Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations State Implementation Plan and 2007 Transportation Conformity Budgets

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region 2 Docket No. NJ40-205, FRL-6502-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;

One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations State Implementation Plan and

2007 Transportation Conformity Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's Ozone Attainment

Demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the New York-Northern

New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area(NAA) and the Philadelphia,

Wilmington, Trenton NAA or in the alternative to disapprove it,

depending on whether New Jersey submits the adopted NOX SIP

Call, the revised transportation conformity budgets and necessary

enforceable commitments.

First, EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's Ozone Attainment

Demonstration SIP provided New Jersey submits: the adopted

NOX SIP Call program as a SIP revision; an enforceable

commitment to adopt sufficient measures to address the required level

of emission reductions identified by EPA; revised transportation

conformity budgets which reflect the additional emission reductions

identified by EPA for attainment; revised transportation conformity

budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits, if these

benefits have not already been incorporated; an enforceable commitment

to revise the Attainment Demonstration SIP, including recalculation of

the transportation conformity budgets (if any of the additional

emission reductions pertain to motor vehicle measures) to reflect the

adopted additional measures needed for attainment; and, an enforceable

commitment to revise the Attainment Demonstration, including

transportation conformity budgets, when MOBILE6 (the most recent model

for estmating obile source emissions) is released.

With respect to the NOX SIP Call, the proposed approval

is predicated upon the expectation that New Jersey will submit the

NOX SIP Call program prior to EPA taking final action on

today's proposal.

EPA also is proposing to disapprove-in-the-alternative New Jersey's

Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP for the New York-Northern New

Jersey-Long Island NAA and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton NAA if

New Jersey does not provide one of more of the identified elements by

the required dates.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Raymond Werner, Acting

Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2

Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866

Copies of the New Jersey submittals and EPA's Technical Support

Document are available at the following addresses for inspection during

normal business hours: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2

Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New

York 10007-1866 and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,

Office of Air Quality Management, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, 401

East State Street, CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Truchan, Air Programs Branch,

Environmental Protection Agency, 290

[[Page 70381]]

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides background information

on attainment demonstration SIPs for the 1-hour ozone national ambient

air quality standard (NAAQS) and an analysis of the 1-hour ozone

attainment demonstration SIP submittal for the State of New Jersey.

Table of Contents

I. Background Information

A. What is the Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration

SIP?

1. CAA Requirements

2. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment

Demonstration SIP

3. Time Frame for Taking Action on Attainment Demonstration SIPs

for 10 Serious and Severe Areas

4. Options for Action on a State's Attainment Demonstration SIP

B. What are the Components of a Modeled Attainment

Demonstration?

1. Modeling Requirements

2. Additional Analyses Where Modeling Fails to Show Attainment

C. What is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment

Demonstration SIPs?

1. CAA measures and measures relied on in the modeled attainment

demonstration SIP

2. NOX Reductions Affecting Boundary Conditions

3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

4. Tier 2/Sulfur Program Benefits--Revisions to the Motor

Vehicle Emissions Budget and the Attainment Demonstration When EPA

Issues the MOBILE6 Model

5. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions--Guidance on

Additional Control Measures

6. Mid-Course Review

D. In Summary, What Does EPA Expect to Happen with Respect to

Attainment Demonstrations for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long

Island Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area 1-Hour

Ozone Nonattainment Areas?

E. What are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?

II. EPA's Review and Technical Information

A. What was included in New Jersey's submittals?

B. What Modeling Did the States Do to Show Attainment of the 1-

hour Ozone Standard?

C. How Did the States Do Photochemical Grid Modeling?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

D. What Were the Results of Photochemical Grid Modeling?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

E. What Were the Results of the State's Design Value Rollback

Analysis?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

F. What were the results of air quality trends analyses?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

G. What Are the Uncertainties in These Analyses?

H. What are the results of EPA's Evaluation?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

I. What Is Needed To Demonstrate Attainment?

J. How is the Tier 2/Sulfur Program needed?

K. What Is the Status of New Jersey's Transportation Conformity

Budgets?

L. What Future Actions Are Needed from New Jersey for an

Approvable Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP?

1. NOX SIP Call Submittal

2. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Attainment

Demonstration SIP

3. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions

4. Attainment Demonstration--Conformity Budget--Tier 2/Sulfur

Program Benefit

M. What Are the Consequences of State Failure?

1. What are the CAA's Provisions for Sanctions?

2. What are the CAA's FIP Provisions If a State Fails to Submit

a Plan?

N. What are EPA's Conclusions?

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Unfunded Mandates

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background Information

A. What Is the Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP?

1. CAA Requirements

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish national ambient

air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for certain widespread

pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. CAA sections 108 and

109. In 1979, EPA promulgated the 1-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm)

ground-level ozone standard. 44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). Ground-level

ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in

the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX and

VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.

An area exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard each time an ambient air

quality monitor records a 1-hour average ozone concentration above

0.124 ppm. An area is violating the standard if, over a consecutive

three-year period, more than three exceedances are expected to occur at

any one monitor. The CAA, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate

as nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-hour ozone standard,

generally based on air quality monitoring data from the three-year

period from 1987-1989. CAA section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6,

1991). The CAA further classified these areas, based on the area's

design value, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme. CAA

section 181(a). Marginal areas were suffering the least significant air

pollution problems while the areas classified as severe and extreme had

the most significant air pollution problems.

The control requirements and dates by which attainment needs to be

achieved vary with the area's classification. Marginal areas are

subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the

earliest attainment date. Severe and extreme areas are subject to more

stringent planning requirements but are provided more time to attain

the standard. Serious areas are required to attain the 1-hour standard

by November 15, 1999 and severe areas are required to attain by

November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007. The Philadelphia, Wilmington,

Trenton nonattainment area is classified as severe 15 so its attainment

date is November 15, 2005. The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island

nonattainment area is classified as severe 17 so its attainment date is

November 15, 2007.

Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the CAA, serious and severe

areas were required to submit by November 15, 1994 demonstrations of

how they would attain the 1-hour standard and how they would achieve

reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for each three-year period

until the attainment year (rate-of-progress or ROP). (In some cases,

NOX emission reductions can be substituted for the required

VOC emission reductions.) Today, in this proposed rule, EPA is

proposing action on the attainment demonstration SIP submitted by State

of New Jersey for the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton and the New

York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment areas. EPA is also

proposing action on the State's commitment to submit ROP target

calculations and the adopted measures to achieve ROP by December 2000.

In addition, elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is today proposing

to take action on eight other serious or severe 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration and, in some cases, ROP Plan SIPs. The additional nine

areas are Greater

[[Page 70382]]

Connecticut (CT), Springfield (Western Massachusetts) (MA), Baltimore

(MD), Metropolitan Washington, D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta (GA),

Milwaukee-Racine (WI), Chicago-Gary-Lake County (IL-IN), and Houston-

Galveston-Brazoria (TX).

In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling

analysis component showing how the area will achieve the standard by

its attainment date and the control measures necessary to achieve those

reductions. Another component of the attainment demonstration SIP is a

motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity purposes.

Transportation conformity is a process for ensuring that states

consider the effects of emissions associated with new or improved

federally-funded roadways on attainment of the standard. As described

in section 176(c)(2)(A), attainment demonstrations necessarily include

the estimates of motor vehicle emissions that are consistent with

attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of

determining whether transportation plans and projects conform to the

attainment SIP.

2. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment

Demonstration SIP. Notwithstanding significant efforts by the

states, in 1995 EPA recognized that many states in the eastern half of

the United States could not meet the November 1994 time frame for

submitting an attainment demonstration SIP because emissions of

NOX and VOCs in upwind states (and the ozone formed by these

emissions) affected these nonattainment areas and the full impact of

this effect had not yet been determined. This phenomenon is called

ozone transport.

On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's

Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by states but

noting the remaining difficulties in making attainment demonstration

SIP submittals.1 Recognizing the problems created by ozone

transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative

process among the states in the eastern half of the country to evaluate

and address transport of ozone and its precursors. This memorandum led

to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)

2 and provided for the states to submit the attainment

demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to

complete its evaluation of ozone transport.

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

\1\ Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' issued

March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum may be found on EPA's web

site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

\2\ Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council of States

(ECOS) Members, dated April 13, 1995.

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

In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations

regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded that transport

of ozone and the precursor NOX is significant and should be

reduced regionally to enable states in the eastern half of the country

to attain the ozone NAAQS.

In recognition of the length of the OTAG process, in a December 29,

1997 memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's then Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, provided until April 1998 for

states to submit the following elements of their attainment

demonstration SIPs for serious and severe nonattainment areas: (1)

Evidence that the applicable control measures in subpart 2 of part D of

title I of the CAA were adopted and implemented or were on an

expeditious course to being adopted and implemented; (2) a list of

measures needed to meet the remaining ROP Plan emissions reduction

requirement and to reach attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a

commitment to adopt and submit target calculations for post-1999 ROP

Plan and the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP through

the attainment year by the end of 2000; (4) a commitment to implement

the SIP control programs in a timely manner and to meet ROP emissions

reductions and attainment; and (5) evidence of a public hearing on the

state submittal.3 This submission is sometimes referred to

as the Phase 2 submission. Motor vehicle emissions budgets can be

established based on a commitment to adopt the measures needed for

attainment and identification of the measures needed. Thus, state

submissions due in April 1998 under the Wilson policy should have

included a motor vehicle emissions budget.

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

\3\ Memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and

Pre-Existing PM 10 NAAQS,'' issues December 29, 1997. A copy of this

memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/t1pgm.html.

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

Building upon the OTAG recommendations and technical analyses, in

November 1997, EPA proposed action addressing the ozone transport

problem. In its proposal, the EPA found that current SIPs in 22 states

and the District of Columbia (23 jurisdictions) were insufficient to

provide for attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour standard because

they did not regulate NOX emissions that significantly

contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318 (Nov. 7, 1997). The EPA

finalized that rule in September 1998, calling on the 23 jurisdictions

to revise their SIPs to require NOX emissions reductions

within the state to a level consistent with a NOX emissions

budget identified in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). This

final rule is commonly referred to as the NOX SIP Call.

3. Time Frame for Taking Action on Attainment Demonstration SIPs for 10

Serious and Severe Areas

The states generally submitted the SIPs between April and October

of 1998; some states are still submitting additional revisions as

described below. Under the CAA, EPA is required to approve or

disapprove a state's submission no later than 18 months following

submission. (The statute provides up to 6 months for a completeness

determination and an additional 12 months for approval or disapproval.)

