WPCr % FR gy*c]aW  I}ApTPZ DE)Ă[;t/^Pc hՃF2Ao_!pdT (e'ߣ[ `$ADS<Dw B>l \27u*10f|ttK:Z| h)Ttw݄Xm+:8c"CoktzN36R 9Ba-NgO$NIurF짐.zna(DBpW52 yArѓj! yuO2 &uqT c{ߡ`9xvօIc2U敂QgHHO)fvrPJ4iZjo*qU¸ pR zܿΡ܇Yύ홭JXrCCdxuLNy"mC' bj#1U N3 %3 0:3^ 4w@'44g4{44 m4 724 01N4U F#5 0wi5f5F6f\6 06 07 08 09 0h: 0J; 0)< 0= 0= 0 > 0? 0i@ 0?A 0B 0B 0C 0yD 0@E 0F 0F 0G 0H 0^I 0-J 0J 0K 0L 1_KM 72M 72M 7 N 0cNN}N 0NaO 0iO 0O 0P 0GQ 0R 0R 0 DS 1U C*U 12uU 72DVfvVfxV 0V 0UWNDX 0FX^Y 1|Z 1[ 0V[ 0B[ 1"\>\f\:I] 72]:] 1]:v^U*^U>^ 72_ 72J_r|_ 72_ 04 `NT` BV` 72s` 72``b 0<e 72e 72.fa`fPtf 72f 72fN(g 1*g 1g?8h 72wj 72jj 72l 72mGmNauncuu:u 0S!v 0SDv 72/wawNzz 72|zzDz 72{N:{ A<{N{N{h{hG| 72|Z|z;}}}&}}} 0V ~ ~_~c% 0V D-ށ 0K AVV^`xx 72؆ 72 72Ĉ 72 72( 72Z 1 0 0 729Q6^UFUN++Ny{ 72 72 72 72N 72 72FNxzzmmmaa 72^f 72NAaCNWzYNӪӪNժ 72תN 72 N=== 72?NqNsfuu 72ww 72 72۫ 72 N?NAAaCCCCCCfWaY^mmmmmmmmmmm B<˭˭7ŰŰ^fZa\ 72pp 72J 2[M6666eN 72 1 1Y 1Em 72Nfia ++ 06 04 0/ 0' 0 0 0 0 0 B- 1eJJ`<YY/9|||fGaIII<]xL 72J 72|d 2PPfVaXNl 72n 0U 0 0  0  0  0o  0F  0 0 0C 0 0 0 0f 0. 0 0 0t 0@. 0n 0< 0 0 0 0V 0 09i2"2"2"2"/%/%#'''B***U,U,M.@ (/o;2/2/$jjmm"ooo%qqqq& w&0w0w0w0w0w<VyVyVyzz;|||a}}]))j^fdaf^zf؆f>^UU8WWe^’ 72    RRfhfΔN4466]VVVVP"nnna#4ȪHHU8 00 0< 0U 0> 0vQ 0`Dz 0`' 0` 0` 0`G 08 0ߴ 02 0 0:߶ 0Y 0_r 0 ѷ 0j۸ 0E B*ɻ D/ 0" D/ 0ս 06 0پ^ 0:? 0^y 0<U6U>IU*OUFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL D5 0V ASp 0D6Fzz\UF 1b 1NpHP LaserJet 2200 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,du. DUD+EDrY.x좡 3|x`U>i)(O$<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(# \\R'3 Letter Landscape\    \\R'3 Letter Landscape\2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  0(359?CGKOS1 1. - >i)- (;3$2#  0  .3  0  <SS@O:QuickFormat1 XXX  cb   XXX  cb   (b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# 156789:xGGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List&25% Filld3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)>i) \\R'3 Letter Landscape\6cw4Body Text  &&&?S%2A`Arial?XXXST\  `&Times New RomanS  (-2$ !USUS.,  <$w:footnote tex  XXX   TTRY03' LetterP$'3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.156789:h[EGKOSW[_cAutoList2522222222)1)a)(.3$ !USUS.,  <:footnote ref156789:x?[_cgkoswSquaresSquare Bulletmailto:A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov. \\R'3 Letter Landscape\mailto:silvasi.john@epa.gov.>i)mailto:gerth.denise@epa.gov.156789:xA_cgkosw{DiamondsDiamond Bullet````````mailto:gerth.denise@epa.gov.%2A`Arial\  `&Times New Roman>i)>i) h  \R'3 Letter Landscape\>i)&c$""0  d>i)>i)  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   37    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuleto  Implementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality Z Standard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof 0 AirQualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark,  NC.March2003.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   3    _LatestFindingsonNationalAirQuality!2001Status  andTrends.U.S.EPA;OfficeofAirQualityPlanningand  Standards;Emissions,MonitoringandAnalysisDivision; \ ResearchTrianglePark,NC.September2002.EPA454/K02 2 001.Foundat:4d  O  5  http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html6 O u  7 9. X <:Default Para>i)>i)TABLE Ahttp://www.epa.gov/airtrends/ozone.html>i)>i)(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. 5_ uUSUS.,XXXXXXXX `   1    Duetothecontinuedlitigationoverthe8hour  standard,EPArevised40CFR50.9(b)inJuly2000,tolimit  itsauthoritytorevokethe1hourstandarduntilsuchtime \ asthe8hourstandardbecamefullyenforceableandno 2 longersubjecttolegalchallenge.(65FR45182,July20, X 2000).>i)>i)  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   17    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuleto  Implementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality Z Standard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof 0 AirQualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark,  NC.March2003.>i)>i)  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   2    _SeediscussionbelowonhowEPAhasdeveloped  hypotheticalnonattainmentareasforpurposesofanalysisof  thisproposedrulemakingandoptions.Modelinganalysesfor \ projectionsto2007arefoundin:U.S.Environmental 2 ProtectionAgency,OfficeofAirandRadiation,Technical X SupportDocumentfortheHeavy-DutyEngineandVehicle . StandardsandHighwayDieselFuelSulfurControl   Requirements:AirQualityModelingAnalyses.   EPA420-R-00-028.December2000.Locatedat: `  4  O  5  http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frm/r00028.pdf.6A OUu  7  6   Informationonthemodelinganalysesforprojectionsto2010  2  and2020arefoundin TechnicalAddendum:Methodologies   fortheBenefitAnalysisoftheClearSkiesInitiative.   September2002.Thiscanbefoundatthefollowingweb d  site: :  4  O  5  http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/Tech_adden.PDF6 Ou  7 .Resultsare `  summarizedin HumanHealthandEnvironmentalBenefits 6 AchievedbytheClearSkiesInitiative.July1,2002.   4  O  5  http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/CSIhealth_env_benefits7-01.ppt6 O-u  7 (#[  .http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/otag/index.html  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/faca/(z(2$ !USUS.,  X^6XXXX^6XXX^6 `   0  (#$  0  >i)  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   18    _BackgroundInformationDocument,Hypothetical  _Nonattainment_ԀAreasforPurposesofUnderstandingtheEPA Z ProposedRuleforImplementingthe8-hourOzoneNational 0 AmbientAirQualityStandard.IllustrativeAnalysisBased  on19982000Data.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, X OfficeofAirandRadiation,OfficeofAirQualityPlanning . andStandards,Draft,April2003.Availableat:  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr/.>i)  mailto:(barbara.bauer@pechan.com)>i) I&mage <=8C HKKKKhttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/trancont/r01001.pdf)http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/hd2007/frm/r00028.pdf.>i)http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/Tech_adden.PDFhttp://www.epa.gov/clearskies/CSIhealth_env_benefits7-01.ppt    http://www.epa.gov(.3$ !USUS.,  ݁Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Y u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   4    _ԀOnJuly18,1997,wealsopromulgatedarevised  particulatematter(PM)standard(62FR38652).Litigation  onthePMstandardparalleledthelitigationontheozone \ standardandthecourtissuedoneopinionaddressingboth 2 challenges.However,issuesregardingimplementationofthe X revisedPMNAAQSwerenotlitigated.(.3$ !USUS.,  )!dxdx( $ Figure  1  &OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   5    _TheCourtaddressedanumberofotherissues,which  arenotrelevanthere. TTRY03' LetterP$'3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT V u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   6    _ԀTheCAArequiresEPAtosetambientairquality  standardsandrequiresStatestosubmitSIPstoimplement  thosestandards.>i) ~ u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   7    _TheEPAsNOxSIPCallmandatedreductionsbyMay  2003.However,theCourtsstayoftherulepending  litigationresultedina1yeardelaytoMay2004.>i)>i)>i)>i)>i)156789:x4Icgkosw{Large BulletLarge Bullet<PP@:QuickFormat2XXX  cb  XXX  cb  <ll@]:QuickFormat3XXXXXXXXcb  XXXXXXXXcb  <; I'USUS.,  _  XXXXProposedRuletoImplementthe8HourOzoneStandard  Page324of352#XXXX(XY# G u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   8    _Section107(d)oftheCAAsetsforthaschedulefor  designationsfollowingthepromulgationofaneworrevised  NAAQS.TheTransportationEquityActfortheTwentyfirst \ Century(TEA21)revisedthedeadlinetopublish 2 nonattainmentdesignationstoprovideanadditionalyear(to X July2000),butHR3645(EPAsappropriationbillin2000) . restrictedEPAsauthoritytospendmoneytodesignateareas   untilJune2001orthedateoftheSupremeCourtrulingon   thestandard,whichevercamefirst. TTRY03' LetterP$'3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   9    _AmericanLungAssociationv.EPA(D.D.C.No.  1:02CV02239).>i)>i)  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   10    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuleto  Implementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality  Standard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof \ AirQualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark, 2 NC.March2003.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   11    _ StateImplementationPlans;GeneralPreambleforthe  ImplementationofTitleIoftheCleanAirActAmendmentsof  1990;ProposedRule.April16,1992(57FR13498at13501 \ and13510).  