, if control technology aimed at reducing anthropogenic VOC
shows some benefit, but is not needed to attain and maintain the ozone standard because other
measures are shown to be more than enough, then it should not be considered RACT. The
Commenter requested this flexibility for individual sources as well as source categories.
Several Comm enters (0129, 0130 and 0140) stated that, in some nonattainment areas, additional
reductions of anthropogenic VOC emissions have been scientifically demonstrated to have a
limited impact on reducing ozone concentrations and encouraged the EPA to allow such a
scientific demonstration to be considered when determining whether a control technology is
reasonable in a RACT analysis.
Commenter (0151) stated that, it would be unreasonable to require States to impose control
requirements on low-reactivity VOC like ethanol or methanol where it will make little difference
in an area's ability to achieve the ozone standard and potentially aggravate an ozone problem by
112
-------
increasing N0X as a result of incinerating VOC. The commenter believed that it would be
particularly arbitrary and unreasonable to penalize states that failed to control such minimally
reactive VOC if it were technically feasible and cost-effective to reduce higher reactivity VOC or
NOx from other sources. Commenter (0151) urged the EPA to amend 40 CFR § 51.1112 to
clearly articulate a legal basis for use by the states of the RACT flexibility.
Commenter (0151) further stated, the EPA should "codify" its views on "VOC reactivity" to
discourage states from regulating sources of VOC that are marginally reactive.
Response: The EPA recognizes that modification of the existing guidance on determining RACT
could add flexibility that would be beneficial to the efficiency of ozone controls in some states.
Several Commenters provided examples where photochemical modeling suggests that ozone
formation in some areas is NOx limited, such that changes in anthropogenic VOC emissions will
have little effect on ozone concentrations. We agree that there appears to be scientific support for
the existence of NOx-limited nonattainment areas. Additionally, we agree that from a practical
standpoint, modification of the existing guidance on determining RACT could add flexibility that
would be beneficial to the efficiency of ozone controls in some states.
However, the Commenters supporting flexibility presented legal arguments that, the EPA does
not currently view as sufficient to address potential statutory restrictions. The main legal
arguments presented by Commenters in support of flexibility argue that, the EPA has
"discretion" to determine what constitutes "reasonably" available control technology. However,
the EPA is concerned that it may not have sufficient discretion to support this option. Section
182(b)(2) provides that SIPs must "require the implementation of RACT" with respect to "VOC
sources." It does not clearly authorize consideration of whether technology that is "reasonably
available" is also reasonably effective with respect to improving air quality or reducing ozone
formation, and it does not specify criteria for discerning a level of air quality improvement below
which available technology does not need to be implemented. Moreover, as noted by a
Commenter, Congress has shown that when it intends Subpart 2 to allow exceptions based on air
quality benefit considerations it knows how to say so expressly. See e.g. section 182(f), (allowing
the EPA to waive certain NOx reduction requirements where such reductions will not provide
"net air quality benefits."). Thus, we agree with the Commenters finding it significant that
182(b)(2) contains no comparable language. The EPA's analysis is further informed by our
recognition that the provisions of Subpart 2 of the CAA Subpart D generally reduce agency
discretion in determining how to implement the Act. See Whitman v American Trucking Assoc.,
531 U.S. 457, 484 (2001).
The EPA is not prepared at this time to establish a specific definition for "negligible effect."
Additionally, given the concerns raised by Commenters about whether the CAA authorizes such
an approach, the EPA is not at this time revising our long-standing RACT determination
guidance. The EPA may continue to explore this option and potential legal support for it in the
future.
We also note that we received information from Commenters that may be useful in evaluating
the definition of "negligible effect," which we will consider in the future as we further assess
113
-------
whether to modify the existing RACT guidance.
Comment: Do not support consideration of the limited impact of VOC controls
Commenters (0146, 0163, 0168, 0177 and 0180) urged the EPA to remove the option for states
to consider air quality impacts when performing VOC RACT analyses.
Commenters (0146 and 0177) stated that, since many states have expended considerable
resources to adopt RACT and CTG rules, if the EPA were to allow this proposed circumvention
of mandatory CAA requirements, it will exacerbate an already inequitable distribution of clean
air costs; i.e., there are significant equity issues that the EPA should consider.
Commenters (0168, 0177 and 0180) stated, the EPA has issued NOx waivers in the past and this
appears to be setting up some type of VOC waiver scheme, which the Commenters do not
support. Commenter (0180) stated that, where Congress intended to allow exceptions based on
air quality benefit considerations it has expressly said so, as in section 182(f); however, no such
exception appears in, or applies to, section 182(b)(2).
Commenter (0177) pointed out that, in the Phase 2 Rule for the 1997 NAAQS, the EPA
responded to a comment urging the EPA to expand the waiver provisions of section 182(f) to
VOC RACT as well as NOx RACT (70 CFR 71662; 11/29/2005), saying: "We [EPA] do not see
any provision in the CAA that would give us the authority to create such an exemption. While
Congress could have created a VOC waiver at the same time the section 182(f) NOx waiver
provisions were enacted, Congress chose not to do so." Commenter (0177) also stated that, the
EPA went on to note that the congressionally required CAA section 185B study conducted by
the National Academy of Sciences concluded that, unlike NOx, " 'control of VOC never leads to
a significant increase in ozone.' Thus, the section 185B report does not support a waiver
provision for VOC
Commenters (0146, 0163, 0168 and 0177) stated that, the CAA requires RACT on all major
sources of VOC in nonattainment areas and the Commenters do not believe that, the EPA has the
authority to eliminate this requirement.
Commenter (0163) stated, this "flexibility" would effectively make the subpart 2 RACT
requirements the same as the subpart 1 RACM/RACT requirements. Commenter (0163) cited
South Coast, where the EPA was instructed not "to render Subpart 2's carefully designed
restrictions on EPA discretion utterly nugatory," nor could it "construe the statute in a way that
completely nullifies textually applicable provisions meant to limit its discretion." Id. at 484-85.
Commenter (0177) stated that, the plain text of the CAA and the EPA's previous interpretations
of it make it clear that RACT is a required control level for specific sources, with no direct link
to a level of ozone improvement or to any required demonstration of attainment. Commenter
(0177) stated, RACT/CTGs are a minimum control requirement for specific areas and
consideration of related ozone improvements should continue to be restricted to any additional
RACM measures needed to achieve attainment.
114
-------
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA does not have the discretion to override Congress' mandate
based on the agency's belief that such controls are not warranted or that controlling other
pollutants would be better policy. Commenter (0180) stated that, Congress could not have been
clearer that VOC RACT is mandatory for all of the referenced source categories and sources.
Commenter (0180) stated that, a key feature of the 1990 Amendments to the Act was Congress'
decision to supplement the Act's prior focus on air quality results (an approach that had often
failed to produce timely attainment) with explicit requirements for emission reductions.
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA and states cannot circumvent the clear Congressional
commands in section 182(b)(2) via the artifice of claiming that the economic feasibility of
further VOC controls depends in part on the air quality benefit of such controls. Commenter
(0180) stated that, not only has Congress made clear that section 182(b)(2)'s mandates for VOC
RACT are not limited by any sort of air quality benefit test, but the plain meaning of "economic
feasibility" does not have anything to do with air quality benefits, citing several cases.
Response: The EPA thanks the Commenters for their thoughtful comments. Given the concerns
raised by Commenters about whether the CAA authorizes such an approach, the EPA is not at
this time revising our long-standing RACT determination guidance. Therefore, states should
continue to rely on existing guidance when developing their RACT SIPs. The EPA may continue
to explore this option and potential legal support for it in the future.
Comment: Clarify consideration of the limited impact of VOC controls
Commenter (0150) urged the EPA to clarify that, this concept is only to be used where a state
determines that VOC reductions as a whole are not needed, not in determining whether an
individual source or source category makes "negligible" contributions to the area's emissions.
Response: The EPA is not finalizing revised RACT guidance for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, states should continue to rely on existing guidance when developing their RACT
SIPs.
8. MACT
Comment: SIP credit for MAC ! measures
Commenter (0151) suggested that, before requiring states to apply NOxRACT to all combustion
sources, the EPA should study certain MACT rules and specifically recommend the SIP credit
for federal MACT measures in SIP planning. Commenter (0151) stated, that Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards (MATS) compliance in the next 2 years is likely to force utilities to repower a
sizeable portion of the existing utility fleet and may provide, significant NOx reductions, even
though NOx reduction is not the goal of either CAA section 112 rule. These reductions should be
well within the time allotted for implementation of creditable reductions for SIP-planning,
although anticipated delays in implementation for grid reliability may occur. Commenter (0151)
suggested that, before requiring states to apply NOx RACT to all combustions sources, the EPA
should study this issue and specifically recommend the SIP credit for federal MACT measures in
115
-------
SIP planning. That study should also discuss the consequence of any delays in implementation
under the MACT and the EPA's MATS Administrative Consent Order Policy allowing certain
facilities an extra year for compliance.
Commenter (0159) agreed with the EPA's position and supported allowing states to rely on
MACT standards for the purpose of demonstrating that a source has met VOC RACT.
Response: States can rely on emission reductions from federal control measures (including the
MACT rules) to help areas attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS or to meet other SIP-related
objectives, as long as the federal measures achieve their reductions prior to the relevant SIP-
related deadlines. Regarding the issue of whether to specifically recommend the SIP credit for
federal MACT measures in SIP planning, the EPA is not planning at this time to develop specific
recommendations for SIP credit for Federal MACT measures. Additionally, we note that
regardless of whether or not the EPA conducts such a study, the RACT requirements remain
requirements that must be met under the CAA, whether through reliance on MACT or otherwise.
The EPA agrees with the Commenter that supported allowing states to rely on MACT standards
for the purpose of demonstrating that a source has met VOC RACT. We note, however, that
states should ensure that any MACT controls relied on for RACT adequately address all VOC
and not just those that are also HAPs.
Comment: Municipal Waste Combustors
Commenter (0177) stated that, the EPA should act to move forward with the analysis needed to
determine appropriate revisions to the municipal waste combustors (MWC) MACT, preferably
before the end of 2013 so that states can take them into account when preparing RACT analyses.
Commenter indicated that, if further delays occur in the issuance of MACT limits, states may be
faced with modifying regulations twice to comply with both the MACT and RACT requirements.
Response: Although the agency remains committed to addressing issues raised in the remand,
we currently have no specific schedule to develop a new proposal for MWCs.
9. RACM in areas that are NOx-limited
Comment: Commenter (0130) suggested amending RACM guidance to follow the same
common-sense approach proposed for RACT; i.e., if studies show that reducing anthropogenic
VOC emissions in an area has little effect on ground-level ozone concentrations, RACM
analyses should not be required for that pollutant.
Response: In order for states to demonstrate attainment of a standard, the EPA's long-standing
policy has been that states must address whether there are RACM that may advance the
attainment date. (See memorandum titled, "Additional Submission on RACM from States with
Severe 1-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs," John Seitz, December 14, 2000). Additionally,
existing EPA guidance already provides some assistance to states with identifying the type of
measures that might be considered for RACM (See General Preamble, 57 FR 13549, April 16,
116
-------
1992). If a state demonstrates that implementation of VOC emission reduction measures will not
contribute to an area's RFP or to attainment, then additional control of VOC emissions does not
need to be considered for RACM purposes. Thus, the EPA concludes that it need not amend
RACM guidance to address this comment.
E. Does the 2008 ozone NAAQS result in I/Mprograms?
1. Do not support check engine light proposal
Comment: Commenter (0128) stated that, the idea that states could meet their NAAQS
requirements through programs that offer vehicle owners free or subsidized repairs of vehicles
with lit "Check Engine" lights is inconsistent with the purpose and function of auto insurance
and urged the EPA to remove this suggestion from future iterations of the proposal. The
commenter stated that the EPA's proposal suggests that states could meet their NAAQS
requirements through programs that offer vehicle owners free or subsidized repairs of vehicles
with lit "Check Engine" lights. The commenter further indicated that the EPA proposed that the
choice of how to fund these repairs would rest with the state, but could include "requiring
vehicle insurance providers ... to cover the cost of repairing the vehicle when the 'Check Engine'
light comes on." The commenter believed this idea is inconsistent with the purpose and function
of auto insurance and the commenter urged the EPA to remove this suggestion from future
iterations of the proposal. (0128)
The commenter also stated that auto insurance, like all property and casualty insurance, provides
coverage for fortuitous losses, such as those incurred when a vehicle is involved in a collision. It
is not designed and was never intended, to provide for upkeep and maintenance. The commenter
pointed out that the responsibility for "Check Engine" repairs, and the maintenance to avoid
them, rest with a vehicle's owner. The commenter believed that if this obligation is removed, or
shifted to an insurance company, a moral hazard could be created where owners could simply
neglect to maintain their vehicle with the knowledge that the costs of doing so would be borne by
others. The commenter further stated their understanding that automobile insurance is provided
based upon actuarial research into the statistical likelihood that a driver and a vehicle may be
involved in a collision resulting in property or physical damages. The commenter believed that
there are no existing actuarial models or processes for insurance companies to effectively
evaluate and price any insurance policies that cover the maintenance and repairs of vehicles that
are not a result of a collision resulting in property or physical damages. The commenter
concluded that developing and implementing such standards would further increase the costs of
providing insurance coverage and therefore raise the insurance rates for all drivers. The
commenter further believed that the increased expense of coverage could have the unintended
consequence of inducing more drivers to forgo having vehicle insurance. The commenter
indicated that uninsured motorists already present a significant cost for insurance consumers, and
this rule could exacerbate the problem. The commenter added a similar concern that drivers may
opt to carry only liability coverage rather than collision/comprehensive coverage in response.
Response: The EPA did not propose and does not intend to propose to require either that states
mandate or that insurance companies offer such an alternative to I/M. Instead, the EPA was
117
-------
providing an example of one potential approach to achieving needed vehicle emission repairs
that doesn't rely on traditional, periodic I/M testing. The EPA notes that some insurers are
already accessing vehicles' OBD systems to provide - for example - safe driver insurance based
upon data gathered from the OBD system for that specific vehicle and driver. The EPA believes
that such insurance companies may have access to the data needed to determine whether offering
coverage (or an extended warranty package) for OBD-triggered repairs would make business
sense and, if it does, to then work with the I/M states in which they operate to accept such
coverage as an alternative means of complying with the I/M requirement, but the EPA does not
anticipate such coverage being a required element of insurance.
2. Alternative I/M programs
Comment: Commenter (0137) encouraged the EPA to provide the flexibility to substitute
programs or requirements in place of I/M programs when they can be shown to be more
beneficial and cost effective. The commenter stated that according to the implementation
requirements, no new I/M programs are required as a result of the 2008 ozone NAAQS;
however, new mandatory programs could be necessary due to future ozone standards. The
commenter indicated that while EPA explains in the implementation rule that today's I/M
programs are less expensive and easier to administer due to advances in technology, these
programs still require significant state resources. The commenter added that advances in
emissions control technology and fleet turnover, which will only continue over time, have
lessened the effectiveness of these programs. For this reason, the commenter encouraged the
flexibility to substitute programs or requirements in place of I/M programs when they can be
shown to be more beneficial and cost effective.
Commenters (0144, 0146) supported the flexibility proposed by the EPA in designing alternative
I/M programs, but also expressed concerns. The commenter stated that any alternative design
must meet the appropriate I/M performance standard for the area. The commenter suggested that
the EPA should provide guidance on how to calculate the benefits of such alternative designs to
enable states to evaluate options and demonstrate that they meet the performance standards. The
commenter appreciated the EPA's willingness to be flexible regarding alternative I/M programs,
including using OBD-only emissions testing and telematics and no longer requiring tailpipe
testing for applicable fleets. However, the commenter believed that any alternative I/M program
approach must be consistent with CAA and any areas with new I/M programs should be treated
with the same rigor as areas with existing I/M programs. The commenter stated that while
advances in technology often afford new approaches to existing problems, any innovative
program structure must be accompanied by guidance indicating minimum requirements to assure
that the program's emission reductions are real, quantifiable and enforceable. Commenter (0146)
suggested that the EPA must also ensure that its mobile source emissions model (e.g., MOVES)
is updated to better simulate the impacts of any alternative I/M programs. Commenter (0146)
believed that the EPA's proposed I/M program alternatives introduce issues that must be
addressed to ensure that any alternative program design meets performance standards. The
commenter stated that the EPA's specific suggestion that I/M programs that do not rely on
required testing would be considered adequate is problematic. The commenter believed that the
EPA's discussion is cursory and does not address significant implementation issues, including
118
-------
vehicle tampering, motorist compliance and enforcement, program efficacy and potential
regulatory conflicts in cases where EPA suggests other agencies assist in implementing the
program. Moreover, the commenter believed that the EPA's proposed voluntary program
overlooks that higher failure rates typically occur when enhanced I/M programs are first
implemented and decline as vehicle owners and repair technicians learn what level of
maintenance or repair is required to pass the periodic tests. The commenter concluded that the
EPA's proposed metric for calculating equivalency, is therefore inappropriate and suggested that
when designing alternatives, the EPA should consider appropriate incentives for motorists to
better maintain their vehicles and seek repairs as failures occur. The commenter urged the EPA
to ensure that such issues are addressed through a separate I/M rulemaking.
Commenter (0179) believes that, states should have maximum flexibility when developing an
I/M program. Commenter believes that, the current state program in North Carolina takes a
reasonable approach, but recognized that future improvements in vehicle technology and
communications software could open up other possibilities that could cost effectively achieve
I/M's primary goal of reducing emissions from the fleet in-use.
Response: In its discussion of I/M flexibilities and alternatives available to existing and future
I/M programs in the preamble to the SIP Requirements proposal, the EPA was not proposing
changes to the I/M rule to enable these flexibilities. Rather, these are flexibilities currently
available under the I/M rule as promulgated. Specifically, the I/M rule states:
... Equivalency of the emission levels which will be achieved by the I/M program design
in the SIP to those of the model program described in this section shall be demonstrated
using the most current version of EPA's mobile source emission model, or an alternative
approved by the Administrator, using EPA guidance to aid in the estimation of input
parameters. States may adopt alternative approaches that meet this performance
standard. States may do so through program design changes that affect normal I/M input
parameters to the mobile source emission factor model, or through program changes
(such as the accelerated retirement of high emitting vehicles) that reduce in-use mobile
source emissions...
40 C.F.R. 51.351(d) (emphasis added). Thus, the I/M Rule provides that alternative approaches
that change the in-use fleet in such a way as to reduce the emissions of the in-use fleet by an
amount equal to or greater than the applicable performance standard can be considered as
acceptable alternatives to or supplements for the otherwise applicable I/M program. As discussed
in the preamble to the proposed SIP Requirements rule, EPA believes that mobile source control
measures like vehicle repair incentives, accelerated fleet turnover, remote OBD testing and repair
and even as-yet unthought-of mobile source controls have the potential to meet this definition of
"alternative approaches." It is up to the states to innovate in this regard, and the EPA will judge
whatever proposals may come on a case by case basis. At the same time, I/M is a statutorily-
mandated requirement, and the EPA does not believe it has authority to waive I/M requirements
in exchange for states adopting programs in a SIP that do not achieve equivalent reductions in
emissions of the in-use fleet, as those cannot be considered an alternative approach to meeting
the performance standard for I/M.
119
-------
It should also be stressed that while this flexibility to demonstrate the equivalency of alternative
approaches exists in the I/M rule as currently written, such flexibility is an allowance and not a
requirement. Traditional I/M programs like those currently approved in individual SIPs are under
no obligation to change, and potential new I/M program areas under future standards will
continue to have the option to adopt traditional I/M programs Furthermore, it should be noted
that - contrary to Commenters' claims - the effectiveness of I/M testing has not lessened over
time. I/M tests are still successfully identifying vehicles in need of repair. It is just that the
number of vehicles needing repair has gone down as newer vehicles are staying cleaner, longer,
so that the amount of excess emissions available for I/M to reduce has gotten smaller.
Regarding the suggestion that the EPA develop guidance on I/M alternatives, the agency has no
plans at this time to develop guidance (or separate modeling options) for determining the
equivalency of alternatives, given the number of alternatives and variations on alternatives which
may or may not ever be adopted by actual program areas. Again, the flexibility to innovate in
this regard exists in the I/M rule, but it is up to individual states to seize and make the best of this
opportunity. EPA, in turn, will work with such states to assess the potential their proposed
alternative approaches on a case-by-case basis to assure that the requirements of the I/M Rule are
met.
Regarding the observation that existing I/M program areas and future I/M areas be treated
equally, the EPA believes that any flexibility available to new I/M areas will be equally available
to existing I/M areas. The EPA acknowledges that it may not be practical for some existing I/M
programs to take immediate advantage of these flexibilities, due to contracts, equipment
investments, or simply having an older-than-average in-use fleet requiring tailpipe testing longer
than would otherwise be necessary, but these factors and considerations are the prerogative of
the states designing I/M programs.
3. Substitute for I/M program
Comment:
Commenter (0172) did not support any I/M requirement, despite the EPA's preamble discussion
of how the modern I/M program is much improved over the original program and the use of
alternative programs for vehicle testing. Commenter recommended that, the EPA cite Executive
Order 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," for the same common sense
approaches cited in other instances of the proposal to evaluate equivalent methods beyond I/M.
Commenter (0146) stated, the EPA should ensure equity among nonattainment areas, and not
treat new nonattainment areas differently than current nonattainment areas by allowing the use of
non-I/M emission reductions to meet I/M program requirements.
The commenter believed that the language of the CAA is clear with respect to requiring vehicle
I/M programs and that over the years, many nonattainment areas have successfully implemented
I/M programs, and the resultant emissions reductions and public health protections have been
substantial. The commenter believed that technical advances since 1990 provide for much more
120
-------
streamlined, cost-effective, publicly-acceptable I/M programs and the on-board diagnostic
(OBD) approach to I/M is straightforward and provides significant flexibility in terms of
program design, oversight and enforcement. The commenter urged the EPA to focus on
alternative I/M program approaches, rather than on alternatives to the I/M program. Moreover,
the commenter expressed concern that some of the EPA's proposed approaches, as articulated in
the draft rule, are not well developed. The commenter urged the EPA to reconsider these
approaches as well as develop new approaches, provide technical support for any proposed
approaches and vet them through a separate I/M rulemaking process, where they can undergo
more rigorous scrutiny and review. The commenter stated that the EPA's backsliding provisions
require that existing nonattainment areas maintain their I/M programs and stated that the EPA
should ensure equity among nonattainment areas and not treat new nonattainment areas
differently than current nonattainment areas by allowing the use of non-I/M emission reductions
to meet I/M program requirements.
Commenter (0177) disagreed with the EPA's assertion in the proposed rule (pg 34180) that
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs may no longer be relevant because of technological
advances or alternative solutions. The Commenter stated that, as the proposed rule
acknowledges, (pg 34195) I/M programs are much easier to implement than in the past and
remain important in controlling motor vehicle emissions, which continue to be a large
contributor to the ozone problem. While the overall light duty fleet is cleaner than in the past,
there remains a significant gap between well-maintained vehicles and malfunctioning gross-
emitting vehicles that can best be identified through mandatory I/M inspections. The Commenter
suggested that, the EPA should be consistent in its message about I/M programs in new
nonattainment areas and require that all I/M programs meet applicable I/M performance
standards consistent with the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's I/M regulation. (0177)
Response: As discussed previously, the flexibility to substitute mobile source emission
reductions equal to or greater than those that would be achieved by an I/M program meeting the
relevant performance standard already exists in the I/M rule as promulgated. It is only recently
that technologies (like OBD) have become so widely available as to make alternative programs
like those discussed in the preamble (and allowed by this existing flexibility) feasible. Also as
previously discussed, this existing flexibility is equally available to both existing and future I/M
program areas.
4. Flexibility needed for future I/M programs
Comment:
Commenter (0141) encouraged the EPA to review the possibilities for flexibility for this
requirement in the future. The Commenter stated that, whereas the EPA concludes no additional
I/M programs are required under the 2008 standard, we are concerned with the continued cost
effectiveness of this program in the future if the EPA tightens the ozone standard in the
2014/2015 time frame. In Ohio, I/M is currently required in the Cleveland area. The cost of this
program is met with general revenue funds in the state budget; individuals are not charged for the
test. The Commenter stated that, the annual cost of the program exceeds the state collections of
121
-------
title V fees. The Commenter expressed concern that, this cost would be expanded in the future if
additional areas are required to implement I/M. At some point the EPA needs to review the
possibilities for flexibility for this requirement in the future. (0141)
Commenter (0164) requested the EPA to consider a more holistic approach when incorporating
emerging vehicle innovations such as safety measures that avoid vehicle collisions altogether,
fuel economy technologies and multi-pollutant emissions controls that achieve the lowest
emissions possible.
Response: As previously discussed, the EPA believes that the flexibility already exists for I/M
areas - whether existing or future - to adopt alternative mobile source control programs,
provided these alternatives achieve the same or better emission reductions from in-use mobile
sources as would be achieved by implementing an I/M program meeting the relevant
performance standard.
5. Onboard diagnostic (OBD) testing
Comment: Commenters (0143, 0163 and 0168) supported the EPA proposal to use OBD testing.
The commenter agreed DEP agrees that OBD testing should be the I/M Program of choice for
any areas that are required to start an I/M program in the future. OBD testing has proven to be an
efficient, cost-effective means for reducing emissions. Tailpipe testing is fast becoming obsolete
as pre-1996 model year vehicles and vehicles that are not equipped with OBD systems but are
subject to I/M testing are being replaced with OBD-equipped vehicles. (0143)
Commenter (0163) indicated that the preamble stated that modern I/M is vastly different
and simpler than the I/M programs of 20 years ago. New York agrees that I/M programs
no longer need to use tailpipe testing and has promulgated OBD or "Check Engine Light"
testing regulations for motor vehicles throughout New York State. The commenter
believed that these new programs can be designed to be equivalent to previous I/M
programs. The commenter believed that the EPA has correctly characterized the
advantage of OBD technology in the proposal - OBD offers vehicle owners all the
information they need regarding whether or not their vehicle will pass or fail an I/M
inspection and provides for a multitude of simplified inspection options. The commenter
believed that on-road mobile emissions have decreased significantly due to vehicle
emission controls, and OBD technology is a means to ensure these controls are repaired
when they fail.
Response: The EPA agrees, but notes that for some existing I/M areas with older-than-average
in-use fleets, it may be necessary to continue tailpipe testing of vehicles model year 1995 and
older longer than would be the case for areas with average or newer than average aged fleets.
Comment: Commenter (0164) requested that, the EPA take a leadership position in quantifying
OBD test results and enhance the program from its current PASS or FAIL status. The commenter
believed that estimates of emissions readings may be possible and helpful to the driving public.
The commenter believed that a gap exists in knowing emission levels of MY1996 and newer
122
-------
vehicles. The commenter believed that current PASS and FAIL readings make it difficult to
accurately quantify impacts of high emitting vehicles in the overall on-road mobile source
apportionment and emission reduction benefits of vehicle repairs or replacements.
Response: The EPA collaborated with industry experts to investigate the possibility of
developing a separate method for translating OBD-based repairs on individual vehicles into
specific levels of mass emission reductions but was unable to identify an adequate surrogate for
paired testing of the vehicles in question using OBD and a mass-emissions test like the IM240 or
Federal Test Procedure (as originally required under the 1992 I/M rule). Nevertheless, the EPA
believes that existing guidance for performing I/M program evaluations using alternatives to
paired mass-emissions testing - including overall fleet characterization methods addressed in
that existing guidance - is adequate for areas to meet the CAA's program evaluation testing
requirement.
6. Support acceleration simulation mode (ASM) testing
Comment: Two Commenters (0156 and 0164) disagreed with the EPA's recommendation that
acceleration simulation mode (ASM) testing of 1995 and older gasoline vehicles no longer be
required as part of a state's I/M program.
Although in North Central Texas, during calendar year 2012, 93 percent of all emissions
inspections were OBD II tests and approximately 6 percent were ASM tests, the failure
rate for OBD II tests was only 4 percent while the failure rate for ASM tests was nearly
11 percent. Although the EPA estimates that about 80 percent of the national vehicle fleet
is already equipped with an OBD II system, there are still significant emissions
reductions to be gained by testing and repairing or retiring pre-OBD II vehicles. Weather-
related benefits extends the design life of roadway vehicles in our region resulting in a
lower share of ASM tests. (0164)
The EPA mentions the equipment needed for ASM testing, dynamometers, is expensive,
but as of August 2013, 1,053 stations in North Central Texas still have functioning
dynamometers and are capable of conducting ASM testing. NCTCOG can appreciate
EPA's justification for discontinuing ASM testing, but requests this only apply to areas
launching new I/M programs. For areas already performing ASM testing, NCTCOG
requests the EPA keep this requirement until the time at which ASM vehicles leave the
program through either natural or expedited attrition. (0164)
Based upon analysis of emissions data collected from both State emissions testing and
remote sensing, a failing ASM vehicle emits one-and-a-half times as much nitrogen
oxides (NOx) emissions as a failing OBD II vehicle. In addition, according to a Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) study conducted in 2010, the I/M
program yields nearly a 5 ton per day reduction in NOx emissions and 4.3 ton per day
reduction in hydrocarbon (HC) emissions in DFW from the testing of ASM vehicles
alone. If ASM is allowed to be omitted from the program, these reductions will be lost
and additional measures will have to be implemented to offset them.
123
-------
Despite State photochemical modeling consistently showing attainment of the ozone
standard, the DFW region continues to be in nonattainment year after year. The region
cannot afford to lose real world emissions reductions even if the model shows little
emissions reductions or few SIP credits to be gained. Thus, NCTCOG implores the EPA
to consider emissions benefits associated with each ASM test as the driving factor on
whether or not to include them in the I/M program and not the cumulative effect of ASM
testing, which is strictly the result of a smaller fleet size. In Texas, vehicles 24 years old
and older are exempt from the emission test due to low mileage accumulation; therefore,
the EPA has a built in sunset provision that already exists. (0164)
Local jurisdictions should be able to claim emission reductions needed for attainment
demonstrations. According to a 2010 TCEQ study, ASM vehicles were responsible for
nearly 5 tons/day reduction of NOx and 4.3 tons/day reduction of hydrocarbon emissions
in just one ozone nonattainment area. As of August 2013, over 1000 stations could still
perform ASM testing in this area. If these reductions cannot be claimed, additional
control measures would be needed to offset those lost reductions. In 5 years, pre-OBD
vehicles will be 24 years old and will be exempt from tail-pipe testing at which time I&M
programs can become OBD only. ASM remains a beneficial emission reduction option
for local areas. (0156)
Response: The EPA did not suggest, recommend, or propose that areas needing the emission
reductions achieved by tailpipe testing (like the ASM) drop such testing. As previously
discussed, some areas of the country with older-than-average in-use fleets may need to retain
tailpipe testing for a period of time, although as a general matter, the level of emission reductions
achievable from testing these older vehicles is naturally shrinking as the fleet turns over. It is up
to individual states to determine if and when the amount of emission reductions achievable
through any of the several tailpipe tests available is worth the investment.
7. Incorporation of Diesel Vehicles in I/M Program
Comment: Commenter (0164) recommended that, the EPA allow credits for NOx emissions
testing of OBD II compliant diesel vehicles as part of the state's I/M program.
Diesel powered vehicles less than 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) have
been equipped with OBD II systems since model year (MY) 1997; vehicles between
8,500 lbs and 14,000 lbs have been equipped starting with MY2004; and vehicles greater
than 14,000 lbs began being phased-in in MY2010. While studies show real-world
emissions benefits to be gained by implementing a diesel I/M program, Texas has thus far
held off on implementing such a program due to not being able to claim any additional
SIP credits for doing so. Thus, NCTCOG requests the EPA's assistance in providing a
mechanism for claiming SIP credits for a diesel I/M program to help overcome this
hurdle. The emissions benefits associated with each diesel test should be the driving
factor on whether or not they are included in the program; not the cumulative effect
which is strictly the result of a smaller but growing, fleet size. And, while the magnitude
124
-------
of emissions from light-duty diesel vehicles does not compare to that of light-duty
gasoline vehicles, the inclusion of such vehicles in an I/M program may help minimize
the public perception that diesel vehicle owners do not equally contribute to regional
efforts to improve air quality. (0164)
Response: The issue of SIP credit for OBD testing of OBD-equipped diesel vehicles was not one
of the areas discussed in the I/M section of the 2008 8-hour ozone SIP Requirements proposal.
The EPA does not have the before and after repair mass emissions data needed to establish
possible SIP credit for testing and repairing these vehicles. Furthermore, such vehicles are either
too few or too new to warrant the investment it would take for the EPA to gather such data at this
time. Nevertheless, I/M program areas that believe there are real world benefits to be achieved
by conducting OBD testing on diesel vehicles are free to pursue such testing, though the EPA
recommends that states observe best practices with regard to testing such vehicles.19
Furthermore, the EPA remains open to any state or program area wishing to make a technically
and legally defensible case for assigning SIP credit for these tests. .
8. Funding for Vehicle Repair and Replacement Programs
Comment: Commenter (0164) supported the EPA's suggestion to consider implementation of a
vehicle repair and replacement assistance program, but recommends it be a complement to the
I/M program and not in lieu of an I/M program as proposed.
The Low-Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit and Accelerated Vehicle
Retirement Program (LIRAP) is a light-duty repair and replacement assistance program
that has been implemented successfully in Texas in years past. In Texas, fees are
collected through emissions testing and are dedicated specifically for administering this
program. The successful I/M program drives the market for repair and replacement of
vehicles and is necessary to enforce federal involvement in advancing fleet turnover.
(0164)
Response: The EPA encourages low-income repairs assistance programs as a way of reducing
program avoidance on the part of vehicle owners statistically most likely to fail the test (and
financially least likely to be able to afford the burden of vehicle repairs). As such, the EPA
agrees that an assistance program like LIRAP is an appropriate supplement to the existing I/M
program, while not itself constituting an adequate replacement for the program. For a repair
assistance program to replace I/M, it would need to assure that as many vehicles would be
repaired as would be the case under the I/M program. To make such a demonstration, it is
unlikely that the program could rely only on low-income vehicle owners. Instead, the repair
19 Best practices for such testing are detailed in the best practices document available at the
following web address: http://obdclearinghouse.com/index.php?body=obdinformation.
125
-------
subsidy would have to be more generally available, based upon the level of emission reduction
achievable from repairing a given vehicle, as opposed to the income level of the owner.
9. Separate rulemaking needed for I/M
Comment: Commenters (0146 and 0177) stated, the EPA should defer to a more thorough and
separate I/M program rulemaking process concerning I/M flexibility.
NESCAUM members recognize the importance and continued relevance of I/M in
controlling motor vehicle emissions. We agree with the EPA that significant
technological advances, including the diminishing relevance of tailpipe testing and
widespread implementation of OBD programs, have occurred and that practical
flexibility is warranted for the future. The NESCAUM member agencies, however, are
concerned with the example programmatic changes that the EPA has offered in this
rulemaking. We urge the EPA to carefully consider the CAA requirements and the
existing I/M performance standards in judging the merits of these concepts. Clearly, the
EPA should develop modeling guidance for such alternatives if deemed feasible. As such,
NESCAUM believes the EPA should defer to a more thorough and separate I/M program
rulemaking process concerning I/M flexibility. (0146)
NESCAUM disagrees with the EPA's assertion that I/M programs may no longer be
relevant because of technological advances or alternative solutions. These programs are
much easier to implement than in the past and remain important in controlling motor
vehicle emissions. Modeling shows that emissions from the on-road sector remain
significant for the ozone problem. While individual vehicle emissions have been
substantially reduced and the overall light duty fleet is cleaner, there still remains a
significant gap between well-maintained vehicles and malfunctioning gross-emitting
vehicles that would be identified through mandatory I/M inspections. The EPA should be
consistent in its message about I/M programs in new nonattainment areas: all I/M
programs must meet applicable I/M performance standards consistent with the
requirements of the CAA and the EPA's I/M regulation. (0146)
Response: As discussed previously, the flexibility to substitute mobile source emission
reductions equal to or greater than those that would be achieved by an I/M program meeting the
relevant performance standard already exists in the I/M rule as promulgated. It is only recently
that technologies (like OBD) have become so widely available as to make alternative programs
like those discussed in the preamble (and allowed by this existing flexibility) feasible. Also as
previously discussed, this existing flexibility is equally available to both existing and future I/M
program areas. The EPA notes that the approval of any specific program as meeting the
requirements of the I/M Rule would be accomplished through notice and comment rulemaking
on a state's proposed revision to its SIP.
10. Timing of I/M SIP
126
-------
Comment: Commenter (0143) supported the EPA proposal to align Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) programs and attainment SIP deadlines. The Commenter stated that, on April
7, 2006, the EPA finalized a suite of revisions to the I/M rule to address the implementation of
I/M under an 8-hour ozone NAAQS (71 FR 17705). The revised rule included deadlines for 8-
hour ozone nonattainment areas that were tied to the effective date of a given area's designation
and classification under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The deadlines for implementing an I/M
[program] are reasonable in that a nonattainment area that does not currently have an I/M
program, that would be required to implement one, would have 4 years after the effective date of
designation and classification to begin testing vehicles. (0143)
Commenter (0163) recommended that, the EPA not make any changes to the I/M SIP deadlines
that are inconsistent with the deadlines prescribed in the CAA.
Commenter (0177) stated that, any contemplated changes in deadlines for submittal of I/M SIP
revisions should be legally justified and in no case should result in delays in required I/M
program implementation.
Commenter (0179) requested that, states be given the option of deciding on the timing of an I/M
SIP submission based on their individual circumstances. The Commenter stated that, in the
proposal, the EPA identified alterative implementation options to modernize I/M programs from
the last time new I/M programs were required. In order to pursue such options, the Commenter
stated that, states will need time to analyze various I/M program designs to determine which
combination of program parameters is capable of meeting the emission reduction needs of the
attainment SIP, present the concept to stakeholders, seek the appropriate legal authority from
legislative bodies and adopt a rule which could take 1-2 years to undergo a state's administrative
process.
Response: The EPA's proposal to align the I/M SIP submittal deadline with the deadline for
submitting the attainment demonstration will not impact the emission reductions achieved
through the I/M requirement because the proposal does not change the deadline by which new
I/M areas would need to begin testing and fixing vehicles. Further, the EPA believes that it is
required to interpret the Act's I/M SIP submission deadlines for basic I/M SIPs because the
CAA's requirement of "immediately upon enactment" for these SIPs is impossible to meet.
Additionally, the EPA sees no reason why basic and enhanced I/M programs should be put on
different schedules, as the difference between basic and enhanced I/M programs has largely
disappeared with the introduction and widespread use of OBD-based testing. And lastly, given
the degree to which the attainment demonstration will be driven by emission reductions derived
from I/M or an equally effective alternative, it is reasonable and cost effective to allow states to
coordinate these two planning requirements.
11. Oppose implementation of additional I/M programs
Comment: Commenter (0152) stated, the EPA should consider the elimination of the
requirement to implement any additional I/M programs. The Commenter added that, although
this may be a CAA mandate, the EPA has exhibited flexibility in the past to modify the CAA
127
-------
requirements. The EPA appears to acknowledge the practical difficulties with the
implementation of new vehicle I/M programs. As the older vehicles are removed from the fleet,
the newer, cleaner, more reliable replacement vehicles emit less and I/M programs become less
effective in reducing overall emissions. Although the EPA did provide some "out of the box"
examples of different program options, the fiscal reality makes those concepts impractical.
(0152)
Response: While the EPA believes that there is flexibility in the I/M rule for allowing equivalent
mobile source control-based reductions in lieu of traditional I/M, we do not believe we have the
flexibility to waive the requirement that areas covered by the Act's I/M requirements reduce
emissions from mobile sources equal to or greater than the amount they would be reduced if an
I/M program meeting the applicable performance standard were adopted.
F. How does transportation conformity apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
1. Requirements for VOC motor vehicle emissions budgets
Comment: The Commenter stated that, for areas where reductions in VOC ozone precursors are
shown to have minimal effects on ozone air quality, the EPA should remove requirements for
VOC transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets, including any budget updates
required for new emissions models. (0130)
Response: The existing transportation conformity regulation already addresses the general
situation raised by this Commenter. Under 40 CFR 93.109(f), if an ozone nonattainment or
maintenance area's SIP can demonstrate that regional VOC motor vehicle emissions are
insignificant, the area would not be required to establish VOC motor vehicle emissions budgets
for conformity purposes, and the area would not have to do a regional emissions analysis for
VOCs. The criteria in this provision for determining insignificance for conformity purposes were
not the subject of this rulemaking and as such no changes are being made to those criteria.
2. Elimination of conformity requirements
Comment: The EPA received two comments on the revocation of transportation conformity
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. One Commenter (0172) supported the EPA's proposal
that transportation conformity would no longer apply for the 1997 ozone NAAQS once that
standard is revoked, which was effective July 20, 2013, 1, year after the effective date of
designations. Another Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA's proposed revocation of these
conformity requirements is not consistent with the CAA.
Response: The D.C. Circuit has held that the CAA did not authorize the EPA to revoke the 1997
ozone NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes only. NRDC v. EPA, F.3d . 2014 WL
7269521 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Comment: The Commenter stated that, the EPA properly acknowledges that the Act mandates
that transportation and general conformity requirements apply to all ozone nonattainment or
128
-------
maintenance areas. The Commenter also states that, the EPA further proposes to leave those
designations for the 1997 NAAQS in place. (0180)
Response: The EPA agrees with the Commenter that, both transportation and general conformity
apply in all ozone nonattainment and maintenance areas. However, the EPA disagrees with the
Commenter's conclusion that the EPA has proposed to retain the designations for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA is today revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes and establishing
anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked standard. The June 6, 2013, NPRM, which
addresses revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and appropriate anti-backsliding measures for
all purposes, very clearly states the EPA's intention with regard to the fate of the designations for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS:
After revocation of the 1997 standard, the designations for that standard are no longer in
effect, and the sole designations that remain in effect are those for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. However, the EPA is retaining the listing of the designations of areas for the
revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81, for the sole purpose of identifying the
anti-backsliding requirements that may apply to the areas as a result of these designations
at the time of revocation. Accordingly, such references to historical designations for the
revoked standard should not be viewed as current designations under CAA section 107.