The EPA believes that it is important to keep the process moving

forward in evaluating these plans and, as appropriate, approving them.

Thus, in today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing to take action on

the 10 serious and severe 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs

(located in 13 states and the District of Columbia) and intends to take

final action on these submissions over the next 6-12 months. The reader

is referred to individual dates in this document for specific

information on actions leading to EPA's final rulemaking on these

plans.

4. Options for Action on a State's Attainment Demonstration SIP

Depending on the circumstances unique to each of the 10 area SIP

submissions on which EPA is proposing action today, EPA is proposing

one or more of these types of approval or disapproval in the

alternative. In addition, these proposals may identify additional

action that will be necessary from the state.

The CAA provides for EPA to approve, disapprove, partially approve

or conditionally approve a state's plan submission. CAA section 110(k).

The EPA must fully approve the submission if it meets the attainment

demonstration requirement of the CAA. If the submission is deficient in

some way, EPA may disapprove the submission. In the alternative, if

portions of the submission are approvable, EPA may

[[Page 70383]]

partially approve and partially disapprove, or may conditionally

approve based on a commitment to correct the deficiency by a date

certain, which can be no later than one year from the date of EPA's

final conditional approval.

The EPA may partially approve a submission if separable parts of

the submission, standing alone, are consistent with the CAA. For

example, if a state submits a modeled attainment demonstration,

including control measures, but the modeling does not demonstrate

attainment, EPA could approve the control measures and disapprove the

modeling for failing to demonstrate attainment.

The EPA may issue a conditional approval based on a state's

commitment to expeditiously correct a deficiency by a date certain that

can be no later than one year following EPA's conditional approval.

Such commitments do not need to be independently enforceable because,

if the state does not fulfill its commitment, the conditional approval

is converted to a disapproval. For example, if a state commits to

submit additional control measures and fails to submit them or EPA

determines the state's submission of the control measures is

incomplete, the EPA will notify the state by letter that the

conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval. If the state

submits control measures that EPA determines are complete or that are

deemed complete, EPA will determine through rulemaking whether the

state's attainment demonstration is fully approvable or whether the

conditional approval of the attainment demonstration should be

converted to a disapproval.

Finally, EPA has recognized that in some limited circumstances, it

may be appropriate to issue a full approval for a submission that

consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. Unlike the commitment

for conditional approval, such an enforceable commitment can be

enforced in court by EPA or citizens. In addition, this type of

commitment may extend beyond one year following EPA's approval action.

Thus, EPA may accept such an enforceable commitment where it is

infeasible for the state to accomplish the necessary action in the

short term.

B. What Are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?

The EPA provides that states may rely on a modeled attainment

demonstration supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate

attainment. In order to have a complete modeling demonstration

submission, states should have submitted the required modeling analysis

and identified any additional evidence that EPA should consider in

evaluating whether the area will attain the standard.

1. Modeling Requirements

For purposes of demonstrating attainment, the CAA requires serious

and severe areas to use photochemical grid modeling or an analytical

method EPA determines to be as effective.4 The photochemical

grid model is set up using meteorological conditions conducive to the

formation of ozone. Emissions for a base year are used to evaluate the

model's ability to reproduce actual monitored air quality values and to

predict air quality changes in the attainment year due to the emission

changes which include growth up to and controls implemented by the

attainment year. A modeling domain is chosen that encompasses the

nonattainment area. Attainment is demonstrated when all predicted

concentrations inside the modeling domain are at or below the NAAQS or

at an acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain

conditions by EPA's guidance. When the predicted concentrations are

above the NAAQS, an optional weight of evidence determination which

incorporates but is not limited to other analyses such as air quality

and emissions trends may be used to address uncertainty inherent in the

application of photochemical grid models.

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

\4\ The EPA issued guidance on the air quality modeling that is

used to demonstrate attainment with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See U.S.

EPA (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban

Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013 (July 1991). A copy may be found on

EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name:

``UAMREG''). See also U.S. EPA (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled

Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-

007 (June 1996). A copy may be found on EPA's web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').

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

The EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis

that are essential to obtain credible results. First, the state must

develop and implement a modeling protocol. The modeling protocol

describes the methods and procedures to be used in conducting the

modeling analyses and provides for policy oversight and technical

review by individuals responsible for developing or assessing the

attainment demonstration (state and local agencies, EPA Regional

offices, the regulated community, and public interest groups). Second,

for purposes of developing the information to put into the model, the

state must select air pollution days, i.e., days in the past with bad

air quality, that are representative of the ozone pollution problem for

the nonattainment area. Third, the state needs to identify the

appropriate dimensions of the area to be modeled, i.e., the domain

size. The domain should be larger than the designated nonattainment

area to reduce uncertainty in the boundary conditions and should

include large upwind sources just outside the nonattainment area. In

general, the domain is considered the local area where control measures

are most beneficial to bring the area into attainment. Fourth, the

state needs to determine the grid resolution. The horizontal and

vertical resolutions in the model affect the dispersion and transport

of emission plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too few vertical

layers and horizontal grids) may dilute concentrations and may not

properly consider impacts of complex terrain, complex meteorology, and

land/water interfaces. Fifth, the state needs to generate

meteorological data that describe atmospheric conditions and emissions

inputs. Finally, the state needs to verify that the model is properly

simulating the chemistry and atmospheric conditions through diagnostic

analyses and model performance tests. Once these steps are

satisfactorily completed, the model is ready to be used to generate air

quality estimates to support an attainment demonstration.

The modeled attainment test compares model predicted 1-hour daily

maximum concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the

level of the NAAQS. A predicted concentration above 0.124 ppm ozone

indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the

attainment year and a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that

the area is expected to attain the standard. This type of test is often

referred to as an exceedance test. The EPA's guidance recommends that

states use either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests for the

1-hour ozone NAAQS: a deterministic test or a statistical test.

The deterministic test requires the state to compare predicted 1-

hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day

5 to the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the

predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed.

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

\5\ The initial, ``ramp-up'' days for each episode are excluded

from this determination.

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

The statistical test takes into account the fact that the form of

the 1-hour ozone standard allows exceedances. If, over a three-year

period, the area has an average of one or fewer exceedances per year,

the area is not violating the standard. Thus, if the state models a

[[Page 70384]]

very extreme day, the statistical test provides that a prediction above

0.124 ppm up to a certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment

of the standard. (The form of the 1-hour standard allows for up to

three readings above the standard over a three-year period before an

area is considered to be in violation.)

The acceptable upper limit above 0.124 ppm is determined by

examining the size of exceedances at monitoring sites which meet the 1-

hour NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for which the four highest

1-hour average concentrations over a three-year period are 0.136 ppm,

0.130 ppm, 0.128 ppm and 0.122 ppm is attaining the standard. To

identify an acceptable upper limit, the statistical likelihood of

observing ozone air quality exceedances of the standard of various

concentrations is equated to the severity of the modeled day. The upper

limit generally represents the maximum ozone concentration observed at

a location on a single day and it would be the only reading above the

standard that would be expected to occur no more than an average of

once a year over a three-year period. Therefore, if the maximum ozone

concentration predicted by the model is below the acceptable upper

limit, in this case 0.136 ppm, then EPA might conclude that the modeled

attainment test is passed. Generally, exceedances well above 0.124 ppm

are very unusual at monitoring sites meeting the NAAQS. Thus, these

upper limits are rarely substantially higher than the attainment level

of 0.124 ppm.

2. Additional Analyses Where Modeling Fails To Show Attainment

When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment,

additional analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area

will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are

inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and its results. For

example, there are uncertainties in some of the modeling inputs, such

as the meteorological and emissions data bases for individual days and

in the methodology used to assess the severity of an exceedance at

individual sites. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, and

provides a means for considering other evidence to help assess whether

attainment of the NAAQS is likely. The process by which this is done is

called a Weight of evidence determination.

Under a Weight of evidence determination, the state can rely on and

EPA will consider factors such as other modeled attainment tests, e.g.,

a rollback analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in the

predicted frequency and pervasiveness of exceedances and predicted

changes in the design value; actual observed air quality trends;

estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the

responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls; and,

whether there are additional control measures that are or will be

approved into the SIP but were not included in the modeling analysis.

This list is not an exclusive list of factors that may be considered

and these factors could vary from case to case. The EPA's guidance

contains no limit on how close a modeled attainment test must be to

passing to conclude that other evidence besides an attainment test is

sufficiently compelling to suggest attainment. However, the further a

modeled attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling the

Weight of evidence needs to be.

The EPA's 1996 modeling guidance also recognizes a need to perform

a mid-course review as a means for addressing uncertainty in the

modeling results. Because of the uncertainty in long term projections,

EPA believes a viable attainment demonstration that relies on Weight of

evidence needs to contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring,

emissions, and modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements

to emission control measures are needed. The mid-course review is

discussed in Section C.6.

C. What is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment

Demonstration SIPs?

In addition to the modeling analysis and Weight of evidence support

demonstrating attainment, the EPA has identified the following key

elements which must be present in order for EPA to approve or

conditionally approve the 1-hour attainment demonstration SIPs. These

elements are listed below and then described in detail.

--CAA measures and measures relied on in the modeled attainment

demonstration SIP. This includes adopted and submitted rules for all

previously required CAA mandated measures for the specific area

classification. This also includes measures that may not be required

for the area classification but that the state relied on in the SIP

submission for attainment and ROP plans on which EPA is proposing to

take action on today.

--NOX reductions affecting boundary conditions.

--Motor vehicle emissions budget. A motor vehicle emissions budget

which can be determined by EPA to be adequate for conformity purposes.

--Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits where needed to demonstrate

attainment. Inclusion of reductions expected from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe

and low sulfur-in-fuel standards in the attainment demonstration and

the motor vehicle emissions budget.

--In certain areas, additional measures to further reduce emissions

to support the attainment test. Additional measures may be measures

adopted regionally such as in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), or

locally (intrastate) in individual states.

--Mid-course review. An enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-

course review and evaluation based on air quality and emission trends.

The mid-course review would show whether the adopted control measures

are sufficient to reach attainment by the area's attainment date, or

that additional control measures are necessary.

