Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Proposed Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 80, 85 and 86

[AMS-FRL-6463-7]

RIN 2060-AI23

Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Proposed Tier 2

Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control

Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Provision of Supplemental Information and Request for Comment.

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

SUMMARY: EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on May

13, 1999, proposing a major program designed to significantly reduce

the emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks, including

pickup trucks, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles (the ``Tier 2

program''). The proposed program combines requirements for cleaner

vehicles and requirements for lower levels of sulfur in gasoline. A

supplemental notice was published on June 30, 1999, clarifying the May

13, 1999, proposal in light of a May 14, 1999, ruling by a panel of the

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia regarding the recently

promulgated national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone

and PM. Our supplemental notice also provided additional modeling

information not included in the May 13, 1999, proposal regarding 1-hour

ozone levels for areas where the 1-hour ozone standard currently

applies.

In light of the uncertain status of the 8-hour ozone standard

resulting from the Court of Appeals' ruling, EPA recently issued a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on October 20, 1999, proposing to rescind

our earlier findings that the 1-hour ozone standard is no longer

applicable in certain areas that have attained the standard. Today's

document explains how the October 20, 1999, reinstatement proposal

relates to the May 13 proposal on vehicle and gasoline standards.

Today's document also provides additional 1-hour ozone modeling and

monitoring information for areas that would be affected by the proposed

action.

DATES: Comments: We must receive your comments on this document by

December 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments: You may send written comments in paper form or by

E-mail. Send paper copies of written comments (in duplicate if

possible) on the information in this document to Public Docket No. A-

97-10 at the following address: US Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Air Docket (6102), Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC

20460. If possible, we also encourage you to send an electronic copy of

your comments (in ASCII format) to the docket by e-mail to A-and-R-

D[email protected] or on a 3.5 inch diskette accompanying your paper copy.

If you wish, you may send your comments by E-mail to the docket at the

address listed above without the submission of a paper copy, but a

paper copy will ensure the clarity of your comments.

Please also send a separate paper copy to the contact person listed

below. If you send comments by E-mail alone, we ask that you send a

copy of the E-mail message that contains the comments to the contact

person listed below.

EPA's Air Docket is open from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except on government holidays. You can reach the Air Docket by

telephone at (202) 260-7548 and by facsimile at (202) 260-4400. We may

charge a reasonable fee for copying docket materials, as provided in 40

CFR Part 2.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Connell, U.S. EPA, National

Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor MI

48105; Telephone (734) 214-4349, FAX (734) 214-4816, E-mail

[email protected].

For information on ozone modeling for Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas,

contact Mick Cote, U.S. EPA, Fountain Place 12th Floor Suite 1200, 1445

Ross

[[Page 57828]]

Avenue, Dallas TX 75202-2733; Telephone (214) 665-7219, E-mail

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction and Review of Events Related To This Rulemaking

A. Tier 2 Proposal

On May 13, 1999, EPA published in the Federal Register our proposal

to reduce emissions from light-duty vehicles (LDVs) and light-duty

trucks (LDTs). 64 FR 26004. The proposal would also significantly

reduce sulfur content in gasoline. The proposed program would phase in

beginning in 2004. The program is projected to result in reductions of

approximately 800,000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOX) per year

by 2007 and 1,200,000 tons by 2010. It would result in reductions of

about 70 percent in emissions of NOX from LDVs and LDTs

nationwide by 2020, compared to emissions in that year without the

proposed program. In addition, the proposed program would reduce the

contribution of vehicles to other serious health and environmental

problems, including particulate matter, visibility problems, toxic air

pollutants, acid rain, and nitrogen loading of estuaries.

We proposed the standards for LDVs and LDTs pursuant to our

authority under section 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). In

particular, section 202(i) of the Act provides specific procedures that

we must follow to determine whether Tier 2 standards for LDVs and

certain LDTs 1 are appropriate beginning in the 2004 model

year. Specifically, we are required to first issue a study regarding

``whether or not further reductions in emissions from light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks should be required'' (the ``Tier 2

study''). This study ``shall examine the need for further reductions in

emissions in order to attain or maintain the national ambient air

quality standards.'' It is also to consider (1) The availability of

technology to meet more stringent vehicle emission standards, taking

cost, lead time, safety, and energy impacts into consideration, and,

(2) The need for, and cost effectiveness of, such standards, including

consideration of alternative methods of attaining or maintaining the

national ambient air quality standards. We must then submit the study

as a Report to Congress. We submitted our Report to Congress on July

31, 1998.

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

\1\ LDTs with a loaded vehicle weight less than or equal to

3750 pounds.