(78 FR 34214)
Therefore, after the revocation of the 1997 NAAQS is effective, the EPA will publish a list of
former designations and classifications for informational purposes in 40 CFR part 81 in order to
assist state and local agencies and other interested parties in determining the anti-backsliding
requirements for a given area. At that time, the only applicable designation will be the
designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the transportation and general conformity requirement
will apply only for that ozone NAAQS.
Comment: The Commenter noted that, since the EPA's June 6, 2013, NPR proposed to revoke
the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes, that revocation would include transportation
conformity if the EPA received an adverse decision in the on-going litigation on the revocation
of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes. Therefore, the Commenter
asserts that, the NPRM proposes to revoke both the transportation and general conformity
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and that, its comments apply to both types of
conformity. (0180)
Response: The Commenter is correct and because the D.C. Circuit vacated the EPA's partial
revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, today's rulemaking revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS for
all purposes, including both transportation and general conformity purposes.
Comment: The Commenter opines that Congress specified exactly when areas would shed
conformity requirements, which is after a nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment and it
completes a 20-year maintenance period. The Commenter believes that, by eliminating the
conformity requirements before areas complete this process, the EPA contravenes the Act.
129
-------
(0180)
Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment. While the obligation to determine conformity
for a NAAQS ends after an area is redesignated to attainment and has completed its second 10
year maintenance period, this is not the only way an area's conformity obligation could end.
Clearly, the EPA has revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and areas where that NAAQS has been
revoked have stopped demonstrating conformity for that NAAQS. The DC Circuit Court in the
South Coast decision upheld the EPA's ability to revoke a prior NAAQS as long as appropriate
anti-backsliding measures are required. {South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA,
472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006))
Comment: The commenter opines that even if the EPA could waive the conformity
requirements by revoking the 1997 NAAQS, it would have to keep them in effect as anti-
backsliding protections because conformity must apply in nonattainment and maintenance areas;
therefore, the EPA's approach results in backsliding because it removes controls that would
otherwise apply. The Commenter also offers that, Congress crafted the conformity requirements
to prevent activities from causing or contributing to new violations of any NAAQS or from
worsening existing violations of any NAAQS. Thus, according to the commenter, conformity
determinations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are "[sjomething designed to constrain ozone
levels," making them "controls" that must be retained when strengthening a standard, and
therefore, the EPA cannot do away with them. (0180)
Response: The EPA disagrees with the Commenter and does not understand how it could on one
hand waive conformity requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS through revocation, but on the
other hand still require conformity determinations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as an anti-
backsliding measure. Further, the EPA's interpretation has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit in a
similar context, in which the court stated that, conformity determinations are not required as anti-
backsliding measures for the NAAQS that is revoked. Instead, any existing budgets from a
revoked NAAQS serve as the test of conformity for an applicable NAAQS of that same
pollutant, until budgets are established for that applicable NAAQS. Therefore, while conformity
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS no longer applies, the 1997 ozone NAAQS budgets apply for 2008
ozone NAAQS conformity until the area has budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA has concluded that the anti-backsliding requirements that apply to the transition from
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for conformity purposes are
well established in the CAA, the transportation conformity rule and recent court decisions.
(CAA section 176(c)(1), 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2), South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) and Environmental Defense v. EPA, 467 F3.d at 1329)
Specifically, areas that are designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are required to
demonstrate conformity for that NAAQS using adequate or approved motor vehicle emissions
budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Before such budgets are available, areas would use
adequate or approved budgets for another ozone NAAQS: budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS or, if not available, budgets for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. If no such budgets exist the
area would demonstrate conformity using the transportation conformity rule's interim emissions
tests as they apply to the particular area. (40 CFR 93.109(c)(3) and 40 CFR 93.119(b)) The DC
130
-------
Circuit Court concluded, as is relevant here, that "1-hour conformity [motor vehicle] emissions
budgets constitute 'controls' under section 172(e)," and thus had to be retained to prevent
backsliding {South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006)) In a subsequent ruling denying petitions for rehearing, the Court clarified that this
"reference to conformity determinations speaks only to the use of 1-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets as part of 8-hour conformity determinations until 8-hour motor vehicle
emissions budgets are available." Further the court clarified that conformity determinations for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are not required to fulfill anti-backsliding requirements for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS. {South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1245, 1248 (D.C. Cir.
2007)) The Court reached the conclusion that it was not necessary to continue to demonstrate
conformity for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS after revocation in response to a joint request for
clarification made by the EPA and the environmental petitioners after the court's issuance of its
2006 opinion in that litigation. Id. (granting "joint request by the EPA and Environmental
Petitioners") clearly, the DC Circuit Court has already reached a conclusion, which was
supported by environmental Petitioners, that conformity determinations are not required to
prevent backsliding in nonattainment or maintenance areas for a NAAQS that has been revoked.
Comment: The Commenter believes that, the EPA has "contravened the statutory mandate" by
eliminating the transportation conformity requirement in areas that are maintenance or
nonattainment for the 1997 NAAQS, but attainment for the 2008. The Commenter points out
that, although some nonattainment and maintenance areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS have been
designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, conformity requirements remain important
pollution controls in those areas. The Commenter argues that, to satisfy the conformity
requirement, an action must not cause or contribute to any new violation, or worsen any existing
violation, "of any standard in any area" (commenter's emphasis). Thus, the commenter believes
that requiring conformity in these 2008 ozone NAAQS attainment areas would also protect
against violations of the 2008 ozone standard, and the EPA should not revoke the 1997 ozone
NAAQS because it removes the conformity requirement for these areas without providing anti-
backsliding protections. In the commenter's view, this is harmful for implementing the 2008
standard in areas that have historically had ozone problems. (0180)
The Commenter also notes that, several areas that were nonattainment or maintenance for the
1997 ozone NAAQS but attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2012 are either violating the
2008 ozone NAAQS or are close to violating that NAAQS based on more recent data. The
commenter opines that retaining the conformity requirement would provide needed protection
against dangerous ozone levels. (0180)
Another Commenter stated that, the EPA should act quickly under CAA section 107(d)(3) to
make sure all areas violating the 2008 NAAQS are properly designated as nonattainment and
thus properly subject to transportation conformity requirements for that NAAQS. (0177)
Response: The commenter is correct that some areas that were nonattainment or maintenance for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS were designated attainment for the more health protective 2008 ozone
NAAQS. These areas all had ozone design values of 75 ppb or less based on 2008-2010 data at
the time that the designations were made in 2012. Therefore, these areas were attaining the 1997
131
-------
ozone NAAQS by a wide margin since an area would need a design value of 0.085 ppm (85 ppb)
or greater to be violating the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
As noted elsewhere in the record for today's rulemaking, the D.C. Circuit vacated the EPA's
revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for transportation conformity only. In doing so, the Court
recognized that it had previously upheld the EPA's authority to revoke a standard for all
purposes, provided that it introduces anti-backsliding measures, as the EPA is doing in today's
rule. See NRDC, 2004 WL 7269521. {South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472
F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006)) upholding revocation of 1-hour standard so long as adequate anti-
backsliding measures are provided.
With regard to requiring conformity to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the commenter attempts to
make an argument that areas should be required to determine conformity to a revoked NAAQS
because the CAA section 176(c)(1)(B) refers to "any standard in any area," including the 2008
standard in areas that are attaining it. The EPA disagrees with this new interpretation because it
is inconsistent with other provisions of section 176(c) and with the South Coast decision. First,
the CAA section 176(c)(5) clearly limits the applicability of conformity requirements to areas
that are designated nonattainment or maintenance for a given NAAQS. The commenter's
interpretation would expand the scope of the conformity requirement to include attainment areas,
when the plain language of section 176(c)(5) states that the conformity requirement applies "only
in" nonattainment and maintenance areas. Additionally, as explained above, the D.C. Circuit
Court ruled in the South Coast decision that the anti-backsliding requirement that applies for
transportation conformity is that nonattainment areas for the new NAAQS must use approved or
adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets for the prior NAAQS in transportation conformity
determinations until the area has approved or adequate budgets for the new NAAQS. The DC
Circuit Court further held, in response to a joint request for clarification filed by the EPA and
environmental groups, that conformity determinations were not required for the prior NAAQS
after it was revoked. (South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1245, 1248 (D.C. Cir.
2007)) Implementing transportation conformity requirements in ozone areas by requiring
transportation conformity determinations in nonattainment and maintenance areas for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, using approved or adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS until an area has emissions budgets for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and no longer requiring
transportation conformity determinations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS after the effective date of
that revocation for all purposes is completely consistent with the CAA requirements,
transportation conformity regulations and relevant D.C, Circuit Court decisions.
The Commenter is also correct that, some of the 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment or
maintenance areas that were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are now
violating this NAAQS. In today's final rule the EPA is finalizing anti-backsliding measures that
apply to the types of areas that the commenter is concerned about. Those anti-backsliding
measures are designed to prevent the areas from slipping back into nonattainment of the 1997
ozone NAAQS. Maintenance areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are required to implement their
approved maintenance plans and nonattainment areas are required to implement their approved
SIPs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. These SIPs could only be revised if the revision meets the
anti-backsliding requirements of the CAA sections 110(1) and 193.
132
-------
Areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS still have an incentive to monitor the
growth of emissions from the transportation sector, because an area that violates the 2008 8-hour
NAAQS could be redesignated to nonattainment under the EPA's discretionary authority to
quickly redesignate areas.
Commenter (0177) stated that, the EPA should act quickly under the CAA section 107(d)(3) to
make sure all areas violating the 2008 NAAQS are properly designated as nonattainment. The
EPA has carefully evaluated the request by the commenter that the EPA should redesignate as
nonattainment the counties designated as attainment with 2012 design values violating the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The EPA also obtained information from the respective states with the
attainment areas violating based on 2012 design values. The EPA is using the discretion afforded
to the Administrator under the CAA. If violations of the ozone NAAQS occur, the EPA would
consider the factors in the CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), which include "air quality data, planning
and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator
deems appropriate." To the extent an area is actively implementing control measures and
programs, the EPA may allow time to determine whether such measures and programs bring the
area back into attainment. As an initial matter, 22 areas with violations based on 2012 design
values are again attaining the ozone NAAQS based on 2013 design values. As to those areas that
remain in violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA believes it is appropriate to allow time
for affected states to assess the new violations and to consider appropriate measures to address
the air quality problems. The EPA expects that reductions of NOx and VOC emissions from
existing federal measures and state-led efforts will assist these areas in attaining the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. For any such redesignated area, conformity would then apply 1 year after the effective
date of that nonattainment designation.
3. Comment beyond the scope of the rulemaking
Comment: Commenter (0164) recommended further clarification be provided on the
implications of aspects of the transportation conformity program not addressed by this
rulemaking.
Response: These comments are outside the scope of today's rulemaking, which does not propose
changes in the transportation conformity regulation.
(7. What requirements for general conformity apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
1. Emission budgets for General Conformity should not be mandated
Comment: Commenter (0152) does not believe this should be mandated and should be at the
state's discretion as it is a resource burden that may not be necessary in some states with very
few projects subject to General Conformity. Commenter (0159) supported the EPA's
recommendation that state and local air quality agencies work with federal agencies with major
facilities that are subject to the General Conformity Regulations to establish an emission budget
for those facilities in order to facilitate future conformity determinations, noting that state and
133
-------
federal agencies should work together in a cooperative manner to achieve establish emissions
budgets that will ensure that transportation plans, TIPs and federally supported highway and
transit projects are consistent with the applicable SIP.
Response: The EPA has not mandated facility emission budgets in this proposal or in its
regulations for general conformity. Facility emission budgets are voluntary when a facility and a
state believe it is beneficial to develop one.
2. Support proposal to not make revisions to general conformity regulations
Comment: Commenter (0159) supported the proposal to not make revisions to the General
Conformity Regulations in this SIP Requirements Rule, agreeing with the EPA that states with
approved General Conformity SIPs should not need to revise those SIPs, unless they need to do
so to ensure the existing regulations apply in the appropriate newly designated areas.
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's support and concurs with the commenter's
statement.
H. What are the requirements for contingency measures in the event offailure to meet a
milestone or to attain?
I. 1 year's worth of progress
Comment: Allow approximately one year's worth of emissions reductions based on air
quality improvements
Commenters (0139, 0150, 0155 and 0160) requested, the EPA to use the term "approximately 1
year's worth" to allow a certain amount of flexibility. Commenters (0139 and 0150) stated,
flexibility may be needed for cases where the region either does not need a full year's worth of
reductions or would find it impossible to find a measure that produces a full year's worth of
reductions above and beyond what is required to attain. Commenter (0160) appreciated the
flexibility the EPA exercised in approving the South Coast's PM2.5 contingency measures, and a
similar approach should be possible for ozone contingency measures. Commenter (0139) stated
that, a strict requirement for a full 1 year's worth of reductions could have the perverse effect of
delaying attainment. This is because if an area could attain in 5 years, its reduction line is quite
steep, and 1 year's worth of reductions could be a significant amount, and the state may not be
able to define a measure to obtain sufficient reductions above and beyond what is required to
attain. On the other hand, if the state takes 8 years to attain, its reduction line will be less steep,
and 1 year's worth of reductions will be smaller. Thus, the state may be forced to delay
attainment in order to meet the requirement for 1 year's worth of reductions as a contingency
measure.
Commenters (0139 and 0150) suggested that, similar to RFP, the EPA should allow an air
quality improvement measurement in measuring 1 year's worth of progress for contingency
measures. These Commenters stated that, in the case of contingency measures, Congress did not
specify any particular method of measuring required progress, either tonnage reductions or air
134
-------
quality improvement. Therefore, the EPA's interpretation must be upheld if it reflects a
reasonable accommodation of the policy interests involved in interpreting the Act. Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-45 (1984). The
Commenters argued that, the EPA has already accepted the concept that air quality
improvements may be taken into consideration for purposes of evaluating the level of emission
reductions needed to meet the contingency measure requirements. "Approval and Promulgation
of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast; Contingency Measures for 1997 PM2.5
Standards"; 78 FR 37741, 37748 (June 24, 2013). The EPA allowed South Coast to have less
than 1-year's worth of emission reductions in its contingency measures based on the degree of
air quality improvement shown by the area. It is a small step from there to conclude that if any
area can demonstrate that its proposed contingency measures will produce 1-year's worth of air
quality improvements, that this can be accepted in lieu of 1 year's worth of emission reductions.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenters' suggestions to allow "approximately" 1 year's
worth of reductions in area's that may not need a full year's worth of reductions or may find it
impossible to find a measure that produces a full year's worth of reductions above what is
required to attain. The contingency measures must be put in place if the area fails to make RFP
or to attain. The "Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections and Control Strategies for the 15
Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans" (March 1993), Section 9.0, Contingency Measures, (pages 81-
97), cites the April 16, 1992, General Preamble section III.A.3.C (57 FR 13498, at 13510 -
13512) as the source of the EPA's interpretation that 3 percent of the RFP baseline is the
minimum contingency measure requirement. But the contingency measures would provide for
reductions in emissions rather than measured ozone concentrations, and the EPA did not propose
to alter this guidance or specifically allow an alternative air quality improvement-based
approach.
The implementation of PM2.5 NAAQS is governed by statutory and regulatory requirements that
are separate from and not identical to requirements for ozone NAAQS implementation and
provide flexibility for states to consider the degree of air quality improvement that may be
needed in developing RFP plans and contingency measures. Thus, in a recent action,20 the EPA
has approved a state to adopt into its PM2.5 SIP, contingency measure emissions reductions based
on the degree of air quality improvements shown by the area. However, the CAA provisions for
ozone NAAQS implementation provide for emission reductions of ozone precursors, VOC and
NOx, and do not explicitly authorize using measurements of ozone concentrations for fulfilling
SIP emission reductions requirements for RFP and its associated contingency measures.
2. Reliance on already-adopted rules
Comment: Commenter (0150) requested that the EPA make it clear that a state may rely on
already-adopted rules and regulations. The Commenter stated that, in proposing to approve the
20 "Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; South Coast; Contingency
Measures for 1997 PM2.5 Standards"; 78 FR 37741, 37748 (June 24, 2013).
135
-------
South Coast PM2.5 contingency measures, the EPA recently made it clear that a state may rely on
already-adopted rules and regulations, whether federal, state or local, provided they result in
emission reductions that are surplus to what is needed for RFP or attainment. The EPA noted that
it had approved numerous SIPs under this interpretation. 78 FR 37741, 37744 col. 1. The EPA
explained that this approach has been upheld by the courts. LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir.
2004). We request that the EPA repeat this analysis in the present implementation rule, so that
the principle will be known to all parties and to provide a ready reference for the principle,
without having to rely on individual SIP approval actions. Commenters (0159 and 0179) agreed
that, federal measures that provide ongoing reductions into the future can be used as contingency
measures, where appropriate.
Response: In regards of maintaining ongoing provisions where federal measures can be used as
contingency measures, the EPA has a long-standing practice of allowing federal measures to be
used as contingency measures as long as they provide emissions reductions in the relevant years
in excess of those needed for attainment or RFP. The EPA has approved the use of federal
measures to meet contingency measure requirements in several EPA actions approving 1-hour
and 8-hour ozone SIPs. (62 FR 15844, April 3, 1997), (62 FR 66279, December 18, 1997), (66
FR 30811, June 8, 2001), (66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634, January 3, 2001) (74 FR 1903, January 14,
2009). The EPA is continuing to allow areas to use future reductions from promulgated federal
measures as contingency measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS final rule, consistent with our
practice for both the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Comment: Fleet turnover emission budgets
One Commenter (0132) stated that, additional "fleet turnover" motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEB) for the year after the attainment year are unnecessary because fleet turnover is based on
federal vehicle emission standards already in place, and the EPA has not indicated that those
standards will be unavailable in the future. Further, the proposal does not address the
implications of a 2019 contingency MVEB on conformity. It would be inappropriate and unduly
restrictive to set a contingency MVEB and then, in effect, require areas to base conformity
analyses on a contingency MVEB.
A second commenter (0169) MVEBs language on page 34199 is vague and requested that the
EPA revise the current preamble language.
Response: One Commenter opined that, the motor vehicle emissions budgets should be
unnecessary because the EPA has not indicated that the vehicle emissions standards would not be
available in the future. It was not the EPA's intention to imply that the concern was with whether
or not the national emission standards for new vehicles would remain in effect. The EPA
recommended that these budgets be established to ensure that on-road emissions remain at or
below the level established by the contingency measure. This level would be equal to the level of
emissions in the attainment year minus the amount of emissions reductions attributable to the
fleet turnover contingency measure. There are a number of reasons that emissions could increase
such as an unanticipated increase in vehicle miles traveled or in the number of vehicle trips in the
area. Demonstrating conformity to these budgets in the event that the contingency measure is
triggered it would ensure that emissions were reduced at least to the level that the contingency
136
-------
measure had anticipated. The EPA is not requiring states to establish these budgets. The EPA is
recommending that states establish such budgets. The EPA agrees that, areas should not be
required to demonstrate conformity to these budgets until such time that the contingency
measure is triggered. Therefore, areas would only have to demonstrate conformity to these
budgets in the event that the area misses its attainment date and the fleet turnover contingency
measure is triggered.
The second Commenter suggested that, the discussion of this issue in the preamble to the NPRM
is vague and should be revised. The commenter did not provide any specific information on the
clarifications that they believe are needed. The EPA made revisions to the preamble in the final
rule. If the commenter continues to have questions after the rule is finalized, they should contact
their EPA Regional Office.
3. Flexibility to use NOx or VOC measures
Comment: Support NOx only flexibility for measuring contingency measures
Commenters (0130, 0139, 0143, 0150, 0155, 0157, 0159, 0163 and 0179) generally supported
the proposal to modify contingency measures regarding emission reductions from VOC.
Commenters (0130 and 0143) stated that, science shows that NOx reductions are much more
effective than VOC reductions for reducing ground-level ozone concentrations in much of the
eastern U.S.; therefore, allowing states the flexibility to reduce the full 3 percent as NOx for
contingencies makes good sense. Commenter (0143) stated that, reducing NOx emissions appears
to have at least the same and possibly a larger, effect on reducing ozone levels as reducing an
equal amount of VOC emissions. Recent studies indicate thatNOx, reductions have great
potential to reduce the number of ozone exceedances where aNOx-limited condition exists. In
Pennsylvania, with the actual and pending shutdown of certain coal-fired power plants, NOx-
limited conditions will become more common. A NOx for VOC substitution, which would rely
on NOx reductions in place of VOC reductions, should lower the number of ozone exceedances
in ozone nonattainment areas of the Commonwealth.
Commenters (0139 and 0150) stated, a flexible and common sense approach is needed in
interpreting the contingency measure requirement, and for that reason, we do support the EPA's
proposal to change its guidance such that there would no longer be a minimum requirement for
VOC reductions; instead the area's entire contingency measure content could consist of NOx
reductions (78 FR 34199 col. 1). Commenters (0155, 0157 and 0163) stated that, for Moderate
and above areas that have completed the initial 15 percent VOC reduction required by the CAA
section 182(b)(l)(A)(i), the 3 percent emissions reductions of the contingency measures may be
based entirely on NOx controls if that is what the state's analyses have demonstrated would be
most effective in bringing the area into attainment; there is no minimum VOC requirement.
Commenter (0179) took the position that only measures that are expected to offer a worthwhile
reduction in ozone (i.e., NOx controls) should be considered for contingency measures.
Response: The EPA appreciates the support and is finalizing requirements that contingency
measures must be submitted for approval into the SIP as required by the CAA and must provide
137
-------
for the implementation of specific measures without any further rulemaking action if the area
fails to attain or meet any applicable milestone. Regarding content of the 1-year's worth of
emissions covered by the contingency measures, the EPA is finalizing its proposal to allow the 3
percent emissions reductions of the contingency measures to be based entirely on NOx controls if
the area can demonstrate it has achieved the initial 15 percent ROP VOC reduction required by
the CAA section 182(b)(l)(A)(i) and that the state's analyses determine that NOx substitution
would be most effective in bringing the area into attainment.
4. Extreme nonattainment areas
Comment: Support the proposal
Commenters (0139, 0149, 0150, 0160 and 0166) supported use of section 182(e)(5) measures for
contingency measures. Commenter (0139) supported the EPA's acknowledgement that,
contingency measures as previously implemented may not make sense in Extreme nonattainment
areas and that allowing some flexibility and creativity for contingency approaches is important
for areas that have implemented all reasonable and feasible measures under their regulatory
control. Commenter (0160) stated, this approach reflects the need for Extreme areas to adopt all
feasible measures, while recognizing that over time additional new measures will be possible as
technology advances. Commenter (0166) stated that, it would in fact be unreasonable to expect a
state that is already adopting all feasible controls to adopt additional contingency measures; once
a state has adopted all measures that are feasible, by definition nothing more can be
accomplished.
Commenter (0149) stated that, developing and adopting contingency measures in regulatory
form (pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)[9]) for an "Extreme" nonattainment area
that qualifies for the CAA section 182(e)(5) is not practical. Commenter (0149) stated that such a
nonattainment area has already included all reasonable control measures in its SIP to meet
RACM and RFP requirements and is allowed to rely on section 182(e)(5)measures (which are
themselves not fully developed) for its attainment demonstration.
Commenter (0150) stated that, unlike other contingency measures, these measures are not
required to be in regulatory form at the time the attainment demonstration is submitted; instead,
the Extreme area commits to submit those measures by 3 years before the time the reductions are
needed. CAA § 182(e)(5); 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(e)(5). Commenter (0150) agreed that an Extreme
area should not be forced to rely on infeasible or draconian measures to meet the contingency
requirements. Commenter (0150) cited Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158,
170 (2007) and stated that, similarly, the specific§ 182(e)(5) contingency measures designed
specifically to suit the needs of an Extreme ozone area should be considered to control over the
more general requirements for ozone.
Commenter (0150) stated, the EPA may rely on the doctrine of unreasonable results and absurd
consequences to support this interpretation and cited two court cases. Commenter (0150) stated
since the EPA has already recognized that requiring the "normal" contingency measures for an
138
-------
Extreme area would be unreasonable (78 FR 34199 col. 2), such an interpretation should be
rejected.
Response: We appreciate the supportive comments. We recognize that all areas must meet the
contingency plan requirements of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). We agree that the CAA
section 182(e)(5) provides the agency discretion to approve an Extreme area attainment plan that
relies, in part, on the future development of new control technologies or improvements of
existing control technologies. This authority can be exercised as long as the state has
demonstrated that: all reasonably available control measures, including RACT, have been
included in the plan; the area's RFP demonstration during the first 10 years after designation
does not rely on anticipated future technologies; and the state has submitted enforceable
commitments to develop and adopt contingency measures in the event that anticipated future
technologies do not achieve planned reductions.
Comment: Do not support proposal where "reasonably available" control measure are
appropriate for determining when to exercise discretion provided by section 182(e)(5)
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA has no authority to waive the plain statutory requirements of
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Commenter (0180) stated that, because section 172(c)(1)
requires nonattainment plans for all areas provide for the implementation of all RACM, Congress
assumed that all nonattainment areas-not just Extreme areas - would implement all reasonable
measures. Commenter (0180) stated that, contingency measures are not limited to measures
deemed "reasonable" because such "reasonable" measures must already be required and
implemented in all nonattainment areas. Commenter (0180) stated the flaw in the EPA's
description of the situation facing Extreme ozone nonattainment areas is that once all
"reasonable" measures are adopted to meet RACM and RFP, additional measures are
"unreasonable" and "draconian " Commenter (0180) stated the CAA contains several
requirements with levels of control that are more stringent than RACM, including LAER,
BACM and 7513(e) (requiring MSM). Commenter (0180) stated, there is no basis for suggesting
that Congress did not contemplate areas adopting controls that go above and beyond RACM or
that such controls could be ruled out as "unreasonable." Commenter (0180) further pointed out
that, ozone nonattainment areas must adopt whatever controls are "necessary or appropriate to
provide for attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date specified
in this part."
Commenter (0180) stated that, if an Extreme nonattainment area seeks to rely on a "black box" it
should be required to demonstrate that all feasible control measures have been adopted,
regardless of whether those control measures can be demonstrated to advance attainment by a
year. Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA should also clarify that RACM is the minimum level of
control required to be demonstrated in these nonattainment plans.
Response: The EPA believes that both its long-standing interpretation of RACM and its focus on
whether control measures are "reasonably available" provide an appropriate framework for
determining when to exercise the discretion provided by section 182(e)(5). As noted in the
proposal, the determination of whether a SIP contains all RACM requires an area-specific
analysis establishing that there are no additional economically and technically feasible control
139
-------
measures (alone or cumulatively) that will advance the attainment date by 1 year. This requires
close review of any measure that a commenter identifies as reasonably available for
implementation in the area in light of local circumstances and of measures being implemented in
other states. 78 FR 34187, at 34194 (June 6, 2013). This interpretation of RACM has been
upheld as reasonable (e.g. Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F3d 155, 162-163 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). Thus,
the EPA believes that, it is appropriate to require that an area seeking to rely on the anticipated
development of new technology demonstrate that its plan includes all control measures that come
within this definition of "reasonably available." The EPA does not believe it is necessary for an
area to demonstrate the use of measures that go beyond that definition in order to meet
contingency measure requirements.
5. Innovative measures
Comment: Commenter (0179) supported the integration of innovative measures such as energy
efficiency programs or renewable energy programs that meet the requirements of the CAA
section 172(c )(9) and section 182(c)(9) for areas classified as Serious or higher to be used as
contingency measures. Commenter (0180) agreed that, innovative measures may be allowed if
they otherwise comply with the requirements for contingency measures; i.e., emission reductions
must be quantifiable, surplus, permanent and enforceable.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenters support and the EPA will continue to allow
and encourage implementation of innovative measures such as energy efficiency programs or
renewable energy programs that may be satisfy the requirements of the CAA section 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9).
I. How do the NSR requirements apply for the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
1. General NSR requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
Comment: Permit programs must help ensure attainment and maintenance
Commenter (0140) encouraged EPA to use this implementation rule to ensure that states make
changes to their permitting programs that would be necessary to avoid their interference with
attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The commenter indicated that as
representatives of an area where elevated ozone levels primarily come from beyond our
boundaries and are heavily influenced by emissions from rural counties, the CACAC believes
that this implementation rule should provide more rigorous requirements for state agencies to
show that their permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
ozone standard. This is particularly needed to address the problems from the issuance of broad
"permits by rule" for smaller sources like oil and gas equipment that, in aggregate, can cause
very significant ozone impacts if upwind of a nonattainment or near-nonattainment area. In order
to address permitting for smaller sources, the CACAC recommends that the EPA require that any
emissions authorized by permit - including permits by rule - be modeled in any future year
projection, and that all sources holding an authorization be limited to only what emissions are
140
-------
modeled in the attainment demonstration. This would ensure that state agencies institute limits
on emissions from smaller sources that are consistent with their own modeling assumptions.
Another way that would provide more flexibility would be to set emission authorization limits
for counties, groups of counties, or an entire AQCR consistent with the modeling assumptions.
More robust requirements are also particularly needed for permitting larger point sources that
may not cause ozone NAAQS violations through reactions of its own NOx and VOC emissions,
but which, when added to the ozone and precursors already in the atmosphere, cause violations
nearby. The CACAC recommends that states require photochemical modeling using either the
platform EPA uses for its modeling or a platform adopted by the State as part of a SIP
submission. At a minimum, permit applicants seeking to build a new major source or undertake a
major modification of an existing source within the same AQCR as an area that is designated
nonattainment or has a design value within 5% of the NAAQS should have to model their
permit's impacts on eight-hour ozone averages at regulatory monitors within the same AQCR,
and should be limited to an average impact on those monitors of 0.75 ppb or less, and that the
emissions would not cause a modeled violation in any grid cell where no violation was modeled
if the source was not included. Provisions could be made to account for model performance
measurements, adjusting the impacts and values in these grid cells to account for the model's
bias. Regardless, photochemical modeling is common enough and inexpensive enough that a
permit for a major new source should not be granted until photochemical modeling is performed
that demonstrates that it won't interfere with attainment or maintenance of the standard, or cause
a significant deterioration in ozone levels.
Response: The commenter appears primarily concerned about the effect that source growth
occurring outside of a particular nonattainment area for ozone may have on downwind
nonattainment areas, and urges that "this implementation rule should provide more rigorous
requirements for state agencies to show that their permitting programs do not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the ozone standard." As discussed further below, there are several
provisions in existing EPA regulations that require states to have permitting programs to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the ozone standard within their boundaries and in neighboring
states. The EPA believes the commenter's concerns can primarily be addressed through the
application of those requirements in individual state plans. Thus, we do not believe additional
changes to EPA regulations (beyond those in this rulemaking) are needed for this purpose. In a
separate action, the EPA is considering the extent to which EPA regulations should be revised to
provide more specific guidelines on the use of photochemical modeling.
To the extent that the commenter is addressing how a specific state with a nonattainment area
accounts for new source growth in an attainment demonstration, that is best addressed in the
review of individual state plans. We are not in this action adopting changes to our regulations or
guidance that uniquely address a specific ozone nonattainment area. We recognize that each
nonattainment area has unique characteristics and a state should take that into consideration in
formulating an individual attainment demonstration.
The commenter provides various recommendations for enhancing the permitting requirements
for both large and small sources to ensure permit programs do not interfere with attainment and
141
-------
maintenance, including for permits by rule. It is important to note that the EPA did not discuss or
propose any regulation or policy change for permits by rule in this rulemaking. Such permits are
typically issued to minor sources pursuant to state minor source permitting programs, which are
subject to the requirement in 40 CFR 51.160, that permitting authorities be able to prevent any
construction or modification that would interfere with attainment or maintenance of any
NAAQS. Accordingly, states are already required to ensure that no sources authorized for
construction under its minor source program, including a source authorized by a permit by rule,
regardless of its location relative to a nonattainment area, will interfere with the attainment and
maintenance of any NAAQS.
With regard to new or modified sources that are located outside the nonattainment area and in
areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the ozone NAAQS, such sources would not
be subject to nonattainment NSR requirements, which include requirements to apply LAER
control technology and to acquire emissions reductions from existing sources to offset the
emissions increase that will result from the proposed new or modified major source. Instead, the
applicable permitting requirements for new major stationary sources and major modifications
locating in attainment and unclassifiable areas are the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Program, which are required under Part C of subchapter I of the Clean Air Act.
The PSD program requires that major stationary sources conduct an air quality impact analysis to
demonstrate that emissions from the construction or operation of the proposed source or project
will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment. CAA § 165(a)(3);
see also, 40 CFR 51.166(k), 40 CFR 52.21(k). Thus, to obtain a PSD permit, a new major
source or major modification must demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a violation
of any NAAQS. More specifically, consistent with section 165 of the Act, the PSD regulations
at 40 CFR 52.2l(k) and 51.166(k) require a source owner or operator to demonstrate that
allowable emissions increases from the proposed source or modification in conjunction with
other source emissions in the area will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS in
any air quality control region. In light of these existing requirements, EPA does not agree that the
changes the commenter recommends for PSD permitting are necessary. Moreover, the EPA
works closely with states, primarily through its Regional Offices, to ensure that new and
modified major sources are adequately reviewed to protect the NAAQS. To the extent that the
commenter offers recommendations with regard to the manner in which sources locating near but
not in nonattainment areas should be analyzed, we are not adopting new procedures into
regulations or providing new guidance on how the air quality impact analysis should be done.
With respect to the commenters' suggestion that the EPA should require the use of
photochemical modeling to complete the source impact analysis for permitting purposes, the
EPA's judgment has been that it was not technically sound to designate specific models that
must be used to assess the impacts of a single source on ozone concentrations. Thus, EPA does
not require use of photochemical models to assess the impacts of a single source on ozone
concentrations. Nevertheless, the EPA recognizes and has explained that sources subject to PSD
have a statutory and regulatory obligation to conduct a source impact analysis and to demonstrate
that any proposed emissions increase will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS.
To satisfy that requirement, EPA has explained that the particular models or other analytical
142
-------
techniques that should be used is determined on a case-by-case basis. As stated in Section 5.2.l.c
of the EPA's "Guideline on Air Quality Models," (GAQM) codified in Appendix W to 40 CFR
part 51, the "[cjhoice of methods used to assess the impact of an individual source depends on
the nature of the source and its emissions." Under GAQM, the appropriate methods are
determined in consultation with the EPA Regional Office on a case-by-case basis. A modeling
protocol should be developed and approved by the EPA Regional Office, the state/local agency,
and the applicant to ensure that the analysis conducted will conform to the recommendations,
requirements, and principles of Appendix W. 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix W, section 3.2.2.
The EPA is also engaging in a separate rulemaking process to evaluate whether updates to
Appendix W are warranted for ozone and is planning to propose a rulemaking in 2015 to consider
whether to update Appendix W. See Letter from Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, to
Robert Ukeiley (Jan. 4, 2012), available at
http://www.epa.gOv/scram001/10thmodconf/review_material/Sierra_Club_Petition_OAR-ll-
002-1093.pdf. To the extent that recent advances in photochemical modeling science suggest that
it may now be reasonable for the EPA to provide more specific, generally-applicable guidelines
that identify particular analytical techniques or models that may be used under specific
circumstances for assessing the impacts of an individual source on ambient ozone
concentrations, such emerging capabilities could be considered as part of the consultative
process already in place and are also being considered as part of the ongoing process to evaluate
potential updates to Appendix W.
With respect to emissions that cross state boundaries, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air
Act requires that State Implementation Plans contain adequate provisions that prohibit "any
source or other type of emissions activity with the state from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts which will - . . . (II) interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other state under part C of this subchapter to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility." EPA has previously promulgated a
regulation which requires that SIPs contain a preconstruction review program or its equivalent to
satisfy the requirements of this section of the Act. 40 C.F.R. § 51.165(b).
Comment: Grandfathering
Commenter (0180) stated that EPA has correctly refused to allow grandfathering of permit
applications pending at the time of aNAAQS revision, citing section 165(a)(3) of the CAA and
arguing that the CAA does not authorize such grandfathering. Commenter (0180) also stated the
Agency must abandon any suggestion that it has any authority under the CAA to exempt
facilities from the requirements of PSD if EPA or a state or local permitting authority receives a
permit application prior to the issuance of new or revised NAAQS. In addition to the
commenter's interpretation that the CAA prohibits such grandfathering, the commenter claimed
that to allow for grandfathering of permit applications would be "a reversal of' the EPA's own
policy, as contained in a 2010 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning & Standards, entitled "Applicability of the Federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permit Requirements to New and Revised National Ambient Air Quality
Standards" (April 1, 2010).
143
-------
Response: As acknowledged by the commenter, the EPA indicated in footnote 53 of the
preamble to the proposed rule that we did not propose a PSD grandfathering provision for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, and we are not promulgating such a provision in this final rule. As
explained in both the preamble to the final rule and the proposal, in this particular situation,
because the 2008 ozone NAAQS has been in effect for a considerable time, we have concluded
that a grandfathering provision is not necessary. Accordingly, these comments relating to EPA's
grandfathering authority are outside the scope of this rulemaking. Nevertheless, we disagree with
the commenter's position that the EPA lacks statutory authority to exempt pending PSD permit
applications from certain PSD requirements that become applicable while the permit application
is pending.
With regard to section 165(a)(3) of the CAA, as well as the implementing PSD regulations, the
owner or operator of a proposed facility is required, among other things, to demonstrate that
"emissions from construction or operation of such facility will not cause, or contribute to, air
pollution in excess of any ... national ambient air quality standard in any air control region." See
also 40 CFR 51.166(k), 40 CFR 52.2l(k). The EPA has interpreted this requirement to include
any NAAQS that is in effect as of the date a permit is issued, unless the EPA has issued a
regulation that grandfathers pending permit applications from the requirement to demonstrate
that the proposed facility does not cause or contribute to a violation of the new or revised
NAAQS. See, e.g., 73 FR 28321, 28324, 28340 (May 16, 2008); 78 FR 3253 (Jan. 15, 2013);
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards,
"Applicability of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Requirements to
New and Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (April 1, 2010). Thus, the EPA
believes that the commenter's citation of the 2010 Page Memo does not correctly characterize
what the EPA said in that memorandum. Nothing in that memo would preclude us from
adopting a grandfathering provision where we deem one to be appropriate and follow the
necessary rulemaking process. In fact, the memorandum recognizes that the EPA has previously
issued regulatory provisions to grandfather PSD sources from new requirements under certain
circumstances and includes examples of situations in which the EPA has taken such an approach.
See, e.g., Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning &
Standards, "Applicability of the Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit
Requirements to New and Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards" (April 1, 2010) at
3.
As the agency has previously stated, and continues to believe, the relevant provisions of the
CAA provide the agency with the discretion to promulgate regulations to grandfather pending
PSD permit applications from requirements that become applicable while the applications are
pending. See 45 FR 52683, August 7, 1980; 52 FR 24672, July 1, 1987; 78 FR 3086, January 15,
2013. As discussed in more detail in these referenced actions, section 165(a)(3) of the CAA
requires that a permit applicant demonstrate that its proposed project will not cause or contribute
to a violation of any NAAQS. At the same time, section 165(c) of the CAA requires that a PSD
permit be granted or denied within 1 year after the permitting authority determines the
application for such permit to be complete. In addition, section 301 of the CAA authorizes the
Administrator "to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this
144
-------
chapter." When read in combination, these three provisions of the CAA provide the EPA with
the discretion to issue regulations to grandfather pending permit applications from having to
address a revised NAAQS where necessary to achieve both CAA objectives to protect the
NAAQS and to avoid delays in processing PSD permit applications.
Moreover, in a recent opinion the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognized the
EPA's traditional exercise of grandfathering authority through rulemaking and indicated that this
approach was consistent with statutory requirement to "enforce whatever regulations are in effect
at the time the agency makes a final decision" because it involved identifying "an operative date,
incident to setting the new substantive standard, and the grandfathering of pending permit
applications was explicitly built into the new regulations." Sierra Club v. EPA, 762 F.3d 971,
983 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, while this court decision vacated the agency's action to grandfather an
individual permit application on a case-by-case basis without rulemaking, the EPA does not
interpret this opinion to limit its authority to grandfather through rulemaking, and rather believes
that the decision offers support for such authority. This authority includes, in appropriate
circumstances, discretion to grandfather sources through rulemaking from the requirement to
address a new or revised NAAQS that takes effect while the permit application is pending in its
demonstration that the proposed project does not cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS.
Comment: PSD permitting and modeling
Commenter (0159) supported the EPA's position that the demonstration that a proposed source or
modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS does not
necessarily require permit applicants to perform new air quality modeling. The commenter
believed that the EPA has stated that PSD permit applicants and permitting authorities should
continue to follow the current practice described in Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51. 78 FR at
34,200. The commenter supported the EPA's position on this matter, as the current practice
stated that PSD permit applicants and permitting authorities should consult with the applicable
EPA regional office to determine the appropriate means of addressing such impacts. The
commenter also agreed that a spirit of cooperativeness and collaboration between the regulated
community, the states, and federal government is the best method to achieve attainment with the
ozone NAAQS.
On the other hand, commenter (0180) stated that the EPA should require applicants to undertake
new air quality modeling when seeking a new PSD permit. This commenter stated that the
proposal cites Appendix W to suggest that applications for PSD permits do not "necessarily
require the permit applicants to perform new air quality modeling." 78 FR at 34200. The
commenter believed that the EPA suggested that a "case-by-case" approach devoid of modeling
could satisfy the requirement that applicants demonstrate that the "proposed source or
modification will not cause or contribute to a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS." Id.