1. CAA measures and measures relied on in the modeled attainment

demonstration SIP

The states should have adopted the control measures already

required under the CAA for the area classification. Since these 10

serious and severe areas need to achieve substantial reductions from

their 1990 emissions levels in order to attain, EPA anticipates that

these areas need all of the measures required under the CAA to attain

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

In addition, the states may have included control measures in its

attainment strategy that are in addition to measures required in the

CAA. (For serious areas, these should have already been identified and

adopted, whereas severe areas have until December 2000 to submit

measures necessary to achieve ROP through the attainment year and to

attain.) For purposes of fully approving the State's SIP, the State

will need to adopt and submit all VOC and NOX controls

within the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes of

the modeled attainment demonstration.

The following tables present a summary of the CAA requirements that

need to be met for each serious and severe nonattainment area for the

1-hour ozone NAAQS. These requirements are specified in section 182 of

the CAA. Information on more measures that states may have adopted or

relied on in their current SIP submissions is not shown in the tables.

EPA will need to take final action approving all measures relied on for

attainment, including the required ROP Plan control measures and target

calculations, before EPA can issue

[[Page 70385]]

a final full approval of the attainment demonstration as meeting CAA

section 182(c)(2) (for serious areas) or (d) (for severe areas).

CAA Requirements for Serious Areas

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

--NSR for VOC and NOX 1, including an offset ratio of 1.2:1 and a major

VOC and NOX source cutoff of 50 tons per year (tpy)

--Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOX 1

--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program

--15% volatile organic compound (VOC) plans

--Emissions inventory

--Emission statements

--Periodic inventories

--Attainment demonstration

--9 percent ROP plan through 1999

--Clean fuels program or substitute

--Enhanced monitoring Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations

(PAMS)

--Stage II vapor recovery

--All of the nonattainment area requirements for serious areas

--NSR, including an offset ratio of 1.3:1 and a major VOC and NOX source

cutoff of 25 tons per year (tpy)

--Reformulated gasoline

--9 percent ROP plan through attainment year

--Requirement for fees for major sources for failure to attain

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

\1\ Unless the area has in effect a NOX waiver under section 182(f). The

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island is not such an area.

2. NOX Reductions Affecting Boundary Conditions

The EPA completed final rulemaking on the NOX SIP Call

on October 27, 1998, which required States to address transport of

NOX and ozone to other States. To address transport, the

NOX SIP Call established emissions budgets for

NOX that 23 jurisdictions were required to show they would

meet through enforceable SIP measures adopted and submitted by

September 30, 1999. The NOX SIP Call is intended to reduce

emissions in upwind States that significantly contribute to

nonattainment problems. The EPA did not identify specific sources that

the States must regulate nor did EPA limit the States' choices

regarding where to achieve the emission reductions. Subsequently, a

three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit issued an order staying the portion of the NOX SIP

call rule requiring States to submit rules by September 30, 1999.

The NOX SIP Call rule establishes budgets for the states

in which 9 of the nonattainment areas for which EPA is proposing action

today are located. The 9 areas are: Greater Connecticut, Springfield

MA, New York-North New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), Baltimore MD,

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta GA, Milwaukee-Racine WI, and Chicago-Gary-Lake

County (IL-IN).

Emission reductions that will be achieved through EPA's

NOX SIP Call will reduce the levels of ozone and ozone

precursors entering nonattainment areas at their boundaries. For

purposes of developing attainment demonstrations, States define local

modeling domains that include both the nonattainment area and nearby

surrounding areas. The ozone levels at the boundary of the local

modeling domain are reflected in modeled attainment demonstrations and

are referred to as boundary conditions. With the exception of Houston,

the 1-hour attainment demonstrations on which EPA is proposing action

have relied, in part, on the NOX SIP Call reductions for

purposes of determining the boundary conditions of the modeling domain.

Emission reductions assumed in the attainment demonstrations are

modeled to occur both within the State and in upwind States; thus,

intrastate reductions as well as reductions in other States impact the

boundary conditions. Although the court has indefinitely stayed the SIP

submission deadline, the NOX SIP Call rule remains in

effect. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow States to

continue to assume the reductions from the NOX SIP call in

areas outside the local 1-hour modeling domains. If States assume

control levels and emission reductions other than those of the

NOX SIP call within their State but outside of the modeling

domain, States must also adopt control measures to achieve those

reductions in order to have an approvable plan.

Accordingly, States in which the nonattainment areas are located

will not be required to adopt measures outside the modeling domain to

achieve the NOX SIP call budgets prior to the time that all

States are required to comply with the NOX SIP call. If the

reductions from the NOX SIP call do not occur as planned,

States will need to revise their SIPs to add additional local measures

or obtain interstate reductions, or both, in order to provide

sufficient reductions needed for attainment.

As provided in section 1 above, any controls assumed by the State

inside the local modeling domain 6 for purposes of the

modeled attainment demonstration must be adopted and submitted as part

of the State's 1-hour attainment demonstration SIP. It is only for

reductions occurring outside the local modeling domain that States may

assume implementation of NOX SIP call measures and the

resulting boundary conditions.

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

\6\ For the purposes of this document, ``local modeling domain''

is typically an urban scale domain with horizontal dimensions less

than about 300 km on a side, horizontal grid resolution less than or

equal to 5 x 5 km or finer. The domain is large enough to ensure

that emissions occurring at 8 am in the domain's center are still

within the domain at 8 pm the same day. If recirculation of the

nonattainment area's previous day's emissions is believed to

contribute to an observed problem, the domain is large enough to

characterize this.

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

3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

The EPA believes that attainment demonstration SIPs must

necessarily estimate the motor vehicle emissions that will be produced

in the attainment year and demonstrate that this emissions level, when

considered with emissions from all other sources, is consistent with

attainment. The estimate of motor vehicle emissions is used to

determine the conformity of transportation plans and programs to the

SIP, as described by CAA section 176(c)(2)(A). For transportation

conformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle emissions is known

as the motor vehicle emissions budget. The EPA believes that

appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions budgets are a

necessary part of an attainment demonstration SIP. A SIP cannot

effectively demonstrate attainment unless it identifies the level of

motor vehicle emissions that can be produced while still demonstrating

attainment.

The EPA has determined that except for the Western MA (Springfield)

attainment demonstration SIP, the motor vehicle emission budgets for

all areas in today's proposals are inadequate or missing from the

attainment demonstration. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the

attainment demonstration SIPs for those nine areas if the states do not

submit motor vehicle emissions budgets that EPA can find adequate by

May 31, 2000. In order for EPA to complete the adequacy process by the

end of May, states should submit a budget no later than December 31,

1999.7 If an area does not have a motor vehicle emissions

budget that EPA can determine adequate for conformity purposes by May

31, 2000, EPA plans to take final action at that time disapproving in

full or in part the area's attainment demonstration. The emissions

budget should reflect all

[[Page 70386]]

the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment

demonstration, i.e., measures already adopted for the nonattainment

area as well as those yet to be adopted.

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

\7\ A final budget is preferred; but, if the state public

hearing process is not yet complete, then the proposed budget for

public hearing may be submitted. The adequacy process generally

takes at least 90 days. Therefore, in order for EPA to complete the

adequacy process no later than the end of May, EPA must have by

February 15, 2000, the final budget or a proposed budget that is

substantially similar to what the final budget will be. The state

must submit the final budget by April 15, 2000.

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

4. Tier 2/Sulfur Program Benefits

On May 13, 1999, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) proposing a major, comprehensive program designed to

significantly reduce emissions from passenger cars and light trucks

(including sport-utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks) and to

reduce sulfur in gasoline. Under the proposed program, automakers would

produce vehicles designed to have very low emissions when operated on

low-sulfur gasoline, and oil refiners would provide that cleaner

gasoline nationwide. The EPA subsequently issued two supplemental

notices. 64 FR 35112 (June 30, 1999); 64 FR 57827 (October 27, 1999).

These notices provide 1-hour ozone modeling and monitoring

information that support EPA's belief that the Tier 2/Sulfur program is

necessary to help areas attain the 1-hour NAAQS. Under the proposed

rule, NOX and VOC emission reductions (as well as other

reductions not directly relevant for attainment of the 1-hour ozone

standard) would occur beginning in the 2004 ozone season although

incentives for early compliance by vehicle manufacturers and refiners

will likely result in some reductions prior to 2004. Nationwide, the

Tier 2/Sulfur program is projected to result in reductions of

approximately 800,000 tons of NOX per year by 2007 and

1,200,000 tons by 2010.

In the October 27, 1999 supplemental notice, EPA reported in Table

1 that EPA's regional ozone modeling indicated that 17 metropolitan

areas for which the 1-hour standard applies need the Tier 2/Sulfur

program reductions to help attain the 1-hour ozone standard. The New

York-North New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia NAA areas whose

attainment demonstration SIP EPA is proposing to approve and disapprove

in-the-alternative today is included on that list.

The EPA issued a memorandum that provides estimates of the

emissions reductions associated with the Tier 2/Sulfur program

proposal.8 The memorandum provides the tonnage benefits for

the Tier 2/Sulfur program in 2007 on a county-by-county basis for all

counties within the 10 serious and severe nonattainment areas for which

EPA is proposing to take action today and the 2005 tonnage benefits for

the Tier 2/Sulfur program for each county for three areas.

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

\8\ Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and

Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking'' from Lydia Wegman, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile

Sources to the Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI, issued November

8, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at

http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.html.

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

The EPA also issued a memorandum which explains the connection

between the Tier 2/Sulfur program, motor vehicle emissions budgets for

conformity determinations, and timing for SIP revisions to account for

the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefit.9 This memorandum explains

that conformity analyses in serious and severe ozone nonattainment

areas can begin including Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits once EPA's

Tier 2 rule is promulgated, provided that the attainment demonstration

SIPs and associated motor vehicle emissions budgets include the Tier 2

rule benefits. For areas that require all or some portion of the Tier 2

rule benefits to demonstrate attainment but have not yet included the

benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budgets, EPA's adequacy finding

will include a condition that conformity determinations may not take

credit for Tier 2 until the SIP budgets are revised to reflect Tier 2

benefits. See EPA's memorandum for more information.

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

\9\ Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in

One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations'', from Merrylin Zaw-Mon,

Office of Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI,

issued November 3, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found on

EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.html.

