Air Pollution Control; Ozone Transport Commission; Recommendation That EPA Adopt Low Emission Vehicle Program for the Northeast Ozone Transport Region

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-4891-4]

Air Pollution Control; Ozone Transport Commission; Recommendation

That EPA Adopt Low Emission Vehicle Program for the Northeast Ozone

Transport Region

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Round-Table Meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On February 10, 1994, the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission

(OTC) submitted a recommendation to EPA under Section 184 of the Clean

Air Act (the Act), for additional control measures to be applied

throughout the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Specifically,

the OTC recommended that EPA require all State members of the OTC to

adopt an Ozone Transport Commission Low Emission Vehicle (OTC LEV or

LEV) program for the entire OTR. Under Section 184(c)(3) of the Act,

EPA is to review the OTC's recommendation to determine whether the

additional control measures are necessary to bring any area in the OTR

into attainment by the dates specified in the Act, and are otherwise

consistent with the Act. Based on this review, EPA is obligated to

approve, disapprove, or partially approve and partially disapprove the

OTC's recommendation.

EPA recently issued a proposed rule describing the framework for

EPA's action on the OTC's recommendation and describing the issues EPA

is considering in deciding whether to approve, disapprove, or partially

approve and partially disapprove the recommendation. Thereafter, EPA

held public hearings on the OTC's recommendation in Hartford,

Connecticut on May 2-3, 1994. As previously announced, EPA will be

holding a series of three public meetings in the OTR during June and

July, 1994 to provide an opportunity for interactive discussion of the

issues involved. As discussed in greater detail below, EPA is

structuring these three public meetings to generally follow the

framework for analysis it has described in its proposal for action on

the OTC's recommendation.

At the first meeting, EPA expects the discussion to focus on the

standard or test the Agency should apply in analyzing the OTC's

recommendation and the need for the Agency to act in a timely fashion

based on the best available information. Also at the first meeting, EPA

expects the discussion to focus on issues related to the OTC LEV

program, itself. At the second meeting, the Agency intends to take up

the policy, legal, and technical issues relating to the magnitude of

reductions needed, against which the OTC LEV program should be

assessed. Also, at the second meeting EPA intends to begin a discussion

of alternative proposals for obtaining additional emissions reductions

from new cars. EPA expects this discussion may carry over into the

third meeting. EPA also is reserving time at the third meeting to

discuss new issues that might arise in the course of the foregoing

agenda that EPA does not foresee now, or issues that should be

revisited in light of later discussions.

DATES: EPA will be holding three public round-table meetings on:

Wednesday, June 8, 1994 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Thursday, June

23, 1994 in Durham, New Hampshire; and Wednesday, July 13, 1994 in New

York, New York. Each round-table meeting will commence at 9 a.m. and

conclude by approximately 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The first round-table meeting will be held at: Center City

WHYY Television Station, Sixth & Arch Streets, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania.

The second round-table meeting will be held at: The New England

Center, University of New Hampshire, 1515 Stratford Avenue, Durham, New

Hampshire 03824.

The third round-table meeting will be held at: Holiday Inn Crown

Plaza, Manhattan, 1605 Broadway (at 49th Street), New York, New York

10019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Shields, Office of Mobile

Sources, USEPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone:

(202) 260-3450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Organization of Public Meetings

EPA intends that the three public meetings will allow for a

fruitful exchange of information and views among the various interested

parties, the affected States, and EPA. The meetings will be organized

as ``roundtable'' discussions. In order to promote an interactive

discussion, EPA has retained a facilitator to direct discussions among

the various parties. EPA will arrange for representatives of the

various stake-holders, including the States, the auto manufacturers,

other industry, and environmental interest groups, to be seated at a

table with EPA. The facilitator will direct discussion first among

these representatives. All members of the public are encouraged to

attend and participate, and the public will have an opportunity to

comment on the discussion of each discrete topic on the agenda.

EPA believes that an opportunity for public interactive discussions

will provide a valuable opportunity for EPA to refine and synthesize

information from individual participants relevant to its action on the

OTC's recommendation. EPA is not, however, establishing the

representatives invited to participate in the roundtable discussions as

an advisory committee, and EPA is not seeking a group opinion or

recommendation from these representatives.

II. Agendas for Discussion

EPA's announcement of its receipt and availability of the OTC's

recommendation provides a short background discussion of the

recommendation and its context, 59 FR 12914 (March 18, 1994). EPA's

recent notice of proposed rulemaking, 59 FR 21720 (April 26, 1994),

provides a detailed description of the framework for EPA's action on

the recommendation and the issues EPA is considering in reaching a

decision. The reader should refer to these earlier notices for a full

understanding of the OTC's recommendation and the issues EPA is

interested in pursuing at the public meetings. Additional information

may be obtained from the docket for this rulemaking (A-94-11), which

includes a transcript of the May 2-3 public hearing held on EPA's

notice of proposed rulemaking. The description of the agendas for the

public meetings, below, presumes familiarity with these notices.