However, the commenter believed the requirement that a source undertake modeling is dictated
by the Act itself, in section 165(e), where the Administrator must "specify with reasonable
particularity each air quality model or models to be used under specified sets of conditions." 42
U.S.C. § 7475(e)(3)(D). Moreover, the statute acknowledges that models may need to be
145
-------
adjusted, where any model or models "designated . . . may be adjusted upon a determination,
after notice and opportunity for public hearing . . . that such adjustment is necessary to take into
account unique terrain or meteorological characteristics of an area potentially affected by
emissions from a source applying for a permit." 42 U.S.C. § 7475(e).
The commenter further believed that the statute does not, however, provide for elimination of the
modeling requirement, since, as section 165(e) makes clear, the analysis required by the section
is critical to the execution of section 165(a)'s permitting processes. The commenter further stated
though certain source-specific factors may vary when undertaking the air quality review
described by section 165(e), the Act makes clear that modeling is expected with all applications,
the results of which must then be available to the public for review. The commenter stated that
failing to require modeling in an application provides a less complete picture of air quality in the
area. The commenter concluded that, as such, permit applicants may be over- or under-correcting
their emissions, and it is the public that pays the price. The commenter suggested that the EPA
should require applicants to undertake new air quality modeling when seeking a new PSD
permit.
The commenter implied that by the time the EPA finalizes this rulemaking, it will have been
over two years since EPA granted Sierra Club's July 28, 2010 petition to designate air quality
models for ozone for use by all major sources applying for a PSD permit. The commenter further
pointed out that since that time, the EPA has held its Tenth Conference on Air quality Modeling
and its 2012 RSL Modelers' Workshop where this topic was addressed. The commenter
suggested that it is now time for the EPA to stop delaying and, in this rulemaking, designate a
model or models for use in analyzing ozone impacts for PSD permits. The commenter believed
this is especially critical because there are many, many areas of the country where the ambient
levels of ozone are at or above the 2008 ozone NAAQS but are nevertheless, designated
attainment so that PSD applies. The commenter considered that the EPA's concern that ozone
modeling is too expensive to require of PSD applicants is factually incorrect and legally
irrelevant. Furthermore, as the commenter noted above, even once the EPA designates a model
or models, applicable regulations provide a mechanism for adjusting the designated model if that
is truly needed.
Response: We agree with the comment supporting our position that air quality modeling is not
necessarily required as part of every ambient impact analysis for ozone required by the CAA's
PSD requirements. On the other hand, we disagree with the comment asserting that section
165(e) of the CAA compels each PSD applicant to undertake new air quality modeling when
seeking a new PSD permit. Section 165(e)(3)(D), which the comment cites, requires in relevant
part that the Administrator adopt regulations specifying "with reasonable particularity each air
quality model or models to be used under specified sets of conditions." To carry out these
requirements, in June 1978, the Guideline on Air Quality Models was first incorporated by
reference in regulations promulgated for PSD (40 CFR Parts 51.166 (formerly 51.24) and 52.21).
See 43 FR 26388, 26398 (June 19, 1978); 51 FR 32176 (Sept. 1986); 53 FR392 (Jan. 6, 1988).
With respect to ozone, the EPA has explained that the complex chemistry of ozone is well-
documented and has historically presented significant challenges to the designation of particular
146
-------
models for assessing the impacts of individual stationary sources on the formation of these air
pollutants.21
Because of these considerations, the EPA's judgment has long been that it is not technically
sound to designate with particularity specific models that must be used to assess the impacts of a
single source on ozone concentrations. Id. Instead, the EPA has chosen to satisfy the
requirements of Section 165(e)(3)(D) of the CAA through a process of determining particular
models or other analytical techniques that should be used on a case-by-case basis. Id.; see also
40 C.F.R. part 51, App. W, section 5.2.I.e. Accordingly, the EPA has not previously interpreted
and does not now interpret section 165(e)(3)(D) to create a requirement that every PSD applicant
submit new air quality modeling whenever it seeks a PSD permit. Moreover, the opposing
comment appears to assume that this provision applies directly to PSD permit applicants, but
does not provide any analysis or explanation to support that assumption. Section 165(e) clearly
directs EPA to promulgate regulations to address the requirements of this provision. Further
description of how EPA interprets and implements the requirement under section 165(a)(3) of
the CAA that a source demonstrate that its emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of
any NAAQS for ozone is provided in the Response to Comment 1.1 .A above and in Section I of
the preamble to the final rule.
In addition, the PSD regulations, at sections 51.166(1)(1) and 52.21(1)(1), provide that "all
estimates of ambient concentrations [required under the relevant provisions] shall be based on
applicable models, data bases, and other requirements specified in appendix W of this part
(Guideline on Air Quality Models)." Thus, all modeling done to meet the PSD requirements
must be based on Appendix W, unless a modification or substitution has been made pursuant to
51.166(1)(2) and 52.21(1)(2). But as explained above and elsewhere in the Response to
Comments and the preamble to the final rule, Appendix W does not require air quality modeling
in all situations to satisfy the PSD requirements and does not require such modeling for all PSD
sources that must provide an air quality impacts analysis for ozone.
With respect to the comments regarding the Sierra Club's July 28, 2010 petition as it relates to
ozone, on January 4, 2012, EPA granted the Sierra Club petition requesting, among other things,
that the EPA initiate rulemaking to designate air quality models for ozone.22 The EPA agreed to
engage in rulemaking to evaluate potential updates to its Guideline on Air Quality Models as
published as Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51 and, as appropriate, incorporate new analytical
21 See Letter from Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, to Robert Ukeiley, at 1-2 (Jan. 4,
2012), available at
http://www. epa.gov/scram 001/1 Othmodconf/review_material/Sierra_ Club_Petition_ OAR-11 -
002-1093.pdf.
22 See Letter from Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, to Robert Ukeiley, at 1 (Jan. 4,
2012), available at
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/10thmodconf/review material/Sierra Club Petition OAR-11-
002-1093.pdf.
147
-------
techniques or models for ozone. Id. Consistent with that petition grant, the EPA has been going
through a process to evaluate potential updates to Appendix W. Id. at 1, 3. As noted by the
commenter, we have initiated actions to support rulemaking, including the 10th Conference on
Air Quality Modeling in March 2012 where we discussed methods for addressing ozone. The
EPA is following the existing process and procedures under Section 320 of the CAA to complete
the appropriate rulemaking process in response to the petition. Consistent with this process and
past practice, the EPA expects discussion to occur in 2015 at the 11th Modeling Conference and
is planning to propose a rulemaking in 2015 to consider whether to update Appendix W.
Meanwhile, PSD permit applicants should continue to follow the existing procedures to
determine the appropriate method for evaluating their impacts on ozone formation. See 40
C.F.R. part 51, App. W, section 5.2. I.e. Under the existing process, the appropriate methods are
determined in consultation with the EPA Regional Office on a case-by-case basis. Id.
Accordingly, the EPA will continue to work with permitting authorities to determine appropriate
methods to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for the air quality impacts analysis
for ozone on a case-by-case basis.
Comment: PSD permitting and anti-backsliding
Commenter (0163) agreed that the obligation to implement nonattainment NSR requirements
associated with two or more standards means that the area must implement the thresholds and
offset ratios associated with the highest nonattainment classification and objects to any proposal
to weaken these NSR requirements.
Commenter (0180) stated EPA must determine NSR permitting obligations with reference to the
area's highest nonattainment classification, whether it is for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or a
previous ozone NAAQS for which the area remains in nonattainment. The commenter believed
that the EPA proposes that once areas are designated with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, a
particular area's New Source Review requirements will be based on the highest nonattainment
classification that has applied to that area (either the 2008 ozone NAAQS classification or a
previous ozone NAAQS for which the area remains in nonattainment). 78 FR at 34200. This
approach is compelled by the D.C. Circuit's decision in SCAQMD. It is also appropriately
protective and will help guard against worsening air quality. In SCAQMD, the court found that
control measures pertaining to a prior, revoked NAAQS had to remain in place in order to
prevent backsliding. In discussing the anti-backsliding implications of removing certain controls,
the court noted that the Act "reflects Congress's intent that air quality should be improved until
safe and never allowed to retreat thereafter." 472 F.3d at 900. Specifically, the court rejected
EPA's attempts to waive continuing obligations to implement control measures, including NSR,
because "EPA was to enforce a high threshold for removing controls from a SIP." Id. The court
found that "something designed to constrain ozone levels is a 'control,' and this would include
NSR" for the purposes of the Act's anti-backsliding requirements. Id. at 902. As such, in order to
comply with the statute, EPA must determine NSR permitting obligations with reference to the
area's highest nonattainment classification, whether it is for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or a
previous ozone NAAQS for which the area remains in nonattainment. (0180)
148
-------
Response: In the final rule, the EPA is including anti-backsliding provisions similar to those
proposed with only minor edits for clarification. Accordingly, in an area designated
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the
time of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the state will be obligated to implement the
applicable requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.1100(o). This could include, as applicable, anti-
backsliding requirements associated with the revoked 1-hour NAAQS if the area was also
designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS when that NAAQS was revoked.
Nonattainment NSR applies (specifically, the major source thresholds and offset ratios) in these
areas in accordance with their highest nonattainment classification under any ozone standard for
which they are (or were at the time of revocation) designated nonattainment. It is also important
to note, as included in the final rule, that the previous 1997 ozone NAAQS standard is revoked
with this rule, therefore if an area is designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but is still
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the area will be considered attainment upon the
effective date of the rule due to its inherent stricter value, and the PSD program will be
applicable for new and modified major sources. However, the rule does not relieve older sources
from the maintenance of controls applied due to an earlier classification of nonattainment. Please
refer to section 3.G for further discussion about the revocation of the 1997 ozone standard.
Comment: 18-month period for Appendix S waiver provision
Commenter (0180) stated EPA is correct that no exemptions beyond 18 months are possible. The
commenter supported the EPA's policy that states Appendix S governs in states that have yet to
update their SIP requirements in newly designated nonattainment areas. The commenter
considered this reading to be correct and appropriate in light of NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245,
and the EPA should revise 40 CFR § 52.24(k) as soon as possible, in accordance with the court's
decision. NRDC addressed implementation of the 1997 ozone standards, where the court held
that EPA's elimination of the 18-month limit on New Source Review exemptions violated the
CAA's anti-backsliding provisions.
The commenter specifically indicated that section 110(a)(2)(c) of the CAA requires states to
implement an NSR program. The commenter supposed the Act does not, however, specify what
NSR requirements apply after an area is designated nonattainment but before the NSR SIP is
approved. The commenter stated that historically, the EPA had applied Appendix S, which
establishes interim NSR permitting requirements and provides for limited exemptions from NSR
requirements. In 1980, EPA clarified that Appendix S should apply for no more than 18 months.
That provision applied until 2005, when the rules implementing the 1997 ozone standards
eliminated the 18-month permitting requirements.
The commenter stated that in finding that this elimination violated the Act, the court held that
NSR is a "control" subject to section 172(e)'s backsliding prohibition []. Accordingly, the EPA's
elimination of the 18-month exemption limit violates section 172(e) if the resulting NSR
requirement is "less stringent" than the existing requirement. Insofar as Appendix S now
provides for waiver of NSR for an unlimited time pending SIP approval, it is plainly "less
stringent" than the previous version which limited an NSR waiver to an 18-month term." As
petitioners argue, the EPA's revision could delay implementing NSR controls in eligible
nonattainment areas for years beyond the previous 18-month limit. Accordingly, we conclude
149
-------
that the revision constitutes backsliding in violation of section 172(e). 571 F.3d at 1271. The
commenter further concluded that in light of this vacatur, EPA is correct that no exemptions
from NNSR beyond 18 months are possible. The commenter agreed with the Agency that CFR §
52.24(k) should be revised to reflect this ruling as expeditiously as possible. (0180)
Response: We agree with the commenter to the extent that the exemptions at issue pertain to the
exemptions contained in section VI of Appendix S, which waives certain NNSR provisions that
would otherwise be required for each applicant. While the specific waiver provisions of section
VI should not be allowed beyond 18 months from the date of designation, the EPA does not
consider the remainder of Appendix S as it pertains to an interim NNSR program prior to the
approval of a state NNSR SIP, to be subject to an 18-month time limitation. Please see the
preamble Section 1.1 for a more detailed discussion. The EPA intends to revise section 52.24(k)
to reflect the court's vacatur of the extension of the 18-month time limit for section VI of
appendix S; however, we did not propose such a revision in this rulemaking and we are not
taking any final action in this rule to revise 52.24(k).
Comment: Clarification on construction ban
Commenter (0154) noted that the EPA discusses (pp. 34200-34201) implications of ozone
nonattainment on NSR, including the requirement to impose nonattainment NSR, and a court
ruling in NRDC v EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009), wherein EPA says "The court
dismissed the petitioners' general objections as "untimely" but vacated "the elimination of the 18-
month time limit for NSR waivers under Appendix S" on the grounds that it violated section
172(e) of the CAA. Commenter (0154) requested that EPA rewrite this section of the proposal to
make it clear whether a construction ban is in place for all nonattainment areas that do not have
approved nonattainment NSR programs in place. Commenter (0154) asserted they have
discussed this issue with the EPA's regional offices on numerous occasions and it is still unclear
what is meant by this section of the proposal.
Response: In NRDC v. EPA (571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009)), the court considered the
petitioners' general objections to the NSR waiver provision contained in section VI of appendix
S, as well as the EPA's elimination of the 18-month limit on the applicability of that section. The
court dismissed the petitioners' general objections as "untimely" but vacated "the elimination of
the 18-month time limit for NSR waivers under Appendix S" on the ground that it violated
section 172(e) of the CAA (571 F.3d at 1276). As stated in our response to comment in Section
2.1.1 above, the EPA intends to revise section 52.24(k) to reflect the court's vacatur of the
extension of the 18-month time limit for section VI of appendix S, but is not revising 52.24(k) in
this rulemaking. In the meantime, as a result of the vacatur, no section VI waivers may be
granted beyond 18 months from the date of designation.
With respect to the construction ban, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 removed the
construction ban. Under 40 CFR 52.24(k), after designation of a nonattainment area and prior to
EPA's approval of a nonattainment NSR program for that area that meets the requirements of
part D of title I of the CAA, the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling, 40 CFR part 51, appendix
S governs permits to construct. As stated in the EPA's June 6, 2013 proposal for this rule, 78 FR
34200-201, in the EPA's 2005 promulgation of the phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997
150
-------
ozone NAAQS, "the EPA revised section 52.24(k) to eliminate language stating that if a
nonattainment area did not have an approved nonattainment NSR program within 18 months
after designation, a construction ban would apply." The June 6, 2013 proposal explains that the
DC Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009) left this
revision of § 52.24(k) undisturbed, except with respect to the availability of waivers under
section VI of Appendix S after the 18-month period has expired. Thus, commenter's concerns
about a construction ban are unnecessary, as Appendix S to 40 CFR part 51 (with the exception
of waivers under section VI of Appendix S after January 20, 2014) will continue to govern
construction permits within respective nonattainment areas until the EPA approves a SIP revision
containing a NNSR program that meets the requirements of part D of title I of the Act,
specifically the NNSR requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.165.
Comment: Clarification on section VI waivers
Commenters (0155 and 0157) stated that the EPA should clarify that the reinstated 18-month
deadline applies only to section VI waivers, and not to the applicability of the remainder of
Appendix S, which states should continue to be able to use for NNSR beyond the 18-month
period.
Response: The commenters are correct that no section VI waivers may be granted beyond 18
months from the date of designation as nonattainment. The application of the remainder of
appendix S, however, is not subject to an 18-month time limitation. Please see section 1.1 of the
preamble for the final rule for a more detailed discussion.
Comment: PSD significant emission rate
Comm enter (0180) stated EPA must revise the PSD significant emission rate and exemption
from the ambient impact assessment requirement. The commenter indicated that the EPA stated
that after the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked, PSD will apply in areas designated attainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 78 FR at 34216. EPA should not revoke the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
However, if EPA does revoke the 1997 standard, it would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to
apply PSD under EPA's current PSD regulations to the 2008 ozone standard because there is no
rational basis to apply certain parts of the PSD regulations to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. (0180)
EPA's regulations implementing the prevention of significant deterioration program set various
de minimis thresholds specific to each national ambient air quality standard. For example, the
significant threshold for prevention of significant deterioration applicability for ozone is 40 tons
per year of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides. 40 CFR § 52.21 (b)(23)(i)(2011). The
significance threshold for carbon monoxide is 100 tons per year but the significance threshold for
lead is only 0.6 tons per year. Id.
These significance thresholds are generally based on the amount of pollution a polluter can emit
before exceeding four percent (4%) of the ambient air quality standard expressed over a short
term period or two percent (2%) of a standard expressed over an annual period. See e.g., 52 FR
24, 678, 24,695 (July 1, 1987)(explaining that significant emission rates are set by "us[ing] an
emission rate for which the modeled ambient [air pollution] concentration represents]
151
-------
approximately 4 percent of the 24-hour primary standard."). Another prevention of significant
deterioration de minimis exemption is that any net emission increase of less than 100 tons per
year or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides does not have to perform an
ambient impact analysis, including gathering ambient air quality data. 40 CFR § 52.21 (i)(5)(i)(f)
and note (2011). (0180)
The thresholds are considered de minimis in relationship to a specific national ambient air quality
standard. See, e.g., 52 FR at 24695 (significant emission rate based on amount of pollution equal
to 4 percent of NAAQS); 50 FR 13130, 13145 (April 2, 1985) (explaining basis for PSD
implementation "significant emission rate" was based on four percent of the NAAQS); 45 FR at
52707-08 (explaining that the PSD implementing regulations are established based on "de
minimis" values set as a percentage of the most stringent NAAQS for each pollutant). EPA has
gone so far as to determine that these de minimis values should never exceed five percent of the
national ambient air quality standards. 45 FR at 52707 ("levels higher than five percent of the
primary [NAAQS] were not seriously considered" because such impacts would consume too
much of the allowable airshed resource); id. at 52 708 (for nitrogen oxides, which had a NAAQS
expressed only as an annual standard, the de minimis rate was set at 2 percent of the NAAQS).
When the national ambient air quality standard changes, EPA necessarily must evaluate the PSD
implementation regulations. If it does not, the PSD regulations de minimis standards no longer
maintain their previously chosen proportion to the national ambient air quality standards and
therefore no longer represent only de minimis impacts in relationship to the new national ambient
air quality standard. In other words, a change in the national ambient air quality standard without
changing the prevention of significant deterioration de minimis threshold regulations yanks the
regulations from their national ambient air quality standard moorings. EPA is proposing to apply
the current PSD regulation's de minimis thresholds to the 2008 ozone NAAQS but EPA offers no
analysis to support that these de minimis standards are actually de minimis in relationship to the
2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, EPA must review and revise the PSD ozone significant
emission rate and exemption from the ambient impact assessment requirement. (0180)
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertions that (1) the 1997 hour ozone
standard should not be revoked and (2) an area should not be allowed to transition to PSD if the
1997 standard is revoked and the area is attainment for the 2008 standard. Clearly, if an area is
designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, then it is meeting a stricter health based
standard than the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Please refer to section 3.G for further details
about anti-backsliding and the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA does not agree that the Agency must update its PSD regulations every time the EPA
revises a NAAQS. The EPA does not interpret the CAA to require an automatic update of the
PSD regulations with every revision of the NAAQS. In fact, arguments similar to the
commenter's arguments were raised in litigation in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, and that court agreed with EPA's position, issuing a decision holding that EPA does not
have a nondiscretionary duty under section 166(a) of the CAA to promulgate revised PSD
regulations for ozone just because it had revised the ozone NAAQS. See WildEarth Guardians v.
McCarthy, No. 12-16797, Slip. Op. at 9 (9th Cir., Dec. 1, 2014). That court reasoned that
"Congress could have ... left to the agency's discretion the responsibility for making whatever
152
-------
revisions to [the PSD] regulations might be warranted when the corresponding NAAQS were
revised." Id. at 8.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's position that the fact that the EPA has revised the
ozone NAAQS necessarily means it is arbitrary and capricious to apply the current PSD
regulations to the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that the existing significant emission rates for ozone
cannot rationally be applied once the NAAQS have been revised unless the thresholds are
updated to maintain the same proportion to the NAAQS previously used to justify these values.
The EPA has existing PSD rules that apply to PSD permit applications that trigger permitting
obligations for ozone, including significant emissions rates which are used to determine whether
the increase in emissions of a pollutant from a new source or modification trigger PSD
requirements for that pollutant. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.166(b)(23)(i), 52.21 (b)(23)(i). The
PSD program is structured so that the PSD rules apply seamlessly to regulated NSR pollutants,
including pollutants for which NAAQS exist, without needing to be updated for every NAAQS
revision. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.166(j)-(k), 52.21(j)-(k) (applying best available control
technology requirements to each regulated NSR pollutant for which the proposed construction
would trigger PSD and applying air quality impacts analysis requirements to any NAAQS). This
approach is sensible because, while the EPA has discretion to modify the PSD rules when such
modification is necessary or appropriate, not every revision to a NAAQS necessarily warrants a
change to the PSD regulations. With respect to the significance of thresholds, the mere fact that
the values for ozone were originally based on a particular proportion to the NAAQS in effect at
an earlier time does not mean that those thresholds must be updated to maintain the same
proportion to the NAAQS in perpetuity. The EPA retains the discretion to continue applying the
existing values, even if emissions at that rate might have an impact equivalent to a different
percentage of the NAAQS. The value need not reflect a particular percentage of the NAAQS,
but rather reflect a level at which the "burdens" of regulating ozone precursors emitted in
amounts less than that value "yield a gain of trivial or no value." Alabama Power Co. v. Costle,
636 F.2d 323, 361 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The fact that the NAAQS has changed does not demonstrate
that the existing significant emissions rates for ozone precursors are no longer established at de
minimis levels for ozone (e.g., levels below which regulation would yield trivial value).
The commenter does not provide any specific facts to demonstrate that emissions of ozone
precursors at rates below the existence significance levels for ozone have more than a trivial
impact and should be regulated in the NSR permitting program. Thus, the commenter does not
show that the EPA should have exercised the discretion to propose revised significance levels for
ozone in the proposed rule. This notwithstanding, since the EPA did not propose such a change
to its regulations, the Agency is unable to promulgate revised significance rates for ozone in this
final rule. However, the EPA will take the commenters concerns under advisement and consider
whether additional action by EPA may be appropriate in the future.
In addition, the EPA does not agree with the comment's characterization of the 100 tons per year
threshold in 40 CFR § 52.21 (i)(5)(i) as a de minimis exemption from ambient impact analysis.
The EPA does not consider the stated threshold to represent an automatic exemption from an
ambient impact analysis. In the EPA's response to Sierra Club's July 28, 2010 petition for
rulemaking, the Agency stated, ... this 100 tons per year (TPY) value has been used by some
153
-------
permitting authorities in a manner similar to a [significant impact level] to assess whether a
detailed air quality analysis should be conducted for ozone.23 While [certain prior EPA]
statements suggest a less rigorous analysis may be appropriate for sources emitting less than 100
TPY of these precursors [NOx and VOC], they have not been revisited by the EPA since the
promulgation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and do not reflect a categorical conclusion by the
EPA that every source emitting less than 100 TPY of NOx or VOCs will not cause or contribute
to a violation of the current ozone NAAQS.
The EPA has since initiated actions to support rulemaking in response to Sierra Club's petition,
including the 10th Conference on Air Quality Modeling in March 2012 where we discussed
methods of addressing ozone and secondary PM2.5 impacts in PSD air quality impacts analyses
and released draft guidance for PM2.5 permit modeling in March 2013. The EPA is following the
existing process and procedures under Section 320 of the CAA to complete the appropriate
rulemaking process in response to the petition. Consistent with this process and past practice,
the EPA expects further discussion to occur at the 11th Modeling Conference and is planning to
propose a rulemaking in 2015 to consider whether to update Appendix W.
2. Offsets
Comment: Support offsets outside NAA
Commenter (0140) suggested that major source construction and major modification offsets
should be able to be obtained within the same expanded area from which the state would be able
to obtain emission reductions to fulfill RFP. The commenter indicated that for many areas that
are on the verge of nonattainment such as Austin, there are only a very limited number of major
sources within the MSA from which a company could obtain an offset to build a new facility or
modify an existing facility, but there are many very large sources elsewhere within the AQCR or
in adjacent areas contributing to nonattainment that would not be included in the pool of
available offsets or be required to obtain an offset for major expansion or new construction. This
leaves open the very real possibility of companies opening plants just outside the boundaries of
the MSA but close enough to contribute to ozone problems. (0140)
Response: The EPA believes the commenter's suggestion conflicts with the statutory
requirements for offsets restricting geographic areas from where offsets can be obtained. In
accordance with the requirements under section 173(c)(1) of the CAA, emissions offsets for
purposes of nonattainment NSR permitting must be obtained from the same source or same
23 Letter from Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, to Robert Ukeiley (Jan. 4, 2012), at 4
available at
http://www.epa.gOv/scram001/10thmodconf/review_material/Sierra_Club_Petition_OAR-ll-
002-1093.pdf.
154
-------
nonattainment area as where the source requiring the offsets is located, except that the state may
allow a source to obtain offsets from another nonattainment area if (1) that area has an equal or
higher nonattainment classification than the nonattainment area in which the source requiring the
offsets is located, and (2) emissions from that other area contribute to a violation of the NAAQS
in the nonattainment area in which the source requiring the offsets is located. To the extent that
the commenter suggests that offsets should be able to be obtained from an attainment area, or
from a nonattainment area that does not meet these criteria, that suggestion would be inconsistent
with the CAA. Accordingly, the EPA is not revising the existing regulatory requirements as to
where emissions offsets may be obtained to allow such use of offsets. The EPA encourages the
state to consider offset-related issues when recommending nonattainment area boundaries. CAA
section 107(d)(1)(A) requires that nonattainment areas be comprised both of areas not meeting
the NAAQS and nearby areas contributing to the area not meeting the NAAQS. If the areas
outside of the MSA (in the AQCR or adjacent areas) mentioned by the commenter are nearby
areas that contribute to nonattainment, CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) requires that these areas be
included in the nonattainment area.
With regard to the commenter's assumption that states may use emissions reductions from
outside a nonattainment area to fulfill RFP, please refer to II.C.7 of the RTC for further
information.
Comment: State discretion
Commenter (0152) believed that EPA's proposal implied that offset banks or registries could
only be established in economic development zones as determined by the Housing and Urban
Development Secretary. The commenter believes such a position usurps a State's right to set up
offset bank and registry programs and that such programs should be able to be set up anywhere
within that state where appropriate modeling and technical analysis continues to show that with
such programs, attainment is still achieved.
Response: The comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the EPA's position
concerning offset banks. The EPA does not take the position that offset banks (and registries) can
only occur in economic development zones. To the contrary, the final rule states, "States can
help facilitate continued economic development in a nonattainment area by establishing offset
banks or registries. Such banks or registries can help new or modified major stationary source
owners meet offset requirements by streamlining identification and access to available emissions
reductions. Some states have established offset banks to help ensure a consistent method for
generating and using NOx and VOC offsets.24 Offsets in these areas are generated by emissions
24 See, for example, emission reduction credit banking programs in Ohio (OAC Chapter 3745-
1111) and California (H&SC Section 40709).
155
-------
reductions that meet specific creditability criteria set forth by the SIP consistent with EPA
regulations. See existing 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(A)-(J) and part 51 Appendix S section IV.C."
The Agency respectfully disagrees, however, with the comment insofar as it suggests that such
programs should be able to be established anywhere in a state. The Act requires new and
modified major sources in nonattainment areas to secure emissions reductions (i.e., "offsets") to
prevent proposed emissions increases from new and modified major sources from interfering
with reasonable progress toward attaining the NAAQS. Section 173(c) of the CAA establishes
specific requirements that such emissions reductions must satisfy in order to be used as offsets
for purposes of nonattainment NSR permitting, including a requirement that the offsets come
from the same source or a source in the same nonattainment area as the source requiring the
offsets, though the State may allow use of offsets from another nonattainment area that meets
certain statutory criteria. Thus, the Act itself limits States' discretion as to the areas from which
offsets can be obtained for NNSR purposes, and this limits the areas from which offset banks
may draw from for purposes of NNSR. These limitations are reflected in and implemented by
existing EPA regulations. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(F) and 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S,
Section IV.D. Those requirements are not being revised in this rulemaking.
3. Interpollutant Offset Substitution
Comment: Support the proposal for interprecursor trading and suggest additional actions
Commenters (0129, 0130, 0141, 0143, 0145, 0153, 0159, 0173, 0175 and 0178) stated that they
support the proposal to allow substitution between the ozone precursors NOx and VOC for the
purpose of obtaining offsets for nonattainment NSR permitting. Some of the commenters offered
specific suggestions about requirements that EPA should establish for such substitutions, as
reflected in the following paragraphs.
One commenter stated that the EPA acknowledges that allowing states to develop provisions
which make it easier for new or modified major sources to satisfy offset requirements with
interpollutant offset substitutions may facilitate new source growth and continued economic
development. Specifically, these provisions would allow substitution of NOx emissions
reductions to satisfy VOC offset requirements and vice versa. The commenter strongly
encouraged the EPA to incorporate this section in the final rule for implementing the 2008
Ozone NAAQS as it would provide more flexibility in achieving offset requirements in
nonattainment areas where VOC control technology has fully matured. (0129)
Another commenter stated that permits for facilities to construct or modify in nonattainment
areas need to ensure that the expansion or new facility will not hinder progress toward
compliance with the NAAQS. However, requiring facilities to obtain offsets for pollutants that
only minimally reduce ozone concentrations is overly burdensome and should be streamlined. In
areas where NOx is the predominant ozone precursor, which is the case in most areas on the
eastern seaboard, NSR offset requirements for areas within and outside the OTR should reflect
this fact. The commenter believed that in these areas, NSR rules should not mandate that VOC
156
-------
offsets be acquired for major permit actions. This commenter also suggested that such an
exchange should also be able to be implemented in the OTR regions, as well as in nonattainment
areas outside of the OTR. (0130)
Another commenter agreed and supported the retention of "interpollutant offset substitution"
provisions in the final rulemaking. The commenter stated their agency has worked closely with
EPA Region III and potentially affected facility owners and operators in southeastern
Pennsylvania to obtain approval of interpollutant offset substitutions for NOx emission reduction
credits to satisfy VOC offset requirements and vice versa. DEP believes that the flexibility
provided by interpollutant offset substitutions, when feasible, is essential for continued
improvement in the Commonwealth's economy. (0143)
Another commenter urged the EPA to approve any offset substitution ratio shown to be
consistent with air quality planning in the relevant nonattainment area. Offset substitution ratios
can incentivize air quality improvements in ways such as the following:
• Substitution ratios can enable more projects that are subject to nonattainment offset
requirements greater than 1: 1. In many areas, offset substitution may be the only realistic option
to enable major industrial projects. Because newly constructed facilities in nonattainment areas
use state-of-the-art emission controls and must more than offset their emissions increases, each
new project should incrementally reduce emissions in the airshed.
• Substitution ratios can make voluntary emission control measures cost effective. For example,
if NOx control costs are high in an area, a source seeking to offset VOC might look instead to
VOC control projects. However, if each unit of NOx reduction could substitute for a higher
quantity of VOC (based on a demonstration that NOx contributes more than VOC to ozone
formation in the nonattainment area), the source could be appropriately incentivized to prefer the
same controls (i.e. NOx controls) that more effectively reduce ozone levels. Thus, a substitution
ratio could align the source's control preferences with the area's air quality needs. (0173)
Another commenter stated that it supports the U.S. EPA's proposal to allow additional flexibility
for satisfying new source review (NSR) pollutant offset requirements. Specifically, the
commenter supported allowing nitrogen oxide (NOx) offsets to satisfy VOC offsets, and vice
versa. Wisconsin supports the proposal to allow states to establish offset trading ratios; however,
the U.S. EPA should clearly articulate the approval process for ratios in the rule. In addition, the
U.S. EPA should establish some default trading ratio in rule that states could use if they do not
have the ability to conduct complex photochemical modeling. (0175)
Another commenter stated that it supports interpollutant offset substitution [78 FR 34201] among
ozone precursors similar to what was authorized in EPA's final 2008 Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS implementation rule for PM2.5 precursors. (0178)
Commenter (0153) supported the proposal to allow states to establish interpollutant offset
substitution provisions and to allow states to determine appropriate exchange rates, and stated it
is important that the decision on whether to allow interpollutant offset substitution, and the
157
-------
specific requirements of such a program, should be clearly at the discretion of each state. The
commenter believed that State air pollution control agencies are in the best position to determine
how a program could impact nonattainment area(s) within their boundaries. States should be
allowed to 1) determine whether or not to allow interpollutant offsets, 2) to limit interpollutant
offsets to a certain direction (e.g., to allow for NOx emission reductions to be used to offset VOC
increases, but not vice-versa, in a NOx limited area), 3) determine how and when exchange rates
should be set (e.g., one-time state-wide or county-specific ratios, determined on a case-by-case
basis, etc.). EPA should set clear, unambiguous, minimum requirements for approvable offset
substitution provisions so that state agencies can craft programs with a reasonable assurance of
EPA approval, which will allow EPA to promptly review and act on state interpollutant offset
substitution programs. Approval of such programs should be made by EPA regional offices with
guidance from headquarters. The final SIP requirements rule should also allow states to
implement adopted offsite substitution provisions unless disapproved by EPA (i.e., not make
EPA approval a prerequisite for allowing interpollutant offsets). (0153)
Response: The EPA agrees with the comments that support allowing trades between the ozone
precursors VOC and NOx for purposes of satisfying the offset requirements for nonattainment
NSR permitting. As explained in more detail in the preamble to the final rule, the EPA is
amending the regulatory text in both 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S as a
logical outgrowth of the proposal and the submitted comments to ensure that the offset
provisions of both rules are consistent with our proposal and our ongoing position to allow such
trades for the ozone precursors (VOC and NOx). In particular, the EPA is finalizing revisions to
40 CFR 51.165(a)(l 1) and part 51 Appendix S IV.G.5 in this action. These changes in the
regulatory text are intended to clarify that interprecursor trading continues to be an option for the
ozone precursors VOC and NOx, as long as such trades are consistent with existing policy and
legal requirements; these regulatory revisions are not intended to change the underlying
requirements for such trades.
Because the agency is not changing the underlying requirements for such interprecursor trades,
we are not taking action in this rulemaking on the specific suggestions offered by commenters.
With regard to a commenter's recommendation that interprecursor trading be allowed in the
OTR, the changes in the regulatory text in this action do not specifically address the use of such
trading within the OTR regions and do not change existing law or policy with regard to such
trading in such areas.
With regard to the commenters' suggestions that the EPA should establish default trading ratios
or establish a particular process or specific criteria for such approvals in this rulemaking, the
Agency did not propose to, nor is it, codifying such ratios, criteria, or procedures. The Agency is
not establishing default interprecursor trading ratios in this rule due in part to the variability in
specific circumstances and the contribution and classification requirements of CAA §173. As
indicated in the previous response, the EPA encourages State and local air agencies to seek
support from the appropriate EPA Regional Office for ozone modeling concerns. The agency
does not see a need to change the existing criteria and procedures at this point. Therefore, the
EPA respectfully disagrees with the commenters' suggestion that EPA promulgate default
trading ratios, or establish the commenters' suggested criteria and procedures (0153, 0173,
158
-------
0175).
In response to comment (0153), the EPA did not propose to add, nor is it finalizing, regulatory
language to allow states to use offset ratios prior to EPA approval. While permitting authorities
are not required to allow such interprecursor trading, the EPA does not believe that establishment
of interprecursor offset trading programs should be at the sole discretion of each state, but rather
believes that such programs should continue to be addressed through the existing framework of
reciprocal interstate offset trading agreements, federal-state cooperation and through the existing
policy and legal requirements.
Comment: lnterpollutant trading—confirm it is allowed under existing policy
Commenter (0151) requested that EPA confirm in the final rulemaking that interpollutant trading
is allowed under existing federal ozone policy and that states can provide for such trading in their
SIPs. The commenter added that it is important that states be allowed to provide for in their SIPs
for interpollutant trading. Particularly in areas of the country like the Northwest which are NOx
limited due to forests and other environmental factors, it will be important to allow NOx
reductions to offset VOC increases for the purposes of lowering ozone. (0151)
Response: As explained further in the preamble in section III, I, 1, and above in section 2.0,1, 1,
the EPA is taking action in this final rulemaking to amend the regulatory text in both section
51.165 and Appendix S as a logical outgrowth of the proposal and the submitted comments to
ensure that the offset provisions of both rules are consistent with statements made in our
proposal notice, as well as our ongoing position to allow such trades for the ozone precursors
(VOC and NOx) in SIPs. See revised 40 CFR 51.165(a)(ll) and part 51 Appendix S IV.G.5.
These changes in the regulatory text are intended to clarify that interprecursor trading continues
to be an option for the ozone precursors VOC and NOx, as long as such trades are consistent with
existing policy and legal requirements; these revisions are not intended to change the underlying
requirements for such trades.
Comment: Interpollutant offset default ratios by region
Commenter (0141) supported the establishment of trading ratios between NOx and VOC
precursors and asked EPA to allow the establishment of default ratios on a regional basis, rather
than by individual nonattainment areas.
Commenter (0175) stated EPA should establish some default trading ratio in rule that states
could use if they do not have the ability to conduct complex photochemical modeling if needed
to establish default ratios.
159
-------
Response: As explained in 3.0,1, 2, of this document and in the preamble to the final
rulemaking, the EPA is taking action in this final rulemaking to amend the regulatory text in both
section 51.165 and Appendix S to ensure that the offset provisions of both rules are consistent
with our ongoing position to allow such trades for the ozone precursors VOC and NOx.
With regard to the commenters' suggestions that the EPA should establish trading ratios between
NOx and VOC precursors, the Agency did not propose to, nor is it, codifying default
interprecursor trading ratios in this rule due in part to the variability in specific circumstances
and the contribution and classification requirements of CAA § 173. States and local air agencies
are encouraged to seek support from the appropriate EPA Regional Office for ozone modeling
concerns. Therefore, the EPA respectfully disagrees with the commenter's suggestions that the
EPA establish default trading ratios at this time.
Comment: Use of existing studies to eliminate the VOC offset requirements
Commenter (0130) suggested that the proposal should allow states to use existing studies to
eliminate the need for VOC offsets in certain areas where VOC emission reductions have been
shown to be only minimally effective in reducing ground-level ozone concentrations.
Response: The EPA begins by noting that Congress has created an express statutory framework
that establishes certain circumstances under which NOx requirements do not apply or may be
limited. In particular, in subpart 2 of part D of the Act, section 182(f) requires States to apply the
same requirements under that subpart to major stationary sources of NOx as are applied to major
stationary sources of VOC. However, section 182(f) additionally specifies circumstances under
which these NOx requirements may be limited or would not apply ("NOx waiver"). While
Congress could have created a VOC waiver at the same time the section 182(f) NOx waiver
provisions were enacted (or subsequently), Congress did not do so (and has not since done so).
Furthermore, while ambient air analyses show that NOx emission reductions can be
counterproductive under certain circumstances, we do not see a similar case for VOC.
The legislative history of the 1990 CAA Amendments contains some discussion of the NOx
waiver that Congress established in section 182(f). In the process of adding the new NOx
requirements to the Act, Congress recognized that NOx reductions would help achieve ozone
reductions in some ozone areas, but stated that "there are some instances in which NOx
reductions can be of little benefit in reducing ozone or can be counter-productive, due to the
offsetting ability of NOx to 'scavenge' (i.e., react with) ozone after it forms" (H.R. Rep. No. 490,
101st Congress, 2nd Sess., at 204). Congress also provided for additional review and study under
section 185B "to serve as the basis for the various findings contemplated in the NOx provisions"
(H.R. Rep. 490 at 257). Pursuant to section 185B, the EPA, in conjunction with the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), conducted a study on the role of ozone precursors in tropospheric
ozone formation. The joint study examined the role of NOx and VOC emissions, the extent to
which NOx reductions may contribute or be counterproductive to achieving attainment in
different nonattainment areas, the sensitivity of ozone to the control of NOx, the availability and
extent of controls for NOx, the role of biogenic VOC emissions, and the basic information
required for air quality models. With respect to VOC, the NAS report from the study states that
160
-------
"control of VOCs never leads to a significant increase in ozone" (December 1991 NAS report,
Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional Air Pollution, page 377). The final section
185B report, which was submitted to Congress on July 30, 1993, incorporates this NAS report
along with an EPA report addressing the availability and extent of NOx controls. Thus, the final
section 185B report indicates that there is not the same technical or scientific basis for a VOC
waiver as there exists for the NOx waiver.
The commenter does not identify any other specific, existing studies that might support a waiver
provision for VOC. Moreover, the commenter does not identify any statutory basis for its
recommended VOC waiver and does not provide any explanation for why such a waiver would
be consistent with the statutory requirements for offsets under the CAA. Accordingly, the EPA is
not taking action in this rulemaking to establish such a waiver for VOC offsets. However, the
EPA does support the use of interprecursor trading which is discussed in more detail in response
to comments 2.0,1,A above.
Comment: Use existing EPA regional modeling for approval of offset trading ratios
Commenters (0155 and 0157) recommended that the EPA consider using its regional modeling
to specify presumptive offset trading ratios that air quality control agencies may use for each
ozone nonattainment air quality control region, without requiring agencies to conduct their own
complex regional modeling. Alternatively, commenters (0155 and 0157) suggested that the EPA
might provide examples of where such analyses have been successful in obtaining EPA approval
of offset trading ratios, so that other agencies can follow the same procedures.
Response: As explained in more detail in the response to comments in 2.0.1. 2, above, the EPA
did not propose to establish presumptive offset ratios as described by the commenter and is not
taking action to establish such ratios in this final rule. However, the Agency continues to
recommend consultation with the Regional Office for ozone modeling concerns. Therefore, the
EPA respectfully disagrees with the commenter's suggestions that the EPA establish default
trading ratios.