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   12    _Theupperthresholdsofthemarginal,moderate,  serious,severe15,andsevere17classificationsare  precisepercentagesorfractionsabovethelevelofthe \ standard,namely15.000percent(3/20thsmorethanthe 2 standard),33.333percent(onethirdmorethanthe X standard),50.000percent(onehalfmorethanthestandard), . 58.333percent(7/12thsmorethanthestandard)and133.333   percent(oneandonethirdmorethanthestandard).>i)>i)>i)>i)  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   13    _Section172(a)(1)(C)providesthattheprovisionsof  section172(a) shallnotapplywithrespectto Z nonattainmentareasforwhichclassificationsare 0 specificallyprovidedinothersectionsofpartD.  Similarly,section172(a)(2)(D)providesthattheattainment X dateprovisionsinsection172(a)(2)donotapply to . nonattainmentareasforwhichattainmentdatesare  specificallyprovidedelsewhereinpartD.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   14    _ProposedImplementationGuidancefortheRevised  OzoneandParticulateMatter(PM)NationalAmbientAir Z QualityStandards(NAAQS)andtheRegionalHazeProgram. 0 November17,1998.Foundat:  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   15    __EPAs_Ԁguidanceonsuchdeterminationsappearsin   CriteriaforAssessingtheRoleofTransportof Z Ozone/PrecursorsinOzoneNonattainmentAreas,May1991. 0 U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofAirQuality  PlanningandStandards,TechnicalSupportDivision,Research X TrianglePark,NC27711.Availableat: . http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt25.htm.Lookforzipfile  nameUAMIVGUIDE.UnziptoaccessfilenameUAMCRIT.>i) TTRY03' LetterP$'3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   16    _Theseareasincluded:(a)thef  g f  g transitionalf  g Ԁareas  undersection185A(areasthatweredesignatedasanozone Z nonattainmentareaasofthedateofenactmentoftheCAA 0 Amendmentsof1990butthatdidnotviolatethe1hourozone  NAAQSbetweenJanuary1,1987,andDecember31,1989);(b) X nonattainmentareasthathadincomplete(orno)recent . attainingdataandthereforecouldnotbedesignated  attainment;and(c)areasthatwereviolatingthe1hour ^  ozonestandardbyvirtueoftheirexpectednumberof 4  exceedances,butwhosedesignvalueswerelowerthanthe    thresholdforwhichanareacanbeclassifiedunderTable1  \  ofsubpart2(f  g f  g submarginalf  g Ԁareas).See57FR13498at13524  2  col.3etseq.(April16,1992).>i)Table_Ahttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html>i)>i)>i)>i)>i)>i)<;TABLE ATABLE A TTRY03' LetterP$'3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT  d  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   19    _Section181(b)providesthat anyabsolute,fixed  dateapplicableinconnectionwithanysuchrequirementis Z extendedbyoperationoflawbyaperiodequaltothelength 0 oftimebetweenthedateoftheenactmentoftheCAAAof  1990andthedatetheareaisclassifiedunderthis X paragraph.Undersection181(b),thedateof . classificationisthesameasthedateofredesignationto  nonattainment. - u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   20    _See40CFR50.9(a);the1hourstandardforozone   ...isattainedwhentheexpectednumberofdaysper Z calendaryearwithmaximumhourlyaverageconcentrations 0 above0.12partspermillion(235g/m3)isequaltoorless  than1inorderfortheareatobeconsideredattainingthe X standard,asdeterminedbyAppendixHtothispart.Thus, . the1hourstandardisan exceedancebasedstandard,since  thenumberofexceedancesofthestandard(yearlyaverage ^  over3yearsunderappendixH)mustbeequaltoorlessthan 4  1.Incontrast,see40CFR50.10(b);the8hourstandard    forozoneis ...metatanambientairquality  \  monitoringsitewhentheaverageoftheannualfourth  2  highestdailymaximum8houraverageozoneconcentrationis    lessthanorequalto0.08ppm,asdeterminedinaccordance b  withAppendixItothispart.Thus,thisisa 8  concentrationbasedstandard,becausemeetingthestandard   isdeterminedbycalculatingtheconcentration,notthe `  numberofexceedancesasunderthe1hourstandard. TTRY03' LetterP$'3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeTTable_A>i)  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   21    _MemorandumofFebruary3,1994,fromD.KentBerry  re: ProceduresforProcessingBumpUpsandExtension Z RequestsforMarginalOzoneNonattainmentAreas.U.S. 0 EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,ResearchTrianglePark,  NorthCarolina.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   22    _OnDecember27,2002(67FR79460),EPAproposedto  staytheapplicabilityofitsauthoritytorevokethe1hour Z standardpendingrulemakingtoconsiderwhethertomodify 0 theapproachfortransitioningtof  g the8hourstandard.>i) @ u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   23    _ԀSpecifically,section17f  2g f  V  g f  Wg (e)requiresEPAto  promulgateregulationsprovidingforcontrolsthat arenot Z lessstringentthanthecontrolsapplicabletoareas 0 designatednonattainmentbeforerelaxationofthestandard.    u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   24    _ԀAnumberofcommentersinthepreproposalphase  recommendedanapproachpremisedonretentionofthe Z standard.See,e.g.,LetterofDecember5,2002fromMichael 0 P.Kenny,ExecutiveDirector,CaliforniaAirResources  Board,toJeffreyR.Holmstead,EPAAssistantAdministrator X forAirandRadiation.Availableat: . http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr/. ( u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   25    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuleto  Implementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality Z Standard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof 0 AirQualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark,  NC.f  g ԀMarchf  g Ԁ2003. Q u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   26    _ԀInaddition,forarevisiontoanobligationthat  wasineffectg priorf  g toNovember15,1990,section193 Z prohibitsaSIPrevisionwithoutashowingthatitwould 0 resultinequivalentorgreateremissionreductions.For  purposesofavoidingrepetition,wedonotmentionsection X 193ineachoftheexamplesdiscussedinthissection. . However,Statesremainobligatedtomakethesection193  demonstrationforanyrevisiontoarequirementthatapplied ^  priortoNovember15,1990. C u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   27    _Amaintenanceplanf  g ,whichf  g Ԁisf  g ԀaSIPrevisionf  g Ԁrequired  undersectionf  g sf  g Ԁ107(d)(3)(E)f  g Ԁand175Af  g Ԁasaprerequisitefor Z redesignatinganonattainmentareatoattainmentf  g f  g ,f  g Ԁmust 0 provideformaintenanceoftheNAAQSforf  g 10yearsafter  redesignationf  g f  g Ԁandmustf  g Ԁcontaincontingencymeasuresf  g f  g tof  g  X promptlycorrectanyviolationofthestandardthatoccurs . afterf  g redesignationf  g f  g .Contingencymeasuresmustprovidefor  implementationoff  g Ԁallmeasuresthatwerecontainedinthe ^  SIPfortheareabeforeredesignationoftheareaasan 4  attainmentarea. , u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   28    _Forinstance,anareawithapast-dueobligationto  reviseitsSIPtodevelopanewattainmentdemonstrationfor Z the1-hourstandardcouldpossiblysubmitsucharevision 0 withinthenextyearorso(2004-2005),withemissions  reductionsbeginningtooccurlikelywithin1or2years(by X 20062007).Ifthisareawerenowonlyrequiredtoaddress . the8-hourstandard,itwouldnothavetosubmitanew  attainmentdemonstrationuntil2007,asproposedelsewhere ^  inthisproposedrule,withemissionsreductionsoccurring 4  fromthatdemonstrationlikelyayearormoreafter2007,    whichisseveralyearsafterthetimeperiodpossibleby  \  fulfillingtheexistingobligation. [ u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   29    _MemorandumofMay10,1995, RFP,Attainment  Demonstration,andRelatedRequirementsforOzone Z NonattainmentAreasMeetingtheOzoneNationalAmbientAir 0 QualityStandard,fromJohnS.Seitz,Director,Officeof  AirQualityPlanningandStandards.Availableat: X http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf. v u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   30    _Areasthataredesignatedattainmentunderthe8-hour  standardandthatweredesignatednonattainmentforthe Z 1-hourstandardonorafterNovember15,1990.>i)0ҲCEKSY_ekqAutoList4A.(1)A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEMU]emu}AutoList5(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(ڽCEKQW]cioAutoList6A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. ; u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   31    _Basedonambientozonedatafortheperiod1998to  2000forthehypotheticalnonattainmentareas,weidentified Z approximatelyf  20areasf  g thatarecurrentlydesignated 0 nonattainmentunderthe1-hourstandardbutthatwilllikely  bedesignatedattainmentunderthe8-hourstandard).>i)  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   32    _Forinstance,upondiscussionbetweenEPAandStates,  someStateshaveinthepastvoluntarilyagreedtorevise Z theirSIPswhenitappearsthattheSIPisinadequateto 0 attainormaintaintheNAAQS.