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

Following the Report to Congress, we are required to determine by

rulemaking whether (1) There is a need for further reductions in

emissions in order to attain or maintain the national air quality

standards (NAAQS), taking into consideration the waiver provisions of

section 209(b); (2) The technology for more stringent emission

standards from LDVs and LDTs with a loaded vehicle weight less than or

equal to 3750 pounds will be available; and (3) Such standards are

needed and cost-effective, taking into account alternatives. If we make

affirmative determinations, then we are to promulgate new, more

stringent motor vehicle standards (``Tier 2 standards''). We proposed

affirmative responses to the three questions above and proposed new

standards. We also proposed standards for larger light-duty trucks (up

to 8500 pounds GVWR) under the general authority of Section 202(a)(1)

and under Section 202(a)(3) of the Act, which requires that standards

applicable to emissions of hydrocarbons, NOX, CO and PM from

heavy-duty vehicles 2 reflect the greatest degree of

emission reduction available for the model year to which such standards

apply, giving appropriate consideration to cost, energy, and safety.

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

\2\ Vehicle classifications are discussed in the May 13, 1999

proposal on page 26031. LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings

above 6000 pounds are considered heavy-duty vehicles under the Act.

See section 202(b)(3). For regulatory purposes, we refer to these

LDTs as ``heavy light-duty trucks,'' made up of LDT3s and LDT4s. For

reference, LDTs that have gross vehicle weight ratings below 6000

pounds are referred to as ``light light-duty trucks,'' made up of

LDT1s and LDT2s.

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

We proposed our gasoline sulfur controls pursuant to our authority

under Section 211(c)(1) of the CAA. Under Section 211(c)(1), we may

adopt a fuel control if at least one of the following two criteria is

met: (1) The emission products of the fuel cause or contribute to air

pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health

or welfare, or (2) The emission products of the fuel will significantly

impair emissions control systems in general use or which would be in

general use in a reasonable time were the fuel control to be adopted.

We proposed to control sulfur levels in gasoline based on both of

these criteria. Under the first criterion, we believe that existing

sulfur content in gasoline used in Tier 1 and LEV technology vehicles

contributes to ozone pollution, air toxics, and PM at levels which can

be reasonably expected to endanger public health or welfare. Under the

second criterion, we believe that in the absence of gasoline sulfur

control, sulfur in fuel that would be used in Tier 2 technology

vehicles would significantly impair the emissions control systems

expected to be used in such vehicles.

B. New Ozone and PM NAAQS

EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone and PM in 1997. 62 FR 38652

(July 18, 1997); 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). We replaced the 1-hour

0.12 parts per million (ppm) ozone standard with an 8-hour standard at

a level of 0.08 ppm. We also promulgated a regulation providing that

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would continue to apply until we determined that

an area had attained the 1-hour standard. This provision was premised

upon the existence of the 8-hour standard and the implementation scheme

developed for that standard. On June 5, 1998, July 22, 1998, and June

9, 1999, we issued final rules for many areas finding that the 1-hour

standard no longer applied in these areas because they had attained the

1-hour standard. In proposing the Tier 2 standards on May 13, 1999, we

proposed our determination on the need for additional emission

reductions under section 202(i) after considering monitoring data and

air quality model predictions related to the new NAAQS for ozone (the

``8-hour ozone NAAQS''), the pre-existing ozone NAAQS (the ``1-hour

ozone NAAQS''), the pre-existing PM10 NAAQS, the revised

PM10 NAAQS, and the new PM2.5 NAAQS.

C. Court Panel Opinion on the NAAQS, Our Supplemental Notice Regarding

Its Effect on the Tier 2/Sulfur Rule, and Our Proposal To Rescind

Previous Findings on Applicability of the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS

On May 14, 1999, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit found, by a 2-1 vote, that sections 108

and 109 of the Clean Air Act, as interpreted by EPA, represent

unconstitutional delegations of Congressional power. American Trucking

Ass'ns, Inc., et al., v. Environmental Protection Agency, Nos. 97-1440,

1441 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 1999). The Court remanded the record to EPA.

The June 30, 1999 supplemental notice contained a summary of the

Court's opinion. On June 28, 1999 we filed a petition for rehearing and

a petition for rehearing en banc seeking review of the panel's

decision.