4. Economic Development Zones
Commenters (0145 and 0159) stated that they support the proposal with respect to emissions
offset relief in Economic Development Zones. The commenters supported this proposal for the
reasons asserted by EPA. LCA agrees with the approach of states setting aside growth
"allowances" to support new or modified major sources, rather than obtaining offsets via facility-
specific emissions reductions or shutdowns in the nonattainment area. (0159)
Response: As explained in Section III.I.3.C of the preamble to the final rule, section 173(a)(1)(B)
of the CAA authorizes the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), to identify areas within nonattainment areas as "zone[s] to which
economic development should be targeted." Under this section, new or modified major stationary
sources that locate in such a zone are relieved of the NSR requirement to obtain emission offsets
if (1) the relevant SIP includes an NSR nonattainment program that has established emission
161
-------
levels for new and modified major sources in the zone ("growth allowance"), and (2) the
emissions from new or modified stationary sources in the zone will not cause or contribute to
emission levels that exceed such growth allowance. Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires that
the growth allowance be consistent with the achievement of reasonable further progress, and that
it will not interfere with attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
for the nonattainment area. The EPA is willing to work with HUD and states to identify potential
areas that could be identified as EDZs.
5. SIP Submittal Date for Nonattainment NSR rules
Commenter (0151) noted that while the proposal notice proposes dates for submitting certain
ozone nonattainment area SIP elements, the proposal did not discuss a SIP submittal deadline for
nonattainment NSR rules for ozone. The commenter indicated that one of these dates that must
be met sooner than later is not even discussed in the Notice and that is for states to adopt/make
nonattainment "New Source Review (NSR)" applicable in expanded nonattainment areas or
adopt NSR requirements within 18 months, as required by the D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA
(Phase 2 Ozone Plan).
Response: The commenter is correct that the EPA did not propose a specific due date for
nonattainment NSR SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This final rule includes a due date of 3
years from the effective date of designation for states with nonattainment areas for the 2008
ozone NAAQS to submit their NNSR SIPs. Please see section III. A.4 of the final rule for
additional discussion.
We disagree with the commenter's conclusion that, because the NRDC v. EPA court decision
vacated the EPA's elimination of the 18-month limit for Appendix S, the court required NNSR
SIPs to be submitted within 18 months from the date of designation as nonattainment. The EPA
believes that the court decision applied only with respect to the NSR waiver in section VI of
Appendix S—not to Appendix S as a whole—(as described in the response to comments at 2.
2.I.1.E-G of this document and in section 1.1 of the preamble to the final rule.).
J. What are the emission inventory and emission statement requirements?
1. Emissions inventory
Comment: AERR data elements
Commenter (0179) agreed with aligning the data elements requirements with AERR. However,
commenter added that if the EPA decides to pursue ambient monitoring approach for RFP
determinations, the agency may need to consider adjustments to details of the emission inventory
requirements.
Response: The EPA concurs with this comment. The EPA has not finalized the alternative air
quality approach (See response to comments in section 2.C.5), therefore, the details requested by
162
-------
the commenter to adjust the emission inventory requirements are not necessary at this time.
Comment: Marginal area emissions inventory reporting
Commenter (0169) did not agree with the need for Marginal area emissions inventory reporting
as no modeling is required to be redesignated to attainment. Commenter (0169) stated that, any
emissions inventory reporting for Marginal areas outside of what has already been collected into
the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) seems to be redundant, burdensome and unnecessary.
Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment because this requirement stems from specific
requirements in the CAA. Thus, the EPA does not have the discretion to eliminate the
requirement for Marginal area inventory reporting. Section 182(a)(1) clearly requires such an
inventory to be submitted as part of the Marginal area plan. Further, this inventory would need to
reflect ozone season day emissions, consistent with other provisions of this final rule for
implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Comment: Partial county areas
Commenter (0169) stated, the SIP Requirements Rule is lacking in that partial county areas are
not addressed. Commenter (0169) provided the following additional points. The Commenter
stated that, there are instances where partial county data (which is what is required by the SIP
Requirements rule at first glance) will be terribly burdensome for states to tease out of a previous
AERR submittal. AERR requirements are met by full county emissions inventory submittals.
Pulling out partial county data in some instances will provide little benefit as the theory behind a
nonattainment area is that most of the area emissions are contained within the nonattainment area
and adding emission reporting from the rest of the county will have a negligible impact on the
data. Certain MSAs and CSAs, however, encompass very small portions of multiple counties and
nonattainment area boundaries may be drawn based on MSAs and CSAs rather than county lines.
In these instances, there may be significant benefit to partial county data submittals despite the
resource intensive process required to pull that data from AERR reporting. The Department
believes apportionment tools have been developed to be utilized on a case-by-case basis and that
states should be granted deference. The Department also suggests the EPA put this case-by-case
deference in rulemaking rather than presumed practice.
Response: The EPA concurs that, the rule does not specifically address partial county areas,
which allows for flexibility in implementing the inventory requirements of the rule. The EPA
further agrees that in some cases, there is no benefit for areas to develop partial county
inventories. This issue will be addressed in the updated emission inventory guidance, and
regional offices, and states will continue to work together to identify areas for which partial
county emissions are needed for proper implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
For areas in which partial county emissions are needed, the EPA provides allocation approaches
that are also used for air quality modeling assignment of county-wide emissions to grid cells. The
data are publicly available for download and use. These are the spatial allocation surrogates
issued with the EPA's modeling platforms on the Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse section of
the EPA's website. The EPA encourages use of these data or commonly available Geographic
Information System (GIS) tools for estimation of partial-county emissions.
163
-------
Comment: AERR amendments
Commenter (0146) stated concern that, the EPA's proposal is inconsistent with the amendments
currently proposed for the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) rule. Commenter
(0146) provided the following additional points. The commenter pointed out that the EPA's
proposal references AERR for purposes of defining the data elements for the emissions
inventories, but the AERR is currently under rulemaking and the proposed amendments remove
ozone-related emissions reporting requirements, definitions and guidance. The proposed ozone
implementation rule's background section also references the EPA's August 2005 inventory
guidance. That guidance document references the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule
(CERR), which no longer exists and specifies that ozone season inventories should be reported
as actual annual and actual summer weekday inventories. The Commenter indicated that, states
need clear, consistent, and updated guidance on ozone inventory development. The NESCAUM
states recommend that the EPA clearly indicate in the body of the final ozone implementation
rule—as it did for the previous ozone implementation rule—what is required for ozone
inventories and for RFP and contingency measure baselines. The final rule must also reference
appropriate guidance. Any references to the AERR should be clearly addressed to ensure that the
proper ozone season inventories are developed.
Commenter (0163) stated, the recently proposed revision to the AERR would eliminate a critical
ozone planning element. Commenter (0163) stated that, unless the requirement to develop an
inventory of daily ozone season emissions as part of the AERR is retained and that, requirement
would need to be included as part of the ozone implementation rule.
Commenter (0177) stated that, the proposed rule is unclear as to whether the previous obligations
for nonattainment areas to quantify ozone precursor emissions based on a "typical summer day"
rather than annual emissions because the AERR is currently open for comment and proposes to
eliminate the daily and seasonal reporting requirements relevant to ozone. Commenter (0177)
provided the following additional points. The Commenter stated that, given the challenges of
addressing HEDD and likely need to design control programs that address peak ozone levels, the
EPA should clarify the final implementation rule and the AERR to specify that emission
inventories must be representative of days that produce high ozone. On August 5, 2013, [the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection] submitted comments on the
proposed AERR urging the EPA to retain the daily and seasonal emissions reporting
requirements relevant to ozone as a critical tool for ozone planning. (0177)
Commenter (0178) also discussed the AERR rule and proposed amendments as follows: The
proposed emission inventory requirements under 51.1115 rely on 40 CFR part 51, the AERR
specifically, the ozone-relevant data elements required by the ozone implementation rule are
listed in AERR Appendix A tables 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D. The EPA is currently revising the AERR
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0489] with a proposal to remove the requirements to report daily and
seasonal emissions. The proposed AERR would also change the required data elements in Table
2A and 2B, while removing Tables 2C and 2D. The Air Program supports the changes to the
AERR, specifically changing ozone season emission data to an optional element and the
164
-------
streamlining of tabular data elements. The EPA should review the ozone implementation rule
proposal to ensure data states are requested to report is required by either the CAA section
182(a)(3)(A) obligation, the "Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement
Program," or "Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations." The Air
Program intends to voluntarily submit ozone season emissions information triennially under the
revised AERR as it would satisfy the CAA section 182(a)(3)(A) periodic inventory obligation, in
addition to provide the public with an opportunity to review and comment on the documentation
of the inventory. (0178)
Commenter (0175) supported the EPA's proposal to allow states to rely on their 3-year cycle
inventory to meet the CAA section 182(a)(3)(A) requirement.
Commenters (0155 and 0157) noted that, the AERR is being revised and the EPA has proposed
to remove the provisions referenced in this proposal. Therefore, Commenters (0155 and 0157)
stated, the EPA should either amend the AERR to reincorporate the cited provisions or include in
the ozone SIP requirements rule provisions for developing an ozone season day emission
inventory rather than an annual inventory.
Response: The EPA concurs that, an inconsistency was created between the proposed AERR
updates and this proposal. As suggested by several Commenters, the EPA has updated the
language in the final rule to specifically denote that emissions are required to be submitted as
ozone season day emissions, reflecting the considerations leading to nonattainment in the area.
The ozone season day field will be defined as part of the update to the emission inventory
guidance.
Comment: Emission inventory guidance
Commenters (0155 and 0157) supported the EPA's proposal to allow states to defer public
hearings on certain inventories until such time as the areas adopt and submit their RFP plans or
attainment demonstrations that rely on these inventories.
Commenter (0163) supported the EPA's proposal to follow September 29, 1992, guidance
entitled, "Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base-Year Emissions Inventories for Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas" in implementing the emissions inventory requirements
under the CAA sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A) for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Commenter (0163) stated, the EPA should update its guidance on ozone inventory preparation
and documentation, "Example Documentation report for 1990 Base Year Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide SIP Emissions Inventories," March 1992 (EPA-450/4-92-007), since this guidance
does not recognize the developments in software and technology which could reduce the
workload necessary to prepare documentation.
Response: For purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed
approach, where we advised that states could follow our existing September 29, 1992, guidance
165
-------
titled, "Public Hearing Requirements for 1990 Base-Year Emissions Inventories for Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas" in implementing certain SIP adoption and submission
procedures for the emissions inventory requirements under the CAA sections 182(a)(1) and
182(a)(3)(A). In that guidance, the EPA indicated it could provide states with a time-limited "de
minimis" deferral of the CAA's state public hearing requirement for the emissions inventory SIP
revision required to be submitted for each nonattainment area within 2 years of the date of
designation. The EPA continues to believe that there are valid policy reasons to provide such a
deferral since the inventories alone do not have significant regulatory context without the
accompanying area-specific RFP plans or attainment plans, which are not required to be
submitted until the 3rd year after designations at the earliest. However, as a general matter the
CAA clearly requires that SIP submittals, including emissions inventories (See CAA sections
182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A)), must meet the requirements of the CAA section 110(a)(2), which
includes the requirement that the state provide reasonable notice and public hearing for SIP
submittals. As there is nothing in these CAA provisions that provides for waiver or delay of the
public notification and hearing requirements specified in CAA section 110(a), de minimis or
otherwise, we no longer believe it is appropriate to advise states to follow the 1992 guidance. We
instead remind states that the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of Implementation Plans) provide flexibility for states to
streamline SIP-related public notification and hearing procedures (for example, only holding a
public hearing if one is requested, per 40 CFR § 51.102), and we encourage states to take
advantage of those provisions in meeting the emissions inventory requirements under the CAA
sections 182(a)(1) and 182(a)(3)(A).
The EPA concurs that, the ozone inventory preparation and documentation guidance from March
1992 is outdated and plans to issue an updated draft guidance document with the final rule to
implement the 2008 ozone standard.
2. Emissions statement requirements
Comment: Commenter (0163) supported the proposal that the Emission Statement SIP be due 2
years after the effective date of the designations as prescribed in the CAA section 182(a)(3)(B).
Commenter (0169) agreed with and appreciated the EPA's acknowledgement that areas which
were nonattainment for a previous NAAQS have already implemented emissions statement
requirements. The Commenter added that, if states were required to make a SIP amendment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the amendment would amount to a paperwork exercise and would be
redundant as facilities in the nonattainment area are already subject to the emissions statement
requirement. Facilities have been submitting annual emissions statements in ozone
nonattainment areas for years. The Department is encouraged by the EPA's common sense
approach in this area.
166
-------
Response: The EPA addresses the emission statement requirement in section III. J.2 of the SIP
Requirements Rule. The final rule requires the emission statements or the emission statement
certification letters to be "in the SIP". This will require that the emission statement letters do
need to go through the public notice and comment process.
The EPA published guidance on source emission statements in a July 1992 memorandum titled,
"Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program." A memorandum titled,
"Emission Statement Requirements Under 8-hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation," dated March
14, 2006, clarified that the source emission statement requirement under the CAA was applicable
to all areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and classified as Marginal or
higher under subpart 2, part D, title I of the CAA. This requirement similarly applies to all areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Most areas that need an emission
statement program already have one in place due to a nonattainment designation for an earlier
ozone NAAQS. If a state has a previously approved emission statement rule in force for a
particular area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS or the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that covers all portions
of the nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, such rule should be sufficient for
purposes of the emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The state should
review the existing rule to ensure it is adequate and if it is, may rely on it to meet the emission
statement requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In cases when an existing emission statement
requirement is still adequate to meet the requirements of this rule, states can provide the rationale
for that determination to the EPA in a written statement in the SIP to meet this requirement.
States should identify the various requirements and how each is met by the existing emission
statement program. In cases when an emission statement requirement is modified for any reason,
states must submit to EPA the revisions to the emission statement as part of their SIP.
K. What are the ambient monitoring requirements?
1. Cost of monitoring programs
Commenters (0175 and 0179) proposed that, any additional monitoring requirements be fully
funded by the EPA.
Response: The EPA notes that it has historically funded part of the cost of the installation and
operation of monitors used to satisfy Federal monitoring requirements. The EPA understands
these concerns, although the CAA requirements from which this proposal derives (the CAA
sections 109, 110, 172, 181 through 185B, 301(a)(1) and (501(2)(B)) are not contingent on the
EPA providing funding to states to assist in meeting monitoring requirements. However, the
EPA intends to work with NACAA and the state and local air agencies in identifying available
state and Tribal Air Grant (STAG) funds and consider the resources that may be needed to plan,
implement, and operate the minimum requirements for the ozone monitoring network.
2. Ambient monitoring rule
Comment: Commenters (0155, 0157) stated that, while the schedule for finalizing any or all
aspects of the ozone monitoring proposal remains unclear at this time, if and when the EPA
requires such monitoring, states will need time, resources and training to implement the
167
-------
requirements.
Commenter (0180) stated that, the EPA proposed lengthening the ozone monitoring seasons in
29 states, including Wyoming. Commenter (0180) stated that, for the EPA to ignore data about
ozone exceedances by not requiring it to be collected for places like Wyoming is to ignore an
important aspect of the ozone problem, which is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, Commenter
(0180) requested the EPA to finalize the 2009 monitoring rule proposed changes.
Commenters (0155 and 0157) stated that, while the schedule for finalizing any or all aspects of
the ozone monitoring proposal remains unclear at this time, if and when, the EPA requires such
monitoring, states will need time, resources and training to implement the requirements.
Commenter (0180) stated, the EPA must finalize its ambient monitoring rule and that failure to
do so is arbitrary and capricious. Commenter (0180) asserted the proposed revisions would assist
the EPA in implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 74 FR 34525, 34527 (July 16, 2009).
Commenter (0180) incorporated by reference the docket in support of the EPA's proposed
lengthening, by 1 to 5 months, the ozone monitoring seasons in 29 states, effective January 1,
2011. Id. at 34533-34. Commenter (0180) asserted that, to ignore data about ozone exceedances
by not requiring it to be collected for places like Wyoming is to ignore an important aspect of the
ozone problem, which is arbitrary and capricious.
Response: Ozone monitoring requirements are specified in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section
4.1. Specific ozone season monitoring requirements are contained in Table D-3. These
requirements are intended as minimum monitoring requirements, and as explained in paragraph
4.1, "The EPA Regional Administrator and the responsible state or local air monitoring agency
must work together to design and/or maintain the most appropriate 03 network to service the
variety of data needs in an area." The EPA notes that states can operate additional monitors
beyond the minimum requirements and/or can operate ozone monitors for a longer period than
the minimum required ozone season described in Table D-3. If such monitors are operated and
the resulting data are acceptable quality, the EPA can use the data in support of actions that
support the NAAQS.
Regarding the comment that states will need time, resources and training to implement any new
requirements, See RTC in section K.l of this RTC.
Comment: Definition of ozone season
Commenter (0154) asserted that, the EPA uses the term "ozone season" throughout the proposal,
but states "ozone seasons" have not been updated since October of 2006, presenting
implementation difficulties when violations of the NAAQS occur outside of the currently defined
ozone season. Commenter (0154) noted that, the EPA proposed revisions to the ozone
monitoring rules in July 2009, yet 4 years have passed without a final version of the rule. Since
the requirements of these two rules are interwoven, commenter (0154) recommended that, the
EPA complete the two rules at the same time or remove the term "ozone season" from the
Implementation Rule.
168
-------
Response: In the context of the proposal, the term "ozone season" has the same definition as
"ozone monitoring season" as defined by requirements in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, section
4.1. Specific ozone season monitoring requirements are contained in Table D-3. These
requirements are intended as minimum monitoring requirements, and as explained in paragraph
4.1, "The EPA Regional Administrator and the responsible state or local air monitoring agency
must work together to design and/or maintain the most appropriate 03 network to service the
variety of data needs in an area." The EPA notes that states can operate additional monitors in
addition to minimum requirements and/or operate ozone monitors for a longer period than the
minimum required ozone season described in Table D-3. If such monitors are operated and the
resulting data are of acceptable quality, the EPA can use the data in support of actions that
support the NAAQS, and states similarly could propose control strategies that account for any
violations that occur outside of the currently defined ozone season.
L. How can an area qualify for a 1-year attainment deadline extension?
1. Support proposal
Comment: Commenter (0159) supported the EPA's proposal, as it is supported by statutory
authority, and suggested that the 2-year averaging provided in section 51.1107(a)(2) also be
applied to section 51.1107 (a)( 1) for both the first and second extension years.
Commenter (0163) agreed with using the approach set forth in 40 CFR section 51.907 for
purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0179) agreed with the proposal to use the
same approach used in the 1997 ozone NAAQS Phase 1 rule, applicable to concentration-based
standards.
Response: The EPA appreciates the support to continue to implement the 1-year attainment
deadline extension policy as applied previously under the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone
implementation rules. The suggestion to use a 2-year average for the first 1-year extension in
section 51.1107 (a)(1) could result in fewer areas being eligible for a 1-year extension, even
though such areas have already achieved the appropriate emissions reductions necessary to
attain. The EPA does not wish to unnecessarily restrict eligibility for such areas, and is finalizing
the 1-year attainment deadline extension policy as proposed.
M. How will the EPA address transport of ozone and its precursors for rural nonattainment
areas, multi-state nonattainment areas and international transport?
1. Rural areas
Comment: Support for the approach to rural transport
Commenter (0159) supported the broad use of rural transport. The Commenter stated that, the
EPA proposed to interpret language so that, to qualify for a rural transport classification, the
nonattainment area's boundary could not include or be adjacent to an MSA, based on the Census
Bureau's latest population estimates. Id. Under such an approach, any nonattainment area
169
-------
associated with a census-defined micropolitan area or area too sparsely populated to be included
in a census-defined statistical area, based on Census Bureau population estimates, may be able to
qualify for a rural transport classification. Its usage would retain Marginal permitting
requirements, but, for instance, would prevent an urban upwind problem from causing a
downstream rural area to be forced to implement emission reduction and to be subject to more
stringent permitting. (0159)
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's support. The EPA believes this interpretation
of the CAA section 182(h) is consistent with the original scope of section 182(h) as promulgated
in 1990 and provides maximum flexibility for areas to qualify for this classification where
appropriate.
2. Methane as a Precursor
Comment: Support position not to regulate methane
Commenter (0151) supported the EPA's position not to regulate methane under this program.
The Commenter stated that, the EPA solicited comment on regulating methane as an ozone
precursor because reportedly the European Union controls it for ozone reductions. Id. 34205.
Methane was originally excluded by the EPA as a negligibly reactive compound under the
agency's ozone reactivity policy and California's historic Rule 66 for the regulation of
hydrocarbons. Then it was determined to have some reactivity under the 1977 Reactivity Policy
when compared with ethane, until it was once again excluded by rulemaking following extensive
testing and evaluation on the basis of its photochemical oxidation potential on a molar and mass
basis. Whatever the Europeans' motive for regulating methane as a VOC, there is little scientific
justification for regulating methane as an ozone-precursor.
Response: The EPA appreciates the support from the commenter. Methane has not been
addressed as part of ozone attainment planning in the past because of the limited effect that local
measures to control methane would have on local or regional ozone concentrations in the
immediate time frame. Given the temporal and spatial characteristics associated with methane
and ozone, we continue to believe that it is inappropriate to require or rely on local methane
emission reductions in ozone SIPs.
3. International transport
Comment: Support consideration of emissions from North American or intercontinental
sources
Commenter (0132) stated that, they support the EPA's interpretation of the CAA § 179B to
include consideration of any emissions from North American or intercontinental sources. The
commenter stated that, the EPA's interpretation that, the CAA, §179B could include
consideration of any emissions from any non-U. S. sources is appropriate. The TCEQ endorses
this interpretation since it accounts for the potentially significant impact that international
emissions can have on an area's air quality. The TCEQ seeks confirmation of the interpretation
170
-------
that FCAA, § 179B may be applied to nonattainment areas other than those adjoining
international borders. Further, the TCEQ seeks confirmation that "emissions emanating from
outside the U.S. FCAA, §179B include anthropogenic sources and natural emission sources
outside the continental U.S. EPA did not provide an explanation for why it proposed limiting the
availability of a determination under FCAA, §179B to areas classified "Moderate" or above,
excluding "Marginal" areas. Since FCAA, §179B does not limit this option to areas classified
"Moderate" or above, the TCEQ supports its availability for all areas, including "Marginal"
areas. Commenter (0159) generally supported the EPA's promise to continue to work with its
domestic and international partners to better understand the extent and implications of
transboundary flows of air pollutants and where possible, to mitigate their impact on our
domestic air quality.
Commenter (0159) supported the EPA's proposal to find that, if it approves a "but for"
demonstration for an area, the area would not be subject to reclassification for failure to attain by
its attainment deadline, and if such areas were classified as Severe or Extreme, the section 185
fee program would not apply based on a failure to attain by the attainment date; Commenter
(0159) agreed that, a nonattainment area should not be penalized by the actions of others which
are outside of such area's control.
Commenter (0159) supported the EPA's proposal that, where international transport meets the
criteria contained in the EPA's EER (40 CFR § 50.14), it can be addressed by that rule.
Commenter (0159) supported a reasonable interpretation of the EER, as "exceptional events" are
truly exceptional occurrences that are beyond an affected area's control and such events should
be excluded when they occur.
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's support. The EPA has interpreted the Act such
that section 179B allows the EPA to approve an attainment demonstration if the state can
satisfactorily demonstrate that "but for emissions emanating from outside of the U. S.," the area
would attain and maintain the ozone standard. The EPA has historically evaluated these
demonstrations on a case-by-case basis, based on the individual circumstances, which may
include areas not adjoining international borders, the classification of the area and the data
submitted by the state. Also, in the proposal, EPA did not intend to give the impression that
section 179B did not apply to all nonattainment areas. Since Marginal areas are not required to
submit an attainment demonstration, the proposal indicated that for areas classified as Moderate
and above, the modeling and other elements of the attainment demonstration must show timely
attainment of the NAAQS but for the emissions from outside of the U.S. However, if a Marginal
area were to submit to the EPA a demonstration that they could attain the standard but for
international emissions, the EPA would be able to evaluate that demonstration similarly to
demonstrations submitted for higher classified areas.
Comment: Make available international transport information
Commenter (0173) requested the EPA to take additional steps to facilitate state submissions. The
Commenter stated that, where the EPA has already determined that international emissions
increased U.S. ozone levels by a particular quantity or in a range of quantities, the EPA should
publicize that quantification and allow states to rely on it in making section 179B
171
-------
demonstrations. As the statute only requires the quantification to be "established] to the
satisfaction of the Administrator," there would be no purpose in requiring states to duplicate
evaluations that the EPA may have already made. In addition, the EPA should make available
other information it has on evaluating transboundary ozone impacts and provide an electronic
clearinghouse for use in states' demonstrations under section 179B. (0173)
Response: The EPA considers international transport of pollution an important issue. Given the
challenge and complexity of assessing the potential impacts of international emissions on air
quality in the U.S., the EPA has been engaged in a number of activities to improve our
understanding of such transport. For example, the agency is actively participating in the Task
Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (HTAP) which is an international effort to
assess intercontinental air pollution transport and to look for opportunities to mitigate its impact.
While HTAP and other related analytical efforts can help improve the general characterization of
the impacts of international emissions on U.S. air quality, the EPA has no plans to conduct
determinations with the local specificity that would be required of a 179B demonstration which
show that a specific locality would have attained over a specific time period "but for" the
contribution of international emissions. We will continue to work with states that are developing
plans pursuant to section 179B to ensure the states have the benefit of the EPA's developing
understanding of the general nature of international transport of ozone and its precursors.
However, the EPA continues to believe that the best approach for addressing international
transport is to work on a case-by-case basis to develop international impact quantification
analyses that are suited to the unique situation of each area.
4. Interstate transport requirements
Comment: Quantify interstate transport obligations
Commenter (0170) stated that, the EPA must quantify the states' interstate transport obligations
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as possible. The Commenter indicated that, the
states were statutorily required to submit infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS by
March 12, 2011. 78 FR 34,178, 34,182 (June 6, 2013). As the EPA notes in its proposal, this date
"remained the legally applicable deadline for infrastructure SIPs" despite the reconsideration
process the EPA undertook for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id. at 34,183. However, many states
failed to meet the SIP deadline. On January 15, 2013, the EPA found that 28 states, the D.C. and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico failed to submit infrastructure SIPs containing the CAA
requirements necessary to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 78 FR 2882 (Jan. 15, 2013). The
Commenter added that, among other things, states must include provisions in their SIPs that
satisfy the interstate transport requirements of the CAA, commonly known as "good neighbor"
obligations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In EMEHomer City, the D.C. Circuit held that
the EPA must "define or quantify" the states' interstate transport obligations before the EPA can
require the states to incorporate those obligations into their SIPs. See EME Homer City
Generation L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 31 (D.C. Cir. 2012).2 Furthermore, "once the EPA defines
or quantifies a state's good neighbor obligation, the state must have a reasonable time to
implement that requirement with respect to sources within the state." Id. (emphasis added). The
commenter indicated that the D.C. Circuit's instruction in EME Homer City is clear: the EPA
172
-------
must "define or quantify" states' good neighbor obligations and give states "a reasonable time"
to implement those requirements. See 696 F.3d at 38. States have an equally clear mandate and
deadline under section 110(a) of the CAA: each state shall, within 3 years after promulgation of
a NAAQS, submit a SIP to the Administrator that shall contain adequate provisions to address
the state's good neighbor obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a).
Lastly, the D.C. Circuit, in North Carolina v. EPA, mandated that upwind states' good neighbor
obligations must be harmonized with the NAAQS attainment deadlines for downwind states. See
531 F.3d 896, 912 (D.C. Cir. 2008). (0170)
The Commenter concluded, in order for the states to meet their section 110(a) SIP submission
deadlines, the EPA must "define or quantify" the states' good neighbor obligations a "reasonable
time" before the section 110(a) deadline arises for each NAAQS. But despite this clear directive,
and despite the fact that the SIP deadline for the 2008 ozone NAAQS came and went over 2
years ago, the EPA's proposed implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS "does not
address states' obligations under the [CAA] to reduce transported pollution." 78 FR at 34,183.
Moreover, the EPA does not even plan to provide guidance "on how to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)" in a forthcoming guidance memorandum laying out infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id. (0170)
The Comm enter believed that, the EPA's decision not to quantify the states' good neighbor
obligations, or even provide guidance to the states, cannot be reconciled with the clear mandate
established in EME Homer City. Indeed, the EPA does not attempt to justify its decision. Given
the urgent need for the EPA to address the continuing problem of interstate air pollution, this
delay is particularly unjustified. Therefore, we respectfully urge the EPA to comply with its
mandatory obligation under the D.C. Circuit's decision in EME Homer City and "define or
quantify" the states' good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS as
expeditiously as possible.
Comm enter (0177) stated that, the proposed rule does not address states' good neighbor
responsibilities under the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning upwind emissions that
significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in downwind
states. The commenter supports the EPA's current efforts before the U.S. Supreme Court to
clarify the legal framework necessary to address interstate air pollution, but reminds the EPA
that both CAIR and the CSAPR were directed at meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As such, a
separate transport rule is needed as soon as possible to begin to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The transport rule will help solve the transport problem; however, it does not eliminate each
state's responsibility to address transport under the good neighbor provisions of the CAA. The
Commenter stated that, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
routinely measures ozone levels at Connecticut's upwind boundaries that violate the 2008
NAAQS. The EPA and other available modeling provide substantial evidence that Connecticut
cannot comply with the 2008 ozone NAAQS without additional large-scale reductions in upwind
ozone precursor emissions. At a minimum, the EPA should adopt a suite of new stringent
national rules addressing mobile sources, EGU (including a focus on periods of high electric
demand), and industrial/commercial boilers—which would be the most cost effective and legally
defensible manner to achieve attainment with the 2008 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as
173
-------
practicable.
Commenter (0157) encouraged the EPA to move expeditiously to "define or quantify" upwind
states' good neighbor obligations in order that upwind states may meet their section 110(a)
infrastructure SIP obligations and downwind states may meet their attainment deadlines. The
Commenter added that, controlling transported air pollution is key to Maryland attaining the
ozone NAAQS and the fact that transport becomes central to attainment with every lowering of
the NAAQS. Specifically, with every decrease in the NAAQS, the proportion of the NAAQS
represented by transported pollution in states increases. (0157)
Commenter (0152) noted that, the EPA is not addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
provisions and believed states should not be required to meet them. The commenter directed
attention to the D.C. Circuit's EMEHomer City Generation v EPA decision (696 F.3d 7 (D.C.
Cir. 2012)) that concluded that a SIP cannot be deemed incomplete or deficient for failure to
meet this obligation until such time that the EPA quantifies the state's obligation under this
provision.
Response: On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision reversing the D.C. Circuit's
decision in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation Co., No. 12-1182. The Supreme Court held that
the CAA does not require that the EPA give states a second opportunity to submit interstate
transport SIPs after the EPA has quantified a state's obligation to eliminate its significant
contribution to interstate transport. For all states, the Supreme Court decision means that each
state has an obligation to develop interstate transport SIPs addressing the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements without an EPA rulemaking as a prerequisite. The Supreme
Court decision clarifies that the deadline for submitting transport SIPs is 3 years from the
promulgation of the NAAQS. The EPA is still reviewing the implications of the Supreme Court
decision on the SIP process. The EPA agrees that to date, the EPA has not provided guidance to
states substantively addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
Comment: Large nonattainment area concept
Two states (0157 and 0168) commented that, for their areas to achieve attainment would require
reductions in transported emissions from other states. They pointed out that the EPA has
previously determined that emissions from certain upwind states are significantly impacting their
state's air quality. They believe that the boundaries for the designated nonattainment areas do not
reflect the scope of the problem. One Commenter (0157) believes that, a tool in the CAA that the
EPA can use to assist with attaining the current and pending lower ozone standards is the ability
to create large, regional nonattainment areas.
Response: The issue of appropriate nonattainment area boundaries for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
or any future revised ozone NAAQS is beyond the scope of this current rulemaking. The EPA
completed the initial designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the spring of 2012. The basis
for the nonattainment boundaries are provided in the Technical Support Documents for the areas,
which are available in the docket for the designations at EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476. In addition,
174
-------
in the RTC document for the designations, also available in that docket, the EPA provided
responses to Commenters who urged the EPA to establish large nonattainment areas.
Comment: Delaware air quality
Commenter (0168) stated that, this rule will not make Delaware's air quality better, may likely
make Delaware's air quality worse and will increase the burden on Delaware. The Commenter
stated that, the EPA designated 474 counties as not meeting the 1997 0.08 ppm ozone standards
and 232 counties as not meeting the more protective 2008 standards. This shows that air quality
continues to improve across the nation as a result of successful federal, state and local pollution
reduction efforts. However, this is also cause for significant concern to Delaware because 1) the
control requirements of this proposed rule are being applied to a smaller area which has already
been through several rounds of similar requirements and 2) this proposed rule revokes the 1997
ozone NAAQS, and proposes anti-backsliding requirements that are keyed to local air quality
without consideration to impact on downwind areas like Delaware. (0168)
• Less of the states that are causing Delaware's unhealthy air will be covered by this
implementation rule than by past implementation rules—this is contrary to the
language of the CAA and will continue to impede progress towards its goal of healthy
air quality. (0168)
• Given all non-trivial Delaware sources are currently well-controlled implementation
of this rule will be a significant administrative burden on Delaware with no resultant
air quality benefit. Application of the rule to a smaller upwind area that has
previously been covered by similar rules is also not likely to help Delaware's air
quality. (0168)
• This proposed rule revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and proposes anti-backsliding
requirements that appear to be keyed to local air quality only; without consideration
to impact on downwind areas like Delaware. (0168)
• Delaware's main concern is that areas that were designated as nonattainment for the
1997 NAAQS may not be required to develop and be bound by maintenance plans,
and may be able to relax SIP requirements under the CAA 110(1) without
consideration to downwind impacts. (0168)
• Delaware's attainment of the ozone NAAQS is outside of its control due to the
overwhelming impact of upwind emissions; and there appears to be no mechanism in
place to mitigate these upwind emissions in the timing of the CAA and EPA proposal.
(0168)
The Commenter believed Delaware is being penalized for circumstances that are beyond its
control, and a voluntary or mandatory bump-up is not the answer. The EPA recognizes in the
proposed rule that in many areas transport is the problem—and that the EPA's main goals with
this proposed implementation rule are to provide flexibility, increase implementation efficiency,
allow the most effective pollution control programs to be implemented and identify additional
ways in which the EPA can assist the states to reach attainment within the legal framework of the
CAA; all without jeopardizing expeditious attainment of the public health and welfare goals. To
175
-------
achieve these goals, the EPA must require the control of all of the emissions that are causing the
problem.
Response: The EPA recognizes that many states are affected by transported ozone and ozone
precursors from upwind states and that transported pollution may contribute significantly to air
pollution that exceeds the NAAQS in those states. The CAA establishes states' responsibilities to
address interstate transport through two provisions. First, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) obligates states
to include provisions in their infrastructure SIPs to prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state, from interfering with required provisions
preventing significant deterioration of air quality or from interfering with measures to protect
visibility in another state. Second, section 126 directs states to include provisions to establish a
notification process in their infrastructure SIPs through which downwind jurisdictions can be
alerted to specific sources of transported pollution. The EPA issued its "Guidance on
Infrastructure SIP Elements Under the CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)," on September 13,
2013,25 on the required elements of the section 110 infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. This guidance does not, however, address the requirements of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). The final rule, does not address these requirements relating to transport for
purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA will address the transport requirements for the
2008 ozone NAAQS in a separate action.
N. How will the section 182(f) NOxprovisions be handled?
Comment: Commenter (0163) stated, the EPA must take care to implement the CAA section
182(f) provision consistent with other related provisions; e.g., the EPA should avoid granting
NOx exemptions for nonattainment areas that use NOx controls from other programs to
demonstrate attainment and/or to address other provisions of the CAA (i.e., CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
Response: In order to request a NOx exemption, a state must submit a SIP revision specific to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This SIP revision must specifically address the provisions of section
182(f). The EPA will grant NOx exemptions only through notice and comment rulemaking where
Commenters will have an opportunity to address whether the SIP revision complies with the
provisions of section 182(f). In granting waivers, the EPA will take into consideration existing
NOx controls in an area.
0. Emissions Reduction Benefits of Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and
Programs, Land Use Planning and Travel Efficiency
1. Energy efficiency/renewable energy policies and programs
25 See http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html.
176
-------
Comment: Clarify inclusion of EE/RE programs in attainment plans
Commenter (0130) stated that, the EPA should clarify how inclusion of EE/RE programs in an
attainment plan is supportable by the various requirements for attainment plans in the CAA. The
Commenter argued that, should this be done under the RACT or RACM requirements of the
CAA? If so, how might a state calculate the cost per ton reduced of such strategies? The length
of time needed to implement such strategies is significant, and many years will pass before
enough EE/RE programs have reduced emissions significantly enough for air quality modeling to
show a definable benefit. Therefore, such programs would not fit under either the RACT
requirements, which must be implemented by January 1, 2017, or the RACM requirements,
which must show that the attainment date may be advanced by 1 year. The preamble seems to
indicate that EE/RE policies may be implemented to mitigate the transport of ozone precursors to
downwind states. However, no analysis appears to be included in this preamble that shows how
such policies might affect transport or a state's significant contribution to a downwind state.
The Commenter added that, while EE/RE policies are sound for many reasons, not the least of
which is reducing dependence on foreign energy sources, the EPA should clarify how inclusion
of these programs in an attainment plan is supportable by the various requirements for attainment
plans in the CAA. Without further clarification in the preamble, to require or even suggest states
somehow analyze whether an attainment SIP should include the implementation of additional
EE/RE programs for RACT, RACM or section 110(a)(2)(D) transport initiatives will only add a
paperwork burden to states developing the attainment plans.
Response: The inclusion of EE/RE policies and programs into an attainment plan is not a
requirement, but rather, an optional approach that allows states to include flexible and innovative
non-traditional strategies that have the potential to make small, but meaningful, contributions to
attainment. EE/RE can help reduce electricity generation from fossil-fueled sources, which leads
to lower emissions of NOx and other pollutants. The reduction in emissions can benefit a
particular area, and can also have a positive impact on downwind areas affected by ozone
transport.
The EPA, with the EE/RE Roadmap {http://epa.gov/airquality/eere/), has clarified how EE/RE
policies and programs can be included into a SIP. No new regulations have been introduced.
Since the application of EE/RE will be specific to a given area, we encourage states to work
closely with their EPA Regional Offices should they need assistance with incorporating EE/RE
into their attainment plans.
Recognizing the need for more certainty and capacity-building on EE/RE, the EPA offers
additional assistance to states, tribes and local agencies, including technical assistance, energy
savings information, and tools, such as AVERT, the AVoided Emissions and geneRation Tool
(www.epa.gov/avert), to quantify the emissions impacts of EE/RE policies and programs. The
EPA is working with several states to document how specific EE/RE policies and programs
could be quantified and included in SIPs, and will share these examples.
177
-------
Comment: Support for Innovative and Creative Approaches
Commenters (0129 and 0158) supported the EPA's proposal to continue to allow states to
integrate into their SIPs the emission reduction benefits of energy efficiency and renewable
policies and programs. Commenter (0158) stated, the final rule and EE Roadmap should also
recognize energy savings achieved through grid-side efficiency technology
improvements/upgrades and clarify that such programs may also be considered by states for
integration into their SIPs.
Response: The EPA appreciates the support expressed for innovative approaches to reducing
emissions, such as EE/RE policies and programs. We note, however, that the EPA's EE/RE
Roadmap focuses on the potential use of EE/RE for attainment planning purposes. Under the
CAA, the RACT requirements are separate from attainment planning requirements.
The EPA by no means discourages grid-side efficiency technologies, but reminds the
Commenter that, the state has the responsibility for including these types of programs in a SIP. A
good first step would be to discuss these programs with the state energy and air offices.
Comment: Support for EE/RE Measures
Comm enters (0159 and 0179) supported the EPA's position to encourage states to consider
adopting EE/RE policies and programs to benefit nonattainment areas in their own state, as well
as to reduce the impact of ozone transport on downwind states. Commenter (0179) indicated that,
significant uncertainty still remains on the availability of energy models required to perform the
certain SIP demonstrations and requested that the EPA approve regional models that have been
submitted for such purposes. Commenter (0179) also requested that, the EPA provide assistance
and resources to generate SMOKE ready output such that air quality impacts of electricity offsets
in nonattainment areas and surrounding areas/states can be modeled and used appropriately in a
SIP.
Response: The EPA appreciates the support expressed for EE/RE policies and programs that can
benefit overall air quality. The EPA is working with several states to document how specific
EE/RE policies and programs could be quantified and incorporated into SIPs.
The EPA has recognized that the most-sophisticated approach to emission quantification is
energy modeling, which relies on resource-intensive energy models. Because all states do not
have this capacity, the EPA has developed a free tool, AVERT (www.epa.gov/avert), based on
reported hourly emissions. AVERT is designed to be used by state air quality planners, and will
produce SMOKE-ready outputs.
2. Land use planning
Comment: Commenter (0130) stated that, inclusion of land use planning strategies in a SIP
oversteps the bounds of state authority and recommended that the EPA clarify that a state is not
required to analyze land use planning strategies in any attainment plan. The Commenter stated
178
-------
that, land use planning is the purview of local government jurisdictions in the Commonwealth.
Inclusion of such strategies in a SIP oversteps the bounds of state authority. Additionally, land
use planning offers very few opportunities for near term (2020 or sooner) emission reductions
since such plans take many years to influence the commuter traffic patterns. Therefore, it is
unclear under what section of an attainment plan would the EPA suggest land use planning be
included. For example, such strategies would not be appropriate for inclusion in RACT or
RACM analyses. The Commenter suggested that, the EPA should clarify how they expect a state
to utilize the CAA to require or regulate land use planning. DEQ also recommends that the EPA
should clarify that a state is not required to analyze land use planning strategies in any attainment
plan. Should a state have the authority to do so, and should that state believe land use planning is
a cost effective means to attaining the 2008 ozone standard by the attainment date, then they may
include land use planning strategies within their SIP, perhaps as a part of some sort of voluntary
bundle. The current preamble, however, indicates that all attainment plans should at least analyze
this option. Requiring the analysis of land use planning in all SIPs will only add paperwork to an
already paperwork-intensive process. (0130)
Commenter (0156) stated that, while land use changes might not easily fit into the time period of
SIP control requirements, they appreciated the EPA efforts to allow for SIP emission credits for
innovative options including land use and travel efficiencies.