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   33    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuleto  Implementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality Z Standard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof 0 AirQualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark,  NC.March2003. t _ u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   36    _TheCAA'srequirementforRACMinsection172(c)(1)  doesrequiretheSIPtoincludeRACM;EPAhasnotedin Z policyelsewherethatameasureisRACMifitis 0 technologicallyandeconomicallyfeasibleandifitwould  advancetheattainmentdate.Thus,iftherearemeasures X availableinthenonattainmentareathatwouldadvancethe . attainmentdate--evenifattainmentislikelyatalater  dateduetoupwindemissionsreductionsthatoccur ^  later--thentheCAArequiressuchmeasurestobeintheSIP. 4   TABLE A  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   34    _Asaresultofcourtactions,certaincircumstances  uponwhichtheSection126Rulewithdrawalprovisionwas Z basedhavechanged.ThecompliancedatesfortheSection 0 126RuleandtheNOxSIPCallhavebeendelayedandtheNOx  SIPCallhasbeendividedintotwophases.TheEPArecently X issuedaproposedrulemakingtoupdatethewithdrawal . provisionsothatitwilloperateappropriatelyunderthese  newcircumstances(68FR16644,April4,2003).<J+M :Outline001_1   2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <G+M :Outline001_2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <D+M :Outline001_3 j  ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <A+M :Outline001_4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <>+M :Outline001_5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <;+M :Outline001_6 j  #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <8+M :Outline001_7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <5+M :Outline001_8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  <2+M :Outline001_9 j   x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5 j )Hairline d456789:= 35;AGMSY_21.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   35    _TheAgencystayedthe8-hourbasisforbothrulesin  responsetotheextensiveandextendedlitigationthat Z occurredconcerningtheestablishmentofthe8-hourozone 0 standard.(65FR56245,September18,2000and65FR2674,  January18,2000).Recently,however,theAdministrator X signedafinalruleontheUV-Bissueandreaffirmedthe . 8-hourozonestandard(68FR614,January6,2003),which  wasremandedtoEPAinATAI,175F.3d1027.Havingnow ^  reaffirmedthe8-hourstandard,theAgencyplanstotake 4  actioninthenearfuturetoreinstatethe8-hourbasesfor    boththeNOxSIPCallandtheSection126Rule.Suchaction  \  wouldprovidetheinitialbasisfordealingwithozone  2  transportaspartoftheimplementationofthe8-hour    standard.http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/clearskies % u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   38    _Thestatutecontainsatypographicalerrorreferring  tosection181(a)(2)insteadof181(b)(2).  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   39    _Asnotedelsewhereinthisnotice,theConsolidated  EmissionsReportingRule(67FR39602,June10,2002)has Z establishedbasicemissioninventoryrequirementsforall 0 areasofthecountryandgenerallyrequiresperiodic  inventoriesofemissionsthatactuallyoccurintheyearof X theinventoryintheU.S.areaofinterest.Thiswould . includeemissionsfromforeignregisteredvehicles. / u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   40    _Useofmodelsthatarecapableofsimulating  transportandformationofmultiplepollutants Z simultaneously.Forexample,forozoneandfineparticles, 0  itiscriticalthatthemodelsimulatephotochemistry,which  includesinteractionsamongthepollutantsandtheir ^ precursors.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   41    _ԀU.S.EPA,(May1999),DraftGuidanceontheUseof  ModelsandOtherAnalysesinAttainmentDemonstrationsfor  the8HourOzoneNAAQS,EPA454/R99004, \ 4V  O  5  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram,6 O  7 Ԁ(ModelingGuidance,Filename: 2 DRAFT8HR).TABLE Ahttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   42    _MemorandumofMarch28,2002,fromLydiaN.Wegman  andJ.DavidMobley,re: MidCourseReviewGuidanceforthe  1HourOzoneNonattainmentAreasthatRelyonWeightof \ EvidenceforAttainmentDemonstration.LocatedatURL: 2 4Ygn O  5  http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/policymem33d.pdf6 Oasta  7in"- X .http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/policymem33d.pdf B u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   43    _MemorandumofDecember29,1997fromRichardD.  WilsontoRegionalAdministrators,RegionsIXre:   GuidanceforImplementingthe1HourOzoneandPreExisting \ PM10NAAQS.LocatedatURL: 2 4^  O  5  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/iig.pdf6 O  7 Ԁ.The X distancesusedresultedfromFACAdiscussionscitedearlier . andgenerallyrepresenttransportof1to2days.>i)<;http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/iig.pdf  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   44    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuleto  Implementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality  Standard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof \ AirQualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark, 2  NC.March2003. ( u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   45    _MemorandumofNovember18,2002,fromLydiaWegman  andPeterTsirigotis, 2002BaseYearEmissionInventorySIP  Planning:8hrOzone,PM2.5andRegionalHazePrograms. \ Thisdocumentisavailableatthefollowingwebsite: 2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/meta.442.1.2002baseinv.pdf.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   46    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuleto  Implementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality  Standard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof \ AirQualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark, 2 NC.March2003.hTABLE A>i)*+ (_2623  ..*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2   / u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   47    _NOxSubstitutionGuidance.December15,1993;  availableathttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   48    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuleto  Implementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality  Standard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof \ AirQualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark, 2 NC.March2003. _ u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   49    _MemorandumofMay10,1995, RFP,Attainment  Demonstration,andRelatedRequirementsforOzone   NonattainmentAreasMeetingtheOzoneNationalAmbientAir  QualityStandard,fromJohnS.Seitz,Director,Officeof  AirQualityPlanningandStandards.Availableat: ` http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   50    _40_CFR_Ԁpart52,StateImplementationPlans;General  PreamblefortheImplementationofTitleIoftheCleanAir  ActAmendmentsof1990;ProposedRule.April16,1992.(57 \ FR13498);40_CFR_Ԁpart52,StateImplementationPlans; 2 NitrogenOxidesSupplementtotheGeneralPreamble;Clean X AirActAmendmentsof1990;ImplementationofTitleI; . ProposedRule.November25,1992.(57FR55620).  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   51    _ IssuesRelatingtoVOCRegulationCutpoints,  Deficiencies,andDeviations!ClarificationtoAppendixDof  November24,1987,FederalRegister.Ozone/CarbonMonoxide \ ProgramBranch,AirQualityManagementDivision,Officeof 2 AirQualityPlanningandStandards,U.S.Environmental X ProtectionAgency.May25,1988;FederalRegisterof . November24,1987,AppendixD(52FRat45105).  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   52    _TheexceptiontothisruleisthatStatesintheOTR  arealsorequiredforallareasintheStatetoadoptRACT  rulesforallsourcescoveredbyaCTGandallothermajor \ sourcesofNOxorVOCregardlessoftheirnonattainment 2 classification.SeeCAAsection184(b). 8 u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   53    _Notethatundertheantibackslidingprovisions  proposedabove,anyportionofanareaclassifiedmarginal  underthe8hourstandardthatwasclassifiedmoderateor \ higherunderthe1-hourstandardwouldalsohavea 2 continuingRACTrequirementfromitsclassificationas X moderateorhigher.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   54    _ProposedImplementationGuidancefortheRevised  OzoneandParticulateMatter(PM)NationalAmbientAir  QualityStandards(NAAQS)andtheRegionalHazeProgram. \ November17,1998.Foundat: 2  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   55    _SeeCAAsection184(b). WPC((!(^;ƚ(2g @& > &&#TNPP2OMi & TNPP &&TNPP     & 6- "-- "- - @"Arial- .$2 \What is the areas [;5 5 ;55%555. . 2 q85. . 2 q- . .2 q hour ozone ;;;%;0;;5. .2  designation?;55;;5 ;;;.- "-+ L--  .2 States Part C @ 5 55@5% E. .2  PSD program @@E;%;;%5U. .2 t applies5;;55.