In the May 13, 1999, NPRM and related documents we provided a

significant amount of information and analysis regarding our proposed

determinations that further emission reductions were needed to attain

and maintain the NAAQS, that the technology for more stringent emission

standards will be available, and that such standards are needed and

cost

[[Page 57829]]

effective, taking into account the alternatives. In the June 30, 1999,

supplemental notice, we explained that, regardless of the eventual

outcome of the Court case, the proposed Tier 2 Rule is justified as a

necessary and important measure for reducing air pollutants and

protecting public health. We stated that the proposed regulations

continue to conform to the statutory requirements of the Act for the 1-

hour ozone standard and the pre-existing PM10 NAAQS. The

June 30, 1999, supplemental notice explained that the statutory

requirements for the proposal remain satisfied, for each of the

elements of the proposed rule that are covered by different statutory

requirements (the ``Tier 2'' standards for LDVs and LDTs weighing 3750

lbs. or less, the standards for vehicles above this weight, and the

gasoline sulfur limits). In particular, the supplemental notice

summarized information on 1-hour ozone and PM air quality that had been

presented in the May 13, 1999 notice. The supplemental notice also

presented and discussed additional information on our ozone and PM air

quality modeling analyses, focusing on the 1-hour ozone and the pre-

existing PM10 NAAQS.

The additional information on 1-hour ozone presented in the

supplemental notice included a table (numbered as Table 2 in the

supplemental notice) of metropolitan areas for which ozone modeling has

indicated a need for additional emission reductions for 1-hour ozone

attainment. This table showed the results of the ``exceedance method''

3 for comparing ozone model predictions to the 1-hour

standard. It listed 17 metropolitan areas which remained subject to the

1-hour standard as of June 30, 1999, and which based on ozone modeling

we predicted would have 1-hour ozone levels in 2007 above the level of

the 1-hour standard, even after implementation of the Regional Ozone

Transport Rule (ROTR), the National Low Emission Vehicle Program, the

2004 highway diesel engine standards, the Phase II nonroad diesel

engine standards, and other federal and SIP emission control measures

required under the CAA.4 We stated in the supplemental

notice our belief that these results indicate that there are many

geographically dispersed areas which need further ozone precursor

emission reductions to meet the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The 1990 population

of these 17 metropolitan areas exceeded 70 million. 5

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

\3\ The exceedance method is described in the June 30, 1999,

supplemental notice and associated documents in the docket for this

rulemaking. It is the method we have used in developing the ROTR, to

assess prospects for future 1-hour ozone problems in specific areas

based on regional ozone modeling. The ROTR was published on October

21, 1998 (63 FR 56292).

\4\ The deadline for submission of state implementation plans

under the ROTR was recently stayed by a panel of the Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pending further review. EPA believes

that the ROTR is fully consistent with the Clean Air Act and should

be upheld. However, it should be noted that in the absence of the

reductions mandated in the ROTR, the emission reductions from the

Tier 2 program would be even more necessary for compliance with the

NAAQS.

\5\ One of the 17 areas discussed in the June 30, 1999,

supplemental notice was the Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino

Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). Much of this area

is within the South Coast Air Basin ozone nonattainment area. The

supplemental notice explained that we consider the emission

reduction needs of California's worst ozone nonattainment area to be

relevant to our determination on the air quality need for emission

reductions, even though the standards we proposed would only apply

to vehicles and gasoline sold outside California. California has

designed and implemented a state vehicle and fuel control program

with vehicle standards and gasoline sulfur limits similar to those

we proposed, and therefore the proposed Tier 2/gasoline sulfur

program would likely not apply in California. However, in our

proposal we noted in qualitative terms the importance of the Tier 2

and sulfur control reductions to California's efforts to reach

attainment with the 1-hour ozone standard particularly in the South

Coast Air Basin. Ozone levels in California would be reduced through

reductions in emissions from vehicles sold outside California that

subsequently enter California temporarily or permanently. According

to California, about 7 to 10 percent of all car and light truck

travel in California takes place in vehicles originally sold outside

of California. Our vehicle standards will result in these vehicles

being built with more effective emission controls. In addition, our

gasoline sulfur standard will help ensure that cars which operate

for a time outside of California and then within California will

have fully functioning catalysts. With current gasoline sulfur

levels, California vehicles which visit other states and non-

California vehicles which visit or migrate to California would

suffer catalyst poisoning that would persist even when operating on

California's own low sulfur fuel. In fact, the state of California

has recently filed an update to its State Implementation Plan for

the South Coast Air Basin that expressly claims that the Tier 2

program will lead to four tons per day of reduced NOX.