Commenter (0159) agreed with measures, such as land use planning, that credit states when they
work to reduce such emissions, as mobile emissions are a large contributor to the formation of
ozone.
Response: States should consider all potentially available measures, including land use strategies
in the RACM element of the SIP. A detailed analysis of emissions impacts of land use planning
is not a requirement for determining RACM. However, due to the potential for land use policies
to reduce travel activity, the EPA encourages consideration of land use planning in the RACM
determination. In many cases, such as those identified by the Commenter, a simple assessment
and reasoned explanation would be sufficient for eliminating land use planning from further
detailed analysis. If a state provides evidence that land use planning is not economically and
technologically feasible or will not advance the attainment date, the state may eliminate it as a
potential emission reduction strategy. However, lack of state authority, by itself, is not sufficient
grounds for failure to consider land use planning or any other potential SIP strategy. Some states
do have authority for land use planning and others can explore ways to gain the authority.
Alternatively, states can work cooperatively with local jurisdictions that do have authority, to
include land use planning commitments in the SIP.
3. Travel efficiency
Comment: Commenter (0130) stated that, the EPA should note that conducting an
analysis of this "low cost" bundle is optional for states to include in any attainment plan
(78 FR 34207). The Commenter added that, the EPA does not clarify under what section
of the CAA these strategies should be considered for implementation. Will these
strategies be part of an area's RACM analysis? Or some sort of voluntary bundle? If the
179
-------
EPA's intent is to require an evaluation of the "low cost" bundle of measures in the
attainment planning process, then DEQ strongly recommends that the EPA specifically
note how states should approach the implementation of these strategies. The Commenter
suggested that, the EPA should note that conducting an analysis of this "low cost" bundle
is optional for states to include in any attainment plan. Many of these so-called "low
cost" bundles are actually quite expensive. For example, retrofitting trucks with APUs
costs approximately $7,000 to $9,000 per truck retrofitted, according to readily available
information. To make this an effective control strategy for NOx, a significant number of
vehicles will need to be retrofitted. Where will the money come from to fund these
retrofits? Higher parking rates, taxes on free private parking, parking permits, congestion
pricing and intercity tolls will all have someone paying more money, will require that
jurisdictions raise taxes on its citizenry and will be quite controversial in a time when
gasoline and diesel are expensive. In many ways, these are not "low cost" initiatives.
Therefore, the EPA should clearly note that any consideration of the strategies in the
"low cost" bundle or any other strategy within the "Moving Cooler" report is optional in
the development of an area's attainment plan.
Response: States should consider all potentially available measures, including travel
efficiency strategies in the RACM element of the SIP. The EPA does not require an
analysis specifically of the Moving Cooler report's "low cost bundle" strategies
referenced in the proposed rule. However, the EPA recognizes the potential for travel
efficiency policies to reduce travel activity and encourages consideration of them in the
RACM determination. The EPA is suggesting that the low cost bundle may be the most
appropriate for consideration among the six different bundles included in the referenced
report. The strategies included in the report range greatly in stringency, cost and
difficulty of implementation. The low cost bundle represents those strategies that may be
easiest to achieve among them. In many cases, such as those identified by the
Commenter, a simple assessment and reasoned explanation would be sufficient for
eliminating some travel efficiency strategies from further detailed analysis. If a state
provides evidence that a travel efficiency strategy is not economically and
technologically feasible or will not advance the attainment date, the state may eliminate it
180
-------
as a potential emission reduction strategy.
Comment: Land use travel efficiency
Commenter (0156) concurred with the EPA that, land use travel efficiency reduction options
may not fit easily into the timelines of the CAA or the EPA's traditional expectations for SIPs
(page 34180). 26
Comm enter (0156) believed the 2-5 percent emission reductions from land use and travel
efficiencies mentioned on page 34207 are not achievable and would not want this to contribute to
unrealistic expectations during SIP development.
The 2-5 percent reduction is based upon forecasted emission reductions between 2010
and 2020. A more realistic time-period would be 5 years, the interval between when the
26 "Potential Changes in Emissions Due to Improvements in Travel Efficiency - Final Report,
EPA, March 2011" suggests a maximum of 2 percent in combined NOx and VOC emission
reductions could occur over a 5-year period. This EPA study discloses that the bundle of: travel
demand management (TOM) + land use changes + transit fare reduction + transit service
improvements + parking fees + mileage fees "bundle" may reduce CO2 by 8.83 percent PM by
8.78 percent, NOx by 8.65 percent and VOCs by 8.29 percent by the year 2050 (40 year
reduction). On average, a 0.2 percent emission reduction per pollutant per year could be achieved
if implementing all bundled measures.
181
-------
SIP is due in 2015 and the EPA selected out-year of 2020. In addition, the 2-5 percent
reduction was based upon some assumptions used in the Moving Cooler Report that does
not produce results upon which decision-makers can rely. While Moving Cooler had
some valid findings and virtually all the strategies in the report have merit at some level,
many strategies were formulated beyond what can be reasonably achieved, according to
comments provided by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and state Departments
of Transportation (DOTs). Unless the nature of the strategies in the report are fully
understood, this report may be relied on at face value to develop policies and programs
that could have adverse and unintended consequences for our nation's transportation
system, economy and quality of life. Some examples of unrealistic assumptions and
questionable findings from the Moving Cooler Report include:
• $5.00/gallon gas tax (the gas tax was $0.01 during its inception in 1932, and the
current gas tax is only $0,184 gallon tax, and the average state combined federal and
state tax is $0,475 cents/gallon);
• Impose a toll of 5 cents per mile on the entire interstate highway system;
• Trips made by bicycle in the U.S. will increase from 0.4 percent today to 11 percent;
• 90 percent of future development will take place in urban areas, compared to 34
percent today;
• $400 residential parking permits would be required for on-street parking;
• Tolls would be charged to motorists who enter Central Business Districts for all
metropolitan areas of 50,000 and above; and
• The analysis of induced demand with respect to highway-related travel was more
challenging than the report indicates, and in the end the model used may not have
been fully capable of addressing this issue.
Commenter (0156) stated that, while land use changes might not easily fit into the time period of
SIP control requirements, they appreciated the EPA efforts to allow for SIP emission credits for
innovative options including land use and travel efficiencies.
Comm enter (0159) agreed with measures, such as travel efficiencies, that credit states when they
work to reduce such emissions, as mobile emissions are a large contributor to the formation of
ozone.
Response: States should consider all potentially available measures, including travel efficiency
strategies in the RACM element of the SIP. Some states have included variations of these types
of strategies in their SIPs when needed to support emission reductions necessary to meet their
CAA requirements. The degree of stringency for these strategies depends on the needs specific to
their air quality requirements and goals. In many cases, such as those identified by the
Commenter, a simple assessment and reasoned explanation would be sufficient for eliminating
some travel efficiency strategies from further analysis. If a state provides evidence that a travel
182
-------
efficiency strategy is not economically and technologically feasible, or will not advance the
attainment date, the state may eliminate it as a potential emission reduction strategy.
Comment: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) for 2008 ozone maintenance
areas
Commenter (0130) stated that, upon revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA should
work with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to ensure that areas previously designated
nonattainment or maintenance for the 1997 ozone NAAQS but attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS have access to CMAQ funding. The Commenter also stated that, without CMAQ
funding, these important programs may need to be cut back or discontinued. The EPA, in
conjunction with the FHWA, should consider the effect of the revocation of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS on potential future year CMAQ fund allocations for areas that were designated
nonattainment or maintenance under the 1997 ozone NAAQS but are designated attainment
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Commenter added that, CMAQ funding is an integral part of
jurisdictions' transportation plans. This funding supports many travel demand management
programs as well as multi-modal projects that provide significant emission reductions of ozone
precursors. As such, DEQ believes that the EPA must work with FHWA to ensure that former
nonattainment and maintenance areas continue to remain eligible to receive CMAQ funding into
the future. Continued CMAQ funding is especially important to these areas since the EPA is
currently re-evaluating the level of the 8-hour ozone standard and may recommend lowering it
even further in the coming year. If such areas cannot continue to receive CMAQ funds, the EPA
should work with FHWA to ensure that jurisdictions are eligible to receive allotments for at least
3 to 5 years into the future. This transitional period would allow metropolitan planning
organizations time to determine which projects and programs must be continued and to
determine alternate funding sources. These decisions will be very difficult to make. The
Commenter indicated several areas in Virginia that were designated attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS use CMAQ funding for a variety of very successful travel demand management
programs, such as Richmond Ridefinders, Greater Richmond Transit Company, and
Fredericksburg's GWRideConnect. The Commenter further indicated that, CMAQ funding has
also been successfully used to help jumpstart such multi-modal projects as the 64 Barge Express,
which reduces truck traffic by an estimated 24,000 trips annually along the 1-64 and 1-95
corridor between the Ports of Hampton Roads and the Port of Richmond. These programs, and
many others like them are highly beneficial to air quality. They improve the lives of all citizens
of the Commonwealth and improve highway safety. The Commenter believed that, continued
CMAQ funding is essential for the RAPCA area to maintain attainment of the 1997 ozone
standard and to possibly avoid designation of nonattainment for the 2008 standard. With funding
being cut annually on every front—local, state and federal, the continuation of CMAQ funding is
important. (0141)
Response: The EPA recognizes the role CMAQ funding has in supporting transportation
projects that reduce travel activity and their associated emissions. The CMAQ funding and
eligibility requirements are specified in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21). The CMAQ program is administered by the U.S. DOT and is not subject to this
183
-------
rulemaking. Past and current program policy and flexibility has supported continued funding for
formerly eligible nonattainment and maintenance areas.
Comment: (MAO funding for PM2.5 areas
Commenter (0130) stated that, the EPA should work with FHWA to remove requirements
mandating that areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for PM2.5 receive additional
funding from CMAQ. The Commenter stated that, this type of decision should be at a state's
discretion so that CMAQ allocation processes may avoid absurd results. In Virginia, only the
Northern Virginia area is designated nonattainment for PM2.5. Northern Virginia is part of the
metropolitan Washington, D.C. area, which was designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. Virginia has recently submitted a redesignation request and maintenance plan to
redesignate the area to attainment/maintenance. The area's annual design values for PM2.5 using
2010-2012 data is 10.8 [j,g/m3, 1.21 Jg/m3 less than the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 [j,g/m3. The
area's 24-hour design value for PM2.5 using 2010-2012 data is 27 (J,g/m3, 8 [j,g/m3 less than the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [j,g/m3. The area was designated attainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and is expected to be designated attainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Clearly, this
area is not a persistent nonattainment area for PM2.5, however, it is a persistent nonattainment
area for ozone. Additionally, several other areas in Virginia that currently receive CMAQ funds
that were designated as attainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are just under the 2008
ozone NAAQS. It makes no sense to divert CMAQ funds from these areas to metropolitan
Washington D.C. based on the nonattainment status of the D.C. area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The Commenter believed that, it made no sense to require the D.C. area to spend a percentage of
its CMAQ funds on any type of particulate reduction strategy. The citizens in this area are
already experiencing healthy PM2.5 air quality. What the area needs are NOx reductions for ozone
air quality improvement. The Commenter recommended that, the EPA should work with FHWA
to review these types of requirements for CMAQ and make necessary changes so that states have
the flexibility to use CMAQ money for reductions most needed for improving air quality. (0130)
Response: Any state that has a PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance area-including those with
approved SIPs that identify on-road mobile sources as insignificant for regional transportation
conformity-is required under MAP-21 to invest a portion of its CMAQ funding in projects that
reduce PM2.5 directly or its precursors. Provisions giving priority to PM2.5 emission reductions
and directing a small portion of a state's CMAQ funding to PM2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas are specified in the MAP-21 (MAP-21) and the Interim Program Guidance
issued by DOT on November 12, 2013. The law does not require additional CMAQ funding for
PM2.5 areas, but directs a portion of the state's CMAQ funds to those areas. Existing program
policy and flexibility gives states discretion to allocate the remaining CMAQ funds within the
state to other eligible areas according to their priorities. The CMAQ program is administered by
the U.S. DOT and is not subject to this rulemaking.
P. Efforts to Encourage a Multi-Pollutant Approach When Developing 2008 Ozone SIPs
1. General support for a multi-pollutant approach
184
-------
Commenters (0156, 0164, 0166 and 0169) supported having the option of a multi-pollutant
approach to SIP planning requirements. Commenters (0156 and 0166) noted that, substantial
efficiencies in SIP and transportation planning development could be realized by aligning
NAAQS schedules, but it is unknown how that can occur considering existing statutory
requirements.
Comm enter (0166) stated that, perhaps the best that can be done is to allow credit for emission
reductions planned under one program when implementing another program, an approach that
the EPA already allows to a certain extent. Commenter (0166) encouraged the EPA to allow
states to take credit for programs that may not yet have been fully implemented, but stated that, if
the EPA moves forward with this proposed approach on integrated planning, it must provide
sound legal justification for doing so.
Commenter (0169) stated that, a paradigm shift is necessary to move away from a pollutant-by-
pollutant approach in favor of multipollutant air quality management and to account for the
current rigidity in SIP deadlines that only serves to foster a sue and settle approach to
policymaking. Until such time that the CAA can be revised, Commenter (0169) advised that,
consistent interpretation of the CAA is vital to avoid the consequence of further promoting
regulation by litigation.
Response: The EPA supports multipollutant planning where possible. Regarding the comment
encouraging the EPA to allow states to take credit for programs that may not yet have been fully
implemented, please See section III.B in the final preamble for details regarding the EPA's
policy on this subject.
2. Do not support a multi-pollutant approach
Comment: Commenter (0159) stated, they preferred a single pollutant approach.
Response: Multipollutant planning is not required under this rule.
Q. How does this proposed rule apply to tribes?
Comment: The rule affects tribes
Commenter (0181) disagreed with the proposed rule's claim that, "it would not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, since no tribe has to develop a SIP under these
proposed regulatory revisions" (page 34226). The Commenter stated that, Indian tribes whose
interests and air quality levels were improperly overlooked when nonattainment designations and
classifications were made, whose air quality is not accurately reflected by these older
designations and classifications and whose nonattainment is due overwhelmingly (if not entirely)
to transport, will be adversely affected by the rule. The Pechanga Band falls into this category.
When the EPA established the new ozone NAAQS to replace the oxidants NAAQS in 1979, it
designated the entire portion of Riverside County in the South Coast Air Basin, which had been
designated as nonattainment for the oxidants NAAQS and which includes the Pechanga Indian
Reservation, as nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS. This action was taken without consulting
185
-------
Pechanga.
The Commenter argued that, under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the designation of
"nonattainment" and the boundary of the Metropolitan Los Angeles Air Quality Control Region
1-hour ozone nonattainment area were carried forward by operation of law and the Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin nonattainment area was classified as "Extreme" ozone nonattainment -
again without consultation with Pechanga, in derogation of the 1984 policy announced by
Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus requiring the agency to "assure that tribal concerns and
interests are considered whenever the EPA's actions and/or decisions may affect reservation
environments." (See 78 FR 34178, 34209)
The Commenter stated that, the Pechanga Indian Reservation straddles the boundary between
southwestern Riverside County and San Diego County, and it is undisputed that its ozone levels
and its air quality in general are far better than those of the Los Angeles - South Coast Air Basin
as a whole, a fact recognized by the EPA when it announced the designation of "Moderate"
nonattainment of the 2008 ground-level ozone standard for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno
Indians Nonattainment Area in 2012. The Pechanga Indian Reservation, approximately 6,700
acres, is now divided into two different 8-hour ozone designations, with the portion of the
Reservation located in San Diego County being in attainment of all ozone standards, and the
contiguous portion located in Riverside County being in "Moderate" non-attainment of the 2008
standard and "Extreme" nonattainment of the 1-hour standard. Of course, this division has no
basis in science or common sense. The Reservation has no industry, no major roadways and only
one significant commercial entity located within its boundaries and historically tolerated high
ozone transport from the heavily polluted Los Angeles - South Coast Air Basin.
Commenter (0181) stated that, the facts of Pechanga's predicament are:
1. Pechanga's current nonattainment designation for the 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-
hour standard are based entirely on data from within the South Coast Air Basin and not on data
from within the Pechanga Reservation or the immediately adjacent (attainment) areas in San
Diego County.
2. The South Coast Air Basin is subject to stringent federal requirements that can only result in
improvements in air quality within the Pechanga reservation.
3. Due to the overwhelming contribution of emissions from the South Coast Air Basin to
Pechanga's ozone levels, the only way that Pechanga could make the demonstrations required by
the proposed rulemaking to eliminate the anti-backsliding requirements would be for Pechanga
to rely on planning, regulations and commitments by other jurisdictions - the South Coast
AQMD and the State of California-that are completely outside of Pechanga's control and which
may have economic interests in conflict with or adverse to those of the Pechanga Band.
Commenter (0181) believed that, to require a geographically small entity with no industry to
demonstrate that its attainment of a revoked standard is due to permanent and enforceable
emission reductions when, in fact, there is virtually nothing within its jurisdiction to reduce, and
186
-------
to require a demonstration that controls will remain in place when the controls affecting ozone in
its territory are under a different jurisdiction, places an undue burden on a tribe whose 1-hour
classification and designation were improperly, unfairly and illogically set in the first place.
Response: The tribe expresses concerns about its inclusion in the South Coast Air Quality
Control Region, which is a nonattainment area. This comment is beyond the scope of this rule,
which sets forth the requirements for SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas. It does not address
how air quality control regions are established or designated.
The CAA section 107(d) establishes the requirement for the EPA to designate areas following
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 107(d) does not explicitly reference Indian
tribes or Indian country. However, tribes are able to participate in the designations process, and
the EPA encourages them to do so.
The EPA included the Pechanga Reservation in the initial one-hour ozone designation for the
South Coast nonattainment area in 1978.27 The Pechanga Reservation, in a September 13, 2012
letter from Mark Macarro, Chairman of the Pechanga Reservation, requested correction of the
EPA's inclusion of the Pechanga Reservation in the initial one-hour ozone designation for the
South Coast nonattainment area in 1978. The chairman asserted that including the tribe in the
designation area was incorrect based on air quality considerations at the time and the failure to
consult with the Tribe or to consider the Tribe's interests. The EPA recognizes that there have
been long-standing issues arising from the inclusion of the reservation in the South Coast ozone
nonattainment area.
The EPA has reviewed the request from the tribe and communicated to the tribe that the EPA
was not inclined to pursue the error correction approach at this time. Under section 110(k)(6), the
EPA must first determine that the agency's initial action promulgating the designation of the
South Coast to include the Pechanga Reservation was in error, and EPA is not convinced that
such action was in error. The EPA would encourage the tribe to continue to work with the EPA
Region IX Air Division to resolve the tribes' concerns.
The EPA regrets any problems regarding past coordination with the tribe. We note that the
agency did not have a consultation policy at the time that various actions noted by the
Commenter took place. However, in order to improve the EPA's efforts to ensure adequate
communication and coordination with tribes, the EPA, on May 4, 2011, released the "EPA
27 See 43 FR 8962 (March 3, 1978)
187
-------
Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes."28 The policy is a result of the
Presidential Memorandum on Tribal Consultation issued November 5, 2009, directing agencies
to develop a plan to implement fully Executive Order 13175.29
R. What are the requirements for the Ozone Transport Region (OTR)?
1. VOC controls
Comment: Commenter (0130) stated that imposition of VOC controls in areas that are NOx-
limited is burdensome to both the regulated entity as well as the state, which must determine,
implement and enforce these controls. The commenter added that allowing NOx substitution for
VOC should extend beyond section 182(b)(2) RACT requirements to those required for areas
within the OTR. The commenter stated that studies have shown that many areas in the OTR,
including Northern Virginia, show little or no benefit to ground-level concentrations when
significant reductions in anthropogenic VOC emissions are modelled. The commenter asked the
question, why impose additional regulations and requirements when science indicates that ozone
concentrations will not improve as a result? The commenter urged the EPA to implement this
common sense approach.
Response: The EPA agrees that there are examples of modeling suggesting that ozone formation
in some areas is NOx-limited, such that changes in anthropogenic VOC emissions will have little
effect on ozone concentrations. The EPA agrees that today's understanding of the role of NOx
reductions would suggest that, in some areas, it would be relatively more efficient to focus
attainment planning efforts on achieving reductions in NOx rather than VOC emissions.
However, the CAA section 182(b)(1) expressly requires the 15 percent ROP plans to reduce
emissions of VOC. It does not provide discretion to meet these requirements by reducing
emissions of other pollutants. Where Congress intended to allow such a substitution, it
specifically provided so, such as in section 182(c)(2)(C) which allows NOx to be substituted for
VOC in the 3 percent annual RFP plans for Serious and above areas.
The EPA has already developed information that may be assist the commenter. The EPA
developed the NOx Substitution Guidance, December 1993, which provides a procedure that can
be applied to meet the section 182(c)(2)(B) RFP requirement as well as the section 182(c)(2)(C)
equivalency demonstration requirements. This guidance is intended to facilitate implementation
of the most effective ozone precursor control strategies, while meeting the intent of the CAA
RFP provisions. This document can be accessed at the following web address:
28 The "EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes," can be accessed at
the following web site: http://www.epa.gov/indian/pdf/cons-and-coord-with-indian-tribes-
policy.pdf
29 Executive Order 13175 can be accessed at the following website:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-2000-l 1-13/pdf/WCPD-2000-11-13-Pg2806-2.pdf
188
-------
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/tl/memoranda/noxsubst.pdf. The EPA, on August 5, 1994, issued a
memorandum titled, Clarification of Policy for N()x Substitution, John S. Seitz, Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which issues a clarification on NOx substitution for ROP
plans, specifically, what the EPA will accept as evidence that NOx substitution for VOC
reductions is a viable approach. This memorandum can be accessed at the following web
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/tl/memoranda/clarisub.pdf.
2. Emission reduction credits
Comment: Commenter (0144) urged EPA to allow for emission reduction credits from certain
control strategies made within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) states that occurred between
2008 and the year of the baseline emissions inventory (2011), if 2011 is used as the baseline
inventory, so that states that made early reductions in ozone precursors are not economically and
environmentally disadvantaged.
Response: In the final rule, the EPA allows states to take emission reduction credits for certain
control strategies implemented with the OTR if the baseline year the state selects is consistent
with the timing of those reductions. However, if the state selects 2011 as its baseline year,
emissions reductions occurring in the years 2008-2010 are not creditable against a 2011 baseline.
3. NOx substitution
Comment: Commenter (0166) opposed the EPA's proposal to allow nonattainment areas in the
OTR that are subject to section 182(b)(1) of the Act for the first time to substitute NOx
reductions for otherwise-required VOC reductions. [Also See section 2.C.2, 2008 ozone
nonattainment areas where portions have a previously approved 15 percent VOC reduction plan]
Response: Several Commenters raised objections to the EPA's proposal that would allow only
areas in the OTR to meet the RFP requirements by allowing NOx substitutions. The Commenters
argued that, it would be better to allow all areas to take advantage of this alternative. Attainment
areas in the OTR were not required to adopt 15 percent RFP plans under section 184 of the CAA.
We discussed certain VOC reduction measures in the proposal. We expected that the VOC
reductions from those measures would account for a significant portion of the 15 percent
requirement for areas designated nonattainment. We reasoned that since attainment areas in the
OTR were required to adopt and implement many of the same measures applied in nonattainment
areas, we proposed that such areas should be treated as having met the 15 percent VOC reduction
requirement if they can demonstrate that they did, in fact, achieve a 15 percent reduction in VOC
emissions, even though they of course would not have submitted a 15 percent plan as they were
not subject to the 15 percent requirement at that time. The EPA has reconsidered its proposal and
now believes it does not have authority under the CAA to allow NOx substitution for VOC
emissions reductions for the 15 percent ROP in any area, including an area located in the OTR,
unless the area has previously submitted, adopted and implemented a SIP providing for a 15
percent VOC reduction in emissions from the area's baseline emissions in the 6 years following
the baseline emissions inventory year consistent with the requirement in section 182(b)(1) and
the prior approach for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.910(a)(l)(i). The EPA is not
189
-------
finalizing either of the proposed approaches that would have allowed areas to meet the 15
percent ROP requirement in whole or in part with NOx reductions in lieu of VOC reductions.
4. Areas with a previously submitted 15 percent VOC reduction plan
Comment: Commenter (0163) stated that, areas within the OTR, including new nonattainment
areas, that have already implemented VOC control measures, such as RACT, motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance programs, and Stage II or comparable measures, in response to
statutory requirements, can be assumed to have met and would not have to document meeting the
15 percent RFP requirement. [Also See section 2.C.2, 2008 ozone nonattainment areas where
portions have a previously approved 15 percent VOC reduction plan]
Response: The EPA has reconsidered its proposal and now believes it does not have authority
under the CAA to allow NOx substitution for VOC emissions reductions for the 15 percent ROP
in an area, including an area located in the OTR, which has never adopted and implemented a
SIP providing for such VOC emission reductions. Thus, we agree with the comments that the
CAA does not allow such substitution and disagree with comments suggesting that EPA allow
substitution. We are finalizing that where a 2008 nonattainment area has previously met the
CAA requirement for a 15 percent ROP VOC reduction plan for the entire area, the area is not
required to fulfill that requirement again.
5. lnterpollutant Offset Substitution in the OTR
Comment: Commenter (0130) suggested that, the proposal clarify that this exchange may be
implemented in the OTR regions as well as nonattainment areas outside the OTR. The
commenter believed that permits for facilities to construct or modify in nonattainment areas need
to ensure that the expansion or new facility will not hinder progress toward compliance with the
NAAQS. The commenter further believed that requiring facilities to obtain offsets for pollutants
that only minimally reduce ozone concentrations is overly burdensome and should be
streamlined. The commenter believed that in areas where NOx is the predominant ozone
precursor, which the commenter alleged is the case in most areas on the eastern seaboard, NSR
offset requirements for areas within and outside the OTR should reflect this fact. In these areas,
NSR rules should not mandate that VOC offsets be acquired for major permit actions. The
commenter urged the EPA to allow substitution of NOx emissions reductions to satisfy VOC
offset requirements into the final rule.
Response: The EPA has addressed interprecursor offset substitution in the discussion section
1.3 .b, and regulation amendment for 40 CFR 51.165(a)(ll) and part51 Appendix S IV.G.5. The
changes in the regulatory as noted in the discussion did not specifically address use within the
OTR regions, however the EPA does not anticipate precluding the use of interpollutant offset
substitution as long as such trades are consistent with existing policy and legal requirements for
such trades.6. Stage II vapor recovery
Comment:
190
-------
Commenter (0143) stated that, the DEP understands that the proposed rule "would have no effect
on the continuing independent CAA section 184(b)(2) requirement for OTR states to implement
Stage II programs or measures capable of achieving emissions reductions comparable to those
achieved by Stage II", nonetheless, DEP strongly supports the proposed revisions to the anti-
backsliding rules. (0143)
Response: The EPA believes its revision to the existing anti-backsliding rules, which does not
include the Stage II vapor recovery program previously required by CAA section 182(b)(3) in
the list of measures that need to be retained for anti-backsliding, is consistent with the EPA's
May 16 2012, Stage II action, 77 FR 28772. In that action, the EPA determined that ORVR
systems are in widespread use nationally, and the EPA waived the CAA section 182(b)(3)
requirement for states to adopt and submit programs for implementation of the Stage II vapor
recovery system at gasoline dispensing facilities located in Serious and above ozone
nonattainment areas, pursuant to authority provided in CAA section 202(b)(6). However, the
Commenter is correct that, OTR states must continue with the independent CAA section
184(b)(2) requirement to implement Stage II programs or measures capable of achieving
emissions reductions comparable to those achieved by Stage II, consistent with the "Guidance on
Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from SIPs and Assessing Comparable
Measures" August 7, 2012, (EPA-457/B-12-001).
S. Are there any additional requirements related to enforcement and compliance?
The EPA did not propose any specific regulatory provisions related to compliance and
enforcement. The EPA did not solicit comment on this section and none were received.
T. What are the requirements for addressing emergency episodes?
Comment: Commenter (0160) supported the proposed use of the Administrator's discretion to
exempt ozone nonattainment areas from the emergency episode planning requirements originally
required for the revoked 1-hour standard. Commenter (0160) stated that, modern information
technology has replaced these "paper plans" with real-time data and improved public notification
systems.
191
-------
Response: The EPA did not propose to exempt emergency episode planning requirements but
proposed to apply the existing requirements for emergency episodes (40 CFR part 51, subpart H)
to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, whereby SIPs would identify areas by priority classification and
contain contingency plans to prevent pollutant concentrations from reaching levels that would
cause significant harm to the health of persons. We did not receive any adverse comments on this
proposal, and we are finalizing this proposal without changes. The proposed rule also specified
that the existing significant harm level for ozone of 0.6 ppm, 2-hour average (40 CFR 51.151)
would continue to apply for purposes of developing emergency episode plans. We did not
receive any adverse comments on this proposal, and we are finalizing this proposal without
changes.
U. How does the "Clean Data Policy" apply to the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
1. Support clean data policy
Comment: Commenters (0159, 0163, 0172, 0173 and 0179) supported the EPA's proposed
approach to the clean data policy.
Commenter (0159) stated that, requirements designed to bring an area into attainment should be
suspended once the goal of attainment has been achieved, provided the area continues its
monitoring program and continues to attain the relevant standard. Commenter (0173) stated that,
not only has the Clean Data Policy been upheld in court but it is also essential to streamlining
unnecessary administrative burdens for areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.
Commenter (0179) supported the policy since it reduces burdens on areas that attain the
NAAQS. Commenter (0179) requested that, the EPA expeditiously redesignate and/or reclassify
areas using its CAA section 107(d)(3) authority for which states have submitted "clean data"
certification and redesignation/maintenance SIPs.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenters' support of the Clean Data Policy. As stated in
the Clean Data Policy, the attainment demonstration, RFP requirements and contingency
measure requirement are designed to bring an area into attainment. Once this goal has been
achieved, we believe the statute no longer requires submission of plans designed to bring the area
into attainment and thus it is appropriate to suspend the obligation that states submit plans to
meet these goals, so long as the area continues to attain the relevant standard. The EPA Regional
Offices will act on redesignating areas based on any section 175A submittals that are received in
as expeditious a manner as possible.
V What assistance programs is the EPA considering for implementation of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS?
1. Ozone Advance
Comment: Commenter (0140) stated that, because areas participating in the EPA's Ozone
Advance Program are undertaking significant efforts to limit emissions within their areas and
stay in compliance with federal ozone standards, the EPA should ensure in this rulemaking that it
192
-------
will exercise the maximum discretion available to it under the CAA in implementing the 2008
ozone NAAQS to these areas in recognition of these efforts.
Commenter (0163) stated, the EPA should assure that areas implementing ozone advance are
currently still in attainment with the NAAQS and, if these areas are no longer meeting the
NAAQS with the most recent data, the EPA should redesignate these areas to nonattainment and
require they come into attainment as specified in subpart 2.
Comm enter (0169) expressed support for the Ozone and PM Advance Programs and stated that
their shared goal and focus should be attainment of the ozone NAAQS as soon as practical to
provide public health protection as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, this process should
reward and provide maximum flexibility to programs that can attain the standard on an
accelerated basis. As the EPA is aware, 13 out of 14 areas across the nation were successful in
implementing an 8-hour Ozone Early Action Compact (EAC) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
These areas were provided the incentive of a deferred effective date of a nonattainment
designation as long as requirements of the EAC were followed, including the implementation of
measures earlier than required. The EACs served to help motivate local partners to implement
strategies to help avoid a nonattainment designation altogether. This saved countless state, local,
and business man-hours and dollars and protected public health by maintaining ozone levels
below the NAAQS in participating areas. While the EPA has discontinued the EAC program and
its resulting deferment of nonattainment designations, realizing the benefit of it in principal has
led to the Ozone and PM Advance Program which serves to again encourage attainment. SC has
signed on and been accepting into both the Ozone and PM Advance Programs and looks forward
to continuing our work with stakeholders via our state-wide Coalitions.
Response: A Commenter noted that, the EPA has discretion to determine whether areas
designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but that have since violated the standard
should be redesignated nonattainment. The Commenter recommends that, if an attainment area
participating in the EPA's Advance Program is not meeting the 2008 standard, the EPA should
not designate the area nonattainment as a result of the area's participation in Ozone Advance.
This issue is addressed in the Ozone Advance program guidance, which states that if violations
of the ozone NAAQS occur despite an area's participation in Ozone Advance, the EPA would
consider the factors in the CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), which include "air quality data, planning
and control considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the Administrator
deems appropriate." The guidance additionally indicates that where control measures and
programs are actively being implemented by an area, the EPA may allow time to determine
whether such measures and programs bring the area back into attainment. This is not meant to
suggest that participation in Ozone Advance can shield an area from being redesignated
nonattainment if the area eventually violates the ozone NAAQS. However, it is appropriate for
the EPA to consider an area's active pursuit of control measures and programs (whether via
Ozone Advance or otherwise) as one factor among the set of factors it considers when
determining whether to exercise its discretion to revise the area's designation to nonattainment.
Another Commenter suggested that, the EPA should redesignate Ozone Advance areas to
193
-------
nonattainment if they are no longer meeting the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on the most recent
data. The EPA agrees that participation in Ozone Advance is not a guarantee against a future
redesignation to nonattainment. If violations of the ozone NAAQS occur despite an area's
participation in Ozone Advance, the EPA would consider the factors in CAA section
107(d)(3)(A), which include "air quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other
air quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate." To the extent an area is
actively implementing control measures and programs, the EPA may allow time to determine
whether such measures and programs bring the area back into attainment.
Lastly, a Commenter emphasized the benefits of flexible, expeditious approaches that can help
areas achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS. In particular, the Commenter noted the success
of the Early Action Compact program for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the current Ozone and
PM Advance programs as examples of helpful, flexible approaches that encourage areas attain
the NAAQS expeditiously. The EPA shares the commenter's view that expeditious attainment of
the NAAQS is needed to ensure public health is protected, and that flexible attainment
approaches can play an important role in helping areas to achieve air quality improvements.
194
-------
W. What is the deadline for states to submit SIP revisions to address the CAA section 185
penalty fee provision for Severe and Extreme areas?
1. Support the proposed schedule
Comment: Commenter (0163) agreed with the proposed schedule for submitting CAA section
185 SIPs.
Response: The EPA thanks the Commenter for their support of the proposed schedule for
developing and submitting section 185 SIPs to the EPA. Consistent with CAA section 182(d)(3),
the final rule requires states with areas initially classified as Severe or Extreme for the 2008
ozone NAAQS to submit a section 185 SIP no later than 10 years after the effective date of
designation and classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For areas that are reclassified to
Severe or Extreme at any other time, the EPA will establish an appropriate fee program SIP
submission deadline as part of the reclassification action.
X. Other Comments
1. Federal control measures
Comment: Commenters (0139, 0141, 0149, 0155 and 0157) encouraged the EPA to continue to
regulate mobile and stationary sources through national measures.
Commenter (0168) asserted that, emission reductions achieved by national rules will not only
reduce emissions from within what the Commenter characterized as the arbitrarily small
nonattainment areas that are covered by this proposal, but will also reduce emissions from the
broader area that is the primary cause of nonattainment.
Commenter (0143) encouraged the EPA, when finalizing the rule, to use the EPA's existing
authority to gather emissions data and update current program standards that have the potential to
lower emissions.
Commenters (0139 and 0150) stated, the EPA needs to share the responsibility to attain the
standards and to have the authority to impose requirements that will enable the standards to be
attained. The Commenter believed that, the existing provisions of the CAA gives state and local
governments the responsibility to attain the NAAQS, yet it deprives them of the ability to
regulate the sources that, in California at least, contribute by far the greatest amount of
emissions—mobile sources. In contrast, the EPA is given the ability to regulate mobile sources,
but is not given the responsibility to actually attain the standards. We recognize that the CAA
attempts to address this concern to some extent by allowing California to set emission standards
for new mobile sources with a waiver or authorization from EPA, under section 209. But despite
California having used these provisions to the greatest extent feasible, there is still a large gap
between existing regulation and attainment needs. The EPA needs to have the authority to (1)
regulate existing as well as new on-road and NONROAD sources; (2) require airlines, shippers,
and railroads to route their cleanest equipment to the areas that need emission reductions the
195
-------
most; and (3) regulate marine vessels flying foreign flags but doing substantial business within
U.S. ports.
Commenter (0150) expressed their biggest concern with the existing provisions of the CAA is
that it gives state and local governments the responsibility to attain the NAAQS, yet it deprives
them of the ability to regulate the sources that, in California at least, contribute by far the greatest
amount of emissions-mobile sources. The commenter explained that EPA is given the ability to
regulate mobile sources, but is not given the responsibility to actually attain the standards. The
commenter recognized that the CAA attempts to address this concern to some extent by allowing
California to set emission standards for new mobile sources with a waiver or authorization from
the EPA, under section 209. The commenter specified that in their state, despite having used
these provisions to the greatest extent feasible, there is still a large gap between existing
regulation and attainment needs. The commenter proposed the EPA needs to regulate "federal
sources" by an amount proportionate to their contribution to the problem. To attain even the
1997 ozone standard, the South Coast needs an additional 65 percent NOx reductions beyond
what would occur in the attainment year of 2024 without further regulation. Since mobile
sources contribute over 80 percent of ozone precursors, they must contribute the lions' share of
the reductions. The Commenter believed that, the EPA needs to take responsibility for attaining
the national standards-and it needs to have the tools to be able to do so. The commenter
recommended that EPA needs to have the authority to (1) regulate existing as well as new
ONROAD and nonroad sources; (2) require airlines, shippers and railroads to route their cleanest
equipment to the areas that need emission reductions the most and (3) regulate marine vessels
flying foreign flags but doing substantial business within U.S. ports. The commenter offered that
these issues are further discussed in the testimony of Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer of
the SCAQMD, on August 2, 2012, before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power. This
testimony was included as an attachment to the SCAQMD letter of August 21, 2012, regarding
RFP, which is attached to comment 0150. The commenter summarizes that, the EPA needs to
share the responsibility to attain the standards and to have the authority to impose requirements
that will enable the standards to be attained.
Commenter (0168) suggested that, the list of national rules that the EPA adopts be expanded to
include other requirements that have been implemented in the OTR states, which include updated
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coating (AIM), auto body coating, and others.
Commenter added that, the EPA discussed in the proposal HEDD, vehicle I/M for OBD
equipped vehicles and the removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems, which also may be
candidates for national rules.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenter's affirmation that the EPA's determination of
widespread use of ORVR adequately supports the EPA's waiver of requirements for Stage II
vapor recovery systems. The EPA's decision to waive the Stage II gasoline vapor recovery
requirement for ozone nonattainment areas was based on an analysis that was available for public
review and comment in the EPA's rulemaking process. Overall, the analysis demonstrates that
ozone-precursor emission control benefits of basic Stage II programs decline as older vehicles
are replaced by newer ORVR-equipped vehicles, and that basic Stage II systems become
increasingly less cost-effective ozone control measures. The EPA's analysis incorporated all
196
-------
types of refueling events at gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs) including: (a) ORVR vehicles
at Stage II GDFs; (b) ORVR vehicles at non Stage II GDFs; (c) non-ORVR vehicles at Stage II
GDFs; and (d) non-ORVR vehicles at non Stage II GDFs. The EPA calculated the emissions in
these four segments but did not address storage tank emissions since our analysis concluded that
these emissions would be about the same with ORVR alone or with Stage II alone. Early in the
rulemaking process, we published an analysis which concluded that storage tank vent emissions
would be the same or less under any refueling scenario because the GDF National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants rule for GDFs require pressure/vent (p/v) valves. In these
analyses, the EPA did not indicate that storage tank vent emissions would be zero, but that they
would not increase if Stage II was removed. Furthermore, the EPA concluded that storage tank
vent emissions related to ORVR/vacuum assist nozzle incompatibility would gradually increase
if Stage II was retained but would be eliminated if Stage II was removed. Based on public
comment on the July 15, 2011, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we prepared and
published an analysis which quantified this effect and we included these emissions in the
assessment that supported the EPA's determination of when Stage II could be removed. Our
analysis and all of the data considered in our determination was available for public review and
comment during the EPA's rulemaking process. All comments received on the NPRM were
considered and addressed in our Response to Comments document supporting the May 16, 2012
final rule (77 FR 28772).
Comment: Commenter (0147) agreed with the statement in the proposed rule, which highlights
achievements already made by the solvents industry and downstream users in reducing VOC
emissions.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenter's support.
2. Subpart 1 and Subpart 2
Comment: Commenter (0140) stated that, the EPA should only apply Subpart 2 requirements to
ozone nonattainment areas in cases where the courts have explicitly ruled that the EPA must
apply these requirements. The Commenter stated that, under the Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC two-
step test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a
statute, the courts grant a government agency discretion in interpreting a statute if Congress has
not "spoken directly to the precise question at issue," and if "the agency's answer is based on a
permissible construction of the statute." In this case, the specific question at hand is whether the
"Subpart 2" requirements under section 182 of Title I of the 1990 CAA Amendments must be
used to implement the 2008 ozone NAAQS for areas with 8-hour ozone at or below 0.09 ppm.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. (2001), and the
Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit's ruling in South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA (2006 and 2007) both indicated that Congress did not "clearly intend Subpart 2 to be the
exclusive, permanent means of enforcing a revised ozone standard in nonattainment areas," and
that the EPA's implementation of the 1997 ozone standard violated the CAA "insofar as it
subjects areas with 8-hour ozone in excess of 0.09 ppm to Subpart 1."