To allow participants to focus their attention and prepare for

topics on the agenda in advance, the Agency is disinclined to

substantially change these agendas. As the process advances, however,

the Agency may make slight changes in light of new issues that may

emerge or to proceed quickly through issues that may require less time

and attention than originally scheduled.

A. First Meeting; Philadelphia, PA on June 8, 1994

At the first meeting, EPA intends the morning discussion to focus

on the legal and policy aspects of the standard or test the Agency

should apply in analyzing the OTC's recommendation. The Agency believes

this is an overarching issue that should be addressed at the outset.

Background for this topic can be found in EPA's proposal, 59 FR at

21725-27.

The agenda for the morning session is as follows:

Interpretation of ``Necessity'' Finding

1. Relevance of standard under Section 211(c)(4)(C).

2. Relevance of alternatives.

3. Criteria for alternatives: standards for cost-effectiveness,

practicability and reasonableness.

4. Deference to the OTC and EPA's factual burden.

5. The need for a timely decision based on available information

despite scientific uncertainty.

At the first meeting, EPA intends in the afternoon session to shift

the discussion to focus on the recommended OTC LEV program, itself.

Background information for this topic can be found in EPA's proposal,

59 FR at 21722-23, 21730-31, and 21734-36. EPA believes there are both

important legal and policy, as well as technical aspects of the OTC LEV

program that merit discussion. Of course, the Agency has an obligation

to evaluate whether the recommended program is consistent with the Act.

While many issues regarding the legality of an OTC LEV program have

been the subject of litigation and may be addressed adequately in

written submissions, EPA believes that discussion of certain issues

would be helpful.

The agenda for the afternoon session is as follows:

OTC LEV

1. Required elements of an OTC LEV program for purposes of

consistency with Sections 177 and 209.

2. Reductions from an OTC LEV program: what; where; when.

3. Cost-effectiveness of an OTC LEV program.

4. Assumptions about fuel used throughout the OTR, including

attainment areas.

5. ZEV Component of OTC LEV

Is the ZEV sales mandate required to be part of the OTC

LEV program?

Status of Electric Vehicle technology

Permutations on the ZEV Sales Mandate

Possible conditions or incentives for ZEVs (such as sales

tax rebate or income tax credit).

Emissions impact of conditions or incentives for ZEVs in

the absence of a sales mandate.

Consistency of conditions or incentives for ZEVs with

Sections 177 and 209.

B. Second Meeting; Durham, NH on June 23, 1994

EPA intends the morning session to focus on the magnitude of

reductions needed in assessing the OTC LEV program or alternatives. The

Agency believes the amount of reductions that additional control

measures must achieve for attainment is a threshold criterion for

discussion. As noted in EPA's proposal, studies have consistently

concluded that substantial reductions in NOx and VOC emissions are

likely to be necessary to reduce ozone to the 0.12 ppm NAAQS or below

throughout the OTR during periods of adverse meteorological conditions.

The best available information about the amount, location, timing, and

type of these reductions may be important in assessing the need for the

OTC's recommended LEV program. EPA recognizes the discussions regarding

the magnitude of reductions needed involves legal, policy and technical

aspects that are in many ways interrelated. EPA expects that all of

these aspects will be addressed in the discussion of these issues.

Background information for the legal and policy aspects of this topic

can be found in EPA's proposal, 59 FR at 21727-30. Background

information for the technical aspects of this topic can be found in

EPA's proposal, 59 FR at 21730-31.

Also in the morning session, the Agency intends to provide an

opportunity for discussion of whether alternative control measures are

available to obtain sufficient emissions reductions so that more

stringent emissions standards for new cars would not be necessary. This

information could be relevant to the need for the OTC LEV program or a

program to obtain similar reductions from new cars. As discussed in

EPA's proposal, other measures may qualify as ``alternatives'' to LEV

only if the other measures, singly or in combination, generate enough

reductions to fill the entire shortfall needed without LEV. Background

information for the alternatives topic can be found in EPA's proposal,

59 FR at 21733-34.

The agenda for the morning session is as follows:

Magnitude of Reductions

1. Location of needed reductions; relevance of contribution to

downwind nonattainment, including discussion of requirements for

attainment demonstration and relevance of boundary conditions.

2. Best current information regarding the OTR's needs for

attainment, including timing of reductions for moderate, serious, and

severe areas.