The four tons per day NOX reductions cited represents

only a small fraction of the emission reductions needed in the South

Coast to attain the NAAQS. Because of the information from

California that these additional emission reductions from our

proposed rule are needed for attainment in the South Coast Air Basin

of California, the Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino metro area

was included in our list of areas with predicted exceedances in the

absence of our proposed Tier 2/Sulfur standards, even though we have

not modeled this area as we have the other areas listed in the

table.

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

On October 20, 1999, EPA issued a proposal to rescind our previous

findings that the 1-hour standard is no longer applicable in certain

areas that had attained the 1-hour standard. This proposal is in

response to the Court's ruling concerning the 8-hour ozone standard,

since the existence of the 8-hour standard was one of the key factors

underlying our finding that the 1-hour standard no longer applied in

such areas. We further proposed to reinstate the former designations

and classifications for such areas when the final notice is effective.

The October 20, 1999 proposal contains a detailed list of the areas

that would be affected, and a discussion of the effects of restoring

the applicability of the 1-hour standard. The comment period for this

proposal ends on December 1, 1999. We plan to take final action on the

reinstatement prior to the final action on the Tier 2/Sulfur standards.

EPA believes that the information in the May 13 and June 30, 1999,

documents, including the information in today's notice on areas already

addressed in the June 30 notice, fully support the standards and

determinations proposed in the May 13th NPRM. This applies whether one

considers the information in the May 13, 1999, notice and the June 30,

1999, notice separately or taken together. The purpose of today's

document is to provide additional information focusing on those areas

where we recently proposed to rescind our previous findings on the

applicability of the 1-hour ozone standard. The information provided in

this document on these areas lends additional support to the

information and analyses previously provided by EPA in the two prior

documents, for any area where EPA finalizes such proposed

reinstatement. For such areas, it will be appropriate and necessary for

us to consider the prospects for attainment and maintenance with the 1-

hour standard when we make our final finding under section 202(i)

regarding the need for further reductions in emissions in order to

attain or maintain the NAAQS. While the determinations and standards

proposed by EPA in May of 1999 would be appropriate even without this

additional information, it provides even further evidence that the

proposal is appropriate.

The additional information presented today consists of (1)

Additional information on areas already addressed in the June 30, 1999

supplemental notice, and (2) Ozone model predictions for areas that

were not covered by that document. The 1-hour ozone modeling

information in the June 30, 1999, supplemental notice was restricted to

only those areas in which the standard still applied. The ozone

modeling that was summarized in the table in fact resulted in

predictions of exceedances in 2007 in other areas as well, as presented

in the next section of this document. Today's notice does not present

any additional information regarding attainment or maintenance of the

PM NAAQS.

[[Page 57830]]

II. Supplemental Information

A. Update of Information Presented in the June 30, 1999, Supplemental

Notice

We have several items of information which update and further

explain the ozone situation in the metropolitan areas that were listed

in the June 30, 1999, supplemental notice.

First, the population figure given in the supplemental notice for

the Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area was in

error. The correct figure for the 1990 population of this area is

14,531,529. Also, the Dover, DE Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)

should have been listed separately from the Philadelphia-Wilmington-

Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.

These are in the same nonattainment area, but the Dover MSA is a

separate metropolitan area. The two metropolitan areas each meet the

criteria for inclusion in our list.

Also, we need to clarify the ozone model predictions and give

additional information for three of the areas listed in the June 30,

1999 supplemental notice. In that document, we stated that for all the

listed metropolitan areas our regional ozone model has predicted an

exceedance of the 1-hour standard (with the exception of the Los

Angeles area which was not within our regional ozone modeling domain).

There was an error in reporting the modeling results for certain

metropolitan areas. In fact, for the four episodes modeled, no 2007

exceedances were observed in the Baton Rouge, Beaumont-Port Arthur, or

Milwaukee-Racine metropolitan areas. However, we still consider it

appropriate to include two of these areas in the set of areas which

support our proposed determination that additional emission reductions

are needed to attain and maintain the 1-hour ozone standard, for

reasons given below.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On July 2, 1999, we approved

Louisiana's demonstration that Baton Rouge will attain the 1-hour

standard by its November 15, 1999 deadline. 64 FR 35930-35941. Our

regional modeling, presented in the May 13 and June 30, 1999, notices,

in fact does not indicate any exceedances in 2007. We have no specific

indication that Baton Rouge will be exceeding the 1-hour standard by

2004, the first year of the proposed Tier 2/Sulfur rule emission

reductions. Therefore, we are removing Baton Rouge from the list of

areas which we consider to support a determination that additional

emission reductions are needed in order to attain and maintain the 1-

hour ozone standard.

Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas. Beaumont-Port Arthur is a

moderate ozone nonattainment area which failed to attain by its

November 15, 1996 deadline. Presently, the state of Texas is seeking

our approval for a demonstration that Beaumont-Port Arthur is impacted

by ozone transport from the Houston area, in order to support a request

that we extend its attainment deadline to 2007 which would be the same

as the deadline for Houston. We proposed action on this request on

April 16, 1999 (64 FR 18864) and extended the comment period on June 3,

1999 (64 FR 29822). While our own regional ozone modeling performed for

the development of the ROTR did not show any 2007 exceedances in

Beaumont-Port Arthur, we believe that the ozone episodes we used in our

regional modeling are not the most conducive to ozone formation in this

particular area. The 2007 attainment analysis prepared and submitted by

the state is based on two different episodes that are associated with

high measured ozone levels in Beaumont-Port Arthur. We presently

consider this analysis by Texas to indicate that additional emission

reductions beyond already adopted programs are needed in order to

provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in Beaumont-Port

Arthur. Therefore, we are retaining Beaumont-Port Arthur on our list of

areas with exceedances in the absence of the Tier 2/Sulfur emission

reductions. Information on the modeling submitted by Texas may be

examined by contacting Mick Cote in our Regional Office in Dallas,

Texas and mentioning File No. TX-81-1-7350. Contact information for Mr.

Cote is given in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at

the beginning of this notice.

Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin. Our regional ozone modeling

did not indicate any 1-hour exceedance in any county within the

boundaries of the Milwaukee-Racine CMSA itself. However, our modeling

predicted days with 1-hour ozone levels above 0.124 ppm in locations

within a larger Lake Michigan area modeling domain. Due to imprecision

in the modeling of local wind fields over and around Lake Michigan, it

is quite possible that the predicted ozone concentrations in these

other locations are also representative of actual future concentrations

in Milwaukee-Racine itself. Moreover, we consider that emissions in

both Chicago and Milwaukee contribute to such violations. This does not

affect our discussion of Chicago in the June 30, 1999, supplemental

notice. We believe that both areas should be considered to need

additional reductions in emissions to reach attainment of the 1-hour

ozone standard in the domain affected by emissions from both. We

therefore are retaining Milwaukee-Racine on our list of areas with

exceedances in 2007 in the absence of the Tier 2/Sulfur emission

reductions.

Table 1 below is the same as the list of areas with predicted 1-

hour exceedances given in the supplemental notice, except for the

addition of Dover, DE, deletion of Baton Rouge and the correction of

the population figure for Los Angeles.6

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

\6\ Areas in Table 1 are grouped and identified by Consolidated

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs) where they exist, or by

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) where no CMSA applies. In some

cases, we are grouping by MSA and CMSA groups counties or parts of

counties differently than we and the states group them for purposes

of nonattainment area boundaries, classifications, attainment

deadlines, or SIP approval or disapproval actions. This is for

simplicity of presentation in this document only.

Table 1

[Metropolitan areas projected to experience exceedances of the 1-hour

standard in 2007 or 2010, as applicable, with ROTR controls but without

Tier 2/Sulfur Controls. Does not include areas for which the 1-Hour

Ozone NAAQs does not presently apply.]

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

Metropolitan area 1990 population

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

Atlanta, GA MSA..................................... 2,959,500

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSAa....................... 361,218

Birmingham, AL MSA.................................. 839,942

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA................. 8,239,820

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN CMSAb................. 1,817,569

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSAa......................... 4,037,282

Dover, DE MSA....................................... 110,993

[[Page 57831]]

Hartford, CT MSA.................................... 1,157,585

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSAa................ 3,731,029

Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino CA CMSAa b..... 14,531,529

Louisville, KY-IN MSA............................... 949,012

Milwaukee-Racine, WI CMSA........................... 1,607,183

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT- 19,549,649

PA CMSA............................................

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,893,019

CMSA...............................................

Springfield, MA MSA................................. 587,884

St. Louis, MO-IL MSA................................ 2,492,348

Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSAc............. 6,726,395

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

Total Population................................ 75,593,947

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

Number of Areas..................................... 17

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

a = These areas are not subject to the ROTR and were modeled

accordingly.

b = The attainment date considered for Los Angeles-Riverside-San

Bernardino is 2010. For other listed areas, 2007 is the date

considered in the local ozone modeling that is the basis of this

table. However, some of these areas have required attainment dates

prior to 2007.

c = Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD are distinct nonattainment areas

within one CMSA. They each meet the criteria for inclusion in this

table.