197
-------
The cumulative impact of these rulings is to allow the EPA to implement an 8-hour ozone
standard under Subpart 1 for areas with 8-hour ozone levels at or below 0.09 ppm, as long as
such a rulemaking is based on a permissible construction of the statute. The 2007 South Coast
decision only precludes the EPA from a construction of the statute that, "rel[ies] upon its
preference for regulatory flexibility in setting the boundary between Subpart 1 and Subpart 2."
The CACAC recommends that the EPA instead rely on the statute's explicitly stated purpose of
Title I "to encourage and assist the development of regional air pollution prevention and control
programs" under section 101(b)(4) and the explicitly stated goal of the statute "to encourage or
otherwise promote reasonable Federal, state and local government actions, consistent with
provisions of this Act, for pollution prevention" under section 101(c) as the basis for using
Subpart 1 to implement the 2008 standard for areas with 8-hour ozone below 0.09 ppm. Insofar
as application of Subpart 2 requirements to 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas with 8-hour ozone
levels at or below 0.09 ppm act as a disincentive to states, local governments and businesses in
"attainment" areas taking proactive measures to avoid nonattainment, it would be contrary to the
stated Congressional intent for the statute.
Specifically, the requirements for emission reductions beyond what may be required for
expeditious attainment under Subpart 2's RFP requirement create a set of regulatory
requirements that would inadvertently punish an area for taking proactive emission reduction
measures prior to a "baseline" year used to establish emission reduction targets. For the Austin-
Round Rock MSA, for example, under the Early Action Compact (EAC) and then again under
the 8-Hour Ozone Flex Program (8-O3 Flex), the local governments and the TCEQ adopted a
host of regulations and emission reduction measures that reduced the area's NOx and VOC
emissions, including a vehicle inspection and maintenance program, stage 1 vapor recovery
requirements, degreasing restrictions, cutback asphalt restrictions, heavy-duty vehicle idling
restrictions, power plant emission reductions, Texas Low-Emission Diesel (TxLED), and a diesel
retrofit/repower/replacement program (the Emission Reduction Incentive Grants, or "ERIG,"
under the Texas Emission Reduction Plan, or "TERP" program). These emission reductions
began in 2004 and have significantly reduced the emissions up to today, including in any
baseline year that would be used for calculating RFP targets if the Austin-Round Rock MSA
were to be designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at some point in the future. The
local governments and TCEQ were willing to pursue these and other emission reduction
measures in order to maintain compliance with an ever-stricter ozone standard with the explicit
agreement from the EPA that the emission reduction measures would be "creditable" to any
future ozone SIP requirements (including RFP).
The Commenter stated that, it is easy to see how implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
using Subpart 2's requirements for an area like the Austin-Round Rock MSA could wind up
"punishing" it for taking proactive measures by requiring a 15 percent VOC reduction (or 3
percent per year NOx reductions) from an already-reduced emissions baseline. For example, if
the Austin-Round Rock MSA's typical ozone season weekday VOC emissions in 2011 were 95
tons per day (tpd), but would have been 100 tpd if it not adopted proactive emission reduction
measures, it's target VOC emissions level would be lower (80.75 tpd, or 85 percent of 95 tpd)
than what would have been required if it had not taken those proactive measures (85 tpd, or 85
percent of 100 tpd). The extra 4.25 tpd of VOC emission reductions that an area might have to
198
-------
make under this scenario would provide a powerful disincentive to it or any other area taking
similar proactive measures. Similarly, if a major point source has reduced its emissions and
voluntarily modified its permit to reflect the lower emissions prior to a "baseline" year, it would
also be "punished" for taking this beneficial, proactive measure since these emission reductions
would not be available for use as an offset if the area was designated nonattainment. Since doing
so would provide disincentives for taking proactive measures to attain and maintain the 2008
ozone NAAQS, implementing it using Subpart 2 for areas that the EPA is not required to use
them would be contrary to the purpose of the statute and would not serve any useful purpose in
attaining and maintaining the standard.
The Commenter suggested that, the EPA could also use the definition of "RFP" under section
171(1) as the basis for waiving the section 182 RFP requirements for areas with 8-hour ozone
design values of 0.09 ppm or less. Section 182(b)(a)(i) specifies that the SIP must require a 15
percent VOC reduction from a 1990 baseline and "such specific annual reductions in emissions
of VOC and NOx as necessary to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date
applicable under this Act." Section 171(1) states that, "The term 'RFP' means such annual
incremental reduction in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or
may be reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date" (emphasis added). The specific requirements of
section 182(b)(a)(i) beyond what was defined in section 171(1) were aimed at attainment the 1-
hour ozone standard in effect at the time of its passage, and therefore may need to still be applied
to areas with 8-hour ozone above 0.09 ppm (the 8-hour equivalent of the 1-hour standard).
However, no examination of the scientific evidence for many areas, including for the Austin-
Round Rock MSA, would interpret the general RFP requirements under section 171(1) and
section 172(c)(2) as requiring a 15 percent VOC reduction irrespective of whether such a
reduction would be effective at reducing ozone levels. For the Austin area, even a 100 percent
reduction in anthropogenic VOC emissions would not likely reduce local ozone levels by any
more than 0.7 parts per billion, based on modelling performed by the University of Texas at
Austin.
The Commenter believed that, since implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS under Subpart 1
would still require RFP, the CACAC recommends that for areas with 8-hour ozone design values
at or below 0.09 ppm (either 94 or 90 ppb, depending on interpretation), the RFP requirement be
tied only to the amount of emission reductions required for attainment between a baseline year
and an attainment year as specified in an attainment demonstration. The requirement for RFP
would be simply to demonstrate that emission reductions envisioned in the attainment
demonstration were being implemented at the earliest date that could reasonably be expected,
given economic and technical feasibility. This could entail a simple schedule of emission
reductions that would occur in the intervening years between the baseline and attainment year.
For a "Moderate" area with an 8-hour ozone design value of 0.09 or less, this could entail a
demonstration that half of the emission reductions would have occurred within 3 years of
designation, and that all of the remaining emission reductions would occur between the date of
submission of the SIP and the beginning of the ozone season for the attainment year. Such a
demonstration would avoid requiring states to adopt additional VOC emission reduction
measures strictly for RFP purposes, and beyond what was required to attain the standard. The
199
-------
same is true of the section 182 requirements for adoption of RACT for VOC sources-if these
emission reduction measures can't in any meaningful way contribute to the attainment or
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for a particular area, the EPA should not use these
Subpart 2 requirements for areas where it does not need to.
Response: While the EPA did consider placing some areas only under the planning requirements
of subpart 1, the EPA ultimately determined that such an approach was not its preferred approach
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Instead, the EPA determined that classifying all areas under subpart
2 and using the Percent Above The Standard (PATS) approach to translate Table 1 in section
181(a) was the most appropriate option for addressing nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Under this approach, a majority of initial nonattainment areas were be classified as
Marginal. The Marginal classification provides as much, if not more, flexibility for areas than
would subpart 1. For example, a Marginal area is not required to submit an attainment
demonstration while subpart 1 requires such a plan. For areas that are close to the standard and
likely to attain within 3 years, an attainment demonstration could be a costly and likely
unnecessary burden. We further note that the planning and control requirements that the
Commenters believed were not flexible do not apply in Marginal areas. Further, all of the initial
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or higher for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are already
subject to those requirements for purposes of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Furthermore, we disagree with the Commenters who suggest that areas would be able to attain
the standard more expeditiously under subpart 1. As an initial matter, under both subparts, states
are required to ensure that areas attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Furthermore,
the initial maximum statutory attainment date under subpart 1 is 5 years, while for Marginal
areas, which will be the classification for most areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, it is 3 years.
Regardless, under both subparts, states are required to ensure that areas attain the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable.
For areas classified as Moderate or Serious, with a maximum attainment date under subpart 2 of
6 or 9 years respectively, again subpart 1 does not necessarily set a shorter maximum attainment
date. We note that the 5 year limit under subpart 1 is only binding if the EPA determines it is
consistent with expeditious attainment. Subpart 1 allows the EPA to approve attainment
deadlines up to 10 years from designation based on a demonstration by the state that a deadline
longer than 5 years is as expeditious as practical considering the severity of nonattainment and
availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.
While it is true that subpart 1 would provide a shorter maximum attainment date for areas
classified as Severe or Extreme, we note that under the court's decision in South Coast, the
EPA's ability to place such areas solely under the planning provisions of subpart 1 is untested.
Under the classification scheme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the lowest design value for an area
classified as Severe is 0.113 ppm, which is well above the 0.090 level that the Court in South
Coast indicated was the line between where the EPA had discretion to place areas in subpart 1
200
-------
and where it did not have such discretion.30 Subpart 2 provides areas classified Severe or
Extreme more than the 10 years maximum attainment date which, may be more appropriate for
these areas given the severity of their ozone nonattainment problem.
With regard to comments that classification under subpart 1 would allow for coordinated
planning and/or synchronized attainment dates where there are multiple nonattainment areas in
the state, we note that under subpart 1 (as under subpart 2) areas are required to attain the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. Thus, subpart 1 does not allow a state to synchronize
the attainment date for multiple areas unless the state could show that date is as expeditiously as
practicable for each individual area. That means that the state would not be able to provide a
longer attainment date for an area in order to take advantage of measures that would be
implemented over a longer period if there are short-term emission reductions that are practicable
and would result in an earlier attainment date. Moreover, we note that subpart 2 does not prevent
the state from considering synchronization. The state could request a voluntary reclassification
for an area, particularly if the area cannot practicably attain by the attainment date for its initial
classification. Similarly, since all areas are required to attain as expeditiously as practicable, a
state should consider whether areas with a "higher" classification might be able to attain more
quickly. These provisions allow a state to synchronize attainment dates to the extent the date
selected for areas is "as expeditiously as practicable."
To the extent the bulleted list of points provided in the letter from Commenter 0140 is not
responded to above, we note the following:
To the extent that the Commenter is urging that, areas be placed solely under subpart 1 because
subpart 1 provides more flexibility, we note that the Court in South Coast rejected the EPA's
approach to placing areas under subpart 1 in the Phase 1 Rule on the basis that the Act does not
allow the requirements of subpart 2 "to be stripped away" on the basis that other provisions
would allow attainment to be achieved more efficiently. 472 F.3d at 894.
It is true that the major source threshold is lower for areas classified under subpart 2 at the higher
classifications than for those areas subject solely to subpart 1. However, for the lowest
classifications of Marginal and Moderate, where the design values are less than 0.100 ppm, the
major source threshold is the same as under subpart 1-100 tpy. It is also true that under subpart
1, the offset ratio applicable to sources subject to NNSR (1 to 1) is lower than under subpart 2.
However, the offset ratio is only slightly different - 1.1 to 1 in Marginal areas and 1.15 to 1 in
Moderate areas. We do not believe that difference alone is a sufficient justification for placing
areas solely under the planning provisions of subpart 1, particularly in light of the court's holding
in South Coast._As noted above, the EPA's ability to place areas solely under subpart 1 for areas
classified as Marginal and areas classified as Moderate with a design value less than 0.090 ppm
30 The same is true for all areas classified under the 2008 ozone NAAQS as Serious as the lowest
design value for such an area is 0.0100 ppm and for many areas classified as Moderate, which
includes areas with a design value no lower than 0.086 ppm and less than 0.100 ppm.
201
-------
is untested.
The Commenter also raises several points regarding transport. We have addressed the issue of
the relationship between transport and the nonattainment area planning provisions in section M.
3. Flexibility
Comment: Commenters (0149, 0150, 0152, 0153 and 0169) generally supported the EPA's
efforts to provide flexibility to states in implementing the most recent ozone standard, while
ensuring progress toward clean air.
Commenters (0163, 0167, 0169 and 0177) advised the EPA to be certain that any flexibility
provided in the proposed rule is permissible under the CAA and existing case law to prevent
further delay in implementing the 2008 standards.
Commenter (0146) stated that, the NESCAUM states are concerned with the inequities that
would result if the EPA were to allow new ozone nonattainment areas, as well as areas that
should be designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS but are not, to be excused from their
basic CAA obligations. Commenter (0146) stated that, it would place citizens in those areas as
well as in downwind areas, at a public health disadvantage and it would also provide an
unwarranted economic advantage to those areas over existing nonattainment areas.
Commenter (0180) urged the EPA to abandon this latest round of attempts to avoid the specific
measures provided by Congress in title I, part D, subpart 2 of the CAA, and instead to finalize
implementation rules that conform to the statutory directives of the Act to address the nation's
ozone problems. Commenter (0180) stated that, the EPA should strive to apply the statutory
requirements to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, not replace them. Commenter (0180) stated that, the
EPA must make every effort to resolve uncertainty in favor of stronger public health safeguards
and cited two cases. Commenter (0180) stated that, as the SCAQMD court and others have
explained, it is not permissible for the EPA to pursue interpretations of the Act in an effort to
maximize its own discretion "because the clear intent of Congress in enacting the 1990
Amendments was to the contrary." Id. at 895.
Response: The EPA appreciates the Commenters' comments regarding flexibility. In the
proposed rule, we explored several mechanisms for providing flexibility to states in
implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the previous revoked ozone NAAQS. In some cases,
were are finalizing those approaches. We are also not finalizing other proposed approaches due
to concerns the Commenters raised regarding their legality. In other cases, more time is needed
to assess whether such flexibility is consistent with the CAA.
202
-------
3.0 What is the EPA proposing to address anti-backsliding issues related to transition
from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 ozone NAAQS?
A. Revocation—general
The EPA did not receive any relevant comments on this section of the proposal preamble.
B. Transition from the 1 -Hour to the 1997 Ozone NAA
The EPA did not receive any relevant comments on this section of the proposal preamble.
C. Nonattainment NSR
The EPA did not receive any relevant comments on this section of the proposal preamble.
D. Section 185 Fees
The EPA did not receive any relevant comments on this section of the proposal preamble.
E. Contingency Measures Requirement
The EPA did not receive any relevant comments on this section of the proposal preamble.
F. What is the EPA proposing regarding anti-backsliding requirements for the 1-hour
and 1997 ozone NAA QS?
The EPA did not receive any relevant comments on this section of the proposal preamble.
G. Timing of 1997 Ozone NAAQS Revocation and Related Anti-Backsliding
Requirements
1. Support revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
Commenters (0132, 0143, 0145, 0146, 0153, 0154, 0158, 0159, 0166, 0169, 0173 and, 0179)
generally supported the EPA's proposal to revoke the 1997 Ozone NAAQS.
Commenter (0153) stated it makes little sense to be concerned about a standard that has been
superseded by a newer, more stringent standard. Commenter (0154) added that if the EPA is
delayed, for any reason, in publishing the final SIP requirements Rule, the EPA should process
the revocation separately so that states can move forward and focus resources on the current
NAAQS. Commenter (0158) agreed that it makes sense to revoke outdated and duplicative
requirements because a full revocation will allow the states and local areas to efficiently focus
their resources on planning for attainment of the current and stricter 75-ppb standard, and
facilitate a smoother transition to the new standard for states and affected sources. Commenter
(0179) stated this will ensure that only one ozone NAAQS, the more protective 2008 ozone
NAAQS, applies for implementation purposes.
Response: The EPA agrees that revoking the 1997 NAAQS and specifying adequate anti-
backsliding provisions appropriately allows states with nonattainment areas to focus planning
efforts on the current, and most health-protective, ozone NAAQS while retaining, as appropriate,
203
-------
the unmet requirements for areas designated nonattainment when the previous NAAQS was
revoked.
2. Do not support revocation of the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
Commenter (0180) stated that the EPA should not revoke the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Commenter (0180) stated that, while SCAQMD may have affirmed the EPA's authority to revoke
a NAAQS, the EPA still must provide a rational basis for doing so. Commenter (0180) stated
that, for both the 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour standard, attainment of these
standards is still critical to providing the public health and welfare protections promised by the
Act. Commenter (0180) stated that the EPA's suggestion that resources should be focused on
attaining the 2008 standard makes no sense since attainment of the 1997 standard will advance
progress toward the 2008 standard and ensures that such progress will be made sooner rather
than later.
Commenter (0180) stated that the EPA's proposal is irrational because it would waive key
requirements for extreme nonattainment areas under the 1997 standard before the deadline comes
due. Commenter (0180) stated that the EPA's proposal unravels the CAA structure starting with
the obligation to make the attainment determination required under sections 179 and 181 and the
approach allows areas to avoid triggering more stringent control measures by resetting the clocks
for bump ups. Commenter (0180) also stated that another generation of ozone standards is likely
to be adopted in the near term and the EPA's proposal suggests that it will seek to revoke the
2008 standard just as areas are beginning to implement it. Commenter (0180) stated that this is
not the course that Congress intended and cited Whitman at 531 U.S. at 485 (holding that
Congress intended Subpart 2 to govern implementation of ozone standards "far into the future"
and that Congress' plan for ozone areas "was not enacted to be abandoned the next time the EPA
reviewed the ozone standards").
Commenter (0180) stated that the EPA must explain the specific problems caused by retaining
the 1997 (and 1-hour) ozone standard and tailor the solutions to address those specific problems,
citing Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962) (holding that
agency must articulate a "rational connection between the facts found and the choice made").
Commenter (0180) stated that claims regarding the need for flexibility or discretion to tailor
requirements to individual areas do not provide a reasonable justification, citing SCAQMD, 472
F.3d at 895 (holding that "EPA's interpretation of the Act in a manner to maximize its own
discretion is unreasonable because the clear intent of Congress in enacting the 1990
Amendments was to the contrary.").
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's arguments that EPA should not revoke the
1997 ozone standard. The EPA also disagrees with the commenter's statement that this is not a
rational approach. The commenter does not address the CAA's directive that the EPA re-evaluate
the NAAQS periodically, and promulgate new NAAQS as appropriate. The promulgated 2008
NAAQS is the current approved NAAQS for ozone. CAA section 172(e) applies when a
NAAQS is relaxed, but that does not mean that Congress intended to preclude the EPA from
applying its principles to prevent backsliding after replacing an existing standard with a more
204
-------
stringent one. In this rulemaking the anti-backsliding program that accompanies and
complements revocation is consistent with that which the D.C. Circuit approved when the EPA
revoked the 1-hour standard. South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d at
899. The EPA continues to make determinations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard to the extent
they are necessary to implement anti-backsliding requirements - for example for contingency
measures. The EPA's record in implementing the anti-backsliding requirements after revocation
of the 1-hour standard demonstrates that revocation did not result in backsliding. Moreover, now
the EPA and the states must further update and strengthen requirements. Similar arguments
support revocation now as when the D.C. Circuit approved the approach in the South Coast case.
Now there exist both a new NAAQS and two prior NAAQS. Evidence shows that there has been
continuous improvement in air quality, but experience also shows that more is needed. Allowing
the EPA to rationalize and integrate prior requirements with new goals facilitates effective and
timely planning and controls, rather than imposing burdensome intermediate requirements left
over from obsolete standards. The anti-backsliding measures introduced upon revocation of the
1997 ozone NAAQS ensure the same level of protection provided by control measures
established for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, while enabling areas, where possible, to focus planning
efforts on meeting the more protective 2008 ozone NAAQS. This approach addresses the
specific problem of duplicative efforts for different ozone NAAQS. The strong anti-backsliding
provisions in 40 CFR 51.1105 will ensure that the protection provided by controls already
adopted to attain the previous NAAQS will continue until an area attains the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, and will also ensure that there will be no delay in attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Furthermore, the provisions of section 51.1105 continue to require areas to expeditiously achieve
emissions reductions for the revoked NAAQS. Since it is impossible to attain the 2008 ozone
NAAQS without also attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS, formal retention of the 1997 NAAQS
would be superfluous from the standpoint of protection of health. The 2008 ozone NAAQS
constitutes a significant strengthening of the 1997 NAAQS, which requires the area to achieve
additional reductions as expeditiously as practicable. The EPA, in retaining for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS the anti-backsliding structure that the D.C. Circuit previously endorsed for revocation
of the 1-hour ozone standard, has taken into account the new and additional responsibilities
placed on states, and the weight of two levels of anti-backsliding requirements.
The EPA agrees with the commenter that the adopted revocation approach means that the 1997
NAAQS would be revoked before the statutory maximum attainment date for areas classified as
Severe and Extreme for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. We believe that Congress understood this
possibility when it amended the CAA in 1990 to require the EPA to review each NAAQS every
5 years. Similarly, Congress also recognized that areas with more significant ozone problems
would need more time to attain the standard, and gave these areas more time to attain the
standard, with timeframes for attainment largely beyond the 5-year timeframe required for
review of the NAAQS. The EPA does not agree with the commenter's characterization of
revoking the NAAQS. The commenter's argument does not address the fact that the old standard
has been supplanted by a more protective standard, and that the EPA's anti-backsliding
requirements, combined with the CAA's new obligations to achieve the more stringent 2008
ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, effectively fulfill the function of the prior
attainment date. In addition, the EPA notes that the attainment demonstration for the prior
205
-------
standard is retained as an anti-backsliding measure. Moreover, failure to attain the new standard
by the applicable attainment date for that standard will result in reclassification to a higher
standard as appropriate.
For these reasons, and consistent with the anti-backsliding regime previously endorsed by the
D.C. Circuit for the transition from the 1-hour to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA believes that
the revocation and associated anti-backsliding measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS provide the
appropriate way to move toward attaining the more protective standards in a timely and effective
manner, while ensuring that progress made under previous ozone NAAQS is not lost.
3. Comments regarding the date of revocation
Commenters (0143, 0159, 0169 and 0177) supported the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
as soon as possible to eliminate duplicative SIP development efforts. Commenter (0169) stated
that revocation of a standard should occur upon finalization of a new standard and at no point
should states be required to juggle two (or three) standards at the same time for the same
nonattainment area as this largely amounts to a paperwork exercise that is a huge resource
burden without air quality benefits. Commenter (0177) asserted that the EPA's transition and
anti-backsliding proposals will be more equitably applied and more protective of air quality if the
effective date of the implementation rule and the revocation date of the 1997 NAAQS occur
together.
Commenter (0143) stated that if the effective date of the final rule is not the date the final SIP
Requirements Rule is published in the Federal Register, then the revocation of the 1997 ozone
standard should take effect on the effective date of the final rulemaking. Commenter (0143) also
agreed the anti-backsliding provisions in the CAA should be adequate to ensure areas continue to
work toward attainment if not achieved prior to revocation of the 1997 ozone standard.
Commenter (0159) stated they could support the use of the date of initial designation to non-
attainment nationwide. Commenter (0159) noted that using this revocation date would lead to the
creation of more legacy nonattainment areas that would be subject to anti-backsliding
requirement.
Commenter (0177) stated the EPA's transition and anti-backsliding proposals will be more
equitably applied and more protective of air quality if the effective date of the implementation
rule and the revocation date of the 1997 NAAQS occur together.
Response: We disagree with commenters that recommended that the EPA revoke the 1997
ozone NAAQS at an earlier date. We believe that revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS prior to the
establishment of clear anti-backsliding requirements would create a gap when taking action on
plans submitted by states. The EPA believes and the court has endorsed that backstops to prevent
backsliding from the protections provided by measures implemented for a previous NAAQS
must be in place before the EPA can revoke that NAAQS. The EPA, upon considering the
comment on the effective date of revocation, has clarified in the final rule that the 1997 ozone
NAAQS will be revoked on the rule's effective date as set forth in the Federal Register. That is,
206
-------
the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be revoked 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
Comment: Use of most recent monitoring data
Commenters (0143, 0146, 0163, 0167, 0170 and 0177) stated the EPA should modify the
proposed rule to ensure all areas designated as attainment that are currently violating the 2008
NAAQS are subject to CAA nonattainment provisions. Commenters (0143, 0146 and 0163)
stated the EPA should use 2012 monitoring data to designate nonattainment areas.
Commenter (0143) stated the EPA appears to be allowing some areas in the Midwest to be
designated attainment/unclassifiable, even though if the same criteria used to designate areas in
Pennsylvania nonattainment were applied to these Midwest areas, the Midwest areas would be
designated nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0143) stated EPA
should designate nonattainment areas using the most recent state certified monitoring data and
consistently apply the criteria for designating ozone nonattainment areas across the country, in
order to improve air quality and public health and for equity.
Commenter (0146) stated that part of ensuring against backsliding for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
ensuring that areas that violate the ozone NAAQS are designated as nonattainment and are
required to achieve the emissions reductions necessary to meet and maintain the NAAQS.
Commenter (0170) urged the EPA to utilize the most up-to-date and reliable air quality
monitoring data in making area designations or re-designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
cited Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 121F.3dl06, 115-16 (3d Cir.
1997) (upholding the EPA's decision to deny re-designation based on newly-available data).
Response: These comments focus on the designation process, and are thus beyond the scope of
this rulemaking. Nevertheless, EPA provides a brief response for the benefit of the commenters.
The EPA uses a five-factor analysis to designate areas and applies the same process to all areas
taking into consideration the specific circumstances of each area under consideration. In the
action of designating areas for the 2008 standard, the EPA set forth its analysis for each area
designated nonattainment and also responded to comments suggesting that the EPA treated areas
inconsistently. (77 FR 30088; May 21, 2012 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0476-0675.) The EPA
also replied to similar claims in responding to 29 petitions for reconsideration of the rule
(http://www.epa.gov/airqualitv/ozonepollution/designations/2008standards/petition.htm).
The issue of the data EPA used to designate areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS was fully
addressed in the record for the designations, including EPA's responses to 29 petitions for
reconsideration. This rulemaking is not the appropriate place to address this issue. As noted, the
EPA addressed claims of inconsistency raised during the designation process at the time it issued
final designations and also in responding to petitions for reconsideration.
207
-------
4. Redesignation after revocation
Commenter (0169) partly agreed with the EPA's decision to not take action to designate or
redesignate areas for a standard after the standard has been revoked, but believes that if a state
has submitted a request for a clean data determination and/or a redesignation request for an area,
the EPA is obligated to act to redesignate that area even after the standard has been revoked. The
commenter further indicated that state submittals are often not acted on in a timely manner. The
EPA should be applauded for the notion of not redesignating an area for a revoked NAAQS
which would be designated nonattainment for a sub sequent NAAQS. This proposal should
reduce the burden to states and EPA. An issue arises, however, for areas which are designated
nonattainment for a previous revoked NAAQS (or unclassifiable) and is designated attainment
for the current NAAQS. The Department encourages the EPA to fully consider the ramifications
of this decision.
Response: Where possible, the EPA will endeavor to act on any rulemaking for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS that would impact the status of anti-backsliding requirements for that NAAQS prior to
the revocation of that standard. It should be noted that a clean data determination (CDD)
suspends only the requirement to submit attainment-related planning elements. The EPA has
consistently taken the position that, after revocation of a NAAQS, the EPA cannot redesignate an
area for the revoked NAAQS, nor formally change an area's legal designation for a NAAQS that
no longer exists. However, the EPA can continue to determine whether the area's air quality
meets the level of the prior NAAQS in order to make appropriate determinations related to anti-
backsliding requirements for the revoked NAAQS.
In section IV.C of the final rule the EPA addresses the appropriate requirements for areas which
are designated attainment for the current NAAQS but which were designated nonattainment for a
prior NAAQS at the time of revocation of the 1997 NAAQS.
5. Continued attainment after revocation
Commenters (0163, 0167 and 0177) stated the EPA should modify the proposed rule to ensure
all areas designated as attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that are currently violating that
standard are subject to CAA nonattainment provisions.
Commenter (0163) stated EPA should rescind the clean data determinations for certain areas and
reclassify them with respect to CAA section 181(b)(2) and subpart 2 before revoking the 1997
NAAQS. The commenter continued stating that many areas with 1997 ozone NAAQS clean data
determinations have 2012 ozone data that indicates continued nonattainment. EPA should
rescind the clean data determinations for these areas and reclassify them with respect to CAA
section 181(b)(2) and subpart 2 before revoking the 1997 NAAQS. This approach would
recognize the severity of the ozone problem in these areas and protect the public health of
persons living in these areas. (0163)
Commenter (0167) indicated that the OTC states request the EPA to exercise its authority under
CAA section 107(d)(3) to establish revised designations for areas now classified as "attainment",
208
-------
but violating the 2008 NAAQS based on current ozone design values. The revocation of the 1997
ozone NAAQS for these areas should be linked to the date that the revised designations become
effective. This will ensure that CAA nonattainment provisions apply to all areas currently
violating the 2008 NAAQS and ensure the appropriate level of relief from anti-backsliding and
other requirements is correctly applied to those areas that warrant such treatment.
Response: We disagree that the EPA must consider air quality data that was not available in
sufficient time for the initial designations and redesignate areas based on that data for purposes
of determining appropriate anti-backsliding requirements prior to revoking the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
As appropriate, the EPA will address air quality management issues relating to monitored
violations of the 1997 ozone standard in separate rulemakings or other proceedings. Even after
revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA retains the ability to make or rescind clean data
determinations (CDDs) where appropriate to implement anti-backsliding requirements. The EPA
agrees that several areas with CDDs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS briefly exceeded that NAAQS.
However, before the EPA could take action on those areas, their data showed them to be back in
attainment with the 1997 ozone NAAQS. One area, the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island (NY-NJ-CT) nonattainment area, has continued to violate the 1997 ozone NAAQS after
EPA had issued a CDD. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to rescind the CDD for that area on
May 15, 2014 (79 FR 27830).
11. What are the applicable requirements for anti-backsliding purposes
following the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS?
1. General
Commenters (0172, 0179) supported the proposal regarding anti-backsliding requirements during
transition to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Other commenters, as indicated in the subsections that
follow, expressed concerns about specific anti-backsliding provisions. These more specific
concerns are addressed individually.
Response: EPA appreciates the comments in support of the proposal, and acknowledges the
range of views expressed by commenters regarding specific anti-backsliding provisions. As a
general matter the EPA has attempted to consider the circumstances of the areas subject to anti-
backsliding requirements, including the timing and nature of those requirements arising from
failure to attain prior standards relative to the requirements for the current standard. Factors we
have taken into account include:
1) Almost a decade has passed since the EPA first adopted and implemented the anti-
backsliding approach implemented when the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was revoked. The
EPA first adopted anti-backsliding provisions in 2004 and revised them in accordance
with the 2006 South Coast decision. Years later many areas have attained the 1-hour
and 1997 standards and have been redesignated to attainment. Other areas are much
closer to meeting the 1997 standard. We have learned from our experience with anti-
209
-------
backsliding, and have attempted to coordinate old and new requirements more
effectively.
2) This is the second time anti-backsliding requirements have been imposed, creating an
additional layer of hold-over requirements for some areas. Areas facing these anti-
backsliding requirements are identified in the appendices of the final rule. Note that
progress will continue to be made while the areas are subject to a more stringent 2008
standard, with near-term implementation requirements.
3) There is a difference between the standard being revoked with this implementation
rule versus the standard revoked by the implementation rule for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The 1997 ozone NAAQS differed in both form (8-hour versus 1-hour) and
level (0.08 ppm versus 0.12 ppm) from the 1-hour standard. Anti-backsliding rules
developed for implementation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS had to take these
differences into account. This time, the form of the standard replacing the 1997
NAAQS is the same, but at a lower level (0.075 ppm versus 0.08 ppm). Thus it is
mathematically impossible to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS without first attaining
the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
4) Because of the similarity in form (8-hour average) of the standard, we have examined
potential ways to integrate anti-backsliding requirements with the requirements of the
current standard, such as with merging relevant attainment planning requirements for
the revoked and current standards.
5) The submission dates for certain 2008 attainment plans (July 20, 2015) and
attainment dates for 2008 Marginal areas (July 20, 2015) are more proximate in time
to the publication of the final SIP Requirements Rule than were the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 rules implementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
6) Both states and the EPA are facing resource shortages.
7) The 2008 ozone NAAQS does not relax ozone standards - it makes them more
stringent. Accordingly, nonattainment areas for the 1997 and 1-hour standards must
remain on a one-way route to attainment - we are neither relaxing standards nor
requirements with each subsequent ozone NAAQS.
No system of laws and requirements can work by simply piling new requirements on top of old
without effort to integrate and harmonize them.
Comment: Accountability for Previous Clean Air Act Control Programs
Commenter (0164) stated there should be better clarity on accountability for anti-backsliding
requirements and revisit the onerous rules that seem to forever hold a region to a past set of
emission reduction control programs. The commenter added their perception that federal
emission reduction control programs are not held to the same standards as locally implemented
programs. Examples include the ASM consideration in the proposal and Stage II Vapor
Recovery. A region should not be held accountable for a set of emission reduction control
programs that were at one time incorporated into a past SIP. The new SIP should be able to stand
on its own merit and reset the list of necessary control strategies for that timeframe and set of
requirements.
210
-------
Response: EPA's anti-backsliding approach establishes a clear framework for ensuring
continued protection for air quality while providing relief, where appropriate, from potentially
onerous and unnecessary requirements arising from failure to attain revoked standards so that
planning efforts can focus on attaining current, more protective standards.
The EPA disagrees with the commenter that federal emission control programs are not held to
the same standard as locally implemented programs. SIP-approved control measures, whether
federal programs or locally implemented measures, may not be modified unless the modification
meets the requirements of CAA section 110(1) and, if applicable, section 193. For purposes of
anti-backsliding, the implementation of new Stage II control programs are no longer mandatory
because the EPA has determined under the statutory provisions of section 202(a)(6) that another
federal program, onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) technology, is in widespread use,
rendering Stage II controls largely redundant. However, in an area where a Stage II control
program is already adopted into the SIP, it can only be removed from the SIP if the conditions of
CAA sections 110(1) and 193 are met. Therefore, this federal measure is subject to the same
treatment as any locally implemented SIP-adopted control measure.
Comment: Attainment Planning Requirements
Commenter (0151) stated that no attainment planning requirements should apply once the 1997
NAAQS has been revoked (regardless of an attainment re-designation or a clean data
determination). The commenter supposed that proposed §51.1118 would suspend attainment SIP
planning requirements in a nonattainment area only upon a determination that the area has
attained the ozone NAAQS. However, the commenter further believed that if the area has failed
to attain the standard, the EPA suggests that under South Coast, its hands are tied and SIP
planning requirements are not suspended. The commenter believed that no attainment planning
requirements should apply once the 1997 NAAQS has been revoked (regardless of an attainment
re-designation or a clean data determination). First, Section 172(e) applies to control
requirements and not State "planning requirements." Second, commenter (0151) asserted that
South Coast's applicability to SIP Planning Requirements can be narrowed because the Court
was faced with two distinct standards whose form and stringency varied. Here, the form of the
2008 NAAQS is the same as the 1997 ozone standard, but the EPA made the standard more
protective. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the EPA to determine that the SIP planning
requirements are aligned under the standards and SIP planning for the 1997 standard transitions
into planning for the 2008 NAAQS, in order to prevent the unnecessary additional use of federal
and state resources when the EPA has modified the prior NAAQS to make it more protective.
Revocation of a standard should result in State authorities and EPA moving on to new challenges
instead of perpetuating SIP planning for obsolete standards. In fact the new standards are simply
a more stringent health standard for the prior standard. Thus, in contrast, perhaps to the EPA's
current SIP process for the one-hour NAAQS examined in the South Coast, there is no point in
maintaining the SIP planning requirements for the 1997 and soon-to-be 2008 obsolete versions
of that NAAQS.
Response: The EPA agrees that the transition from the 1997 ozone NAAQS to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS calls for a re-evaluation of the provisions necessary to protect against backsliding and
211
-------
ensure continued progress toward achieving healthy air quality. However, we do not agree that
South Coast v. EPA has limited application to informing appropriate anti-backsliding
requirements for a revoked 1997 NAAQS simply because the 2008 NAAQS has the same form
as the 1997 NAAQS. With only one exception, the seventeen "applicable requirements" that will
be listed in new 40 CFR 51.1100(o) are all control requirements, consistent with the reasoning of
South Coast v. EPA. To the extent that any of these control requirements have not been
implemented in a 1997 nonattainment area by the time the 1997 NAAQS is revoked, consistent
with South Coast v. EPA the state must ensure that measures no less protective than these
controls are adopted into the SIP and implemented, if applicable. The one applicable requirement
that involves both planning and control elements is the attainment demonstration requirement.
Since the attainment demonstration is part of the basis for establishing that the RACM
requirement (a control requirement consistent with South Coast) is satisfied, the EPA believes it
is appropriate to retain this as an applicable anti-backsliding requirement to ensure timely
progress toward attainment of the 1997 NAAQS, especially for areas classified in the highest
classifications where the statutory attainment dates for the 1997 NAAQS extend well into the
future (e.g., 2019 for Severe and 2024 for Extreme areas). The EPA encourages states to
synchronize their planning and emissions control efforts for attainment of the 2008 ozone
NAAQS with any unfulfilled anti-backsliding requirements associated with the revoked 1997
ozone NAAQS. As a reminder, a clean data determination for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can
suspend the associated attainment demonstration requirement for as long as the area continues to
attain the 1997 NAAQS.
Comment: RACM and other control requirements
Commenter (0180) stated that several control requirements that apply to areas designated
nonattainment under the 1-hour and 1997 ozone standards should be included in 40 CFR §
51.1100(o). Commenter (0180) stated that EPA's lack of listing RACM must have been an
oversight since these are clearly control measures covered by the "principles" of subsection (e)
of the same section. In addition, commenter (0180) stated that the following control requirements
must be retained: (1) obligation to adopt "other control measures" as necessary for attainment
under section 172(c)(6); (2) conformity; and (3) contingency measure requirements under section
182(e)(5) for Extreme nonattainment areas relying on a "black box". Commenter (0180) stated
that the rationale for including these measures is the same as that for other contingency measures
as outlined in South Coast. Commenter (0150) requested that the EPA clarify whether the
contingency measures that are included in the anti-backsliding provisions would include the
Section 182(e)(5) contingency measures
Response: The EPA agrees in part with the commenter, that it is appropriate to list both RACM
and section 182(e)(5) contingency measures as "applicable requirements" in the final rule in
section 51.1100(o). RACM is a component of the attainment demonstration, which the EPA did
list in the proposal, and is a requirement of the CAA. The EPA reviews each SIP submission
from a state to ensure that sufficient information is provided for the EPA to determine whether
the state has adopted all RACM necessary for attainment as expeditiously as practicable and
provided for implementation of those measures as expeditiously as practicable. For areas
remaining in nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the
212
-------
2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA does not believe that revocation of the NAAQS should halt or
delay the planned implementation of control measures. These measures, while adopted pursuant
to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, will also assist the areas in attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Similarly, for Extreme areas relying on CAA section 182(e)(5), the EPA agrees that the
contingency measures required for that program should be held to the same requirements as
contingency measures for sections 172(c) and 182(c) of the CAA. Thus the EPA is adding
182(e)(5) contingency measures to the list of applicable requirements in 51.1100(o).
However, the EPA does not agree with the commenter that conformity needs to be retained as an
applicable requirement for a revoked standard. Transportation and general conformity are
retained as requirements for all areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. For
areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, these areas are meeting the most
stringent, health-protective NAAQS and thus have no remaining conformity requirements
because they are designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the designations for the
1997 ozone NAAQS, which in the past triggered conformity requirements, no longer apply after
the previous standard has been fully revoked. NRDC v. EPA (2014). Transportation and general
conformity apply only in areas designated as nonattainment or redesignated to attainment with an
approved CAA section 175A maintenance plan. (CAA section 176(c)(5)). Upon the effective
date of the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS the only relevant designation for ozone for
conformity purposes will be an area's designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.31 Areas that are
designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are not subject to transportation or general
conformity requirements regardless of their designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time
of revocation of that NAAQS. (CAA section 176(c)(5)). Similarly, "other control measures"
necessary for attainment are already covered by the attainment demonstration, and cannot be
removed without satisfying CAA section 110(1).
Comment: Clean Fuels Fleet Program
Commenter (0127) stated that the Clean Fuels Fleet Program (CFFP) should not be retained as
an applicable requirement for anti-backsliding purposes. Commenter (0127) stated that while the
program originally applied in 22 metropolitan areas, most of those jurisdictions long ago opted
out of the CFFP and some of the jurisdictions that still have the CFFP in their regulations are not
enforcing it because the CFFP's fleet-specific emission standards have been overtaken by more
stringent national and California standards over the years. Removing the requirement would have
no impact on air quality generally and implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS specifically
31 The EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS for transportation conformity purposes only on
May 21, 2012. (77 FR 30160), effective on July 20, 2013. The D.C. Circuit ruled (December 23,
2014) that the EPA violated the CAA when it revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS for purposes of
transportation conformity only, while recognizing that it had previously upheld the EPA's
authority to revoke a standard in full. NRDC v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 12-1321, Dec 23, 2014). In
this final rule, the EPA is fully revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes.
213
-------
because 23 years later the CFFP has become a vestigial organ of the 1990 amendments to the
CAA.
Response: We disagree with the comment and we are finalizing requirements specifying the
CFFP as an "applicable requirement" for anti-backsliding purposes. Under section 182(c)(4) of
the Act, states may opt out of the CFF program if they provide a substitute program that results
in either as much or greater long-term emissions reductions. These substitute programs are also
subject to this final rule's anti-backsliding requirements. A number of areas that were included in
the initial list of areas subject to the program requirements continue to be required to implement
the program or a substitute measure because their classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
Serious or above, under section 246(a)(3) of the Act. Finally, areas not subject to the clean fuels
fleet program requirements due to their classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS can remove
the program or substitute measure by meeting the applicable requirements described in section
IV.D of the final rule. The specific requirement for any given area would depend on whether the
area was initially designated as nonattainment or attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
whether or not the area was nonattainment or maintenance for the prior 1997 or 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. As a general matter, the CFF program continues to apply to existing covered fleet
because these fleet are comprised of older vehicles. Finally, section 243(e) allows for
replacement of CFF standards with CARB standards that the EPA determines are "in the
aggregate at least as protective of public health and welfare." EPA has yet to make that
determination.