- "-vp--  .2  AttainmentD 5;U5; .&Qd "--%@@-- $`L@!--&- "- --  .%2 AIs the area covered 5 ;55%555;45%5;. .2 by an existing <35;555 ;;. .!2 applicable State 5;;55;5@ 5 5. .!2 dPart D NSR major @5% EE@EU5;%. .2 khsource program?5;;%55;%;;%5U;.&< "--%@-- $--&--^a@--  .2 + NonattainmentE;;5 5;U5; .&]Q "--%-- $La--&- "-- L--  .2 0 Implement U;5U5; . .!2 States existing @ 5 55555 ;;. .2 Part D program@5% E;%;;%5U.--nj--  . 2 ;HYes?55.- "-  --  ."2 $ 9Appendix S appliesD;;5;;5@5;;55.& "--% D -- $B  B --&-- N --  . 2 NoE;.- "-m--  .2 QDoes the area E;55 ;55%55. .2  qualify as ;;5!355. .2 7 transitional? %5;5 ;;5;.&|  "--% -- $--&- "- p--  .2 Implement major U;5U5; U5;%. .2  NSR program E@E;%;;%5U. .2 under Appendix ;;;5%C;;5;;5. .2 q S, Section VI@@55 ;;@.&]u "--%4-- $2p2a--&--| --  . 2 I$Yes?55.- "-4 --  ."2 <Standard Appendix @ 5;;5%;C;;5;;5. .!2 QS program applies@;%;;%5U5;;55.&|$ "--%-- $ --&--l--  . 2 9NoE;.- "-  7 p--  .2 a If the area   ;55%55. .2 ( > qualifies as ;;5 5555. .!2 transitional and %5;5 ;;55;;. .!2  the State amends ;5@ 5 55U5;;5. .2 its SIP  5@@.& <  "--% @ -- $   --&&   "--% D-- $ B  B--&--.  --  . 2  OrK%.-- P  --  . 2 / Then:;5;.--7 --  .@2 >&NSR Program Implementation Under the 8E@E@%;;%5UU;5U5; 5 ;;E;;5% ;55. . 2  - . .$2  hour Ozone Standard;;;%K0;;5@ 5;;5%;.- "---  .$2 \What is the areas [;5 5 ;55%555. . 2 q85. . 2 q- . .2 q hour ozone ;;;%;0;;5. .2  designation?;55;;5 ;;;.- "-+ L--  .2 States Part C @ 5 55@5% E. .2  PSD program @@E;%;;%5U. .2 t applies5;;55.--vp--  .2  AttainmentD 5;U5; .&Qd "--%@@-- $`L@!--&- "- --  .%2 AIs the area covered 5 ;55%555;45%5;. .2 by an existing <35;555 ;;. .!2 applicable State 5;;55;5@ 5 5. .!2 dPart D NSR major @5% EE@EU5;%. .2 khsource program?5;;%55;%;;%5U;.&< "--%@-- $--&--^a@--  .2 + NonattainmentE;;5 5;U5; .&]Q "--%-- $La--&- "-- L--  .2 0 Implement U;5U5; . .!2 States existing @ 5 55555 ;;. .2 Part D program@5% E;%;;%5U.--nj--  . 2 ;HYes?55.- "-  --  ."2 $ 9Appendix S appliesD;;5;;5@5;;55.& "--% D -- $B  B --&-- N --  . 2 NoE;.- "-m--  .2 QDoes the area E;55 ;55%55. .2  qualify as ;;5!355. .2 7 transitional? %5;5 ;;5;.&|  "--% -- $--&- "- p--  .2 Implement major U;5U5; U5;%. .2  NSR program E@E;%;;%5U. .2 under Appendix ;;;5%C;;5;;5. .2 q S, Section VI@@55 ;;@.&]u "--%4-- $2p2a--&--| --  . 2 I$Yes?55.- "-4 --  ."2 <Standard Appendix @ 5;;5%;C;;5;;5. .!2 QS program applies@;%;;%5U5;;55.&|$ "--%-- $ --&--l--  . 2 9NoE;.- "-  7 p--  .2 a If the area   ;55%55. .2 ( > qualifies as ;;5 5555. .!2 transitional and %5;5 ;;55;;. .!2  the State amends ;5@ 5 55U5;;5. .2 its SIP  5@@.& <  "--% @ -- $   --&&   "--% D-- $ B  B--&--.  --  . 2  OrK%.-- P  --  . 2 / Then:;5;.--7 --  .@2 >&NSR Program Implementation Under the 8E@E@%;;%5UU;5U5; 5 ;;E;;5% ;55. . 2  - . .$2  hour Ozone Standard;;;%K0;;5@ 5;;5%;.--"System-&TNPP &  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   56    _ԀMemorandumofMarch16,1994,fromD.KentBerryre:   CostEffectiveNitrogenOxides(_NOx_)ReasonablyAvailable   ControlTechnology(_RACT_).U.S.EnvironmentalProtection  Agency,ResearchTrianglePark,NorthCarolina.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   57    _Forexample,the1991NationalAcademyofSciences  reportentitledRethinkingtheOzoneProbleminUrbanand  RegionalAirPollutionrecommendsthat Tosubstantially \ reduceO3[ozone]concentrationsinmanyurban,suburban, 2 andruralareasoftheUnitedStates,thecontrolofNOx X emissionswillprobablybenecessaryinadditionto,or . insteadof,thecontrolofVOCs.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   58    _Forexample,NOxSIPCall(publishedOctober27,  1998),Tier2/GasolineSulfurregulations(publishedon  February10,2000);andControlofEmissionsofAir \ Pollutionfrom2004andLaterModelYearHeavy-dutyHighway 2  EnginesandVehicles(publishedOctober6,2000).  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   59    _ StateImplementationPlans;GeneralPreambleforthe  ImplementationofTitleIoftheCleanAirActAmendmentsof  1990;ProposedRule.57FR13498at13560(April16, \ 1992). 2   ` GuidanceontheReasonablyAvailableControlMeasures  (RACM)RequirementandAttainmentDemonstrationSubmissions ` forOzoneNonattainmentAreas.JohnS.Seitz,Director, 6 OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards.November30,  X 1999.Website:4  O  5  www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/6  O4  7 Pbt1pgm.html.  .  ` MemorandumofDecember14,2000,fromJohnS.Seitz,   Director,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards,re: d   AdditionalSubmissiononRACMfromStateswithSevereOne :   HourOzoneNonattainmentAreaSIPs.http://www.epa.gov  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   60    _Section182(a)providedthatmarginalareaswithpre  1990RACTobligationshadtosubmitcorrectionstotheir  RACTruleswithin6monthsafterclassificationunderthe \ 1990CAAA.New8hourozonenonattainmentareasthatare 2 classifiedasmarginalwouldnothavethisrequirement. 2 u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   61    _See57FR55622( NitrogenOxidesSupplementtothe  GeneralPreamble,publishedNovember25,1992).  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   62    _AsstatedinEPA'sI/M(57FR52950)andconformity  rules(60FR57179fortransportationrulesand58FR63214  forgeneralrules),certainNOxrequirementsdonotapply \ whereEPAgrantedanareawideexemptionundersection 2 182(f). 1 u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   63    _See57FR55620, NitrogenOxidesSupplementtothe  GeneralPreamble,publishedNovember25,1992. W u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   64    _TheEPAsprimaryguidanceregardingsection182(f)  iscontainedinthe"GuidelineforDeterminingthe  ApplicabilityofNitrogenOxideRequirementsunderSection \ 182(f),"issuedbyJohnS.Seitz,Director,OfficeofAir 2 QualityPlanningandStandards,totheRegionalDivision X Directors,December16,1993.   S u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   65    _TheEPA'sConformityGuidanceonImplementationof  March2,1999,ConformityCourtDecision(EPA420-F-99-025,  May1999). e  ` u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   66    _ShouldEPAissuerevisionstotheseregulations,the  revisedNSRprogramwouldofcourseapplytonewsourcesand  majormodifications. T u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   67    _f  g StateswithalreadyapplicablepartDNSRprograms  maychoosetoamendtheirSIPstoallowthemtotake  advantageofthetransitionaloptiondescribedf  g f  g inthis \ sectionf  g ,providedtheymeetthetransitionalprogram 2 eligibilitycriteriaf  g .hTABLE A TTRY,3' LetterP('3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT \\R'3 Letter Landscape\ \\R'3 Letter Landscape\ TTRY03' LetterP$'3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT K #USUS.,  _ Figure1 <4 9Z+ Courier New  [ u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   68    _Theactuallanguageat40CFR52.24(k)allowsStates  toissuepermitsunderappendixSforamaximumperiodof18  monthsafterdesignation.Afterthistime,ifthe \ nonattainmentareadoesnothaveanapprovedPartDNSR 2 permitprogram,aconstructionbanwouldapply.However,in X 1990,Congressalteredtheprovisionsoftheconstruction . bansuchthatitwouldnotapplywhenaStatelackedan   approvedpartDNSRpermitprograminthefuture.f  g f  g We   g f  g f  g believef  f  g g f  g ԀthatCongress'removaloftheconstructionbanfrom `  theCAAsupersedestheregulatorylanguageat52.24(k)and 6   EPAhasreinterpretedthislanguagetoallowStatestoissue  \  permitsunderappendixSfromdesignationuntiltheSIPis  2  approvedevenifthisexceeds18months.See1991guidance   memo, NewSourceReview(NSR)ProgramTransitional   Guidance,JohnS.Seitz,March11,1991.WeV  willbe d  revisingthelanguageatsection52.24(k)toproperly :  reflectthisinterpretation.f  g   u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   69    _Notethatnewsourcesormodificationswhichare  majorasaresultofNOxemissions,andarethussubjectto  nonattainmentNSRforNOx,wouldalsobeconsideredmajor \ sourcesofnitrogendioxide(NO2),whichisalsoacriteria 2 pollutant.Sinceallareasarecurrentlyinattainment X undertheNO2NAAQS,thesenewNOxsourceswillalsoneedto . gothroughPSDreviewforNO2. TTRY03' LetterP$'3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT>i)   \\R'3 Letter Landscape\ \\R'3 Letter Landscape\  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   70    _Certain_nonattainment_Ԁ_NSR_Ԁrequirementsinsubpart2  ofpartDarespecificallyspelledoutintheCAA,andthus  cannotbealteredunderatransitionalprogram. S u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   71    _Theactualattainmentdateasproposedelsewherein  thisproposalwouldbe3yearsafterthenonattainment  designation.