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

For the New York-North New Jersey-Long Island area, Philadelphia-

Wilmington-Trenton, Baltimore, Atlanta, and Houston nonattainment

areas, the EPA is proposing to determine that additional emission

reduction beyond those provided by the SIP submission are necessary for

attainment. With the exception of the Atlanta nonattainment area, a

portion of that reduction will be achieved by EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur

program, which EPA expects to finalize shortly. States that need to

rely in whole or in part on the Tier 2 benefits to help demonstrate

attainment will need to adjust the demonstration for their SIP

submission, emission inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets to

include the Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions in order for EPA to

approve the SIP submittal. The submittal requirement including the

analysis to make that submission is described in the two memoranda

cited. States may use the tonnage benefits and guidance in these

memoranda to make these adjustments to the SIP submission and motor

vehicle emission budgets. The EPA encourages states to submit these SIP

revisions by December 31, 1999 to allow EPA to include them in the

motor vehicle emissions budget adequacy determinations which need to be

completed by May 31, 2000. Alternatively, these revisions should be

submitted by July 2000 for serious nonattainment areas, as EPA

anticipates completing rulemaking on these SIPs in the fall of 2000.

For severe nonattainment areas, these revisions should be submitted by

December 31, 2000.

A number of areas for which the EPA is not proposing to determine

that additional emission reduction beyond those provided by the SIP

submission are necessary for attainment will be taking a partial credit

for Tier 2 when they use credit from national low emissions vehicles

(NLEV) in their attainment demonstration. These nonattainment areas are

the Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan

Washington, D.C. areas. By regulation, the NLEV standards do not extend

beyond the 2003 model year unless EPA promulgates Tier 2 vehicle

standards at least as stringent as the NLEV standards. See 40 CFR

86.1701-99(c). Thus, the emission reductions relied upon from 2004 and

later model year NLEV vehicles will actually be due to the promulgation

of the Tier 2 standards, either through the extension of the NLEV

program or a portion of the reduction from vehicles meeting the Tier 2

standards.

Like all the other SIPs that rely on Tier 2 reductions in order to

demonstrate attainment, the attainment demonstrations for the

Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. areas must be revised to estimate the effects of Tier 2 according

to our policy before EPA can take final action approving such

attainment demonstrations. Until the SIPs are revised to include full

Tier 2 credit, EPA can determine by May 31, 2000 that a motor vehicle

emissions budget is adequate if the budget would be otherwise adequate.

No conditions need be placed on such adequacy determinations since the

budgets in such SIPs already include reductions equivalent to the

amount of emission reductions the areas will be relying on from Tier 2

by virtue of the NLEV reductions included in the budgets.

Revisions to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget and the Attainment

Demonstration When EPA Issues the MOBILE6 Model. Within one year of

when EPA issues the MOBILE6 model for estimating mobile source

emissions which takes into account the emissions

[[Page 70387]]

benefit of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, states will need to revise

their motor vehicle emissions budgets in their attainment demonstration

SIPs if the Tier 2/Sulfur program is necessary for attainment. In

addition, the budgets will need to be revised using MOBILE6 in those

areas that do not need the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment but

decide to include its benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budget

anyway. The EPA will work with states on a case-by-case basis if the

new emission estimates raise issues about the sufficiency of the

attainment demonstration.

States described in the paragraph above will need to submit an

enforceable commitment in the near term to revise their motor vehicle

emissions budget within one year after EPA's release of MOBILE6. This

commitment should be submitted to EPA along with the other commitments

discussed elsewhere in this notice, or alternatively, as part of the

SIP revision that modifies the motor vehicle emission inventories and

budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits needed in order

for EPA to approve the SIP submittal.

5. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions

The EPA is proposing to find that the attainment demonstrations for

New York-North New Jersey-Long Island; Baltimore; Philadelphia-

Wilmington-Trenton; Houston and Atlanta, even considering the Tier II/

Sulfur program reductions and the Weight of evidence, will not achieve

attainment without the application of additional emission control

measures to achieve additional emission reductions. Thus, for each of

these areas, EPA has identified specific tons per day emissions of

NOX and/or VOC that must be reduced through additional

control measures in order to demonstrate attainment and to enable EPA

to approve the demonstration. The need for additional emission

reductions is generally based on a lack of sufficient compelling

evidence that the demonstration shows attainment at the current level

of adopted or planned emission controls. This is discussed in detail

below for the State of New Jersey. The method used by EPA to calculate

the amount of additional reductions is described in a technical support

document located in the record for this proposed rule. Briefly, the

method makes use of the relationship between ozone and its precursors

(VOC and NOX) to identify additional reductions that, at a

minimum, would bring the model predicted future ozone concentration to

a level at or below the standard. The relationship is derived by

comparing changes in either (1) the model predicted ozone to changes in

modeled emissions or (2) in observed air quality to changes in actual

emissions.

The EPA is not requesting that states perform new photochemical

grid modeling to assess the full air quality impact of the additional

reductions that would be adopted. Rather, as described above, one of

the factors that EPA can consider as part of the Weight of evidence

analysis of the attainment demonstration is whether there will be

additional emission reductions anticipated that were not modeled.

Therefore, EPA will consider the reductions from these additional

measures as part of the Weight of evidence analysis if the state adopts

the measures or, as appropriate, submits an enforceable commitment to

adopt the measures.

As an initial matter, for areas that need additional measures, the

state must submit a commitment to adopt additional control measures to

meet the level of reductions that EPA has identified as necessary for

attainment. For purposes of conformity, if the State submitted a

commitment, which has been subject to public hearing, to adopt the

control measures necessary for attainment and ROP through the area's

attainment date in conformance with the December 1997 Wilson policy,

the State will not need an additional commitment at this time. However,

the state will need to amend its commitment by letter to provide two

things concerning the additional measures.

First, the State will need to identify a list of potential control

measures (from which a set of measures could be selected) that when

implemented, would be expected to provide sufficient additional

emission reductions to meet the level of reductions that EPA has

identified as necessary for attainment. States need not commit to adopt

any specific measures on their list at this time, but if they do not do

so, they must affirm that some combination of measures on their list

has the potential to meet or exceed the additional reductions

identified later in this notice by EPA. These measures may not involve

additional limits on highway construction beyond those that could be

imposed under the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget. (See

memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour

Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of

Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI''). States may,

of course, select control measures that do impose limits on highway

construction, but if they do so, they must revise the budget to reflect

the effects of specific, identified measures that were either committed

to in the SIP or were actually adopted. Otherwise, EPA could not

conclude that the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget would be

providing for attainment, and EPA could not find it adequate for

conformity purposes.

Second, the letter should provide that the state will recalculate

and submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget that includes the

effects, if any, of the measure or measures that are ultimately adopted

when those measures are submitted as SIP revisions should any of the

measures pertain to motor vehicles.

For purposes of approving the SIP, the state will need an

enforceable commitment that identifies the date by which the additional

measures will be submitted, identifies the percentage reductions needed

of VOC and NOX, and provides that the State will recalculate

and submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget that includes the

effects, if any, of the measure or measures that are ultimately adopted

when these measures are submitted as SIP revisions should any of the

measures pertain to motor vehicles. To the extent the State's current

commitment does not include one of the above items or to the extent

that a State plans to revise one of the above items in an existing

commitment, the State will need a new public hearing.

For areas within the OTR, such as New Jersey, EPA believes it is

appropriate to provide a state that is relying on a regional solution

to a Congressionally-recognized regional air pollution problem with

more time to adopt and submit measures for additional reductions to EPA

than for a state that will rely on intrastate measures to achieve the

reductions. Therefore, the EPA believes that states in the OTR must be

allowed sufficient time for the OTR to analyze the appropriate measures

as well as time for the state to adopt the measures. For these states,

EPA believes it is appropriate for them to commit to work through the

OTR to develop a regional strategy regarding the measures necessary to

meet the additional reductions identified by EPA for these areas.

However, as a backstop, the state will need to commit to adopt

intrastate measures sufficient to achieve the additional reductions if

the regional measures are not identified by the OTR and adopted by the

relevant states. For purposes of conformity, if the State submitted a

commitment consistent with the December 1997 Wilson policy

[[Page 70388]]

and which has been subject to public hearing, the State may amend its

current commitment by letter to provide these assurances. However,

before EPA can take final rulemaking action to approve the attainment

demonstration, the state will need to meet public hearing requirements

for the commitment and submit it to EPA as a SIP revision. The EPA will

have to propose and take final action on this SIP revision before EPA

can fully approve the State's attainment demonstration. The State will

have to submit the necessary measures themselves (and a revised motor

vehicle emissions budget that includes the effects, if any, of the

measure or measures that are ultimately adopted should any of the

measures pertain to motor vehicles) as a SIP revision no later than

October 31, 2001.

Guidance on Additional Control Measures. Much progress has been

made over the past 25 years to reduce VOC emissions and over the past 9

years to reduce NOx emissions. Many large sources have been controlled

to some extent through RACT rules or other emission standards or

limitations, such as maximum achievable control technology (MACT), new

source performance standards (NSPS) and the emission control

requirements for NSR--lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER) and best

achievable control technology (BACT). However, there may be controls

available for sources that have not yet been regulated as well as

additional means for achieving reductions from sources that have

already been regulated. The EPA has prepared a report to assist states

in identifying additional measures. This report is called ``Serious and

Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on Emissions, Control

Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available Control Measures.'' The

purpose of this report is to provide information to state and local

agencies to assist them in identifying additional control measures that

could, if later determined to be appropriate, be adopted into their

SIPs to support the attainment demonstrations for the serious and

severe nonattainment areas under consideration. This report has been

added to the record for this proposal.

In summary, the report provides information in four areas. First,

the report contains detailed information on emissions for ozone

precursor emissions of NOX and VOCs. This inventory data

gives an indication of where the major emissions are coming from in a

particular geographic area and may indicate where it will be profitable

to look for further reductions. Second, the report contains information

on control measures for emission sources of NOX and VOC

(including stationary, area and mobile source measures) for which

controls may not have been adopted by many jurisdictions. This would

include many measures listed among the control measures EPA considered

when developing the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for promulgation

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Third, the report includes information on

standards EPA has issued for the NSPS and MACT programs as well as

information on alternative control techniques (ACT) documents. This may

be useful to states who may already specify emission limits on existing

source categories to which NSPS and MACT for new sources apply, but the

current RACT level of control for these existing sources may not match

the level specified in the NSPS or MACT standards for new sources or

sources which emit hazardous air pollutants. Finally, the report

includes information on the control measures not already covered

elsewhere that states have adopted, or have proposed to adopt at the

date of the report, into their SIPs. Comparison of information on

measures already adopted into others' SIPs may help inform states about

reductions that may be available from their sources whose emissions are

currently not regulated.