Comment: Attainment Demonstration Requirement
Commenter (0150) requested that the EPA explain that its retention of the "attainment
demonstration" as an anti-backsliding measure means, for states that already have an approved
demonstration, that the state must continue to implement its approved attainment demonstration,
not that it must submit a new attainment demonstration. Commenter (0150) also requested that
the EPA clarify that where an approved attainment demonstration for an Extreme area includes
Section 182(e)(5) measures, whether the state must continue to implement those Section
182(e)(5) measures as part of the anti-backsliding requirement for the attainment demonstration.
Commenter (0178) stated that developing another attainment demonstration for the outdated
1997 ozone NAAQS would be a paperwork exercise, and only divert limited Air Program
resources from working toward achieving air quality benefits and attaining the more protective
2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0178) stated that the Air Program made a good faith effort to
meet all its planning obligations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, including an attainment
demonstration, but few of them were approved by EPA, largely due to litigation surrounding
federal interstate transport rules.
Response: The term "applicable requirements" for anti-backsliding purposes refers to any
outstanding requirements that have not yet been adopted or approved into the SIP, or otherwise
determined by EPA to be satisfied at the time of revocation of the standard, including the
requirement for an attainment demonstration under Section 182(c)(2)(A), which may also
include anticipated development of new control technologies under 182(e)(5). Any requirement
for which EPA has approved the relevant SIP provision or made a determination that the
214
-------
requirement has been satisfied is not an applicable requirement for which a new submission must
be made. This does not mean, however, that implementation of these provisions may cease. Any
provisions that have already been approved into the State's SIP need not be re-submitted, but
they must continue to be implemented until EPA approves a SIP revision. The final rule requires
an area subject to an outstanding planning requirement to address that requirement, but would
allow, as appropriate, latitude for that planning requirement to be satisfied in conjunction with
satisfaction of requirements for current standards. (For example, the emissions reduction
measures included in 6-year RFP plan (2012-2018) for 2008 NAAQS Moderate and above areas
may be sufficient to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 NAAQS by the Severe area attainment
deadline of 2019.) We believe this approach will prevent delay in achieving emissions reductions
as States transition to achieving the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. We encourage, where
possible and appropriate, that areas with planning requirements for both the 1997 and the 2008
ozone NAAQS combine these into a single submittal.
Comment: Stage II vapor recovery
Commenters (0132, 0141, 0143, 0155, 0156 and 0157) stated that they support the exclusion of
the Stage II vapor recovery program from the list of measures to be retained for anti-backsliding
purposes. Commenters (0132, 0155 and 0157) stated that, given vehicle on-board refueling vapor
recovery (ORVR) provides pollution reduction equivalent to Stage II control systems and the
widespread use of ORVR, the use of Stage II control systems is not cost-effective and is a
redundant system. Commenter (0143) stated that, although the proposed rule "would have no
effect on the continuing independent CAA section 184(b)(2) requirement for OTR states to
implement Stage II programs or measures capable of achieving emissions reductions comparable
to those achieved by Stage II", nonetheless, the commenter supported the proposed revisions to
the anti-backsliding rules.
Response: The EPA made a determination that ORVR was in widespread use which allowed the
EPA to exercise its authority to waive the Stage II Vapor Recovery requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas. See 77 FR 28772; May 16, 2012. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary for
EPA to retain this control measure as an applicable requirement. The EPA developed guidance
titled, "Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State
Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures," (August 7, 2012)32, which provides
suggestions to air quality management agencies how to exercise discretion in implementing the
waiver in areas with SIP -approved Stage II programs. This guidance document provides both
technical and policy guidance to the states on how to develop and submit an approvable SIP
revision that requests removal/phase-out of an existing Stage II program. This guidance
32 See "Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State
Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures," August 17, 2012. This guidance
can be accessed on the web at http://www.epa.sov/slo/pdfs/20120807suidance.pdf.
215
-------
introduces methods and equations to calculate emissions reductions to demonstrate compliance
with Section 110(1) and 193.
Comment: Support alternative measures
Commenter (0173) stated that the EPA has repeatedly taken the position that the CAA allows
alternative, not less stringent programs to satisfy anti-backsliding requirements in connection
with transitions to newer, more stringent ozone NAAQS and cited the June 7, 2013 Brief for
Respondents U.S. Environmental Protection agency et al., Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v.
EPA, No. 12-73386 (9th Cir.) (defending EPA's authority to approve the San Joaquin Valley's
not less stringent alternative to section 185 fees for the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS).
Comm enter (0173) requested that the EPA amend the proposed regulatory text to clearly allow
alternatives that are not less stringent than nonattainment controls for anti-backsliding purposes
and stated this change could be accomplished in at least two ways:
1. Amend the definition of "applicable requirements" at proposed 40 CFR
§ 51.1100(o) to define applicable requirements to include "alternative programs not less
stringent than" the listed program requirements at proposed § 51.1100(o)(l )-(15).
2. Amend the provisions specifying which areas are subject to anti-backsliding
requirements to allow alternatives. A sentence could be added at the end of each of
proposed § 51.1105(a)(l )(i), (a)(2), (a)(3)(i), and (a)(4)(i), to state: "Instead of the
applicable requirements, the area may adopt and implement alternatives that are not less
stringent than the applicable requirements."
Response: We believe the application of section 172(e) principles to applicable section 185 anti-
backsliding requirements is an appropriate and reasonable use of the Administrator's discretion
to approve "not less stringent" controls. However, we did not propose and do not intend at this
time to promulgate regulatory language to universally apply the "not less stringent" control
authority to other specific applicable anti-backsliding requirements.
Comment: Do not support alternative measures
Comm enter (0180) disagreed with the EPA's proposal regarding section 172(e). Commenter
(0180) stated that section 172(e) only applies to the replacement of a NAAQS with one that is
less stringent. Commenter (0180) stated that South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) provides no support for the conclusion that Congress gave the EPA the legislative
authority to rewrite the plain requirements of the Act when the EPA strengthens a national air
standard. Commenter (0180) stated that the court concluded that "[a]ny area failing to achieve
the equivalent of Congress's chosen level of public health must be covered by Congress's chosen
prophylactic scheme." Commenter (0180) stated that the EPA's suggestion that the court in
NRDC, 643 F.3d 311, did not prohibit the use of 172(e) to fashion equivalent alternatives (78 FR
at 34213) is misleading because the court simply did not reach this legal issue.
216
-------
Response: The EPA disagrees. South Coast upheld EPA's authority to apply the principles of
Section 172(e) in developing anti-backsliding measures that are no less stringent than those that
applied under a NAAQS that was revised to make it more stringent. Further, NRDC declined to
prohibit alternative programs categorically, stating that "neither the statute nor our case law
obviously precludes" an alternative program. See NRDC v. EPA, 643 F.3d 332 (D.C. Cir. July
2011).
Comment: Need to clarify transition requirements
Commenter (0178) stated the proposal is not clear how to develop SIP submissions that satisfy
requirements for both the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS especially for the case of the St. Louis
area, which has requirements for RACT, RFP, an attainment demonstration, and other
obligations associated with its Moderate classification for the 1997 NAAQS, yet only emissions
inventory and emissions statement requirements associated with its Marginal status for the 2008
NAAQS. The commenter believed that the preamble language references the April 30, 2004 final
Phase 1 rule but does not explicitly state that the options provided in that rule are acceptable for
transitioning from the 1997 to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The Air Program supports options for
addressing any remaining 1997 ozone NAAQS planning obligations that take into account the
agency's previous efforts and move the St. Louis area forward toward the goal of attaining the
2008 ozone NAAQS. This includes reasonable approaches such as submitting an early increment
of progress plan toward the current ozone NAAQS (option 2 in the final Phase 1 rule).
Response: With the language in the proposal we meant to indicate that planning requirements
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS could be used to also address any unmet requirements under the
1997 ozone NAAQS. Because the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS share the same form but differ
in stringency, plans developed to bring a nonattainment area into compliance with the more
stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS would have the direct benefit of addressing attainment or
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the process. However, it is also true that the
fulfilment of any outstanding emissions control obligations associated with the 1997 NAAQS
(such as RACT and RFP) will directly benefit attainment and maintenance of the 2008 NAAQS
for areas classified Marginal, which have an attainment date of 2015.
Comment: Delayed requirements
Commenter (0180) stated that, in evaluating backsliding, the EPA must evaluate not only
existing requirements in place in a SIP, but also requirements that are currently required but have
not been put into place because of illegal delays on the part of states and/or EPA. Commenter
(0180) stated that the EPA's revocation of the 1997 ozone standard will cause backsliding if
provisions, which currently should be in place but for illegal delays, are not implemented.
Commenter (0180) provided examples for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria and the Baltimore
nonattainment areas with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Response: For areas remaining in nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and designated
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the EPA does not believe that revocation of the
NAAQS should halt or delay the planned implementation of control measures. These measures,
while adopted pursuant to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, will also assist the areas in attaining the
217
-------
2008 ozone NAAQS. All requirements remain in effect until they are addressed - either through
a redesignation to attainment for the most current ozone NAAQS, or through an approved
redesignation substitute showing. Under the principles of Section 172(e), backsliding does not
occur where there are controls that are no less stringent than those "applicable to" an area before
a standard was revoked.
2. New Source Review
Comment: Areas designated attainment for the 2008 NAAQS
Commenter (0151) stated that the proposed NSR requirement goes beyond the Court's decision
in South Coast which does not require NSR requirements associated with a previous standard be
retained in areas (other than in ozone transport areas) designated attainment for the current
standard since such areas by law must then implement PSD {South Coast, citing Greenbaum v.
EPA, 370 F.3d at 536). Commenter (0151) also stated that the regulations in Appendix S and
Parts 51 and 52 do not require amendment to reflect this interpretation.
Commenter (0180) disagreed with the EPA's proposal to allow areas that are designated
attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but nonattainment for the 1997 NAAQS to request that
any nonattainment NSR requirements be removed from the SIP. Commenter (0180) stated that
this proposal is in direct conflict with South Coast and the subsequent decision in NRDC.
Commenter (0180) stated that areas may not backslide on applicable control requirements such
as NSR as long as they continue to violate the prior ozone standards and cited NRDC, 643 F.3d
at 322. Commenter (0180) stated that the EPA's reliance on Greenbaum is misplaced because
the waiver the EPA is inventing here is not to allow an attainment area to implement PSD in lieu
of NSR, but to allow a nonattainment area, that has not attained the 1997 standard, to avoid NSR.
Commenter (0180) stated that the problem is that there are areas designated attainment for the
2008 ozone NAAQS that are currently violating the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Response: For areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but nonattainment for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed that after the 1997 ozone NAAQS is revoked, these
areas would not be required to retain in their SIPs nonattainment NSR programs for ozone.
Instead, such areas would be required to implement PSD requirements for ozone. The EPA's
determination that after revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment NSR requirements
do not apply to areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is consistent with the
Greenbaum v. EPA decision.33 The EPA believes that not only is this action in line with the
Greenbaum decision, but it also makes sense due to the fact that the 1997 and the 2008 ozone
NAAQS are of the same form. An area that is attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is attaining
the most current and health protective ozone standard. The EPA believes that Congress did not
33 Greenbaum v. EPA, 370 F.3d at 536. "It would make little sense for [nonattainment NSR] to
be included in the post-attainment SIP, as the Clean Air Act. . . explicitly states that attainment
area SIPs must include a PSD program."
218
-------
intend nonattainment NSR to apply as a minimum requirement in areas designated attainment,
for a newer, more stringent standard of the same form.
EPA believes that this approach is consistent with the conclusion in South Coast that the EPA
can revoke a standard, so long as it establishes anti-backsliding measures for areas that failed to
attain the standard before revocation that impose controls that are no less stringent than the
controls that applied before revocation. Nothing in NRDC v. EPA forecloses this approach. The
EPA disagrees with any suggestion that an area would remain subject to NSR or section 185 fees
for failure to attain a revoked standard after the area has been formally designated as an
attainment area for ozone,. Areas cannot be redesignated to attainment for ozone unless they
have attained all current standards and met all anti-backsliding requirements applicable for prior
revoked standards. Moreover, nonattainment NSR is not a requirement in attainment areas and
section 185 fees by the terms of section 185 do not apply to an area that has been designated "an
attainment area for ozone."
Such areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but that have failed to attain for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be allowed to implement PSD for the 2008 ozone NAAQS once the
revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS takes effect. The references to nonattainment
designations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR part 81 will remain for historical purposes
and discrete purposes relevant to carrying out the anti-backsliding requirements.
Comment: Exemptions in 40 CFR 51.166(0(2) and 52.21(0(2) after revocation of a NAAQS
Commenters (0163, 0179) supported an amendment to 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) and 52.21 (i)(2) for
clarification as to the applicability of stationary source controls for a revoked NAAQS.
Commenter (0163) added that the EPA should therefore reassess the ozone designations made
last year by using 2010 to 2012 ozone data and, where this current design value exceeds the 2008
ozone NAAQS, redesignate these areas to nonattainment.
Response: Based on this feedback, the EPA developed amendments to both 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2)
and 52.21(i)(2). These amendments make it clear that a nonattainment designation for a revoked
NAAQS, once the revocation becomes effective in an area, would not trigger the PSD exemption
in those provisions and would not prevent application of PSD requirements for that pollutant.
Comments focused on the designation process are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
3. Section 185 fees
Comment: EPA should clarify section 185 fee requirements and the redesignation
provisions
Comm enter (0132) stated that, while they support revocation of the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard, the EPA should continue to formally redesignate areas to attainment of the revoked
standard if the state submits an approvable redesignation request and maintenance plan for that
standard, since without such a redesignation, it is possible that nonattainment consequences,
including the assessment of §185 fees, may continue to be imposed on an area that is no longer
219
-------
monitoring nonattainment for the one-hour ozone standard and/or the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard.
Commenter (0142) stated, in the final rule the EPA should provide clarity for Section 185 fees
associated with revoked standards, particularly where the EPA has determined that those areas
have met the standards. The commenter recommended that the EPA provide explicit guidance to
states regarding how to terminate potential Section 185 fees associated with the revoked
standards. Several regions have areas that were designated Severe or Extreme non-attainment
under one of the revoked NAAQS. However, particularly with regard to the long-revoked 1-hour
standard, these areas have no way to formally terminate the potential obligation, even if air
quality has met the standard for years. As a practical matter, sources in these areas have already
spent millions of dollars for emission reduction technologies with the resultant air quality
benefits while additionally being required to set aside potential Section 185 fees until the
question is settled. This results in millions of dollars annually from environmental compliance
budgets idled and not being used for initiatives that would actually contribute to further-
improved air quality in these areas. Therefore, we request that the final ozone implementation
rule provide an unambiguous pathway for states to clarify and, where appropriate, terminate
Section 185 fee obligations associated with the revoked standards.
Commenter (0177) stated that the EPA should include provisions in the rule to permanently
relieve states of CAA section 185 fee obligations once the EPA has issued a ruling that an area
has attained the corresponding NAAQS.
Response: In the final rule, states with nonattainment areas classified as Severe or Extreme for a
prior NAAQS at the time that NAAQS is revoked remain subject to the requirements of section
185 with respect to that NAAQS. This approach is consistent with the July 2011 NRDC court
decision on the EPA's previously-issued section 185 guidance, which was vacated for procedural
reasons but provided that, based on the principles of 172(e) an area can meet its 185 fee
obligation using equivalent measures that are not less stringent than those that a fee program
would impose. The NRDC decision held that neither the statute nor caselaw obviously precludes
alternative programs and the EPA is currently defending its approval of two alternative
programs. Medical Advocates for Healthy Air v. EPA. 9th Cir. No. 12-73386; NRDC v. EPA, 9th
Cir. No. 13-70544. The final rule provides two methods to terminate section 185 anti-backsliding
requirements for a revoked NAAQS: redesignating to attainment for the most current ozone
NAAQS, and providing a redesignation substitute for the revoked NAAQS triggering the section
185 requirement.
Comment: Use of section 185 fee revenues to improve air quality
Commenter (0142) recommended that these funds be directed toward projects that will improve
air quality and promote attainment with the ozone NAAQS and ultimately result in the
termination of the fee. The commenter believed that consideration of the use of collected Section
185 fees is critical, particularly as the EPA intends for this implementation rule to guide
implementation of the 2008 standard as well as any future revisions to the ozone NAAQS. The
Section 185 fee is $5,000 per ton in 1990 dollars, adjusted for inflation; the fee is now nearly
$9,000. Thus, implementation of the Section 185 fee program— in areas that remain out of
220
-------
attainment with the standards, not just without a path to terminate the obligation — has the
potential to generate significant revenues. However, the CAA does not specify how states (or
appropriate authorities) may spend or allocate the fees collected under a Section 185 fee
program. Therefore, states have discretion in how they use the fees. We would recommend that
these funds be directed toward projects that will improve air quality and promote attainment with
the ozone NAAQS and ultimately result in the termination of the fee.
The commenter suggested that sources using this option should be required to submit a plan for
approval to the state outlining the project (or projects) that they plan to implement based on their
applicable fee amount. A state plan, or the EPA's approval thereof, could outline a variety of
approvable project categories. Commenter (0142) listed several examples of suitable projects
(not repeated here) and stated that the Clean Air Communities program in New York provides an
example of how Section 185 fees might be deployed to more-effectively reduce precursor
emissions.
The commenter also recommended allowing sources to invest in pollution control projects within
the immediate nonattainment area, as well as adjoining upwind areas, in recognition of the fact
that ozone pollution can be transported over long distances. The EPA's Office of Atmospheric
Programs should have a multitude of studies available, including back trajectory analyses, which
would allow the EPA and states to place reasonable geographic limitations on this option.
Response: The CAA does not specify how states may spend or allocate the fees collected under
a section 185 fee program or an alternative equivalent program. Therefore, states have discretion
on how to use the fees collected. The EPA believes that a beneficial approach would be to
channel the fees into innovative programs as described by the commenter to provide incentives
for additional ozone precursor emissions reductions from stationary or mobile sources, or for
other purposes aimed at reducing ambient ozone concentrations in the affected area.
Comment: Support alternative section 185 fee programs
Commenter (0151) stated that it is both legal and economically essential to allow States to adopt
under Section 172(e) alternatives to 185 fee programs as the agency has approved in several
California jurisdictions. Commenter (0151) stated that applying in the future four penalty
programs to a source that has the geographical misfortune to be located in an intractable ozone
nonattainment area would be harmful to the economy and also to the public and would be
unlikely to have any impact on an area's attainment status given that the fee is not joined to any
pollution control measure. Commenter (0151) stated that Congress could not have meant to
impose iterative penalty fees for each ozone standard and, at the very least, this rulemaking
should ensure that at most, only one ozone 185 penalty (or its equivalent) should apply to a
jurisdiction at a time until it attains that standard or the most recent ozone standard.
Response: We agree with the commenter that CAA section 172(e) allows alternative programs
to substitute for the CAA section 185 fee programs that are triggered for revoked standards.
I. Application of Transition Requirements to Nonattainment and Attainment
221
-------
Areas
1. Requirements for Areas Designated Attainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and
Maintenance for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
Comment: Support the preferred approaches
Commenters (0130, 0137, 0139, 0141,0145, 0146, 0151, 0153, 0155, 0157, 0158, 0163, 0166
and 0179) generally supported the EPA's preferred approaches; i.e., that approved section 175A
maintenance plans for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and SIP-approved PSD programs also satisfy
their obligations for maintenance plans under CAA section 110(a)(1) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
Commenters (0130, 0155, 0157 and 0158) stated the proposed options will both protect air
quality and minimize needless paperwork at the state level and at the EPA regional level.
Commenters (0139 and 0179) stated that, for the areas that have been redesignated as
maintenance for the 1997 standard, the area remains subject to the nonattainment requirements
already approved in their SIP and thus any revision would be subject to CAA sections 110(1) and
193, which function as anti-backsliding provisions.
Commenter (0163) stated that since the area is meeting a more stringent standard, public health
protection is maintained by the existing plan and a second maintenance plan for a revoked
standard would be unnecessary.
Commenters (0155 and 0157) supported these approaches as long as the EPA requires that an
area still be attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS in order to be eligible to eliminate the second 10-
year maintenance plan.
Commenters (0158, 0159 and 0169) supported the EPA's preferred option to not require a
further maintenance plan. Commenter (0158) stated that these areas have already developed
nonattainment SIPs for the previous 1997 standard that in combination with other federal
measures have produced sufficient emission reductions to achieve the current, more stringent 75-
ppb standard and should not be burdened with developing a maintenance plan.
Commenter (0159) stated that the approval of the redesignation and of the Section 175A
maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS required a determination on the EPA's part that
the anti-backsliding requirements of these areas for the 1-hour standard, as well as those
requirements applicable for the 1997 ozone standard, had been met. As such, commenter (0159)
stated that the EPA's approval of both the redesignation request and the maintenance plan for the
1997 ozone standard signifies not only that all applicable requirements for the 1997 ozone
standard have been met, but also that all applicable anti-backsliding measures for the 1-hour
ozone standard have been adopted and approved into the SIP.
Commenter (0169) stated that South Carolina's experience with Cherokee County, SC, which
222
-------
was redesignated to attainment in December 1992, and was required to submit an initial 175 A
maintenance plan, a subsequent 175A maintenance plan, and a 110(a)(1) maintenance plan,
shows that these requirements were and continue to be unduly burdensome on the State and have
resulted in few if any emissions reductions.
Commenter (0145) agreed with the EPA's rationale that, given the succession of NAAQS of
increasing stringency, the burden of developing an approvable CAA §110(a)(1) maintenance
plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would outweigh any compensating benefit for an area that is
already attaining that NAAQS and that is subject to prior nonattainment requirements which are
already incorporated into the SIP.
Response: We believe that using the area's approved section 175A maintenance plan for the
revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS to satisfy both its maintenance obligations under section 110(a)(1)
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and its obligation to submit a second approvable maintenance plan
under section 175A for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS is a sound approach. We believe that
this approach keeps in place the control measures used to bring the area into attainment for both
the 1997 and the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS, and also serves to reduce the paperwork
burden on states.
Comment: Clarification needed
Commenter (0169) suggested the EPA clarify what is meant by "modify a maintenance plan." at
51.1105(d)(1) to provide flexibility and efficiency. Commenter (0169) stated the rule should also
reference the 1-hour ozone standard's original nonattainment designation and subsequent
redesignation. Commenter (0169) stated that areas which have submitted clean data
determination and/or redesignation requests should also be mentioned in this exemption.
Response: The EPA made a modification to the regulatory text to provide the requested
clarification. The text in question, as modified, provides that "an area with an approved 1997
ozone AAQS maintenance plan under CAA section 175A is not required to submit a second 10-
year maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS 8 years after approval of the initial 1997
ozone NAAQS maintainance plan."
Areas that were not redesignated to attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS prior to the date of
revocation are not covered by this section. Areas that are in attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS but remain in nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS are addressed in the following
section. Areas that have a clean data determination (CDD) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in place
have certain planning requirements suspended, but a CDD alone does not qualify an area to the
flexibilities discussed in this section.
Comment: Do not support the proposed approaches
Commenter (0168) stated that not requiring maintenance plans in all cases is ignoring the
maintenance provisions of the CAA that were intended to continue indefinitely. Commenter
(0180) stated this proposal violates the plain language of section 110(a)(1), which requires a
maintenance plan specifically for the new 2008 standard. Commenter (0168) also disagreed with
223
-------
the proposal because it is essentially using current air quality to determine the applicability of
CAA section 110 maintenance plan requirements, which is contrary to the CAA.
Commenter (0180) stated that demonstrating long-term compliance with the 1997 standard,
which is the function of the 175A maintenance plans, does not demonstrate continued
compliance with the more protective 2008 standard. Commenter (0180) stated that sections
110(7) and 193 are not adequate to keep emissions from increasing and that, even without rule
changes, emissions can increase with changes in activity. Commenter (0180) stated the EPA's
rationale that national rules and PM2.5 control measures will support maintenance of the 2008
standard is based on over-broad generalizations without any supporting analysis. There is
nothing in these claims that can support wiping away statutory requirements in all 2008
attainment areas.
Commenter (0180) stated that the EPA's claim that its review of the ozone standards may come
before section 110(a)(1) plans are due is factually incorrect and opens the door for the EPA to
perpetually excuse compliance with section 110(a)(1). Commenter (0180) stated the CAA
requires a formal SIP submittal to ensure that the NAAQS will be maintained and that such plans
are enforceable; it is not enough to show that an area happened to meet the 2008 standard at the
time of designations.
Commenter (0180) stated that, if the EPA means that areas that are redesignated attainment for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, do not have to
submit a "Good Neighbor" SIP as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS because they have a section 175A maintenance plan for the 1997 NAAQS, the EPA has
rejected this approach. Commenter (0180) stated that the EPA rejected Kentucky's 2008 ozone
NAAQS section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submittal because the submittal relied on CAIR, which is
designed to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and Kentucky did not submit any analysis or
regulations addressing the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0180) stated there is the added
problem that a section 175A maintenance plan is not designed or required to prevent interference
with maintenance or attainment in downwind states or visibility; therefore, the EPA cannot
waive the 2008 ozone section 110(a)(1) obligations for any area.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. The EPA is not ignoring the maintenance
provision of section 110(a)(1), but rather evaluating what is sufficient to address that provision
under the circumstances of transition to a new more stringent NAAQS for an area designated
attainment for that more stringent NAAQS. With the control measures included in their SIPs and
in approved section 175A maintenance plans, those areas have already achieved sufficient
emissions reductions to bring the area into attainment for both the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the
more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. These SIP control measures cannot be weakened without
satisfying section 110(1) and in some cases also section 193, which effectively serve as anti-
backsliding provisions. The EPA is not relieving areas designated attainment of the requirement
under section 110(a)(1) to maintain the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS, but rather, the EPA
believes the current SIP measures together with the approved PSD plan for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS suffice as a maintenance showing for these areas. These are areas that already have
many controls in place, including approved section 175A maintenance plans ensuring that the
areas can maintain the level of the prior revoked standard.
224
-------
While these approved 175 A maintenance plans were established for maintenance of the 1997
ozone NAAQS, and accordingly help prevent backsliding for that revoked NAAQS, they also
provide a foundation for maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which, in combination with
other active Clean Air Act requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, contribute to maintenance
of the new standard. The emissions reductions for one NAAQS build upon the emissions
reductions from previous NAAQS. The EPA concludes that it is not necessary for the state to
adopt additional measures beyond the prior 175A maintenance plans and the PSD plans for the
2008 standard to provide for maintenance in these areas. The EPA will work with states as
necessary under the provisions of the Clean Air Act to address any future air quality concerns
and maintenance needs for these areas.
The EPA is not attempting in this rule to relax any infrastructure SIP requirements, including the
"Good Neighbor" SIP required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Only the 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan requirements are affected by this rule. The EPA issued its "Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Elements Under the Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2)," on September 13, 2013, on the required elements of the section 110
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This guidance is located at
http://www. epa. gov/oar/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure. html.
Comment: Need to reconsider the EPA approaches
Commenters (0146 and 0163) urged the EPA to reconsider its assumptions about the relationship
between the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS and develop an anti-backsliding approach that
properly characterizes ozone violations and nonattainment. The commenters pointed out where
the EPA made the statement that "because the form of the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS is the
same, there is no possibility that an area attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS could be violating the
1997 ozone NAAQS, which is unlike the relationship that existed between the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS." The commenters believed this "impossibility" has indeed
occurred. The Louisville metropolitan area (a maintenance area under the 1997 ozone NAAQS)
was designated attainment under the 2008 ozone NAAQS based on 2008-2010 data. With 2010-
2012 data and a design value 0.085 ppm, the area violates both the 2008 and 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The commenters supposed that the EPA has indicated that it has no intention of
redesignating areas based on more recent data so it appears that the Louisville area will need to
invoke its contingency plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS while the EPA considers the area
attainment for the stricter 2008 NAAQS. To address this inconsistency, the commenters
suggested that the EPA should redesignate areas under the 2008 NAAQS based on 2012 ozone
data. This would allow the ozone problem to be properly characterized in its breadth and
severity.
Commenter (0177) stated that the EPA's proposed approach only makes sense from an air
quality perspective if the designations of those recently violating areas are quickly updated under
CAA section 107(d)(3).
Response: We disagree that EPA must consider air quality data that was not available in
sufficient time for initial designations and designate areas based on that new data for purposes of
225
-------
determining appropriate anti-backsliding requirements prior to revoking the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. Although not directly applicable where EPA strengthens the standard, EPA has used
the anti-backsliding principles in section 172(e) as a guide for anti-backsliding for the 1997
NAAQS. Section 172(e) does not contemplate that there is an ongoing obligation to impose more
stringent controls than those that were in place at the time of revocation.
2. Areas Designated Attainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and Nonattainment for
the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
Comment: Support PSD SIP option
Commenter (0139) stated that, for areas designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS category in row 2 of Table 2, an option is given for
area's approved PSD SIP to satisfy the section 110(a)(1) maintenance provision. Commenter
(0139) stated that they supported this option, as it would avoid an additional maintenance
showing under 110(a)(1), and it is also appropriate for the category noted above and should be
added as a third bullet item in row 1 of Table 2.
Commenter (0179) believes the alternative approach brings additional unnecessary resource
burden to the states. Commenter (0166) stated that the second alternative lacks legal basis in the
statute since maintenance plans are required for an area to be redesignated to attainment, but the
EPA here is simply proposing to revoke the 1997 NAAQS.
Response: The EPA finalized the approach that an approved PSD SIP for such an area satisfies
the obligation to submit an approvable maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS under
section 110(a)(1). The EPA believes that the burden of developing an approvable 110(a)(1)
maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would outweigh any compensating benefit for an
area that is already attaining that NAAQS and that is subject to prior nonattainment requirements
which are already incorporated into the SIP and have been sufficient to bring the area into
attainment of both the 1997 and 2008 standards.
Comment: Maintenance plan needed
Commenter (0163) stated that an RFP SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for an area classified
Moderate or higher would satisfy the maintenance requirement for the 1997 NAAQS as it would
document required emissions reductions. Commenter (0163) stated that the EPA's proposed
approach, however, does not demonstrate continued maintenance; so an area designated marginal
nonattainment should prepare a maintenance plan to set conformity budgets and assure continued
maintenance.
Commenter (0163) agreed with and preferred the "alternative" approach with the caveat that
areas be assessed and designated according to current (2012) design values. The commenter
believed that under the "preferred" approach, 1997 ozone NAAQS former nonattainment areas
that did not prepare maintenance plans would not have any maintenance obligations, but former
1997 ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas that prepared maintenance plans would be subject to
226
-------
the requirements in these plans. The alternative approach would remove this inequity and
provide assurances for continued attainment.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters. The control measures implemented by
these areas and included in their SIPs have already produced sufficient emissions reductions to
achieve air quality that not only attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but also resulted in an
attainment designation for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. These control measures
cannot be modified or removed without a demonstration satisfying section 110(1) and in some
cases both sections 110(1) and 193. These demonstrations must address not only the 1997 ozone
NAAQS but also the 2008 ozone NAAQS as well as any future NAAQS.
Comment: Do not support the proposal
Commenter (0180) stated that waiving the requirements of section 175A(b) without support is
arbitrary and undermines the protections of the Act. Commenter (0180) stated that, given the
ability of nonattainment areas under the 2008 standard to claim that RACM/RACT requires no
additional controls beyond those already in place, to extend attainment deadlines through "bump
ups," to defer implementation of any new control measures, and to allow emissions to increase
even without changes in applicable control measures (e.g., through increases in population or
economic activity), there is no assurance that the planning requirements for the 2008 standard
will prevent ambient concentrations from increasing.
Commenter (0180) stated the EPA is not clear whether it is also proposing to waive the revision
requirements of section 175A(b) for 1997 ozone standard maintenance areas if the area is
attaining the 2008 standard. Commenter (0180) stated such a proposal would be even more
arbitrary since the EPA is proposing to rely on the maintenance demonstrations for the 1997
standard to substitute for maintenance demonstrations under section 110(a)(1) for the 2008
standard. Commenter (0180) stated that waiving the revision requirement under section 175A(b)
would mean that there is no continuing obligation to demonstrate maintenance of either the 1997
or the 2008 standard. Commenter (0180) stated that attainment of the 1997 standard is no proof
that future levels will remain adequately controlled and pointed to the Washington DC-MD-VA
nonattainment area which had achieved the 1997 ozone standards, but where ambient
concentrations degraded over time between 2007 and 2012 and design values now exceed the
1997 standard. Commenter (0180) stated that, since some areas may experience ozone increases
over time, a second round of maintenance planning under section 175A(b) would ensure areas
will not backslide into violation of the 1997 standards; nothing in the 2008 planning
requirements can provide that assurance.
Response: We believe that an approved PSD SIP, in conjunction with the other already-existing
statutory and regulatory provisions that govern implementation of ozone standards, and the
historical safeguards in place for the area adopted for prior NAAQS, are generally sufficient to
prevent backsliding, and to satisfy the requirement for maintenance under section 110(a)(1). The
control measures implemented by these areas and included in their SIPs have already produced
sufficient emissions reductions to achieve air quality that attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and
resulted in an attainment designation for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. These control
measures cannot be modified or removed without a 110(1) showing and in some cases both a
227
-------
110(1) and a 193 showing. Areas designated attainment for the 2008 standard remain subject to
the attainment and maintenance requirements of that standard. These include continued
implementation of the control measures that brought the area into attainment. For these areas,
and for any area designated attainment for the 2008 NAAQS, the CAA's general NAAQS air
quality management framework and associated regulatory provisions continue to apply, and
serve as the foundation for handling any potential future issues with maintaining the 2008
NAAQS.
3. Areas Designated Nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS and Maintenance
for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
Comment: Modify regulatory text
Commenter (0153) supported the EPA's proposed approach but stated that the proposed
regulatory language at §51.1105(a)(4) states that after the 1997 standard is revoked the
maintenance plan may be modified consistent with sections 110(1) and 193. However,
commenter (0153) asserted the proposed regulatory language at §51.1105(a)(2) does not contain
similar language to allow modification of the maintenance plan consistent with 110(1) and 193,
and believed it should be added.
Response: The EPA agrees that the regulatory text regarding areas designated maintenance for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS should be amended to include language consistent with the proposed
and final approach. The regulatory text has been adjusted to reflect that maintenance plans can be
modified pursuant to CAA sections 110(1) and 193.
Comment: A second maintenance plan is needed
Commenter (0163) stated that there needs to be a showing that emissions will not increase in the
area and that maintenance is assured. The commenter suggested that this can be accomplished by
preparing either a maintenance plan or an RFP SIP. In the case of areas in the OTR,
nonattainment NSR is required as well as a number of other mandated measures. However,
without a maintenance plan, mobile source emissions do not have commensurate checks on
emissions growth. OTR areas should be given the option of demonstrating that projected mobile
source emissions do not exceed the base year for a 10-year period. The commenter stated that an
area designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS should prepare a second maintenance
plan to assure maintenance and set conformity budgets.
Another commenter opposed the proposal because the CAA clearly requires two 10-year
maintenance plans. The fact that the area is designated nonattainment under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS is no guarantee that there will be no increase in ozone violations. The commenter
suggested that the EPA review the record for areas violating a NAAQS for which it had been
redesignated to attainment with an approved maintenance plan. Waiving the requirements of a
second 10-year maintenance plan as described in CAA section 175A(b) without support is
arbitrary and undermines the protections of the Act.
228
-------
Response: The EPA recognizes that the approved 175A maintenance plan for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS can only be modified via a section 110(1) and, where appropriate, a section 193
showing. These analyses would have to demonstrate that any revisions to the maintenance plan
would not interfere with the ability to demonstrate timely attainment for the new standard. The
final rule has not established a requirement for the second 10-year plan for maintenance of a
revoked, less stringent standard that the areas previously attained. This allows states to focus
planning and control efforts on attaining and maintaining the more stringent and currently
applicable 2008 ozone NAAQS in these areas, rather than continued focus on the already
attained 1997 ozone NAAQS. The areas will remain subject to the MVEBs established in the
approved 175A maintenance plan until such time that MVEBs for the more stringent 2008 ozone
NAAQS are submitted and are found adequate or are approved. These MVEBs must be used for
transportation conformity determinations under the 2008 ozone NAAQS pursuant to the
conformity regulations.
4. 2008 Nonattainment Areas Also Designated Nonattainment for a Prior Revoked Ozone
NAAQS
Comment: Clarification
Commenter (0132) requested clarification of the interpretation of Table 2: 2008 Ozone NAAQS
Transition Obligations and Section (IV)(I)(4)(a)(ii). The commenter supposed that the EPA
stated that it is proposing that "areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be obligated to implement the applicable
requirements set forth in 51.1100(o) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and ... must also continue
addressing those applicable 1-hour ozone NAAQS requirements for that area." It continues to
state that the area must apply nonattainment NSR in "accordance with their highest
nonattainment classification under any ozone standard for which they are (or were at the time of
revocation) designated nonattainment, as well as any section 185 requirements for areas
classified Severe or Extreme at the time of revocation for a prior standard." This statement
implies that an area that is in Severe (or Extreme) nonattainment status for both the 1-hour and a
later ozone NAAQS standard would be subject to §185 fees for both standards. It is requested
that the EPA clarify what requirements would satisfy a §185 fee for both standards. Would
assessment of two separate fees with two different baseline amounts and years be required or
would the §185 fee requirement be satisfied for both unmet standards if the higher of the two
fees were assessed on major sources? It is noted that the higher of the two classifications is used
for NSR purposes and assessing only the higher of the two fees could be consistent with NSR.
Additionally, payment of a higher fee would fulfill the obligation of the smaller fee.
Response: Section 185 provides that states establish fee programs for Extreme and Severe
ozone areas to be implemented if the area fails to attain by the attainment date. The South Coast
decision determined that a section 185 fee program is a control that is needed to meet anti-
backsliding obligations. The EPA has concluded that, under the principles of section 172(e), a
district can meet its section 185 fee anti-backsliding obligation by developing equivalent
alternative measures to a section 185 fee program that are not less stringent than a fee program
would be and has approved two such programs. The Ninth Circuit is currently considering
229
-------
challenges to EPA's approval of those programs. The commenter raises a hypothetical issue
regarding implementation of the section 185 fee program that is beyond the scope of both the
proposed and final rules. The EPA will consider the issues raised by the commenter if and when
they arise in the context of a specific SIP submittal containing either a 185 fee program or an
equivalent alternative program.
5. Table 2 requirements—clarifications
Comment: Clarification regarding 110(a)(1) plan
Commenter (0139) stated there may be cases for areas initially designated attainment for the
1997 8-hr NAAQS in which a section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan was prepared, and not a
Section 175 maintenance plan; therefore, for the Attainment (2008); Attainment/Maintenance
(1997) category in row 1 of table 2 on page 34218, the following clarifying text should be added
to address cases in which a 110(a)(1) plan was prepared:
"Section 175 A maintenance plan or section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hr
NAAQS satisfies maintenance requirement under section 110(a)(1)"
Response: The requested modification was not made because it is unnecessary. In the
circumstance the commenter describes, an area has been designated attainment and prepared a
110(a)(1) plan for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and not a 175 maintenance plan the area faces no
anti-backsliding requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS under this final rule.
J. Satisfaction of Anti-Backsliding Requirements for an Area
1. Formal redesignation satisfies anti-backsliding requirements
Commenters (0132, 0159, 0166, 0173 and 0179) generally supported the EPA's proposal that
formal redesignation satisfies anti-backsliding requirements for revoked standards.
Comm enters (0132 and 0173) agreed that formal redesignation to attainment for the 2008 eight-
hour ozone NAAQS and approval of a maintenance plan demonstrates that an area has satisfied
its obligations to adopt anti-backsliding requirements, including section 185 penalty fees.
Commenter (0179) supported a formal redesignation approach and stated this would lift the
nonattainment NSR requirements.
Comm enters (0132 and 0173) requested that the EPA preserve the statutory mechanism to
redesignate areas to attainment for the 1997 NAAQS. Commenter (0132) stated that without
such a redesignation, it is possible that nonattainment consequences, including the assessment of
§185 fees, may continue to be imposed on an area that is no longer monitoring nonattainment for
the one-hour ozone standard and/or the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. Commenter (0132)
stated that this is a particularly egregious type of punishment for areas that have not yet missed
the applicable attainment date for a particular standard. Commenter (0173) stated that because
the EPA's more streamlined options to eliminate anti-backsliding obligations for the 1997
230
-------
NAAQS have not yet been tested in the courts, retaining the statutory redesignation mechanism
for the revoked NAAQS will ensure that a procedure exists to allow 1997 NAAQS
nonattainment areas to remove anti-backsliding obligations where circumstances warrant.
Commenter (0181) opposed the other demonstrations required for formal redesignation
(demonstration that air quality improvements were due to permanent and enforceable measures,
and that the area will continue to maintain the standard over the next 10 years) and stated they
are neither necessary nor appropriate. Commenter (0181) stated that the criterion for
applicability of anti-backsliding requirements is nonattainment, not attainment designation.
Commenter (0181) stated Congress intended this distinction, as demonstrated by its use of the
phrase "designated nonattainment"; that is, Congress was aware of how to make a requirement
effective based on an attainment designation, as distinguished from attainment. Commenter
(0181) stated the EPA should allow an area to remove anti-backsliding requirements related to
the one-hour ozone standard and 1997 eight-hour ozone standard upon attaining those standards
(i.e., a "clean data determination") - particularly for areas - such as Pechanga's Tribal Lands -
where the original nonattainment designation was influenced by overwhelming transport from
upwind areas. Commenter (0181) suggested that a State would need (1) to demonstrate that the
NAAQS had been attained, and (2) to submit a revision to their SIP, proposing to remove the
affected anti-backsliding requirements. Commenter (0181) stated this SIP revision would be
subject to the provisions of 110(1) which prohibit approval of revisions that would interfere with
attainment or reasonable further progress.