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   72    _USEPAOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards,  NewSourceReviewWorkshopManual,PreventionofSignificant  DeteriorationandNonattainmentAreaPermitting,Draft, \ October1990.Availableat: 2 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/gen/wkshpman.pdf.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   73    _Theactualattainmentdate!asproposedelsewherein  thisproposedrulemaking!wouldbe3yearsafterthe  effectivedateofnonattainmentdesignation,whichwe \ anticipatewilloccurinthespringof2004. F u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   74    _Brownfieldsaregenerallyconsideredtobeabandoned  orunderutilizedproperties(especiallyindustrialand  commercialfacilities)whereredevelopmentorexpansionmay \ becomplicatedbypossibleenvironmentalcontamination(real 2 orperceived).However,abrownfieldsite,asdefinedbyThe X SmallBusinessLiabilityReliefandBrownfields . RevitalizationActofJanuary11,2002,isany"real   property,theexpansion,redevelopment,orreuseofwhich   maybecomplicatedbythepresenceorpotentialpresenceof `  ahazardoussubstance,pollutant,orcontaminant."Further 6   informationisavailableat:  \  http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/faqs/cleanup/brownfi  2  elds/index.html.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   75    _ԚUrbanizedareaanareaconsistingofacentral  place(s)andadjacenturbanfringethattogetherhavea  minimumresidentialpopulationofatleastf  f  g f  g 50,000g f  g f  g Ԁand \ generallyanoverallpopulationdensityofatleastf  f  g f  g 1,000g f  g f  g  2 peoplepersquaremileoflandarea. X www.census.gov/geo/www.tiger/glossary.html W u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   76    _AlthoughtheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealshas  remandedcertainlimitedissuesregardingtheNOxSIPCall  totheAgency,thoseissuesdonotincludethereporting \ requirements.SeeMichiganv.EPA,213F.3d663(D.C. 2  Cir.2000),andAppalachianPowerCo.v.EPA,251F.3d1026  (D.C.Cir.2001).  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   77    _AdescriptionoftheNCorecanbefoundatthe  followingwebsite:  4  O  5  http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/monitorstrat/sec4. \ pdf6 O3   7 pa.http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/monitorstrat/sec4.pdf * u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   78    _AdescriptionoftheNCorelevel2stationscanbe  foundatthefollowingwebsite:  4  O  5  http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/monitorstrat/sec4. \ pdf60 OD   7 pr.http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/monitorstrat/sec4.pdf  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   79    _ԀSinceweanticipatethatareaswillbedesignated  andclassifiedonthesamedate,wewillusetheterm   designationtorepresentthedateofdesignationand \ classification.  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   80    _IfaCompactareahadairqualitymeetingthe8hour  standardfortheperiodonwhichdesignationsarebased,we  woulddesignatetheareaasattainmentwithoutadeferred \ effectivedate.<4 9Z+ Courier New   u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   81    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuleto  Implementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality  Standard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Officeof \ AirQualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark, 2 NC.March2003.0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK"<6X9`(Courier NewKS#\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K"<6X9`(Courier NewKS#\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K"<6X9`(Courier NewKS#\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7(X7  ?$%2A`Arial?  S#\  `&Times New RomanS7(X7&  d d)1dxd<:zTop of For7(X7  ?$%2A`Arial?  S#\  `&Times New RomanS7(X7)2dxd0KS.SampleK"<6X9`(Courier NewKS#\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK"<6X9`(Courier NewKS#\  `&Times New RomanS TTRY,3' LetterP('3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  u$USUS.,XXXXXXXX `   82    _U.S.EPA,Cost,EmissionReduction,Energy,and  EconomicImpactAssessmentoftheProposedRuleEstablishing  theImplementationFrameworkforthe8Hour,0.08ppmOzone h NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard,preparedbythe D InnovativeStrategiesandEconomicsGroup,OfficeofAir  p QualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark,N.C. F April24,2003. I'USUS.,  _  (XXXXProposedRuletoImplementthe8HourOzoneStandard  Page324of352#XxXX(XY#<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular[[[[)!dxdx(.3$ !USUS.,  E<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm.).Courier New Regular156789:hzCEIMQUY]aAutoList7""""""""i)1)a)(CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. !USUS.,  _f @ g XXXX8XXdd8  f  g ̀656050P \   ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY X 40CFRPart51     [FRL]     RIN2060AJ99  `    ProposedRuletoImplementthe8HourOzoneNationalAmbient (x  AirQualityStandard  @  = AGENCY: EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).   ACTION: Proposedrulemaking.   SUMMARY: Inthisdocument,EPAisproposingtwodiscrete H frameworkstoimplementthe8hourozonenationalambient ` airqualitystandard(NAAQSorstandard).Weareproposing   thisrulesothatStatesmayknowwhichstatutory h requirementsapplyforpurposesofdevelopingState d implementationplans(SIPs)undertheCleanAirAct(CAA)to  implementthe8hourozoneNAAQS.Theintendedeffectof l   theruleistoprovidecertaintytoStatesregardingtheir "h" planningobligationssuchthatStatesmaybeginSIP #$ developmentupondesignationandclassificationforthe8 p% & hourstandard.Followingaretheprinciplesthatguidedus 'l"( inthedevelopmentoftheseframeworkstoimplementthe8 ($* hourozonestandard:toprotectpublichealth,provide t*%, incentivesforexpeditiousattainmentofthe8hourozone  ,p'. standardandavoidincentivesfordelay;toprovide -)0 reasonablebutexpeditiousattainmentdeadlines;tohavea N basic,straightforwardstructurethatcanbecommunicated  easily;toprovideflexibilitytoStatesandEPAon  X implementationapproachesandcontrolmeasureswhile R  ensuringthattheimplementationstrategyissupportedby   theCAA;toemphasizenationalandregionalmeasurestohelp \  areascomeintoattainmentand,wherepossible,reducethe V  needforthoselocalcontrolsthataremoreexpensivethan   nationalandregionalmeasures;andtoprovideasmooth `  transitionfromimplementationofthe1hourozoneNAAQSto Z  implementationofthe8hourozoneNAAQS.Inaddition,we  intendtoclarifytheroleofTribesinimplementingthe8 d hourozoneNAAQS. ^  ` Thetwoframeworksweareproposingarebasedontwo   differentclassificationoptions,whichaffectthe h requirementsthatwouldapplytoindividualnonattainment b areas.Wepreferclassificationoption2becauseit !  providesmoreflexibilitytoStatesandTribesasthey "l" addresstheiruniqueairqualityproblems.Thisislikely f$$ toallowsomeareastoattainthestandardatalowercost. && However,wearealsosolicitingcommentsonoption1,in 'p!( partbecauseitislesscomplexandmaybeeasierto j)#* communicate,aswellasonotherwaystoclassify +$, nonattainmentareas. ,t&.  ` Thisproposedrulemakingdoesnotproposetoestablish N attainment/nonattainmentdesignationsnordoesitaddress  theprinciplesthatwillbeconsideredinthedesignation  X process;wehavealreadyissuedguidanceontheprinciples R  thatStatesshouldconsiderinmakingdesignation   recommendations,andwewillissuefurtherguidanceseparate \  fromthisrulemakingifappropriate.Finally,wearenot V  takingcommentatthistimeonappropriatetestsunderthe   8hourstandardfordemonstratingconformityofFederal `  actionstoSIPs.Weintendtoconductaseparaterulemaking Z  onthisissuepriortodesignatingareasunderthe8hour  ozonestandard. d  ` Inthisproposal,wedonotyetproposeregulatory ^ text,primarilybecauseanumberofoptionsarebeing   proposedformanyoftheimplementationelements,andwe h believeitwouldbebettertoobtainpubliccommentonthe b optionsconceptuallyfirst.Afterwereceiveandconsider !  commentontheproposedoptions,butbeforepublishinga "l" finalrule,wewillissueproposedregulatorytext. f$$  DATES: Commentsmustbereceivedonorbefore[ insertdate && 60daysfromdateofpublication] .Wehavescheduledpublic '!( hearingsonthisproposalforJune17,2003,June19,2003, )T#* andJune27,2003. N+%,  ADDRESSES: AllcommentsshouldbesubmittedtoDocket#OAR ,&. 20030079.Whenmailingdocuments,comments,orrequeststo N theEPADocketCenterthroughtheU.S.PostalService,  pleaseusethefollowingaddress:U.S.Environmental  X ProtectionAgency,EPAWest(AirDocket),1200Pennsylvania R  Avenue,N.W.,Room:B108;MailCode:6102T,Washington,DC   20460.Tomailcommentsordocumentsthroughacourier \  service,themailingaddressis:EPADocketCenter(Air V  Docket),U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,1301   ConstitutionAvenue,N.W.,Room:B108;MailCode:6102T, `  Washington,DC20460.Thenormalbusinesshoursare8:30 Z  a.m.to4:30p.m.,MondaythroughFriday,excludingFederal  holidays.Commentscanbesubmittedtotheaddressabove, d byfax(202)5661741,orbyemailto4L P O  5  AandR ^ Docket@epa.gov.6i O}  7 ԀThevoicetelephonenumberis(202)566   1742.Inaddition,wehaveplacedavarietyofmaterials h regardingimplementationoptionsonthewebsite: b 4  O  5  www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr6 O)  7 W.Whilethiswebsite !  