3. Need for reductions for maintenance.

4. Magnitude of motor vehicle emissions in the overall inventory.

5. Confidence in current technical tools and information.

Sufficiency of Alternatives that Might Render OTC LEV Unnecessary,

Including Magnitude of Reductions Available, Cost, Practicability, and

Reasonableness

In the afternoon session, EPA intends to begin discussion of

alternative programs designed to reduce emissions from new motor

vehicles. EPA recognizes that such alternatives designed to reduce

emissions from new motor vehicles could conceivably constitute an

``alternative'' to OTC LEV. Such alternatives that obtain reductions

from the same sources as the OTC LEV program would thus be, at least in

part, redundant of the reductions that the OTC LEV program would

generate. (If entirely redundant of OTC LEV reductions, the sufficiency

of such an alternative to fill the entire shortfall might arguably not

be important.) EPA intends to begin discussion of such motor vehicle

alternatives in the afternoon session.

As a threshold matter, EPA notes that its responsibility under

Section 184 of the Act is to approve or disapprove the OTC's LEV

recommendation, and that Section 184 does not appear to authorize EPA

to mandate alternatives. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the emergence

of another approach to obtaining emissions reductions from new vehicles

might conceivably affect the need for the OTC LEV program.

EPA believes that threshold issues regarding such alternatives

include how they might affect EPA's obligations regarding the OTC's

recommendation now before EPA, and their legal consistency with

Sections 177 and 209 of the Act. Thereafter, EPA expects that the

discussion would turn to the specifics of the alternative proposals,

which will carry over into the third meeting.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has presented one such

alternative. Under EDF's approach, the auto manufacturers would be

responsible for achieving reductions commensurate with those that the

OTC LEV program would achieve, and could do so by selling cars meeting

LEV standards or by trading emissions reduction credits among

themselves or with stationary sources. EPA expects to begin discussion

of this alternative in the afternoon session. EPA recognizes that it

may be ambitious to cover this entire topic at the second meeting, and

may have to resume discussion of it at the third meeting. Further

information pertaining to EDF's proposal is available in EDF's comments

and testimony in the public docket.

The agenda for the afternoon session is as follows:

Relevance of New Motor Vehicle Standards Alternatives to EPA's

Obligation to Approve or Disapprove the OTC LEV Recommendation

1. Should EPA disapprove the OTC LEV recommendation based on

proposals to change that program or on different, more stringent new

motor vehicle standards (e.g. The EDF proposal or the auto

manufacturers proposal, discussed below)?

2. Must there be a mechanism for EPA to be assured that the States

will adopt the different approach, and if so what would that mechanism

be?

EDF Trading Proposal

1. Mechanism for implementation.

2. Extent of trading: among auto companies; with stationary

sources; across State boundaries.

3. Baseline for assessing whether reductions are surplus and can be

traded to avoid otherwise applicable emissions reduction obligations.

4. Constraints on trading to ensure that areas reduce emissions

that contribute to nonattainment downwind.

5. Need for discounting credits.

6. Role of ZEVs in a trading scheme.

7. Consistency with Sections 177 and 209.

C. Third Meeting; New York, NY on July 13, 1994

EPA intends to dedicate the third meeting to continued discussion

of other proposals for obtaining additional emissions reductions from

new motor vehicles or other sources. EPA intends to first complete any

remaining carryover discussion of the EDF proposal from the second

meeting. EPA intends to then continue with a discussion of the auto

manufacturers' proposed alternative known as the Federal LEV or FLEV

program. EPA's proposal describes this alternative, 59 FR at 21732-33.

Also in the morning session, the Agency intends to provide an

opportunity for discussion of the proposal presented at EPA's May 2-3

public hearing by Texaco, Inc., Public Service Electric and Gas

(PSE&G), and Merck & Company, Inc. Further information regarding this

proposal is available in comments and testimony from these companies in

the public docket.

EPA expects that time will be left at the end of the third meeting

to address previously unidentified topics, alternatives or issues that

were not raised earlier. In addition, EPA expects that issues addressed

in the earlier meetings might be revisited at this time in light of

later discussions.

The agenda for the third meeting is as follows:

FLEV Proposal

1. Enforceability.

2. SIP creditability.

3. Consistency with Sections 177 and 209.

4. Emissions reductions, and comparison with LEV emissions

reductions, including timing.

5. EPA's authority to disapprove the OTC LEV recommendation based

on an alternative that States apparently could not adopt in their SIPs

or otherwise into State law.

NOx Cap Proposal from Texaco, PSE&G, and Merck

Additional Topics Not Previously Addressed or to be Revisited

Dated: May 24, 1994.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

[FR Doc. 94-13453 Filed 6-1-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P