Response: Approval of a redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS signifies that
the state has satisfied its obligations to adopt anti-backsliding requirements for the current and
revoked standards for that area. This same approach was used in the Phase 1 Rule in requiring
redesignations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to address anti-backsliding requirements for the
revoked 1-hour standard. Approval of the section 175 A maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS assures that the area's SIP includes the provisions necessary for maintenance of the
2008 ozone NAAQS, which is the most stringent of the NAAQS. Therefore, upon redesignation
to attainment and approval of its plan for maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, an area will
have satisfied its obligations to adopt anti-backsliding requirements. All of the anti-backsliding
measures that have been approved into the SIP must continue to be implemented unless or until
the state can show that such implementation is not necessary for maintenance, consistent with
section 110(1) and section 193 if applicable.
The EPA does not agree that it has authority to take action to reclassify or redesignate areas to
attainment for a former standard that has been revoked, such as the 1997 ozone NAAQS after
that NAAQS has been revoked. Revocation of the standard removes the designations for the
revoked standard, as well as the classifications, except to the extent necessary to implement
applicable anti-backsliding requirements. The EPA believes the two mechanisms provided in the
final rule for removing obligations arising from a revoked standard accomplish the goals of 42
U.S.C 7407(d)(3) [CAA section 107(d)(3)] in a manner consistent with anti-backsliding
principles and appropriate for the circumstance where a more stringent NAAQS with the same
form and averaging time exists and is being actively implemented. Thus, we agree with the
commenters that there should be a mechanism for removing certain obligations, such as section
231
-------
185 fee programs based on failure to attain a former standard that has since been revoked after
the state has attained that revoked NAAQS that can serve the same function as a formal
redesignation to attainment. This is precisely the reason we developed the redesignation
substitute. While the redesignation substitute has not been judicially reviewed, we believe that
our approach is legally defensible.
The EPA does not believe that a clean data determination is sufficient to suspend anti-
backsliding requirements. We believe that the redesignation and redesignation substitute
mechanisms represent the minimum set of requirements sufficient to demonstrate satisfaction of
anti-backsliding requirements under the EPA's application of the principles of section 172(e).
These mechanisms provide a way for states to demonstrate that they have attained these
standards, and have essentially met all the requirements for redesignations, and thus should no
longer need to fulfill any additional anti-backsliding requirements beyond those already
approved in their SIPs. A clean data determination only suspends planning requirements
associated with the NAAQS for which the determination was granted.
CAA section 172(e), which addresses relaxations of a NAAQS, requires protections for areas
that have not attained a NAAQS prior to a relaxation, by requiring controls that are "not less
stringent" than the controls applicable in nonattainment areas prior to any such relaxation. The
EPA applied these principles in developing previous guidance on satisfying the anti-backsliding
approach for CAA section 185 requirements. As stated in previous EPA guidance, we interpret
the principles of 172(e) as authorizing, but not requiring, the Administrator to approve on a case-
by-case basis "not less stringent" alternatives to the applicable section 185 fee program
requirements associated with a revoked ozone NAAQS.34 The NRDC challenged this guidance
in 2010. Although the court vacated the 2010 guidance memorandum on procedural grounds, it
did not prohibit alternative programs, stating that "neither the statute nor our case law obviously
precludes that alternative." See NRDC v. EPA, 643 F.3d 332 (D.C. Cir. July 2011). We believe
the application of section 172(e) principles to applicable section 185 anti-backsliding
requirements is an appropriate and reasonable use of the Administrator's discretion to approve
"not less stringent" controls. However, we did not propose and do not intend at this time to
promulgate regulatory language to apply principles of section 172(e) to other anti-backsliding
requirements.
Comment: Redesignation does not satisfy anti-backsliding requirements
Commenter (0180) stated redesignation (or initial designation) to attainment for the 2008
standard cannot be used to turn off obligations triggered under the 1-hour or 1997 standards.
Comm enter (0180) stated that these obligations can only be turned off by meeting those
standards. Commenter (0180) cited Chevron step 1 in NRDC, 643 F.3d at 322 (rejecting EPA
34 Memo from Stephen D. Page to Regional Air Division Directors, Jan. 5, 2010, "Guidance on
Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-Hour Ozone
NAAQS."
232
-------
policy that would have allowed an area to use attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard to
terminate 185 fees triggered by noncompliance with the 1-hour ozone standard). Commenter
(0180) also stated the court explained "the Act creates a one-way ratchet, 'plac[ing] states onto a
one-way street whose only outlet is attainment' of the NAAQS - even NAAQS EPA has
subsequently replaced." Id. (quoting SCAQMD, 472 F.3d at 900).
Commenter (0180) stated this is particularly important because the data EPA used to make
designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS were low due to the Great Recession and/or cool
weather and, as such, do not indicate that serious, severe or extreme 1997 ozone NAAQS
nonattainment areas will attain by their attainment date. Commenter (0180) stated that, if the
EPA believes that attainment of the 2008 NAAQS will necessarily mean attainment of the earlier
standards, then there is no reason for this option because areas meeting the 2008 standard should
also be able to demonstrate attainment with the prior standards and go through the statutorily
provided redesignation process.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. When the EPA approves a redesignation
request for the current 2008 ozone NAAQS, we assess whether the area is in attainment for the
current and previous NAAQS. The maintenance plan submitted by the state demonstrates that the
area being considered for redesignation will continue for the next 10 years to attain the standard
that is requisite to protect public health, and that attainment is due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions. A redesignation to attainment signifies that the area has met the
requirements of the 2008, as well as any revoked, NAAQS. CAA section 185 specifically
identifies redesignation "as an attainment area for ozone" as a basis for terminating fee
requirements. Also, redesignation to attainment historically has terminated nonattainment NSR
requirements, which are not required to be kept in the SIP as contingency measures. See
Greenbaum v. EPA (370 F.3d at 536). Moreover, redesignation for the current standard was the
unchallenged basis for demonstrating satisfaction of anti-backsliding requirements in the EPA's
previous Phase 1 anti-backsliding regime (69 FR 23951). We believe the application of the same
principle when transitioning from the 1997 to the 2008 ozone NAAQS is an even better fit: it is
impossible to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS without first achieving air quality that would attain
the 1997 ozone NAAQS due to the identical form of the two standards.
2. Redesignation Substitute satisfies anti-backsliding requirements
Comment: Support redesignation substitute
Commenters (0130, 0136, 0139, 0145, 0151, 0153, 0158, 0159, 0160, 0163, 0166, 0177, 0178
and 0179) generally supported the EPA's proposal to provide a redesignation substitute to satisfy
anti-backsliding requirements for revoked standards.
Commenter (0130) stated that inventories and modeling needed for the redesignation substitute
should rely heavily on existing data, since new inventories and analyses would generate a great
deal of work for a standard that may have been met for many years. Commenter (0130) stated
that the EPA should also allow states to supply inventories in terms of tons/year rather than
ozone season tons/day.
233
-------
Commenters (0139 and 0150) supported the concept of a "redesignation substitute" in the sense
that there needs to be a clear path for the states to follow in order to eliminate the anti-
backsliding requirements attendant on failure to attain a revoked standard.
Commenter (0130) stated that the EPA should clarify that mobile vehicle emissions budgets are
not required for a redesignation substitute since such budgets by necessity must be SIP
submissions and must at a minimum be deemed adequate by the EPA.
Commenter (0130) stated that, since this is not a maintenance plan under Section 175A, the EPA
should consider allowing states flexibility in creating this document.
Commenter (0132) recommended that the "substitute redesignation procedure be streamlined so
that two steps, notification and the attainment/maintenance demonstration that would currently
be required are rolled into one submission. Commenter (0132) stated this process could result in
significant delays while the state waits for EPA action on the initial redesignation showing;
rather, as is done with formal redesignation requests that are submitted concurrently with
maintenance plans, a redesignation substitute could be submitted concurrently with the necessary
SIP revisions to remove nonattainment SIP requirements. Commenter (0162) supported a
streamlined process to minimize the burdens on state and industry as they attempt to comply
with implementation requirements associated with multiple iterations of the ozone NAAQS—
1997, 2008, and projected 2014/15 standards.
Commenter (0151) stated the proposed rule should be modified so that when the State notifies
the EPA that it will be submitting its Clean Data demonstration and maintenance plan, all SIP-
planning activities under the 1997 ozone standard are suspended unless and until the EPA
determines through the contemplated notice and comment "substitution procedure" that the State
has failed to show that it is able to attain and/or maintain the former ozone standard. Commenter
(0151) stated that it seems pointless to insist that 1997 ozone planning continue.
Commenter (0153) supported this concept, but believed the EPA should specify that a
maintenance plan submitted prior to revocation of the 1997 standard satisfies a states need to
provide a showing that addresses the substance of the redesignation criteria, provided that the
maintenance plan that was submitted meets the requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E).
Commenter (0158) stated the EPA should move expeditiously to address and finalize any
outstanding state redesignation or clean data requests with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard so that formal, official redesignations or clean data determinations can be finalized prior
to the revocation of the 1997 8-hour standard.
Commenters (0159 and 0177) stated that the EPA's alternative approach prevents such areas
from being treated more harshly than those areas that achieved the 1997 ozone standard prior to
its revocation.
234
-------
Commenter (0163) supported this approach, stating it is reasonable in that it does not include all
of the provisions required for redesignation, but eliminates the discrepancies created under the
earlier approach that only required a showing of attainment.
Commenter (0179) supported both proposed options for addressing nonattainmentNSR
requirements for any prior ozone standard for which an area remains designated nonattainment.
Response: The EPA recognizes that a clean data determination alone is less burdensome for
states than a section 107(d)(3) redesignation or a redesignation substitute. But a clean data
determination only suspends planning requirements associated with the NAAQS for which the
determination was granted. We believe that the formal redesignation and redesignation substitute
mechanisms represent the minimum set of requirements sufficient to demonstrate satisfaction of
anti-backsliding requirements under the EPA's application of the principles of section 172(e).
These mechanisms provide a way for states to demonstrate that they have attained these
standards, they have met all the requirements for redesignations, and thus no longer need any
anti-backsliding requirements beyond those already approved in their SIPs. The EPA believes
the redesignation and redesignation substitute mechanisms, and their associated requirements
reasonably address backsliding requirements in a manner that can be legally supported.
The EPA intends to act as quickly as possible on all redesignation requests received from states
prior to revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. While we believe that we cannot redesignate
areas to attainment for a revoked NAAQS, we can issue clean data determinations and
determinations of attainment to areas for that revoked NAAQS.
Comment: Oppose redesignation substitute
Commenter (0152) believed that, although the proposed "redesignation substitute" process
would not be a formal SIP process, it would be subject to notice and comment, would be
resource intensive, and would be unnecessary, especially given that the EPA does not even have
the authority to redesignate an area to attainment for a revoked standard. Commenter (0152)
stated the Phase 1 Rule process should continue; i.e., when an area attains under the revoked 1-
hour ozone standard, a state merely needs to show attainment and the EPA makes a
determination of attainment.
Response: The EPA believes that the redesignations substitute mechanism represents the
minimum set of requirements sufficient to demonstrate satisfaction of anti-backsliding
requirements for a revoked NAAQS under the EPA's application of the principles of section
172(e). The only other route to demonstrate the satisfaction of anti-backsliding requirements is a
redesignation to attainment for the most current ozone NAAQS. A clean data determination only
suspends planning requirements for a specific NAAQS, and a determination of attainment only
serves to note that the area attained by the assigned attainment date.
Comment: More extensive showing
Commenters (0139, 0150, 0166 and 0173) questioned why the EPA considers this more
extensive showing necessary, since when the EPA revokes a standard, it does so because it
235
-------
believes it is no longer needed. Commenters (0166 and 0173) questioned whether it is necessary
for the redesignation substitute to include a maintenance demonstration. Since the state must
prepare a SIP for the area to bring it into compliance with the more-stringent 2008 standard,
commenter (0166) stated it seems an unnecessary burden to require that the state also prepare a
demonstration that air quality will not degrade such that the earlier standards are no longer met.
Commenter (0173) stated that the EPA terminated anti-backsliding obligations in the Baton
Rouge and Beaumont-Port Arthur areas without requiring such a maintenance demonstration for
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and noted that many areas seeking such a redesignation substitute will
likely also be subject to rate-of-progress requirements or maintenance plans for other ozone
NAAQS, that will in practice continue to assure emission reductions consistent with air quality
maintenance.
Response: We believe that the redesignation substitute mechanism represents the minimum set
of requirements sufficient to demonstrate satisfaction of anti-backsliding requirements under the
EPA's application of the principles of section 172(e) and the requirements of 107(d)(3)(E). A
redesignation substitute showing would include: attainment of the relevant revoked 1-hour
and/or 1997 ozone NAAQS; a showing that attainment was due to permanent and enforceable
emissions reductions; and a demonstration that the area can continue to maintain the standard
over the next 10 years.
The EPA recognizes that areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that also
remain nonattainment for a revoked NAAQS are likely designated at a lower classification for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS as a result of the implementation of control measures for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. Air quality improvements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are built upon progress
made for the previous ozone NAAQS. The EPA is not providing the redesignation substitute
mechanism for the purpose of allowing states to relax or avoid air quality control measures that
are needed for attainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
We terminated the 1-hour ozone NAAQS anti-backsliding obligations for the Baton Rouge and
Beaumont-Port Arthur areas, with the exception of the CAA 185 fee obligation for the Baton
Rouge area, in conjunction with approval of a maintenance plan for the more stringent 1997
ozone NAAQS (76 FR 74000, November 30, 2011 and 75 FR 64675,October 20, 2010,
respectively).35 In addition to the option of demonstrating maintenance for a more stringent
NAAQS, our final rule is reasonable in that it allows an alternative demonstration for the
revoked NAAQS adequate to fulfill anti-backsliding requirements.
35 For the Baton Rouge area we terminated the CAA section 185 fee obligation for the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS in a separate rulemaking (July 7, 2011, 76 FR 39775). This rulemaking relied on
our January 5, 2010 memorandum "Guidance on Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean
Air Act Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS." On July 1, 2011, the District of Columbia
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated our 185 fee guidance. NRDC v. EPA, 643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir.
2011).
236
-------
Comment: NSR requirements
Commenter (0130) stated that a mechanism must be supplied to states to alleviate the overly
burdensome requirements for NSR thresholds to which areas are subject, solely due to their
status as a nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard. Commenter (0130) stated that
applying the NSR thresholds for 1-hour severe areas with no opportunity to alleviate those
burdens does not provide a level playing field. For instance, any other area in the OTR
designated marginal or moderate nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS should have NSR
thresholds of 50 tpy VOC and 100 tpy ofNOxas well as offset ratios of 1.15 to 1. The Northern
Virginia area, under the EPA's current interpretation of anti-backsliding requirements, would
have NSR thresholds of 25 tpy VOC and NOx as well as offset ratios of 1.3 to 1. Without some
way to alleviate the requirements for the 1991 ozone standard, Northern Virginia, a marginal
nonattainment area for a much more protective standard, would have much stricter NSR
requirements than most other marginal and moderate areas in the OTR. The CAA clearly does
not contemplate this situation.
Commenter (0132) stated that if a "redesignation substitute" approach is taken, the TCEQ would
recommend the removal of nonattainment NSR requirements and their replacement with PSD
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and all previous standards once an area has met its
attainment obligations for those previous standards. The commenter believed that the
requirements for a more stringent classification would no longer be in place once an area has
attained the previous standards. This would allow a state to conduct air permit applicability
determinations using the classifications associated with the 2008 standard, rather than the most
stringent classification for areas that did not attain the one-hour and 1997 eight-hour standard
before the standards were revoked, once those areas reach attainment. This process would be
consistent with the recommendation that the EPA formally redesignate areas that were
nonattainment for the previous ozone standards at the time they were revoked, once those areas
reach attainment for the previous standards. Neither the environment nor the economy benefits
by retaining classifications and basing permit requirements related to revoked standards,
particularly once an area has met its obligations for attainment under those standards.
Response: Addressing NSR requirements associated with a revoked ozone NAAQS is a key
benefit of the flexibility provided by a redesignation substitute mechanism. An area that is
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS that retained anti-backsliding requirements for one
(or more) revoked ozone NAAQS, whose NSR threshold is set by a revoked NAAQS, can
address that via the redesignation substitute mechanism. Nonattainment NSR applies in these
areas in accordance with their highest nonattainment classification under any ozone standard for
which they are (or were at the time of revocation) designated nonattainment. The redesignation
substitute mechanism allows a state to demonstrate that the revoked NAAQS which determines
the threshold level has been attained. Following a successful redesignation substitute showing for
that NAAQS, the NSR level would then be set by the next higher classification that applies to
that area. It should be noted that states in the OTR are required to implement, at a minimum, the
nonattainment NSR requirements associated with a Moderate area.
Once a state develops successful redesignation substitute showings to address anti-backsliding
requirements for the revoked NAAQS, the nonattainment NSR level remaining is that for the
237
-------
current ozone NAAQS. The only way to remove nonattainment NSR requirements for the
current ozone NAAQS is through the standard 107(d)(3)(E) process. Once that is successful, the
state may shift to implementing PSD in that area.
Comment: Section 185 requirements
Commenter (0132) recommended that this redesignation substitute should also terminate §185
obligations. Commenter (0151) suggested that if the only planning activity that the EPA feels is
necessary to preserve is activation of Section 185 penalties for a legacy nonattainment area that
missed the prior attainment dates, the agency can address that issue without requiring further
planning and/or a lengthy demonstration of maintenance of the old standard once it is achieved.
Commenter (0160) supported the proposed approach to remove Section 185 fee program
obligations if the area has met the 1997 standard and submits a 10-year maintenance showing.
Response: Terminating section 185 fees associated with a revoked ozone NAAQS is a key
benefit of the flexibility provided by a redesignation substitute mechanism. The EPA believes
that an approved redesignation substitute showing is sufficient to terminate these fees, whereas a
clean data determination or determination of attainment are not. Because an area pursuing the
redesignation substitute is not redesignating to attainment for the most current NAAQS, the EPA
believes that a showing that the area can attain the revoked NAAQS for 10 years is a necessary
part of the successful showing. This complete showing is necessary to demonstrate the area will
not backslide.
Comment: Streamlined process for removing obligations under prior ozone standards
Commenter (0151) recommended the EPA provide public notice that the EPA made a clean data
determination in the Federal Register, or even better, maintain a record of such decisions on an
EPA website in the Ozone NAAQS area. Commenter (0151) recommended that subsequently the
state should be allowed to petition the EPA to remove former NSR requirements (for formerly
applicable major source thresholds, offsets, and internal netting) and shift other obligations to its
contingency plan provided that doing so does not jeopardize progress toward the currently
applicable NAAQS under Section 110(1). Commenter (0151) stated that additional notice and
comment activities are not needed; judicial review for such determinations is not warranted; and
a maintenance demonstration for the former standard for 10 years seems unnecessary, if the area
has become subject to the 2008 (or a future NAAQS).
Commenter (0162) supported a streamlined process to minimize the burdens on state and
industry as they attempt to comply with implementation requirements associated with multiple
iterations of the ozone NAAQS—1997, 2008, and projected 2014/15 standards.
238
-------
Response: The EPA publishes all actions in the Federal Register. A list of actions for each
nonattainment area and their associated FR postings can be found on the EPA's Green Book
(,http://www. epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/).
Once the EPA approves a redesignation substitute showing for the revoked NAAQS, the state
can modify the SIP per the usual requirements of section 110(1) and, where appropriate, section
193. A state that has successfully redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for the current
ozone NAAQS may shift its preconstruction review permit program from nonattainment NSR to
PSD.
K. How will the EPA's determination of attainment (''Clean Data'') regulation apply for
purposes of the anti-backsliding requirements?
1. General
Commenter (0166) stated that a determination that an area has "clean data" for the more-
stringent 2008 NAAQS should be sufficient to lift anti-backsliding requirements for the earlier
NAAQS. Commenter (0179) supported the proposal to apply the same approach finalized in the
Phase 1 Rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Commenter (0181) stated that the legal basis for removal of attainment demonstration
requirements under the "clean data policy" is equally applicable to anti-backsliding requirements
for revoked standards and that there is no reason why it should not be applied with respect to
elimination of anti-backsliding requirements for revoked standards. The commenter believed that
under the clean data policy, an area that attains the standard is not subject to requirements
specifically linked with demonstration of attainment and reasonable further progress toward an
already attained standard. In the Seitz memo, the EPA emphasizes that "this interpretation does
not extend to requirements of subpart 2 that are not linked by the language of the Act with the
attainment demonstration and RFP requirements." Requirements such as VOC RACT, which are
required in designated nonattainment areas without the possibility of exemption through a
demonstrated lack of need (in contrast with the NOx RACT requirement) are not subject to the
clean data policy. Because the anti-backsliding requirement is linked by the language of the act
with the attainment demonstration (and not the attainment designation) it lies within the ambit of
the clean data policy. The clean data policy has been applied by EPA for decades and has
withstood court_challenges.
Response: The EPA agrees in part with the commenters. A clean data determination for a
specific ozone NAAQS only suspends planning requirements associated with that specific
NAAQS, such as attainment demonstration SIPs. It does not suspend mandatory control
requirements, which could include, as applicable, anti-backsliding requirements associated with
the revoked NAAQS. As explained in the previous section, the EPA believes that an approved
redesignation to attainment or a redesignation substitute is necessary to lift anti-backsliding
requirements associated with a revoked NAAQS. Section 51.1118 clarifies that a clean data
determination for the 2008 NAAQS acts to suspend planning requirements associated with the
239
-------
2008 and less stringent 1997 ozone NAAQS, which have an identical form.
2. Section 51.1118
Commenter (0132) stated that the language in proposed §51.1118 requires clarification about
which ozone standard must be attained in order to suspend SIP planning requirements. The
commenter believed that this section applies to an area designated nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS or for any prior ozone NAAQS, so this section must also specifically indicate
which ozone NAAQS must be attained in order to suspend planning requirements. According to
the EPA's proposal, it will no longer redesignate areas to attainment for prior ozone NAAQS
upon revocation of those NAAQS, so it appears that the attainment requirement in §51.1118 is
meant to be interpreted as attainment of the 2008 NAAQS. However, this language is unclear
and only states "has attained the standard" rather than more specifically stating "attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS." If §51.1118 is instead meant to be applied more generally to all ozone
NAAQS, it should be made clearer.
Response: Given the request for further clarity about which ozone standard §51.1118 applies to,
the EPA has revised the language in 51.1118 to make it clear that a clean data determination for
the 2008 NAAQS acts to suspend planning requirements associated with the 2008 and the less
stringent 1997 ozone NAAQS, which both have the same form.
L. What is the relationship between implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the
CAA Title Vpermits program?
1. Support for first approach for Title V permitting threshold
Commenters (0132, 0163, 0179 and 180) supported the first option, which sets major source
Title V thresholds to those applied for RACT and NSR. Commenter (0163) supported option 1
with the minor conforming amendments to the definition of major source in 40 CFR 70.2 and
71.2 as detailed on Page 34225.
Commenter (0132) stated that this approach would provide applicants with clarity and uniformity
regarding applicable major source thresholds. Commenter (0163) stated that this approach
maintains the consistency which will ultimately simplify permitting and enforcement.
Commenter (0163) stated that Option 1 is supported by the fact that these thresholds emanate
from the same provisions of the CAA (Part D of Title I), therefore, the intent of the CAA was to
keep the thresholds the same. Commenter (0180) urged the EPA to adopt the first approach,
because it is consistent with past precedent and compelled by the Act's anti-backsliding
requirements as well as court precedent.
Response: The EPA agrees with these commenters that the major source threshold for title V
should be the same as the major source threshold for NSR and RACT, and the EPA is finalizing
the proposed revisions to parts 70 and 71 to make that clear. Following revocation of the 1997
240
-------
ozone NAAQS, major source thresholds for title V will be the same as the major source
thresholds applicable for purposes of other requirements, such as RACT and NSR (i.e., the major
source threshold associated with the more stringent of the area's classification for the 2008, 1997
and/or 1-hour ozone NAAQS will be the applicable threshold for title V purposes, to the extent
that anti-backsliding requirements for the 1997 and/or 1-hour ozone NAAQS apply in the area).
Maintaining consistency between the NSR and title V thresholds in this regard will promote
compliance with CAA requirements by providing certainty, consistency and a simpler permitting
regime, ensuring that sources subject to major source NSR understand they are also subject to
title V, and enabling permitting authorities to identify sources that are potentially subject to
major source NSR. The EPA believes a contrary approach would introduce not only complexity,
but anomalies, into the permitting program that would be contrary to the purposes and
requirements of the Act. To promote effective program implementation and ensure consistency
with the CAA, this final rule will amend the relevant provisions of parts 70 and 71 related to
application of title V thresholds.
2. Support for the second approach for Title V permitting threshold
Commenters (0130, 0145, 0152, 0158, 0159 and 0166) supported the second approach, in which
the major source thresholds for Title V permitting are based solely on an area's classification for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Commenter (0159) stated that the second approach would provide relief to small operators and
would adequately reflect the classification under the current ozone NAAQS. Commenter (0130)
stated that, in this time of resource constraints on both government and private industry, setting
the Title V permitting thresholds equivalent to thresholds supported by the area's current
classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS makes good sense. The commenter believed that Title
V permits were meant to be a catalogue of all federal requirements that apply to any particular
facility. Basing the threshold on the classification for a revoked NAAQS, however, would be
unduly harsh and unnecessary, especially in areas where air quality has met the revoked NAAQS
for many years. Facilities would need to spend money on the creation of Title V permit
applications, would need to pay permit fees and emissions fees, and would need to begin semi-
annual compliance certification reporting. In Virginia, the reduction of the Title V thresholds to
1-hour severe NSR thresholds would mean at least an additional 40 Title V facilities. These are
mainly small facilities, and the requirements of Title V would be quite burdensome.
Additionally, requiring these facilities to comply with Title V mandates would most likely not
reduce emissions from the units at these facilities.
Commenter (0145) stated that facilities need to renew Title V permits every five years, and by
the time all facilities have updated their permits to reflect the 2008 ozone NAAQS, it is very
likely that another ozone NAAQS will have been finalized and permits will again need to be
modified to reflect this change.
241
-------
Commenter (0145) also stated that facilities should not have to include a standard that no longer
exists due to revocation in their Title V operating permits. Commenter (0158) stated that once
EPA revokes the 1997 ozone standard, and given that the 1-hour standard has already been
revoked, the major source thresholds for the current standard designations and classifications
should be the relevant factors for determining whether a source is major for ozone precursors for
purposes of Title V.
Commenter (0152) stated that the D.C. Circuit's ruling applied only to RACT and NSR and,
therefore, should not be of concern in this situation, and anti-backsliding provisions should not
be extended to the Title V program. Commenter (0152) stated that, although the EPA's concern
is that the D.C. Circuit's ruling stated that the EPA erred in its approach to anti-backsliding by
not requiring states to retain, as applicable requirements, all control measures that applied for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, the Title V program does not create new applicable requirements but
simply is a permit to consolidate all existing applicable requirements.
Commenter (0166) stated that the major source thresholds that are redefined due to transition to
the 2008 NAAQS are for purposes of NSR, not for Title V purposes.
Response: The EPA recognizes that the approach being adopted does not solely rely on the
area's current classification for purposes of determining major source thresholds for title V. The
EPA believes there is ambiguity in the intersection between title V and part D as to whether title
V should apply the major source threshold of the area's current classification, or the area's
classification for purposes of nonattainment NSR and other underlying applicable requirements,
when that threshold would be lower. As discussed previously, the EPA believes that it is
appropriate under the CAA, and consistent with the EPA's longstanding approach to these
programs, for a source which is considered to be "major" for purposes of nonattainment NSR to
also be considered "major" for purposes of title V. For the reasons stated previously, the EPA
believes maintaining consistency in the major source applicability of the two programs in the
context of today's rulemaking, is the best approach to promote consistency and compliance with
the purposes and requirements of the CAA.
The EPA is not persuaded by the comments suggesting that the problems with the first approach
make it necessary to adopt the second approach. The EPA believes this second approach would
introduce not only complexity, but anomalies, into the permitting program that would be
contrary to the purposes and requirements of the Act. Areas designated nonattainment for the
2008 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS upon the date the 1997 NAAQS is revoked
retain anti-backsliding requirements associated with the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Allowing NSR
levels to rest upon the classification level of the most recent NAAQS does not accurately address
the requirements from the revoked NAAQS that do not go away with revocation of that NAAQS.
Areas subject to anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS now have
two ways to address their thresholds: either formal redesignation to attainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, or the use of a redesignation substitute for the revoked NAAQS. Formal
redesignation to attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS would transition the area from
nonattainment NSR to PSD. Use of a redesignation substitute to demonstrate that the area has
attained the revoked NAAQS allows the area to transition NSR levels to the next most stringent
242
-------
level of NSR - whether those levels are set by the current ozone NAAQS or from another
revoked ozone NAAQS. The EPA believes that this approach prevents backsliding in the area.
Where the EPA is at in the review of the current ozone NAAQS does not impact this program.
3. Whether or not Title V is a "control" within the meaning of §172(e)
Comment: Support that Title V is a "control" within the meaning of §172(e)
Comm enter (0180) stated that Title V permits represent "controls" for purposes of the Act's anti-
backsliding requirements and, as such, the EPA should abide by SCAQMD and use the same
major source thresholds for administering the Title V permit program as the agency proposes to
for the NSR and RACT programs. Commenter (0180) stated that Title V permits serve as
independently enforceable compliance assurance mechanisms that constrain emissions by
sources and accordingly should be seen as control measures. Commenter (0180) stated that since
Title V permits collect multiple control requirements in one document, there is no reason for the
agency to depart from SCAQMD and treat Title V permitting classifications differently than, for
example, NSR or RACT permitting. Commenter (0180) cited SCAQMD and suggested that Title
V should be considered a control measure because it is highly improbable that if Title V were not
present there would be no effect on ozone levels. Commenter (0180) also stated that since both
NSR and Title V restrictions increase as the nonattainment classification worsen, these identical
structures underscore the importance of treating Title V as a control for purposes of the Act's
anti-backsliding requirements.
Comment: Support that Title V is not a "control" within the meaning of §172(e)
Commenters (0132, 0145, 0151, 0152, 0159, and 0179) stated the Title V program is not a
control in and of itself. Commenter (0132) stated that the EPA has consistently stated that Title
V is a separate program when compared to the requirements of Title I. Commenter (0152) stated
that the history of Title V rulemaking is clear on this point. Commenter (0179) stated that Title V
is not a control since the EPA has stated repeatedly that no substantive controls are imposed
simply by having a Title V permit. Commenter (0145) stated that Title V should not be
considered a "control" in light of the fact that Title V is not intended to impose new substantive
air quality control requirements but is instead intended to assure compliance with all existing
applicable requirements. Commenter (0151) stated that the legislative history of the 1990 CAA
Amendments is clear that Title V is an administrative means of collecting substantive applicable
control requirements under the CAA in a single document; therefore, the requirement for a Title
V permit is not itself a "control requirement."
243
-------
Response: It is not necessary to resolve this question at this time, because the purposes and
requirements of the CAA Section 172(e) are fulfilled by establishing title V permitting
thresholds to be the same as the permitting thresholds for underlying applicable requirements,
particularly NSR. Since the EPA is taking final action adopting the interpretation that major
source definitions should be the same for both programs, the above-described issue does not
need to be resolved at this time.
244
-------
4.0 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
1. Environmental Justice
Comment: Commenter (0180) cited Executive Order 12898 and stated the EPA's analysis does
not look at the relevant question: whether this rule disproportionately affects minority and low-
income populations. Commenter (0180) stated that, if ozone nonattainment areas cover
disproportionately large minority and low-income populations, it is irrelevant that NAAQS are
designed to protect all segments of the population, it is the effects, not the intent, that matters.
Commenter (0180) referenced two EPA studies and stated that greater percentages of racial
minorities than of white populations lived in ozone nonattainment areas in the early 1990s and
that there is evidence of an increase in risk of Cb-related health effects for Blacks and Hispanics
and people with lower socioeconomic status. Commenter (0180) objected to the lack of analysis
as to what the policy decisions in the rule mean for prompt attainment of the ozone standards.
Response: The EPA conducted a proximity analysis, as part of the NAAQS review, that
examined socio-demographic attributes of populations in counties currently exceeding the
proposed ozone standards (2011 - 2013 design value). Results show that the percent of minority,
Hispanic, and low income populations in counties most likely to benefit from reductions in
ozone concentrations is similar to national averages. However, because we do not know the
distribution of emissions following the rule we are unable to provide an analysis of changes in
the distribution of outcomes following the implementation of the rule.
The following two tables are from the MA36 for the ozone N AAQS review.
36 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ground-Level Ozone, November 2014, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/20141125ria.pdf
245
-------
Table 9-1. Summary of Population Totals and Demographic Categories for Areas of
Interest and National Perspective
Demographic
Summary Population
White
African
American
Native
American
Other or
Multiracial'11
Minority/Non-
White
Hispanic3
Area of Interest Total
65 ppb 221,431,286
153,706,027
30,429,108
1,726,110
35,570,041
67,725,259
70 ppb 193,316,836
132,112,738
27,193,155
1,488,364
32,522,579
61,204,098
% of Area of Interest Total
65 ppb
69%
14%
1%
16%
31%
70 ppb
68%
14%
1%
17%
32%
National
Total 312,861,256
226,405,205
39,475,216
2,952,087
44,028,748
86,456,051
%of
National
Total
72%
13%
1%
14%
28%
a The race Minority/Non-White Hispanic field is computed by subtracting the white population from the total
population.
Table 9-2. Summary of Population Totals and Demographic Categories for Areas of
Interest and National Perspective
Demographic Linguistically
Summary Isolated
Age 0-4
Age 0 -17
Age 65+
Without a
HS Diploma
Low
Income'21
Area of Interest Total
65 ppb 13,072,109
14,695,948
54,008,810
27,163,990
20,914,891
67,027,700
70 ppb 12,179,896
12,849,637
47,296,147
23,518,071
18,495,474
58,296,224
% of Area of Interest Total
65 ppb 6%
7%
24%
12%
14%
30%
70 ppb 6%
7%
24%
12%
15%
30%
National Total 19,196,507
20,465,065
75,217,176
40,830,262
30,952,789
101,429,436
% of National
Total 6% 7% 24% 13% 15% 32%
''' Appendix 9A clarifies that "other or multiracial" is derived from individual reporting on
Census forms and includes citations to the specific 2010 Census data used in this analysis.
Appendix 9A clarifies that "low income" in this analysis is defined as income two times the
poverty line or less.
246
-------
5.0 Other Comments
1. General
1. Improving the CAA
Comment: Commenter (0119) questioned whether the final rule should discuss the possibility of
improving the CAA to create a mechanism to more simply, efficiently, and effectively achieve
the new standard.
Response: Since the CAA was put into place more than 40 years ago the CAA has experienced
many accomplishments such as: cut pollution as the US economy has grown, environmental
damage from air pollution has been reduced; Americans breathe less pollution and face lower
risk of premature death and other Serious health effects; and environmental damage from air
pollution is reduced. The EPA is aware that since the CAA was last amended in 1990s there has
been discussion over the years in Congress about amending the CAA. The EPA also recognizes
that the knowledge of air pollution has evolved over the years.
2. Most proposed rule elements are unnecessary
Comment: Commenter (0151) stated that most of the elements of the proposed rule are
unnecessary because the 2008 ozone NAAQS is the same as the 1997 standard, just more
stringent. Commenter (0151) stated that the EPA's principal concern should be preventing
backsliding (i.e., removal of SIP requirements adopted under section 182(b) which have been
approved), rather than requiring states to replicate planning and maintenance activities for the
1997 ozone standard, which should logically be directed at planning for attainment of the 2008
(and then, the expected 2014) ozone NAAQS.
Response: The EPA is considering ways rules are written so that the reading experience is
improved. One way to accomplish this goal is to highlight rule elements that change only and
keep the historical and background information stagnant. Another way this could be
accomplished it so provide a summary of areas we are seeking comment on with associated page
number.
3. Menu of Control Measures
Comment: Commenter (0152) stated that the EPA references an updated 2012 "Menu of Control
Measures" available at http://www.epa.gov/airqualitv/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/„ but they are
unable to locate this document at the referenced website.
247
-------
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter pointing out this error. In the final rule, the
"Menu of Control Measures for NAAQS Implementation" web address will be indicated as:
http://www. epa. gov/air/criteria, html
B. Support for other commenters
Commenter (0174) supports the comments submitted by commenters (0151).
Commenter (0162) supports the comments submitted by commenters (0122 and 0166)
C. Codification error
Comment: Page 34238
Commenter (0169) noted a codification error on page 34238 of the proposed SIP Requirements
Rule:
"(a) Baseline emissions inventory for RFP plans," should be codified as 51.1110(b).
Currently codified items 51.1110(b) through 51.1110(d) should be recodified as
51.1110(c) through 51.1110(e). Item 51.1110(e) is even referenced in 51.1110(a)(5), but
no 51.1110(e) currently exists in the proposed rule text.
Commenter (0166) similarly stated that the subsections of § 51.1110 are mis-numbered, with two
subsections enumerated "(a)."
Response: The EPA has reviewed the language in the proposal and has discovered numbering
errors. Corrected numbering of the section will appear in the final rule.
Comment: RFP requirements
Commenter (0166) stated that the proposed regulatory language on RFP requirements conflicts
internally and explained as follows: If the EPA decides to retain the language of proposed 40
CFR § 51.1110, it will need to reconcile the provisions of the first subsection (a), which states
that "[t]he RFP requirements specified in CAA section 182 for that area's classification shall
apply," with subsection (a)(2), which indicates that those section 182 requirements do not in fact
apply to Moderate and above nonattainment areas that have an approved VOC RFP plan for a
prior ozone NAAQS (or have a determination of attainment).
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter's suggestion and has reviewed the language and
believes the reference to be correct. CAA section 182 provides requirements for nonattainment
areas of all classifications and is therefore appropriate.
D. Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin
Commenter (0176) made the following suggestions:
248
-------
The Challenge to Ozone Implementation is a challenge to the built urban environment.
Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area is EXTREME.
How do we control air quality when land use planning is not a federal issue. Instead,
Transit Oriented Development with bus and rail were developed as an answer.
Your concentration on vehicles dissuades you from approaching those conditions of
density. We are now faced with more density, more vehicles and a poor transit class.
Transportation patterns with jobs and housing were never identified. It is near impossible
in the second largest city in the country-the City of Los Angeles.
Throw out Transportation Plans when you have no basis in reality for them.
Approach Land Use designations with as much intensity as vehicles. Air rights are an
issue as they allow Signage and especially digital signage. The contributors to ozone need
proper identification.
Oil and gas fields, whether currently drilled or capped is an issue. In the City of Los
Angeles, where the old oil fields were never identified and we cannot rely on any
paperwork to show proper capping, outgassing is an issue. With the flir cameras, that can
be identified. It is not required even when levels are near explosive.
What is the effect of fracking aka hydraulic fracturing.
Are landfills accepting hazardous (medical) waste.
Measure the air around these concentrated areas.
Few monitoring stations exist. Source points are not identified. It is just assumed that the
vehicle is the culprit.
Look at the railroads and their rules for maintenance. You may need to work
cooperatively with the FRA Federal Railroad Administration on their rules over engines.
We have that problem with the Metrolink Maintenance Yard near Downtown Los
Angeles. There is no state jurisdiction over their Air Quality and no SIP can be
implemented
Analyze weather patterns. We see no discussion on that aspect of air movement.
Any modeling needs to be regionally specific.
We do not find that the Regional Air Quality Management Districts' outreach to the
249
-------
public sufficiently or engage elected officials to understand the requirements of the CAA.
In other words, what financial effect is assigned to non-attainment.
Credit reductions are a financial instrument as is FAR Floor Area Ratio rights.
Offset Credits from any outside area does not change the health effects on persons,
animals, wildlife, birds, plants and property.
The financial game is not the way to approach attainment.
Response: The EPA neither agrees nor disagrees with this commenter's comments. We do not
see any comments that are relevant to the rulemaking under consideration, for example, the
suggestion to "throw out" transportation plans.
Also, the EPA cannot decipher what the commenter means in several instances, for example,
regarding signage, digital signage, and land use designations, nor how that might relate to what
the commenter refers to as air rights.
Further, the EPA believes that the commenter is working under the mistaken understanding that
the rulemaking under consideration contains an air quality plan. It does not. On the contrary, this
rulemaking sets requirements for air quality planning that will be done at the state and local
level, with multiple opportunities for public input. Comments about pollutant emissions from
specific industrial sources, such as oil and gas fields or railroads, as well as modeling and
monitoring of air pollutants and the weather patterns in a particular nonattainment area, would
more appropriately be directed to the relevant state or local agency in the context of the air
quality planning for that area, or in the context of any air permitting process that specific sources
need to undergo.
The commenter's concerns regarding the extent to which local air districts engage the public or
elected officials is not germane to this current rulemaking. However, when the state and local air
agencies prepare air quality plans for a particular nonattainment area, as required under this
rulemaking, they are required to follow certain minimum requirements regarding public
outreach. Proof that this obligation has been met must also accompany any air quality plans
submitted to the EPA. Furthermore, when the EPA proposes to take action on such plan
submittals, the EPA follows federal requirements for public outreach.
The EPA believes that the commenter has misunderstood several phrases in the rule proposal.
What the commenter refers to as "credit reductions" and seems to interpret as a reference to
financial terminology seems to be actually a reference to creditable pollution emission
reductions. Likewise, the commenter uses the phrase "offset credits from any outside area," and
apparently concludes that such a financial activity does not improve human health and the
environment. However, the EPA believes that the phrase the commenter is responding to is
actually a reference to the EPA's proposal to require that the pollutant emissions reductions
required by the CAA in a nonattainment area must occur within that area and cannot be credited
from an outside area. The EPA anticipates that, had the commenter understood this aspect of the
proposal, the commenter would not have raised objections to what the commenter perceived as
250
-------
some form of financial regulation.
Regardless of any possible misunderstanding on the part of the commenter between pollution
credits and credit in the financial sense, the EPA nonetheless wants to clarify for the commenter
that the costs of responding to a nonattainment designation is largely dependent upon methods
that the state and local air agencies determine are best to address the air quality problem in the
area.
251
------- |