isnotanexactduplicateoftheAirDocket,wehaveplaced "l" materialsthatwehavegeneratedandmaterialsthathave f$$ beensubmittedinanelectronicformatonthewebsite.We && requestthatcommentsbesubmittedbyemailtofacilitate 'p!( expeditiousdistributionwithinEPAandplacementontheweb j)#* site. +$,  ` Thepublichearingswillbeheldfrom8:30a.m.to5:00 ,t&. p.m.atthefollowinglocations:MarriottDallas/Ft.Worth N AirportNorth,8440FreeportParkway,Irving,Texas,75063,  onJune17,2003;PalaceHotel,2NewMontgomeryStreet,San  X Francisco,California94105,onJune19,2003;andHoliday R  InnSelectOldTownAlexandria,480KingStreet,Alexandria,   Virginia22314,onJune27,2003.Personswishingtospeak \  atthepublichearingsshouldcontact:Ms.BarbaraBauer,E. V  H._Pechan_,atphonenumber(919)4933144ext.188orbye   mailat4|  O  5  barbara.bauer@pechan.com6  O    79) .Oraltestimonymaybe `  limitedto3to5minutesdependingonthenumberofpeople Z  whosignuptospeak."XXXXԀ_Commenters_Ԁmayalsosupplementtheir  oraltestimonywithwrittencomments.Thehearingwillbe d limitedtothesubjectmatteroftheproposal,thescopeof ^ whichisdiscussedbelow.Thepublichearingschedule,   includinglistsofspeakers,willbepostedonEPAsweb h siteat#XXX"X"#"XXXXhttp://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr#XXX"X###"XXXX.A b verbatimtranscriptofthehearingandwrittenstatements !  willbemadeavailableforcopyingduringnormalworking "l" hoursattheOfficeofAirandRadiationDocketand f$$ InformationCenterattheaboveaddresslistedfor && inspectionofdocuments.#XXX"Xw$#Ԁ 'p!(  FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: Mr.JohnSilvasi,Office j)#* ofAirQualityPlanningandStandards,U.S.Environmental 2+$, ProtectionAgency,MailCodeC53902,ResearchTriangle ,&. Park,NC27711,phonenumber(919)54l5666orbyemailat: N 4N  O  5  silvasi.john@epa.gov6k' O'  7 h'4P h O  5  6$( O8(  7 hf(ԀorMs.DeniseGerth,OfficeofAir  QualityPlanningandStandards,U.S.Environmental  X ProtectionAgency,MailCodeC53902,ResearchTriangle R  Park,NC27711,phonenumber(919)54l5550orbyemailat:   4R  O  5  gerth.denise@epa.gov6) O)  7 h(*. \   SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION : V   ` Thisnoticeusesanumberofacronymsandtermsthat   aredefinedwhenfirstused.AlistappearsinappendixD |  forconvenience. v(  ` Inanumberofplaces,thisdocumentreferstotime " periods(e.g.,somanyyears)afterdesignationorafterthe  designationdate.Bythis,wemeantheeffectivedateof z, designationbyEPA. &  OUTLINE   I.Whatisthe8hourozoneproblemandEPAsstrategyfor L addressingit? p " 0 ` A.Whatistheozonestandardandthehealthproblem?F! ` (#` (# 0 ` B.Whatisthegeographicextentofthe8hourozone "! problem?""` (#` (# 0 ` C.WhatisEPAsoverallstrategyforreducingozone #z# pollution?$P$` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.TheSIPsystemt%&% (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.NationalruleJ&& (# (# 0 ` D.WhatistherelationshipbetweentheSIPsystem  ' ' proposedandtheproposedClearSkieslegislation?'!(` (#` (# II.Whatisthebackgroundonthe8hourozonestandard? )T#* 0 ` A.Whatisthelegalbackground?x**$+` (#` (# 0 ` B.WhattechnicalworkinfluencedEPAsimplementation N+%, approach?$,%-` (#` (# III.HowdidEPAobtainstakeholderinputforthiseffort? -'/ ЇIV.WhatisEPAsscheduleforissuingan8hourozone N implementationrule? $ V.Inshort,whatdoesthisproposedrulemakingcontain?  0 ` A.Classificationofareas X` (#` (# 0 ` B.Attainmentdeadlines | .` (#` (# 0 ` C. Transitionfromthe1hourtothe8hourstandard R ` (#` (# 0 ` D.Mandatorymeasures( ` (#` (# 0 ` E.Consequencesoffailuretoattain ` (#` (# 0 ` F.Interstatetransport  ` (#` (# 0 ` G.Modelingandattainmentdemonstration\ ` (#` (# 0 ` H.ReasonableFurtherProgress(RFP)2 ` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Requirementfor15percentVOCreductionsfor V  moderateandaboveareasduringthefirst6years ,  afterthebaseyear  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.Baseyear  (# (# 0 ` I.Reasonablyavailablecontrolmeasures/Reasonably `  availablecontroltechnology(_RACM_/_RACT_)6` (#` (# 0 ` J.ConformityZ ` (#` (# 0 ` K.NewSourceReview0` (#` (# VI.WhatareEPAsproposedframeworksforimplementingthe  8hourozonestandard? d 0 ` A.f  g f  g HowwillEPAreconcilesubparts1and2?Howwill : EPAclassifynonattainmentareasforthe8hour ^ standard?Whatattainmentdateswouldapply?4` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.f  g f  g StatutoryframeworkandSupremeCourtdecision  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.EPAsdevelopmentofoptionsf  g  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3f  g .Optionsforclassificationh (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.Underclassificationoption2,howwouldEPA > classifysubpart1areas?b (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#5.Rationaleforregulatingall gapareasunder 8  subpart1only!  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#6.Proposedincentivefeature!! (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#7.OtheroptionsEPAconsidered"l" (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#8.Implicationsfortheoptions#B# (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#9.Otherconsiderationsf$$ (# (# 0 ` B.HowwillEPAtreatattainmentdatesandotherdates <%% includingSIPsubmittaldatesforthe8hourozone && standard?& '` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Background'p!( (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.HowwillEPAaddresstheprovisionregarding (F") 1yearextensions?j)#* (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.HowdoattainmentdatesapplytoIndian @*#+ country?+$, (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.HowwillEPAestablishattainmentdatesfor +%- areasclassifiedasmarginalunderthe incentive ,t&. featureproposedundertheclassificationsection -J'/ orareascoveredundersubpart1witharequested N attainmentdateof3yearsorlessafterthe $ designationdate? (# (# 0 ` C.HowwillEPAimplementthetransitionfromthe1  hourtothe8hourstandardinawaytoensure  X continuedmomef  nf  g tuminStateseffortstowardcleaner | . air?R ` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.f  ԀBackground(  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.WhenwillEPArevokethe1hourstandard?  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.Whatobligationsf  g shouldf  g f  g continuetoapplyas    anareabeginstoimplementthe8hourozoneNAAQS \  andwhatobligationsshouldnolongerapply?2  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#g 4.Doestherequirementforcontinued V  implementationoftheobligationsaddressedabove ,  expireatsomepoint?  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#f  f  f  f  g f  g f  g f  g f  g 5f  g .HowwillEPAensurethatthepublicknows   whichf  g f  g areasmustcontinueprovisionsunderthe1 `  hourSIPsifEPArevokesthe1hourstandardf  g ?6 (# (# 0 ` D.f  g f  g Shouldprescribedrequirementsofsubpart2apply Z  inall8hournonattainmentareasclassifiedunder 0 subpart2,oristhereflexibilityinapplicationin  certainnarrowlydefinedcircumstances?` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Backgroundd (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.Approachbeingproposed: (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.Otherapproachesconsidered^ (# (# 0 ` E.f @ g f @ g f @ f  g g f @ g f  g f  g f  g f  g f  g Whatistherequiredtimeframeforobtaining 4 emissionsreductionstoensureattainmentbythe   attainmentdate?` (#` (# 0 ` F.HowwillEPAaddresslongrangetransportof h groundlevelozoneanditsprecursorswhenimplementing > the8hourozonestandard?b` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Background8  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2._EPAs_Ԁanticipatedapproach!  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.Otherconcernsabouttransport!! (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.Otheroptionsconsidered"l" (# (# 0 ` G.HowwillEPAaddresstransportofgroundlevel #B# ozoneanditsprecursorsforruralnonattainmentareas, f$$ multiStatenonattainmentareas,areasaffectedby <%% intrastatetransport,andinternationaltransport?&&` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Ruraltransportnonattainmentareas& ' (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.Multistatenonattainmentareas'p!( (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.Intrastatetransport(F") (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.Internationaltransportj)#* (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#5.Additionalwaysofaddressingtransport@*#+ (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#6.StateTribaltransport+$, (# (# 0 ` H.HowwillEPAaddressrequirementsformodelingand +%- attainmentdemonstrationSIPswhenimplementingthe8 ,t&. hourozonestandard?