Another source of information is the BACT and LAER determinations

that states have made for individual new sources. Information on BACT/

LAER determinations is available through EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER

Clearinghouse (RBLC) which may be accessed on EPA's web site on the

Internet at the following address: www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/.

The ACT documents for VOC and NOX are valuable because

EPA has not issued control technique guidelines (CTGs) that specify the

level of RACT for several categories of sources. For some of these

source categories, EPA has prepared ACT documents which describe

various control technologies and associated costs for reducing

emissions. While states were required to adopt RACT for major sources

within these source categories, the ACT documents may identify an

additional level of control for regulated sources or may provide

control options for non-major sources within these source categories.

States are free to evaluate the various options given and use the

results to assist in formulating their own regulations.

The EPA report lists the various sources EPA used to develop the

lists of additional measures. These sources include an EPA draft

control measure data base, State and Territorial Air Pollution

Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control

Official's (STAPPA/ALAPCO's) books ``Controlling Nitrogen Oxides under

the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options'', and ``Meeting the 15-Percent

Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of

Options'', California's ozone SIP for the South Coast and various ACT

documents.

There is one control approach which bears special mention because

it is broader in application than any one specific control measure.

That is the approach of ``cap and trade.'' In this approach, a cap is

placed on emissions, and existing sources are given emission

allotments. Under a declining cap, emissions would be decreased each

year. Sources may over-control and sell part of their allotments to

other sources which under-control. Overall, the percentage decrease in

emissions is maintained, but the reductions are made where they are

most economical. A cap and trade program has been in operation in the

South Coast Air Quality Management District in California since about

1992.

The State of Illinois has adopted a declining cap and trade

program. The Illinois program will set a cap on future emissions of

major sources in the Chicago area that in most cases is 12 percent

lower than baseline emissions. Illinois will issue a number of emission

allotments corresponding to the cap level and will require each source

to have VOC emissions at or below the level for which it holds emission

allotments. Trading of emission allotments will be allowed, so that

sources that reduce VOC emissions more than 12 percent may sell

emission allotments, and sources that reduce VOC emission less than 12

percent must buy emission allotments. The proposed reductions are

planned to begin in the next ozone season, May 2000.

In addition, EPA's draft economic incentives program guidance (EIP)

was proposed in September 1999. This encourages cost-effective and

innovative approaches to achieving air pollution goals through

emissions trading. Such an approach has been demonstrated to be

successful and cost-effective in reducing air pollution in EPA's acid

rain emissions trading program. These and other similar programs should

allow cost-effective implementation of additional control measures.

Finally, a reduction in VOC and NOX emissions can be

achieved through a wide range of control measures. These measures range

from technology based actions such as retrofitting diesel trucks and

buses, and controlling ground

[[Page 70389]]

service equipment at airports to activity based controls such as

increased use of transit by utilizing existing Federal tax incentives,

market and pricing based programs, and ozone action days. States can

also achieve emission reductions by implementing programs involving

cleaner burning fuels. The State of Texas is also considering a rule to

change the times during the day in which construction can occur to

reduce ozone precursor emissions during periods when ozone formation is

occurring. There are a wide range of new and innovative programs beyond

the few examples listed here. These measures, if taken together, can

provide significant emission reductions for attainment purposes. In

addition, a variety of mobile source measures could be considered as

part of the commitment to meet the need for additional emission

reduction measures.

6. Mid-Course Review

A mid-course review (MCR)is a reassessment of modeling analyses and

more recent monitored data to determine if a prescribed control

strategy is resulting in emission reductions and air quality

improvements needed to attain the ambient air quality standard for

ozone as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the statutory

dates.

The EPA believes that a commitment to perform a MCR is a critical

element of the Weight of evidence analysis for the attainment

demonstration on which EPA is proposing to take action today. In order

to approve the attainment demonstration SIP for the Philadelphia,

Wilmington, Trenton and the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island

nonattainment areas, EPA believes that the state must submit an

enforceable commitment to perform a MCR as described here.10

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

\10\ For purposes of conformity, the state needs a commitment

that has been subject to public hearing. If the state has submitted

a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and that

provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for attainment,

the state should submit a letter prior to December 31, 1999,

amending the commitment to include the MCR.

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

EPA invites the states to participate in a public consultative

process to develop a methodology for performing the MCR and developing

the criteria by which adequate progress would be judged.

For severe areas, the states must have an enforceable commitment to

perform the MCR preferably following the 2003 ozone season, and to

submit the results to EPA by the end of the review year (e.g., by

December 31, 2003). EPA believes that an analysis in 2003 would be most

robust since some or all of the regional NOX emission

reductions should achieved by that date. EPA would then review the

results and determine whether any states need to adopt and submit

additional control measures for purposes of attainment. The EPA is not

requesting that states commit now to adopt new control measures as a

result of this process. It would be impracticable for the states to

make a commitment that is specific enough to be considered enforceable.

Moreover, the MCR could indicate that upwind states may need to adopt

some or all of the additional controls needed to ensure an area attains

the standard. Therefore, if EPA determines additional control measures

are needed for attainment, EPA would determine whether additional

emission reductions as necessary from states in which the nonattainment

area is located or upwind states, or both. The EPA would require the

affected state or states to adopt and submit the new measures within a

period specified at the time. The EPA anticipates that these findings

would be made as calls for SIP revisions under section 110(k)(5) and,

therefore, the period for submission of the measures would be no longer

than 18 months after the EPA finding. A draft guidance document

regarding the MCR process is located in the docket for this proposal

and may also be found on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

scram.

D. In Summary, What Does EPA Expect to Happen with Respect to

Attainment Demonstrations for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long

Island Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area 1-Hour

Ozone Nonattainment Areas?

The following table shows a summary of information on what EPA

expects from states to allow EPA to approve the 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration SIPs.

Summary Schedule of Future Actions Related to Attainment Demonstration

for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and Philadelphia,

Wilmington, Trenton Severe Nonattainment Area in New Jersey Which is

Located in the OTR

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

Required no later than: Action

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

12/31/99..................... State submits the following to EPA:

--motor vehicle emissions budget 1

--Commitments 2 to do the following:

--Submit by 10/31/01 measures for

additional emission reductions as

required in the attainment

demonstration test; for additional

emission reduction measures developed

through the regional process, the

State must also submit a commitment

for the additional measures and a

backstop commitment to adopt and

submit by 10/31/01 intrastate

measures for the emission reductions

in the event the OTR process does not

recommend measures that produce

emission reductions.

--Submit revised SIP & motor vehicle

emissions budget by 10/31/01 if

additional measures (due by 10/31/01)

affect the motor vehicle emissions

inventory

--Revise SIP & motor vehicle emissions

budget 1 year after MOBILE6 issued.3

--Perform a mid-course review.4

--A list of potential control measures

that could provide additional emission

reductions needed to attain the standard

4

4/15/00...................... State submits in final form any previous

submissions made in proposed form by 12/

31/99.

Before EPA final rulemaking.. State submits enforceable commitments for

any above-mentioned commitments that may

not yet have been subjected to public

hearing.

12/31/00..................... --State submits adopted modeled measures

relied on in attainment demonstration

and relied on for ROP through the

attainment year

--State revises & submits SIP & motor

vehicle emissions budget to account for

Tier 2 reductions as needed

10/31/01..................... --OTR States submit additional measures

developed through the regional process.

--State revises SIP & motor vehicle

emissions budget if the additional

measures are for motor vehicle category.

Within 1 yr after release of State submits revised SIP & motor vehicle

MOBILE6 model. emissions budget based on MOBILE6.

[[Page 70390]]

12/31/03..................... State submits to EPA results of mid-

course review

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

\1\ Final budget preferable; however, if public process is not yet

complete, then a proposed budget (the one undergoing public process)

may be submitted at this time with a final budget by 4/15/00. However,

if a final budget is significantly different from the proposed

submitted earlier, the final budget must be submitted by 2/15/00 to

accommodate the 90 day processing period prior to the 5/31/00 date by

which EPA must find the motor vehicle emissions budget adequate. Note

that the budget can reflect estimated Tier 2 emission reductions--see

memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, ``1-Hour Ozone

Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking.''

\2\ As provided in the preamble text, the state may clarify by letter an

existing commitment, which has been subject to public hearing, to

submit the control measures needed for attainment. If the state has

not yet submitted such a commitment, the state should adopt a

commitment after public hearing. If the public hearing process is not

yet complete, then proposed commitments may be submitted at this time.

The final commitment should be submitted no later than 4/15/00.

\3\ The revision for MOBILE6 is only required for SIPs that include the

effects of Tier 2. The commitment to revise the SIP after MOBILE6 may

be submitted at the same time that the state submits the budget that

includes the effects of Tier 2 (no later than 12/31/00).

\4\ New Jersey's August 31, 1998 submittal contains an enforceable

commitment to perform a mid course review.

\5\ If the state submits such a revision, it must be accompanied by a

commitment to revise the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget 1 year

after MOBILE6 is issued (if the commitment has not already been

submitted).

E. What Are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?

This proposal has cited several policy and guidance memoranda. The

EPA has also developed several technical documents related to the

rulemaking action in this proposal. Some of the documents have been

referenced above. The documents and their location on EPA's web site

are listed below; these documents will also be placed in the docket for

this proposal action.

Recent Documents

1. ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through

Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.'' U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality

Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999. Web

site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram.

2. ``Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on

Emissions, Control Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available

Control Measures.'' Draft Report. November 3, 1999. Ozone Policy and

Strategies Group. U.S. EPA, RTP, NC.

3. Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in

One-Hour Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of

Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI. November 3,

1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ome/transp/traqconf.ht.

4. Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air

Division Directors, Regions I-VI, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment

Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur/Sulfur Rulemaking.'' Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram.

5. Draft Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Mid-Course Review

Guidance.'' From John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram.

6. Memorandum, ``Guidance on Reasonably Available Control Measures

(RACM) Requirement and Demonstration Submissions for Ozone

Nonattainment Areas.'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

Previous Documents

1. U.S. EPA (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the

Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMREG'').

2. U.S. EPA (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to

Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007 (June

1996). Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').

3. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D.

Nichols, issued March 2, 1995. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t1pgm.html.

4. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind

Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

5. December 29, 1997 Memorandum from Richard Wilson, Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation ``Guidance for

Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS.''

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

II. EPA's Review and Technical Information

There are four areas in New Jersey designated nonattainment for the

ozone standard: one classified as marginal--the Allentown Bethlehem

Easton Area; one classified as moderate--the Atlantic City Area; and

two classified as severe--the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island

Area, and the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton Area. The marginal and

moderate areas have monitored attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard

for the last three years and consequently, are not required to submit

an attainment demonstration. This Federal Register action addresses the

New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island and

the New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton

nonattainment areas and will be referred to as, respectively, the

Northern New Jersey ozone nonattainment area (NAA) and the Trenton NAA.