Based on this list and the information presented in the first and

supplemental notices regarding attainment of the pre-existing 1-hour

ozone standard and the pre-existing PM10 NAAQS, we reiterate

our proposed determination that there is a need for further reductions

in emissions in order to attain or maintain the NAAQS, even when

consideration is limited to the one-hour ozone and the pre-existing

PM10 NAAQS. We believe the further information presented in

the remainder of this document regarding other areas supports this

proposed determination, but that the proposal is appropriate even

without the additional information presented on areas subject to our

proposed rescission of determinations regarding the applicability of

the 1-hour ozone standard.

EPA has received comments on the air quality modeling aspects of

the May 13, 1999, proposed rulemaking notice and the June 30, 1999,

supplemental notice. All of these comments will be more fully

considered and addressed in formulating and explaining the basis for

our final action.

As discussed at length in the proposed rule, emissions from LDVs

and LDTs will represent a large percentage of all emissions of ozone

precursors once the ROTR is implemented. We believe that reductions

from LDVs and LDTs in particular will be a needed and cost-effective

alternative to achieve the necessary significant additional reductions

in precursor emissions needed for the areas discussed above to attain

or maintain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

B. Additional Ozone Modeling Results for Areas That Would Be Affected

by the Proposed Rescission

As stated above, we have proposed to rescind our findings that made

the 1-hour standard inapplicable in many areas, and thereby restore its

applicability in these areas. In light of our proposal, we are

presenting in this document similar ozone modeling information as was

presented in the June 30, 1999 supplemental notice for areas subject to

the proposed reinstatement. This modeling information shows that if we

finalize our proposed rescissions of previous findings, thus restoring

the 1-hour standard's applicability nationwide, the air quality basis

for the proposed vehicle and fuel standards will be even stronger

because there are many additional areas which appear unable to attain

or maintain the 1-hour standard without additional emission reductions.

In the ozone modeling used to develop the Regional Ozone Transport

Rule (ROTR), EPA calculated hourly ozone levels for the year 2007 in

all or parts of 37 eastern states. The ROTR modeling considered the

effects of growth and emission control measures. One of the

combinations of emission control measures analyzed consisted of the

ROTR, the National Low Emission Vehicle Program, the 2004 highway

diesel engine standards, the Phase II nonroad diesel engine standards,

and other federal and SIP emission control measures required under the

CAA. We consider these controls to be the baseline for the required

finding regarding the need for additional emission reductions to attain

and maintain the NAAQS.7 We performed ozone modeling for

this baseline for each of the OTAG episodes in July 1988, 1991, 1993,

and 1995.

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

\7\ Comments have been received recommending that we investigate

whether states have adopted additional local controls not reflected

in the ROTR modeling. We will consider and respond to this comment

in the final action.

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

Using the ozone predictions from the modeling just described, EPA

extracted the predicted daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations for

2007 for a large number of counties in which ozone is or has been a

concern. This set of counties includes (a) Those counties that are or

ever were designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour standard, (b) Any

additional counties which had an ozone monitor(s) in operation during

the 1995-98 period with enough data to calculate a design value, and

(c) Any other counties in the same MSA or CMSA as counties included

under the first two criteria. Using the county-specific predicted 2007

daily maximum values, we used the ``exceedance method'' to identify

those metropolitan areas where ozone levels are predicted to exceed the

0.12 ppm 1-hour standard in 2007. We then divided these areas into two

groups, based on whether recent air quality monitoring has also shown

violations. The first group consists of areas with both predicted

exceedances in 2007 and recent monitoring data indicating a design

value higher than the 1-hour standard. The second group consists of

areas with predicted exceedances in 2007 but no

[[Page 57832]]

recent monitored violations. Tables 2 and 3 below list these

groups.8

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

\8\ A predicted ozone level of 0.125 was considered to be an

exceedance of the 1-hour NAAQS. Counties in Tables 2 and 3 are

grouped and identified by Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical

Areas (CMSAs) where they exist, or by Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(MSAs) where no CMSA applies. Within a CMSA or MSA, the county of a

predicted exceedance in 2007 was not required to match the county

which has experienced a recent monitored violation, in order to

qualify an area for listing in the first group. In some cases,

grouping by MSA and CMSA groups counties or parts of counties

differently than we and the states group them for purposes of

nonattainment area boundaries, classifications, attainment

deadlines, or SIP approval or disapproval actions. This is for

simplicity of presentation in this document only.

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

Table 2--Areas with recent ozone violations--Of the proposed

rescission areas that are predicted by regional ozone modeling to have

1-hour exceedances in 2007, monitoring data from 14 areas indicates a

violation of the 1-hour standard in either or both of the 1995-97

period or the 1996-98 period (the two most recent periods for which

monitoring data have been fully checked for accuracy and validity).