-J'/` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Multipollutantassessments(oneatmosphere N modeling)$ (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.Areaswithearlyattainmentdates (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.Areaswithlaterattainmentdates (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.Modelingguidance X (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#5.MidCoursereview| . (# (# 0 ` I.WhatrequirementsforRFPshouldapplyunderthe8 R  hourozonestandard?( ` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Background  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.Proposedfeaturesingeneral   (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#g f  g 3.Forsubpart2areas,shouldtheinitial15 \  percentf  g ԀRFPrequirementbelimitedtoVOC 2  emissions?f  g f  g V  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.Whatbaselineyearshouldberequiredforthe ,  emissionf  g ԀinventoryfortheRFPrequirement?  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#5.Shouldmoderateareasbesubjecttoprescribed   additionalRFPrequirementspriortotheir `  attainmentdate?6 (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#6.Whatisthetimingofthesubmissionofthe Z  ROPplan?g f  0 (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#g f  g f  g f  g f  g 7.Howf  g ԀshouldCAArestrictionsoncreditable  measuresbeinterpreted?Whichnationalmeasures  shouldcountasgeneratingemissionsreductions d credittowardRFPrequirements?: (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#f  g f  g 8.Forareascoveredbyf  g Ԁsubpart1insteadof ^ subpart2,howshouldtheRFPrequirementbe 4 structured?  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#f  g f  g 9.HowshouldtheRFPrequirementsbeimplemented  forareasdesignatedforthe8hourozonestandard h thatentirelyorinpartencompassanareathat > wasdesignatednonattainmentforthe1hourozone b standard?8  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#10.WillEPAs CleanDataPolicycontinueto !  applyunderthe8hourstandardforRFP?!! (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#11.HowwillRFPbeaddressedinTribalareas?"l" (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#12.HowwillRFPtargetsbecalculated?#B# (# (# 0 ` J.Arecontingencymeasuresrequiredintheeventof f$$ failuretomeetamilestoneorattainthe8hourozone <%% NAAQS?&&` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Background& ' (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.Proposal'p!( (# (# 0 ` K.WhatrequirementsshouldapplyforRACMandRACT (F") for8hourozonenonattainmentareas?j)#*` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Background@*#+ (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.ProposedapproachforRACTingeneralfor +$, areascoveredundersubpart2+%- (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.ProposedapproachforRACTingeneralfor ,t&. areascoveredundersubpart1-J'/ (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#& . 4.Proposedapproachforprevioussourcespecific N majorsourceRACTdeterminations$ (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#5.ProposedapproachforNOxRACTdeterminations  inareasaffectedbytheNOxSIPCall (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#'.NOa6.ProposedapproachforNOxasanozone  X precursor| . (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#7.ProposedapproachforRACMR  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#8.ProposedsubmissiondateforRACTandRACM (  requirements  (# (# 0 ` L.Howwillthesection182(f)NOxprovisionsbe    handledunderthe8hourozonestandard?\ ` (#` (# 0 ` Mf  g .Whataspectsoftransportationcg f  g onformityf  andthe 2  8hourog f  g zonef  standardareaddressedinthisproposal? V ` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (# 1.g f  g Whatistransportationconformity?f  ,  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.g f  g Whyisf  g ԀEPAdiscussingf  g Ԁtransportation   conformityf  g inthisproposedrulemaking?f    (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.g Ԁf  g f  g Areanychangesbeingmadetotransportation `  conformityf  g inthisproposedrulemaking?f  6 (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.g f  g Whendoestransportationconformityapplyto Z  8hourf  g ozonef  g nonattainmentareas?f  0 (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#5.g f  g Howdoesthe1yeargraceperiodapplyin  metropolitanareas?f   (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#6.Howdoesthe1yeargraceperiodapplyin d  donutareas?: (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#7.g f  g Howdoesthe1yeargraceperiodapplyin ^ isolatedruralareas?f  4 (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#8.Doesconformityapplyforthe1hourf  g ozone   f  g standardoncethe1hourf  g ozonef  g standardis  revoked?f  h (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#_ f  9.____g f  g ____________f  g What_ԀareEPAsplansforamendingthe > conformityruletoaddressthe8hourozone b standard?8  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#_10_ԀWhatimpactwilltheimplementationofthe8 !  hourozonestandardhaveonaStates !! TransportationConformitySIP?f  "l" (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#_11_ԀWhatotherpartsofthisproposalcouldaffect #B# transportationconformitydeterminations?f$$ (# (# 0 ` N.WhatrequirementsforGeneralConformityshould <%% applytothe8hourozonestandard?&&` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.WhatisthepurposeoftheGeneralConformity & ' regulations?'p!( (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.HowistheGeneralConformityprogram (F") currentlystructured?j)#* (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.WhorunstheGeneralConformityprogram?@*#+ (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.Howdoesanagencydemonstrateconformity?+$, (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#5.GeneralConformityregulationrevisionsfor +%- the8hourozonestandard,t&. (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#6.Howdoesthe1yeargraceperiodapplyto -J'/ GeneralConformitydeterminations?N (# (# 0 ` O.Howshouldthef  f  NSRg f  g Programbeimplementedunderthe $ 8hourozoneNAAQS?` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Background (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.NonattainmentNSRunderthe8hourozone  X standard | . (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.Underwhatcircumstancesisatransitional R  f  g f  g programf  g Ԁneededduringtheinterimperiod?(  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.ElementsoftheAppendixStransitional   program   (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#5.WillaStateberequiredtoassurethatthe \  increasedemissionsfromanewmajorsourcedonot 2  causeorcontributetoaviolationinanearby V  nonattainmentareabeforeitissuesa ,  preconstructionpermitunderAppendixS?  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#6f  g .Whathappensattheendoftheinterimperiod?  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#f  g 7.Whatisthelegalbasisforprovidingthis `  transitionalprogram?6 (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#8.HowshouldtheNSRrequirementsbeimplemented Z  fornew8hourozoneareasthatencompasstheold 0 1hourozonenonattainmentareasafterEPArevokes  the1hourozonestandard? (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#9f  g .NSRof  g f  g f  g ptiontoef  g f  g f  g ncouragef  g f  g df  g evelopmentpf  g f  g f  g atterns d thatf  g f  g rf  g educeof  g f  g f  g verallf  g f  g emissions!CleanAf  g ir : f  g f  g Df  g evelopmentf  g f  g Cf  g ommunities^ (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#10.Tribalconcerns4 (# (# 0 ` P.HowwillEPAensurethatthe8hourozonestandard   willbeimplementedinawaywhichallowsanoptimal  mixofcontrolsforozone,PM2.5,andregionalhaze?h` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.Couldanareas8hourozonestrategyaffect > itsPM2.5and/orregionalhazestrategy?b (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.WhatguidancehasEPAprovidedregarding 8  ozone,PM2.5andregionalhazeinteraction?!  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.WhatisEPAproposing?!! (# (# 0 ` Q.Whatemissioninventoryrequirementsshouldapply "l" underthe8hourozoneNAAQS?#B#` (#` (# 0 ` R.Whatguidanceshouldbeprovidedthatisspecific f$$ toTribes?<%%` (#` (# 0 ` S.WhataretherequirementsforOzoneTransport && Regions(_OTRs_)underthe8hourozonestandard?& '` (#` (# 0 ` T.Arethereanyadditionalrequirementsrelatedto 'p!( enforcementandcompliance?(F")` (#` (# 0 ` U.Whatrequirementsshouldapplytoemergency j)#* episodes?@*#+` (#` (# 0 ` V.Whatambientmonitoringrequirementswillapply +$, underthe8hourozoneNAAQS?