Unless specifically discussed below, the following discussions apply to

both nonattainment areas since New Jersey usually addresses CAA

requirements on a statewide basis.

A. What Was Included in New Jersey's Submittals?

On August 31, 1998, Commissioner Shinn of the New Jersey Department

of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) submitted to EPA a SIP revision

``Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standards--Meeting the Requirements of the Alternate Ozone Attainment

Demonstration Policy.'' Referred to as the Ozone Attainment

Demonstration SIP. On October 16, 1998 this was supplemented with the

public participation appendix. New Jersey held a public hearing on the

Ozone

[[Page 70391]]

Attainment Demonstration SIP on August 6, 1998 and the comment period

closed on August 13, 1998.

This SIP submittal addresses the requirements related to attainment

of the 1-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone

and are intended to fulfill the requirements contained in the March 2,

1995 memo from Mary Nichols and the December 29, 1997 memo from Richard

D. Wilson which were previously described. This submittal included the

following: Demonstration of Attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS for Ozone

for the two nonattainment areas; enforceable commitments described

later in this action; control measures adopted to date; and potential

control measures the state will be investigating.

Commitments

New Jersey made the following commitments in their Ozone Attainment

Demonstration SIP revision:

(1) to submit post-1999 ROP Plans and to submit adopted regulations

needed to achieve post-1999 emission reductions by December 31, 2000;

(2) to implement its portion of the EPA regional NOX cap

(NOX SIP Call);

(3) to undertake an assessment of the ambient air quality and

modeling as part of the mid-course review and submit a report to EPA by

December 31, 2002;

(4) evaluate additional control measures which are not currently

implemented for potential future implementation; and

(5) to propose such reasonable and necessary control measures

needed to address any shortfall identified in the mid-course review

which are necessary for attainment.

All of these commitments have gone through New Jersey's

administrative public hearing process and therefore are considered

enforceable commitments.

Post-1999 ROP Plans

Pursuant to the December 29, 1997 Wilson policy memo, New Jersey

submitted a SIP commitment to submit a plan on or before the end of

2000 which contains target calculations for post-1999 ROP Plan

milestone up to the attainment date and to submit adopted regulations

needed to achieve the post-1999 ROP Plan requirements. EPA is proposing

to approve this commitment.

NOX SIP Call

New Jersey has identified emission reduction credits resulting from

the NOX SIP call and are relying on these credits to achieve

attainment of the

1-hour ozone standard. New Jersey adopted Subchapter 31

``NOX Budget Program'' in 1998 to implement Phase II and

Phase III of the Ozone Transport Commission's NOX Budget

Trading Program. Minor revisions to Subchapter 31 were necessary to

accommodate EPA's NOX SIP Call, as well as proposing

specific source category budgets. These were proposed on July 2, 1999

and public hearings were held on September 1, 1999. EPA anticipates

that New Jersey will complete the adoption process within a few months.

Mid-Course Review

New Jersey's commitment to a mid-course evaluation and submittal of

a report to EPA by December 31, 2002 satisfies EPA's requirement

discussed earlier for a mid-course review (see section I.C.6.). New

Jersey, however, may wish to consider coordinating the mid-course

evaluation with the surrounding states which are likely to complete

this effort by December 31, 2003. A revised enforceable commitment

would be necessary if the date is changed.

B. What Modeling Did the States Do To Show Attainment of the 1-Hour

Ozone Standard?

As discussed previously, EPA's guidance allows the states to use

modeling with optional weight of evidence analyses to show that they

will attain the

1-hour ozone standard. The goal is to calculate how much ozone-forming

emissions need to be reduced to meet the ozone standard by the 2005

attainment deadline for the Trenton NAA and 2007 for the Northern New

Jersey NAA. The two main kinds of emissions that form ozone are

volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides.

The Clean Air Act requires ozone nonattainment areas like the

Northern New Jersey NAA to attain the ozone standard by 2007. These

areas are called severe-17 since these areas have 17 years from 1990 to

attain the standard. This area includes most of northern New Jersey,

southeastern New York and southwest Connecticut. The Clean Air Act

requires ozone nonattainment areas like the Trenton NAA to attain the

ozone standard by 2005. These areas are called severe-15 since they

have 15 years from 1990 to attain the standard. This area includes most

of southern New Jersey, southeastern Pennsylvania, northern Delaware

and northeastern Maryland.

Both areas primarily used a photochemical grid model called Urban

Airshed Model-IV (UAM-IV) to predict ozone concentrations for the

attainment year. The states also used other methods as well to make a

Weight of evidence argument that they will attain the 1-hour ozone

standard by the attainment date. One of these methods is called

``design value rollback.'' Design value rollback relies on actual

measurements of ozone levels and information from the modeling results

to predict future ozone design values. The states also used air quality

trends analysis, extrapolating changes in measured air quality over the

last decade to project future ozone concentrations.

C. How Did the States Do Photochemical Grid Modeling?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

New Jersey, New York and Connecticut agreed to work together on the

modeling for the Northern New Jersey Nonattainment area since parts of

all three states are in the nonattainment area. They developed a

modeling protocol, which they followed. New York agreed to perform the

photochemical grid modeling and coordinate the effort. Connecticut

contributed analysis of air quality trends and New Jersey performed

additional analyses to support the Weight of evidence for attainment.

All three states contributed air quality and emissions data and worked

together on special analyses like selection of days for modeling.

The modeling domain included the entire New York City ozone plume

including locations downwind in Connecticut, southeast New York and

northern New Jersey. New York ran the UAM-IV model for the two episodes

selected by the states. The states reviewed air quality and weather

data from 1987 through 1991 to find periods representative of high

ozone which could be used for modeling. The July 1988 and July 1991

episodes were selected as being representative of the days most

conducive to ozone formation. Other episodes were reviewed, but only

the 1988 and 1991 episodes were selected. EPA guidance recommends three

episodes from at least two kinds of weather conditions that occur with

high ozone concentrations. However, EPA allowed the states to use the

two episodes they selected for the following reasons. The episodes were

representative of weather conditions on over 50 percent of the high

ozone days and had some of the most severe ozone days during the time

from 1987 through 1991. In addition, modeling over a broader region was

available to support analyses of the 1988 and 1991 episodes in the

metropolitan area modeling domain. This modeling is referred to as

regional modeling. The

[[Page 70392]]

states used this regional modeling to provide input into the local

modeling on changes in ozone and ozone-forming chemicals coming into

the modeling domain from sources outside the nonattainment area.

The states used emission inventories developed for the regional

modeling for the base year modeling. For the year 2007 prediction of

ozone, the states used an emission inventory that was used to model the

effects of emission controls in the Ozone Transport Region. These

controls included low emission vehicles, reductions in nitrogen oxides

from major sources and is representative of the emission reduction

plans submitted by these states.

To model how the winds distributed the pollution, two methods were

tested and compared with observed data. The method selected did better

at predicting where the highest ozone concentrations were observed.

The results of the modeling for the 1988 and 1991 episodes were

compared with the observed ozone from those episodes. The model

performed well, based on the statistics recommended by EPA guidance.

The model also did well at reproducing the observed distribution of

ozone, however, the predicted ozone concentrations exceeded the maximum

monitored concentrations. Since there are more modeling grid cells than

monitoring sites, it is possible that higher concentrations could occur

between monitors.

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

The states in the Trenton NAA worked together to prepare modeling

for their SIPs and developed and followed a modeling protocol. The

Ozone Research Center at Rutgers University did the photochemical grid

modeling runs for the Philadelphia airshed. The SIPs from these states

use modeling results to show how emission control programs will reduce

emissions to decrease future ozone concentrations. New York was also in

the modeling area and supplied information on its emissions and air

monitoring data, as well. The states reviewed the modeling and prepared

modeling inputs as they needed to complete the modeling. The modeling

domain included the entire Philadelphia area plume including its extent

downwind into New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania.

The Ozone Research Center ran the UAM-IV model for the two episodes

selected by the states. EPA guidance recommends three episodes from at

least two kinds of weather conditions that occur with high ozone

concentrations. However, EPA allowed the states to use the two episodes

they selected for the following reasons. The states reviewed air

quality and weather data from 1987 through 1991 to find periods of high

ozone for modeling. The July 1998 and July 1991 episodes were selected

as being representative of the days most conducive to ozone formation.

The 1988 and 1991 episodes had national modeling which could be used by

our states to represent ozone and ozone-forming chemicals coming into

the area from sources outside the area the nonattainment area. States

modeled one additional episode from June 1987, which was representative

of a different weather type than the other two episodes. The other two

episodes were more severe and regional modeling was not done for the

1987 episode, so the states did not run an attainment year model since

they did not have the information needed by the model at the boundaries

of the domain for the attainment year.

The states used emission inventories developed for the regional

modeling when they started the modeling, but later, particularly for

the 1991 episode, the states developed local emission inventories. To

model how the winds distributed the pollution, various methods were

tested and compared with observed data. One method was selected by the

states since it did a better job at predicting the location of areas of

high ozone and was used for future case runs which predicted ozone for

2005.

D. What Were the Results of Photochemical Grid Modeling?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

The modeling for the nonattainment area predicted that ozone levels

in 2007 would exceed the 1-hour ozone standard. The highest ozone in

the predictions for 2007 using the 1988 and 1991 weather conditions

were 171 ppb and 169 ppb, respectively. These concentrations predicted

for 2007 are well over the 124 ppb standard. However, the design value

for the peak site in and downwind of the Northern New Jersey NAA was

less than 163 ppb in the past four years. Since some major controls

included in the 163 ppb prediction for 2007 are yet to be implemented,

the area's design value for 2007 should be lower than the photochemical

grid model's prediction for 2007. To corroborate these results, the

states turned to other methods, namely design value rollback and

extrapolation of air quality trends.

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

The photochemical grid modeling for the nonattainment area

predicted that ozone concentrations in 2005 would exceed the one-hour

ozone standard. The highest ozone predicted for 2005, using 1988 and

1991 weather conditions, was 159 ppb and 149 ppb, respectively. These

are the peak concentrations in the portion of the modeling domain

affected by the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Since the modeling

domain included the entire state of New Jersey, ozone plumes from the

New York City metro area are in the modeling domain on some days. These

days were modeled by the New York modeling domain and are considered in

their modeling and attainment demonstration. Therefore, peak

concentrations associated with the New York City nonattainment area are

not considered here.