These areas also all have one or more predicted exceedances of the 1-

hour standard (in the ROTR modeling or in local modeling).9

Table 2 lists these 14 proposed rescission areas; the 17 areas already

listed in Table 1 are repeated in Table 2 to give a complete list of

all areas with both predicted 2007 exceedances and recent design values

in excess of the 1-hour standard. The combination of these two criteria

is consistent with the criteria we used in developing the ROTR, for the

purpose of identifying adverse impacts on 1-hour ozone attainment in

receptor states due to interstate transport.

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

\9\ Of the areas that would have the 1-hour standard restored by

our proposed rescission action, one area had a design value above

the standard in both 1995-97 and 1996-98. Six areas had monitored

design values which exceeded the 1-hour standard in 1995-97 but not

in 1996-98, and six areas had the reverse. We placed areas on Table

2 or Table 3 based on the period that gave the higher design value.

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

Based on their recent monitored design values, all 31 areas clearly

need further emission reductions from current emission levels in order

to attain the 1-hour standard. Some of the necessary emission

reductions will come from already adopted or mandated measures.

However, based on the ozone model predictions, in combination with the

recent monitored violations, we believe that additional emission

reductions, as would be provided by the Tier 2/Sulfur standards, will

be needed for attainment of the standard in 2007 (2010 for Los

Angeles). It should be noted that some of these areas have attainment

dates prior to 2007. For the areas with an earlier attainment date, we

expect total emissions will be higher in that earlier year than

estimated for 2007 in this modeling. If we had performed regional ozone

modeling for these higher emissions in earlier years, we would likely

be predicting even higher ozone levels and more frequent and widespread

exceedances.

We believe that the prospect of unresolved nonattainment problems

in the additional 14 areas that appear in Table 2 provides further

support for a finding that additional emission reductions are needed

for attainment and maintenance, assuming that we re-apply the 1-hour

standard at a minimum to the additional 14 areas. The total 1990

population of the 31 areas in Table 2 is over 90 million, compared to

the population of about 75 million in the areas in Table 1.

Correspondingly, these areas represent an even larger share of the

vehicle and fuel market. Also, the broader geographic spread of these

areas further supports the appropriateness of a national vehicle and

fuel strategy.

Table 2

[Metropolitan areas with recent design values above the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS and also projected to experience exceedances of the 1-hour

standard in 2007 (2010 for Los Angeles) with ROTR controls but without

Tier 2/Sulfur controls.]

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

Metropolitan area 1990 population

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

Atlanta, GA MSA..................................... 2,959,500

Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA MSA b....................... 134,954

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA a...................... 361,218

Birmingham, AL MSA.................................. 839,942

Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA b....... 5,455,403

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA b........... 1,162,140

Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA b............................ 424,347

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN CMSA.................. 1,817,569

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA................. 8,239,820

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA a........................ 4,037,282

Dover, DE MSA....................................... 110,993

Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, MI MSA b............. 937,891

Hartford, CT MSA.................................... 1,157,585

Houma, LA MSA b..................................... 182,842

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA a............... 3,731,029

Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH MSA b.................. 312,529

Indianapolis, IN MSA b.............................. 1,380,491

Knoxville, TN MSA b................................. 585,960

Los Angeles-Riverside-San Bernardino CA CMSA a...... 14,531,529

Louisville, KY-IN MSA............................... 949,012

Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA b............................. 1,007,356

Milwaukee-Racine, WI CMSA........................... 1,607,183

Nashville, TN MSA b................................. 985,026

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT- 19,549,649

PA CMSA............................................

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,893,019

CMSA...............................................

Portland, ME MSA b.................................. 221,095

Providence-Fall River-Warwick, RI-MA MSA b.......... 1,134,350

Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA b....................... 865,640

Springfield, MA MSA MSA............................. 587,884

St. Louis, MO-IL MSA................................ 2,492,348

Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA c............ 6,726,395

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

[[Page 57833]]

Total Population................................ 90,383,971

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

Number of Areas..................................... 31

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

a=These areas are not subject to the ROTR and were modeled accordingly.

b=EPA has proposed to re-apply the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

c=Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD are distinct nonattainment areas

within one CMSA. They each meet the criteria for inclusion in this

table.