Present air quality in the Trenton NAA is better than the

concentrations the model predicts for 2005. Since some major controls

included in the model's predictions for 2005 have not been implemented

yet, ozone in 2005 should be less than the ozone predicted by the

photochemical grid model's prediction for 2005. To corroborate these

results, the states turned to other methods, namely, design value

rollback and extrapolation of air quality trends.

E. What Were the Results of the State's Design Value Rollback Analysis?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

The results depended on the method selected. The states did several

design value rollback calculations using slightly different data sets.

Some calculations used the amount of ozone change from the regional or

local photochemical grid modeling results. The calculations included

different starting points from which the modeling ``rolled back'' to

predict the ozone design value in 2007. In general, the calculations

predicted that the ozone design value in 2007 could be close to or

below the 124 ppb standard, with results ranging from as low as 122 ppb

to as high as 131 ppb. The states acknowledged that there was

significant uncertainty in these estimates. New Jersey proposed to

address this uncertainty by committing to a mid course review.

As discussed later in this notice EPA independently performed a

design rollback analysis using the change in ozone from 1990 to 2007

from the local modeling and using an average design value from around

1990. However, EPA performed its own design value rollback analysis

with more robust data to account for fluctuations in the results

[[Page 70393]]

due to meteorology. EPA's results predict nonattainment.

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

The design value rollback used in the Philadelphia airshed used the

1996 design value as the starting point from which the modeling

``rolled back'' to predict the ozone design value in 2005. The regional

modeling from EPA's NOx SIP Call proposal was used. The rollback method

predicted ozone of 122 ppb in 2005, which was less than the 124 ppb

needed for attainment. As we noted in the discussion of results for the

Northern New Jersey NAA, different starting design values and modeling

data give different results. In the case of Trenton NAA, these methods

predict concentrations at or less than 124 ppb. However, EPA performed

its own design value rollback analysis with more robust data to account

for fluctuations in the results due to meteorology. EPA's results

predict nonattainment.

F. What were the results of air quality trends analyses?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

New Jersey, working with the other states in the New York metro

area, used data from the late 1980s through 1997 to attempt to make a

qualitative argument that by extrapolating the 1-hour peak ozone and

the highest design value in the airshed over the past decade, ozone

would decrease to less than the standard by 2007.

Year to year trends in ozone are affected by the number of days

with hot weather. Since hot weather favors ozone formation, hot summers

will tend to have more high ozone days. Some of the trends analyses

used by the states and EPA attempt to factor out the effects of year to

year changes in weather so we can see effects of emission changes on

ozone. These state and EPA analyses show that ozone changes due to

emission changes have leveled off in recent years.

EPA agrees that ozone will decrease as new programs are

implemented. However, EPA believes that these trends data are not

quantitative enough to help EPA determine if the standard will be

attained in 2007. The design value rollback analyses provide more

accurate answers to the question about how much ozone air quality will

improve by the 2007 attainment date due to future emission reductions.

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

New Jersey believes that the emission control programs in their

SIPs will continue the downward trend in ozone that occurred in earlier

years before ozone concentrations leveled off. EPA agrees that ozone

will decrease as new programs are implemented. However, EPA believes

that these trends data are not quantitative enough to help EPA

determine if the standard will be attained in 2005 in the Trenton area

downwind of Philadelphia. The design value rollback analyses provide

more accurate answers to the question about how much ozone air quality

will improve by the 2007 attainment date due to future emission

reductions.

G. What Are the Uncertainties in These Analyses?

There is a large difference between the results using the

photochemical grid modeling and methods that use air quality data, like

design value rollback and extrapolation of air quality trends. For

example, in the Northern New Jersey NAA, UAM-IV predicts concentrations

in 2007 that would lead to a design value of 163 ppb in 2007, well

above the 124 ppb standard. The predictions for 2007 from design value

rollback range from 122 to 141 ppb. Air quality trends, if

extrapolated, may predict attainment by 2007. A similar wide range of

values also occurs for Trenton NAA. The wide range of values from these

analyses lead EPA to conclude that additional assurances are needed to

conclusively determine that New Jersey's Ozone Attainment SIP will

result in attainment and EPA will be able to approve these plans.

H. What are the results of EPA's Evaluation?

1. Northern New Jersey Nonattainment Area

EPA finds that New Jersey's attainment demonstration does not

conclusively predict attainment. The New York-Northern New Jersey-Long

Island nonattainment area will need more reductions in ozone-causing

emissions than that presented in New Jersey's Ozone Attainment

Demonstration SIP. Specifically, the additional reductions needed is

3.8 percent reduction in VOCs and 0.3 percent reduction in

NOX, based on the 1990 emission inventory. This is

equivalent to reducing emissions in the New York-Northern New Jersey-

Long Island ozone nonattainment area by 85 tons of VOC per summer day

and 7 tons of NOX per summer day.

EPA determined the amount of additional reductions needed by

performing an additional analysis (described later in this document) to

better calculate a design value for 2007 using a nationally consistent

method for serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas. EPA's analysis

included the modeled decrease in ozone due to the emission reductions

resulting from all the adopted and implemented measures, including

those reductions expected from the NOX SIP Call (both at the

boundaries and in the local area). To make the method more robust and

account for fluctuations in ozone due to meteorology, EPA used a three-

year average of design values from 1990 through 1992 with the design

value rollback technique. The method calculates that the ozone design

value in 2007 will be 129 ppb. Since this more robust method predicts a

2007 concentration above the 124 ppb standard, EPA has determined that

the states will need to commit to additional emission reductions to

demonstrate attainment.

Then EPA developed methods for calculating the amount of additional

reductions the states need to attain the ozone standard. Details are in

the Technical Support Document. These methods extrapolate the

additional VOC and NOX reductions needed to reduce ozone

from 129 to 124 ppb. The additional emission reductions described

earlier are after EPA applied credits for the Tier 2/Sulfur program.

New Jersey can use either VOC or NOX reductions in the

ROP Plans and the Attainment Demonstrations to the extent allowed by

the Act. This is because photochemical grid modeling studies for New

Jersey predict that ozone will be reduced if emissions of VOC or of

NOX are reduced. When the states modeled the impact of

proportionally reducing emissions of VOC and NOX together

the results showed that reductions in VOC or NOX together or

alone reduces peak ozone concentrations. The actual substitution ration

will vary and depends on the total VOC and NOX emission

inventories.

2. Trenton Nonattainment Area

EPA finds that New Jersey's attainment demonstration does not

conclusively predict attainment. The Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton

NAA will need more reductions in ozone-causing emissions than that

presented in New Jersey's Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP.

Specifically, the additional reductions needed is 4.5 percent reduction

in VOCs and 0.3 percent reduction in NOX, based on the 1990

emission inventory. This is equivalent to reducing emissions in the

Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton NAA by 62 tons of VOC per summer day

and 3 tons of NOX per summer day.

[[Page 70394]]

This was calculated using the same method as for the Northern New

Jersey NAA. EPA determined that the ozone design value in 2005 will be

128 ppb. Since this, more robust method, predicts a 2005 concentration

above the 124 ppb standard, EPA has determined that the states will

need to commit to additional emission reductions to demonstrate

attainment. The additional reductions described earlier are after EPA

applied credits for the Tier 2/Sulfur program. When the states modeled

the impact of proportionally reducing emissions of VOC and

NOX together the results showed that reductions in VOC or

NOX together or alone reduces peak ozone concentrations.

I. What Is Needed To Demonstrate Attainment?

EPA's analysis predicts that the states will need additional

measures to reduce ozone after all the already planned measures are

implemented in order to be more certain that the area will attain the

standard by 2007 for Northern New Jersey NAA and 2005 for Trenton NAA.

These additional measures include Tier 2/Sulfur program, the

NOX SIP call and some additional local controls.

If the states commit to implementing these additional reductions,

they will provide sufficient assurance of attainment by 2007/2005. In

addition, New Jersey has committed to a mid-course review as part of

their Weight of evidence argument. These commitments account for any

uncertainty in the ability of the states to show that they will attain

the standard by the attainment date.

J. How is the Tier 2/Sulfur Program needed?

As result of EPA's review of the State's SIP submittal, EPA

believes that the ozone modeling submitted by the State for the

Northern New Jersey and Trenton NAA on which EPA is proposing to

approve and disapprove-in-the-alternative today will need the emission

reductions from EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program to attain the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS. Further, EPA believes that the Northern New Jersey and Trenton

NAA will require additional emission reductions identified by EPA,

beyond those from EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, to attain the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS.

For the Northern New Jersey and Trenton NAA, EPA is proposing to

determine that the submitted control strategy does not provide for

attainment by the attainment deadline. However, the emission reductions

of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, which are not reflected in the

submitted SIP, will assist in attainment. Because the New Jersey must

rely on reductions from the Tier 2/Sulfur program in order to

demonstrate attainment, the effects of these standards must be included

in the motor vehicle emissions budget that is established for

transportation conformity purposes.

To assist the State in the preparation of a new submission which

could be approved, EPA has prepared an estimate of the air quality

benefits of EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program. In our calculation, EPA

assumed that all of the Tier 2/Sulfur emissions reductions will

contribute to the ability of New Jersey to demonstrate attainment. The

EPA has further calculated how much additional emission reduction is

needed for the Northern New Jersey and Trenton NAAs in order for EPA to

approve a revised and re-submitted attainment demonstration for this

area. The EPA suggests that the State include these calculations as

part of the Weight of evidence analysis accompanying the adjusted

attainment demonstration and revised motor vehicle emissions budget for

this area. Today EPA is proposing to approve a new attainment

demonstration if it meets this description.

K. What Is the Status of New Jersey's Transportation Conformity

Budgets?

The EPA has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the

attainment demonstrations submitted by New Jersey for the Northern New

Jersey NAA and the Trenton NAA inadequate for conformity purposes for

Attainment Year 2007 and 2005, respectively (November 16, 1999, 64 FR

62197). The EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration

SIP if New Jersey corrects the deficiencies that cause the motor

vehicle emissions budget to be inadequate and, alternatively, to

disapprove it if New Jersey does not correct the deficiencies. Because

many states may shortly be submitting revised demonstrations with

revised motor vehicle emission budgets, EPA is providing a 60 day

comment period on this proposed rule. If New Jersey submits a revised

attainment demonstration, EPA will place the revisions in the docket

for this rulemaking and will post a notice on EPA's website at

www.epa.gov/oms/traq. By posting notice on the website, EPA will also

initiate the adequacy process.