Table 3--Areas without recent ozone violations--Areas that have not

recently experienced an ozone violation may nevertheless need further

emission reductions in order to maintain their compliance with the 1-

hour standard. In order to identify a set of areas that may need

additional reductions to maintain the 1-hour standard, we have listed

in Table 3 the areas for which our regional ozone modeling predicts at

least one ozone exceedance day for 2007 but which had design values

below the 1-hour NAAQS in both 1995-97 and 1996-1998. The proposal of

October 20, 1999 proposed to restore the applicability of the 1-hour

standard to these areas. Table 3 also indicates the closest that each

area came to having a monitored design value above the standard in the

1995-98 period, by grouping the areas into bands of 95-100 percent of

the NAAQS, 90-94 percent, etc. Preliminary 1999 data indicate that if

the 1997-99 period is considered, some of these areas may have 1-hour

design values above the NAAQS. Details on the monitored design values

and 2007 exceedance predictions from the regional ozone modeling are

given in a memo to Air Docket A-97-10, titled ``Recent Design Values

for Counties Predicted by Regional Ozone Modeling to Have 1-Hour Ozone

Exceedances in 2007 Without Tier 2/Sulfur Control.''

Table 3.

[Metropolitan areas with recent design values below the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS, but projected to experience exceedances of the 1-hour standard in

2007 with ROTR controls but without Tier 2/Sulfur controls.]

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

Metropolitan area 1990 population

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

Recent Design Value Between 95 and 100 Percent of NAAQS a

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

Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA............................ 415,220

Cleveland-Akron, OH CMSA............................ 2,859,644

Greensboro-Winston Salem-High Point, NC MSA......... 1,050,304

Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA............. 830,539

Montgomery, AL MSA.................................. 292,517

New Orleans, LA MSA b............................... 1,285,262

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA.................. 858,485

Reading, PA MSA..................................... 336,523

Tulsa, OK MSA b..................................... 708,954

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

9 Areas Population Subtotal..................... 8,637,448

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

Recent Design Value Between 90 and 94 Percent of NAAQS a

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

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA MSA.................. 595,081

Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS MSA b................ 312,368

Columbia, SC MSA.................................... 453,932

Columbus, OH MSA.................................... 1,345,450

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA.................... 5,187,171

Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA MSA................. 587,986

Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA MSA........... 436,047

Mobile, AL MSA...................................... 476,923

Orlando, FL MSA b................................... 1,224,844

Pensacola, FL MSA b................................. 344,406

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

10 Areas Population Subtotal.................... 10,964,208

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

Recent Design Value Below 85 and 89 Percent of NAAQS a

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

Charleston, WV MSA.................................. 250,545

Columbus, GA-AL MSA................................. 260,862

Fayetteville, NC MSA................................ 274,713

Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC MSA.................... 292,405

Lafayette, LA MSA b................................. 345,053

Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC MSA...... 1,444,710

York, PA MSA........................................ 339,574

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

7 Areas Population Subtotal.................... 3,207,862

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

[[Page 57834]]

Recent Design Value Below 85 Percent of NAAQS a

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

Jackson, MS MSA b................................... 395,396

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

1 Area Population Subtotal...................... 395,396

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

Total Population............................ 23,204,914

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

Number of Areas..................................... 27

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

a = Each area is assigned to one of these groups based on the higher of

its 1995-97 or 1996-98 design value.

b = These areas are not subject to the ROTR and were modeled

accordingly.

EPA believes that the ozone model's predictions of exceedances in

the areas listed in Table 3 are information that is relevant to the

determination we will make regarding the need for further emission

reductions to attain or maintain the NAAQS, provided that the 1-hour

standard is restored for these areas. Therefore we are presenting this

information for public comment. In the development of the ROTR, we did

not rely on presently clean areas such as these as receptor areas for

determining whether emissions in upwind states will contribute to

nonattainment in downwind states. However, at the time, the 1-hour

standard did not apply to such areas so there was a legal as well as an

air quality basis for not considering these areas. We invite comment on

whether and how we should consider the areas listed in Table 3 for

purposes of our section 202(i) determination on the need for additional

emission reductions.

EPA has been updating its regional ozone modeling estimates and

methods, in part in response to comments on our NPRM and the first

supplemental notice. We are currently in the process of updating the

docket to include documents that describe this additional ozone

modeling. We intend to consider this modeling in taking final action on

our May 13 proposal. Anyone who is interested in this updated modeling

should review the docket for further information.

III. Public Comment

We seek comments on all aspects of this Supplemental Notice,

including the continuing need for Tier 2 emission standards for

vehicles and reducing sulfur in gasoline to attain and maintain the

NAAQS. Please see the Addresses section in this document for how and

where to send any comments you may have on the supplemental information

provided in today's document.

Dated: October 20, 1999.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 99-27933 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P