L. What Future Actions Are Needed from New Jersey for an Approvable

Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP?

1. NOX SIP Call Submittal

Since New Jersey has taken credit for emission reductions

associated with the NOX SIP Call occurring in the Northern

New Jersey and the Trenton NAAs for purposes of the 1-hour Attainment

Demonstration SIP, it must be adopted as part of an approved 1-hour

attainment demonstration.

2. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Modeled Attainment

Demonstration SIP

With the exception of two CAA requirements, New Jersey has adopted

all required elements. As discussed above, New Jersey provided an

enforceable commitment to submit the post-1999 ROP Plans for the

Northern New Jersey NAA and the Trenton NAA up to the attainment date

and the adopted regulations needed to achieve the post-1999 ROP Plan

emission reductions by December 31, 2000. The remaining element

involves implementation of the enhanced inspection and maintenance

program which EPA has not yet fully approved. For details see 63 FR

45402, August 26, 1998.

New Jersey has made significant strides to implement the enhanced

inspection and maintenance program. In a joint letter dated November

19, 1999, from Commissioners Robert C. Shinn (Department of

Environmental Protection) and James Weinstein (Department of

Transportation), New Jersey confirmed that the enhanced inspection and

maintenance program will be operational on December 13, 1999. EPA will

be taking action on the enhanced inspection and maintenance program in

a separate Federal Register action.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this attainment

demonstration provided EPA has first fully approved the enhanced

inspection and maintenance program. New Jersey must submit: the adopted

ROPs along with the supporting control measures by December 31, 2000

which EPA is proposing to approve. New Jersey must continue to

implement the enhanced inspection and maintenance program. Failure by

New Jersey to implement the enhanced inspection and maintenance program

will jeopardize this proposed approval of the 1-hour ozone attainment

demonstration since this program is a required CAA measure and has been

relied upon in the attainment demonstrations. EPA must fully approve

the enhanced inspection and

[[Page 70395]]

maintenance program prior to giving full approval to this attainment

demonstration.

3. Additional Measures to Further Reduce Emissions

New Jersey must submit an enforceable commitment to adopt

additional control measures to meet that level of reductions identified

by EPA for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. New Jersey should

submit the commitment by December 31, 1999. However, if the public

process on the commitment is not yet complete by that date, it should

submit the proposed commitment and submit the final commitment as

quickly as possible, but no later than April 15, 2000.

New Jersey must commit to work through the OTR to develop a

regional strategy regarding the measures necessary to meet the

additional reductions identified by EPA. However, as a backstop, New

Jersey will need to commit to adopt intrastate measures sufficient to

achieve the additional reductions if the regional measures are not

identified by the OTR and adopted by the relevant states.

4. Attainment Demonstration--Conformity Budget--Tier 2/Sulfur Program

Benefit

a. In order for EPA to complete the adequacy determination by May

31, 2000, New Jersey should submit a revised budget no later than

December 31, 1999. This revised budget would be submitted with the

commitment to adopt sufficient measures to address the required level

of emission reductions identified by EPA. The State may chose to

include preliminary Tier

2/Sulfur program benefits in this submittal. If the State chooses not

to include these benefits, then Metropolitan Planning Organizations may

not use these emission reductions in conformity determinations until

the State revises the budgets to account for the Tier 2/Sulfur program

benefits.

In addition, in order for EPA to find the motor vehicle emissions

budget adequate for conformity purposes, the State will need to

identify a list of potential control measures that could provide

sufficient additional emission reductions as identified by EPA. These

measures may not involve additional limits on highway construction

beyond those that could be imposed under the submitted motor vehicle

emissions budget. New Jersey need not commit to adopt any specific

measure(s) on their list at this time. In satisfying the additional

emission reductions, the State is not restricted to the list and could

choose other measures that may prove feasible. It is not necessary for

the State to evaluate each and every measure on the list.

b. If New Jersey chooses not to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program

benefits in its December 31, 1999 SIP submittal, New Jersey must make a

subsequent SIP submittal by December 31, 2000. This latter SIP

submittal would incorporate the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits and

appropriately modify the transportation conformity budgets.

c. New Jersey must submit an enforceable commitment to revise its

transportation conformity budgets within one year after EPA's release

of MOBILE6. This commitment should be submitted to EPA along with the

other commitments discussed in this section, or alternatively, as part

of the SIP revision that modifies the motor vehicle emission

inventories and transportation conformity budgets to include the Tier

2/Sulfur program benefits which is due December 31, 2000.

d. New Jersey must commit to recalculate and submit a revised motor

vehicle emissions budget if any of the additional emission reductions

pertain to motor vehicle measures. This must be done when the measures

are submitted as a SIP revision.

M. What Are the Consequences of State Failure?

This section explains the CAA consequences of state failure to meet

the time frames and terms described generally in this notice. The CAA

provides for the imposition of sanctions and the promulgation of a

federal implementation plan (FIP) if states fail to submit a required

plan, submit a plan that is determined to be incomplete or if EPA

disapproves a plan submitted by the state. (EPA is using the phrase

``failure to submit'' to cover both the situation where a state makes

no submission and the situation where the state makes a submission that

we find is incomplete in accordance with section 110(k)(1)(B) and 40

CFR part 51, appendix V.) For purposes of sanctions, there are no

sanctions clocks in place based on a failure to submit. Thus, the

description of the timing of sanctions, below, is linked to a potential

disapproval of the state's submission.

1. What Are the CAA's Provisions for Sanctions?

If EPA disapproves a required SIP, such as the Attainment

Demonstration SIPs, section 179(a) provides for the imposition of two

sanctions. The first sanction would apply 18 months after EPA

disapproves the SIP if the state fails to make the required submittal

which EPA proposes to fully or conditionally approve within that time.

Under EPA's sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction

would be 2:1 offsets for sources subject to the new source review

requirements under section 173 of the CAA. If the state has still

failed to submit a SIP for which EPA proposes full or conditional

approval 6 months after the first sanction is imposed, the second

sanction will apply. The second sanction is a limitation on the receipt

of Federal highway funds. EPA also has authority under section 110(m)

to sanction a broader area, but is not proposing to take such action

today.

2. What are the CAA's FIP Provisions If a State Fails to Submit a Plan?

In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds that a state failed to

submit the required SIP revision or disapproves the required SIP

revision EPA must promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date

of the finding if the deficiency has not been corrected. The attainment

demonstration SIPs on which EPA is taking action today were originally

due in November 1994. However, through a series of policy memoranda,

EPA recognized that states had not submitted attainment demonstrations

and were constrained to do so until ozone transport had been further

analyzed. As discussed previously, EPA provided for states to submit

the attainment demonstration SIPs in two phases. In June 1996, EPA made

findings that ten states (including New Jersey) and the District of

Columbia had failed to submit the phase I SIPs for nine nonattainment

areas. 61 FR 36292 (July 10, 1996). In addition on May 19, 1997, EPA

made a similar finding for Pennsylvania for the Philadelphia area. 62

FR 27201.

In July 1998, several environmental groups filed a notice of

citizen suit, alleging that EPA had outstanding sanctions and FIP

obligations for the serious and severe nonattainment areas on which EPA

is proposing action today. These groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal

District Court for the District of Columbia on November 8, 1999.

N. What are EPA's Conclusions?

EPA has evaluated New Jersey's Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP

submittal for consistency with the Act, applicable EPA regulations, and

EPA policy. EPA has determined that the ozone standard in the Northern

New Jersey NAA and the Trenton NAA will not be achieved until the

states and EPA implement some additional measures, including Tier 2/

Sulfur program and some additional local controls. EPA is proposing to

approve New Jersey's Post

[[Page 70396]]

1999 ROP Plan commitment. EPA is proposing two alternative actions on

New Jersey's Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP, depending on whether

New Jersey submits the adopted NOX SIP Call, the revised

transportation conformity budgets and necessary enforceable

commitments.

First, EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's Ozone Attainment

Demonstration SIP provided New Jersey submits:

--the adopted NOx SIP Call program as a SIP revision;

--an enforceable commitment to adopt sufficient measures to address

the required level of emission reductions identified by EPA;

--revised transportation conformity budgets which reflect the

additional emission reductions identified by EPA for attainment;

--revised transportation conformity budgets to include the Tier 2/

Sulfur program benefits, if these benefits have not already been

incorporated;

--an enforceable commitment to revise the Attainment Demonstration

SIP, including recalculation of the transportation conformity budgets

(if any of the additional emission reductions pertain to motor vehicle

measures) to reflect the adopted additional measures needed for

attainment; and

--an enforceable commitment to revise the Attainment Demonstration,

including transportation conformity budgets, when MOBILE6 is released.

With respect to the NOx SIP Call, the proposed approval is

predicated upon the expectation that New Jersey will submit the NOx SIP

Call program prior to EPA taking final action on today's proposal.

EPA also is proposing to disapprove-in-the-alternative New Jersey's

Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP if New Jersey does not provide one

or more of the identified elements by the required dates.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from review under E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory

Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is

``economically significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,

and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule

has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action

meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not

involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health and safety

risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or

uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal

governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements

that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section

3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),

revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful

and timely input by state and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies

that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order

to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the national government and the

States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may

not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by

statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to

pay the direct compliance costs incurred by state and local

governments, or EPA consults with state and local officials early in

the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not

issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts

state law unless the Agency consults with state and local officials

early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR

43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or

the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply

to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new

requirements but simply approve requirements that the state is already

imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

[[Page 70397]]

reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427

U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

The EPA's alternative proposed disapproval of the state request

under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA would not affect

any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-

existing Federal requirements would remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect

State-enforceability. Moreover EPA's disapproval of the submittal would

not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that

the proposed disapproval would not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the proposed approval action does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to the proposed disapproval

because the proposed disapproval of the SIP submittal would not, in and

of itself, constitute a Federal mandate because it would not impose an

enforceable duty on any entity. In addition, the Act does not permit

EPA to consider the types of analyses described in section 202 in

determining whether a SIP submittal meets the CAA. Finally, section 203

does not apply to the proposed disapproval because it would affect only

the State of New Jersey, which is not a small government.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing

technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with

NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''

(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's

action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to

the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: November 29, 1999.

Jeanne M. Fox,

Regional Administrator, Region 2.

[FR Doc. 99-31713 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U