+%-` (#` (# 0 ` W.WhenwillEPArequire8hourattainment ,t&. demonstrationSIPsubmissions?-J'/` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#1.BackgroundN (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.Optionbeingproposed$ (# (# VII.Proposalofintegratedframeworksusingvarious  options  X VIII.OtherConsiderations R  Ѐ0 ` A.f @ g f @ g f @ f  g g f @ g f  g f  g f  g f  g f  g WillEPAbecontemplatingf  f  f  g g g f  g f  g f  g incentivesforareasthat (  wanttotakeearlyactionforreducingozoneunderthe   8hourstandard?f  g f  g f  g Ԁf  g f  g   ` (#` (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#f  g f  g 1.WhataretheOzoneFlexGuidelinesforthe1 \  hourozoneNAAQS?f  g 2  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#2.Whatisthe EarlyActionCompactfor V  implementingthe8hourozoneNAAQS?f  g ,  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#3.WhatisEPAsresponsetotheTexas Early   ActionCompact?  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#4.DidEPAconsiderotheroptionsforincentives `  forareasthattakeearlyactionsforreducing 6 ozone?Z  (# (# 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#5.Whatisthedifferencebetweentheearly 0 actioncompactprogramandthetransitionalNSR  program?f  g  (# (# 0 ` B.Clarificationofhowtransitionfrom1hourto8 d hourstandardwillworkforearlyactioncompactareasf  g f  g f  g f  g f  g , : forconformity,f  g f  g f  g f  g f  g ԀandforNSRandPSD.^` (#` (# 0 ` C.HowwillEPAsproposalaffectfundingunderthe 4 CongestionMitigationandAirQualityImprovement   (CMAQ)Program?` (#` (# 0 ` D.Arethereanyenvironmentalimpactdifferences h betweenthetwomajorclassificationoptionsbeing > proposed?b` (#` (# IX.StatutoryandExecutiveOrderReviews !  0 ` A.ExecutiveOrder12866:RegulatoryPlanningand !! Review"l"` (#` (# 0 ` B.PaperworkReductionAct#B#` (#` (# 0 ` C.RegulatoryFlexibilityActf$$` (#` (# 0 ` D.UnfundedMandatesReformAct<%%` (#` (# 0 ` E.ExecutiveOrder13132:Federalism&&` (#` (# 0 ` F.ExecutiveOrder13175:Consultationand & ' CoordinationwithIndianTribalGovernments'p!(` (#` (# 0 ` G.ExecutiveOrder13045:ProtectionofChildrenfrom (F") EnvironmentalHealthandSafetyRisksj)#*` (#` (# 0 ` H.ExecutiveOrder13211:ActionsThatSignificantly @*#+ AffectEnergySupply,Distribution,orUse+$,` (#` (# 0 ` I.NationalTechnologyTransferAdvancementAct+%-` (#` (# 0 ` J.ExecutiveOrder12898:FederalActionstoAddress ,t&. EnvironmentalJusticeinMinorityPopulationsandLow -J'/ IncomePopulationsN` (#` (# X.Appendices $ AppendixA!ComparisonofSubpart1&2Requirements  AppendixB ApplicableRequirementsunderSubpart2   AppendixCComparisonofTransitionalNSRandEarlyAction  X CompactPrograms | . AppendixD!GlossaryofTermsandAcronyms R  AppendixEApplicationofConformity,NewSourceReviewand (  PreventionofSignificantDeteriorationunderVarious   TransitionCases    , I. WHATISTHE8HOUROZONEPROBLEMANDEPASSTRATEGYFOR 2  ADDRESSINGIT? H   A.Whatistheozonestandardandthehealthproblem?    ` Groundlevelozonepollutionisformedbythereaction n ofvolatileorganiccompounds(VOC)andnitrogenoxides h (NOx)intheatmosphereinthepresenceofsunlight.These  twopollutants,oftenreferredtoasozoneprecursors,are r emittedbymanytypesofpollutionsources,includingon l roadandoffroadmotorvehiclesandengines,powerplants  andindustrialfacilities,andsmaller areasources. v  ` In1979,wepromulgatedthe0.12ppm,1hourozone p " standard,(44FR8202,February8,1979).OnJuly18,1997, "! wepromulgatedarevisedstandardof0.08ppm,measuredover #z# an8hourperiod(i.e.,the8hourstandard).Ingeneral, t%&% the8hourstandardismoreprotectiveofpublichealthand  ' ' morestringentthanthe1hourstandard,andtherearemore (~") areasthatdonotmeetthe8hourstandardthanthereare x**$+ areasthatdonotmeetthe1hourstandard.Atthetime $,%- thatwepromulgatedtherevised8hourstandard,wealso -'/ promulgatedaruleprovidingforthephaseoutofthe1hour N standard,(62FR38856(codifiedat50.9(b)).Thatrule  providedthatthe1hourstandardwouldnolongerapplyto  X anareaoncewedeterminedthattheareahadattainedthe1 R  hourstandard.j v#  1          ` Ozonecanirritatetherespiratorysystem,causing \  coughing,throatirritation,and/oruncomfortablesensation V  inthechest.Ozonecanreducelungfunctionandmakeit   moredifficulttobreathedeeply,andbreathingmaybecome `  morerapidandshallowthannormal,therebylimitinga Z  personsnormalactivity.Ozonealsocanaggravateasthma,  leadingtomoreasthmaattacksthatrequireadoctors d attentionand/ortheuseofadditionalmedication.In ^ addition,ozonecaninflameanddamagetheliningofthe   lungs,whichmayleadtopermanentchangesinlungtissue, h irreversiblereductionsinlungfunction,andalower b qualityoflifeiftheinflammationoccursrepeatedlyovera !  longtimeperiod(months,years,alifetime). Peoplewho "l" areparticularlysusceptibletotheeffectsofozoneinclude $4$ childrenandadultswhoareactiveoutdoors,peoplewith .&& respiratorydisease,suchasasthma,andpeoplewithunusual N sensitivitytoozone.   ` Moredetailedinformationonhealtheffectsofozone  X canbefoundatthefollowingwebsite: R    4  O  5  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html6 O  7 (#3Ԁ    ` Thefocusoftodaysproposedruleisimplementationof \  therevised8hourozoneairqualitystandardissuedbyEPA V  in1997,includingthetransitionfromimplementationofthe   1hourstandardtoimplementationofthe8hourstandard. `  B.Whatisthegeographicextentofthe8hourozone Z  problem?   ` Althoughthenationasawholehasmadesignificant d progresssince1970inreducinggroundlevelozonepollution ^ (sometimescalled smog),ozoneremainsasignificant   publichealthconcern.Atpresent,unhealthyozonelevels h exceedingthe8hourstandard!occuroverwidegeographic b areasincludingmostofthenationsmajorpopulation !  centers.Theseareasincludemuchoftheeasternhalfof "l" theUnitedStatesandlargeareasofCalifornia. f$$  ` Thegeographicextentofthe8hourozoneproblemis && expectedtoshrinkbetweennowand2020duetoexisting 'p!( regulatoryrequirements.Weestimatethatexistingcontrol j)#* measures(e.g.,Federalmotorvehiclestandards,EPAs +$, regionalNOxruleknownastheNOxSIPCall,andlocal ,t&. measuresalreadyadoptedundertheCAA)willdramatically N reducethenumberofareasp v#  2      ׀notattainingthe8hourozone  standard!from122in2000(usingdatafrom1998,1999,and  X 2000),to51in2007,to30in2010and13in2020.See R  Table1below.    ` Thetotalpopulationlivinginareasthatwehave \  hypothesizedmaybedesignatednonattainmentisalso V  projectedtodeclineovertime!from178millionin2000,to   143millionin2007,to116millionin2010,to82million `  in2020.However,thenumberofpeoplelivinginareaswith Z  excessiveozonelevelsremainshighfortheforeseeable  futurebecauseexistingcontrolprogramsalonewillnot d eliminateunhealthyozonelevelsinsomeofthenations ^ largestpopulationcenters. N XXXX ` BasedoninformationinEPAsTrendsReportissuedin  2002,_ v#  3      ׀overthepast20years,nationalambientozonelevels  X decreased18percentbasedon1-hourdataand11percent R  basedon8-hourdata.Between1982and2001,emissionsof   VOCsdecreased16percent.Duringthatsametimeperiod, \  emissionsofNOxincreased9percent.Fortheperiod1982 V  to2001,thedownwardtrendin1-hourozonelevelsseen   nationallyisreflectedineverybroadgeographicareain `  thecountry.TheNortheastandWestexhibitedthemost Z  substantialimprovementoverthelast20years,whilethe  SouthandNorthCentral#XXXX# d XXXXregionsexperiencedtheleastrapidprogressinlowering ^ ozoneconcentrations.Similartothe1-hourozonetrends,#XXXX#   XXXXallregionsexperiencedimprovementsin8-hourozonelevels h between1982and2001excepttheNorthCentralregion,which b showedlittlechangeduringthisperiod. !  #XXXX´# f$$ TRP$'3 Letter LandscapeX3' Letter'3 Letter Landscape3'T  TABLE1 N 8HOUROZONEHYPOTHETICALNONATTAINMENTAREASANDPOPULATION " (projectedbymodeling)    LNote:Thenumberofareas Xk:XhX1#XXh Xk:7#projectedtoeachfutureyearisbasedonmodeled   projectionswithoutconsiderationofapplicationofnewemissioncontrolmeasures  | thatwouldberequiredundertheSIPprocessforareasdesignatednonattainmentfor  f the8hourNAAQS.  P w*[ddd Xdd Xdd X..,dd ,0dd ,0dd ,0dd ,1dd +  \ \   7- r  @@2000@@72000 XN*r  @@2000 @@ \@2007\@X2007 XN*r  \@2007 \@ h@2010h@X2010 XN*r  h@2010 h@ @2020@X2020 6,*r  @2020 @ 6Numberofareas!basecase(without >  ClearSkiesActcontrols) 6, (  ^@122^@6122 UK)>  ^@122 ^@  I@51I@U51 TJ(>   I@51 I@  >@30>@T30 TJ(>   >@30 >@  *@13*@T13 4*(>   *@13 *@ 4NumberofareaswithClearSkiesAct X controls 6, B ^@122^@6}122 UK)X ^@122 ^@  I@51I@U51 TJ(X  I@51 I@  8@248@T24 TJ(X  8@24 8@  (@12(@T12 4*(X  (@12 (@ 4Population(millions)!basecase  (withoutClearSkiesActcontrols) 6,  @f@178@f@6V178 VL) @f@178 @f@ a@143a@V143 VL)  a@143 a@ ]@116]@V116 WM)! ]@116 ]@ T@82.4T@W82.4 6,*" T@82.4 T@ 6Population(millions)!withClearSkies v(# Actcontrols 6, `$ @f@178@f@6S178 VL)v(% @f@178 @f@ a@143a@V143 VL)v(& a@143 a@ Y@103Y@V103 WM)v(' Y@103 Y@ fffffT@82.1fffffT@W82.1:0.v(( fffffT@82.1  fffffT@ : `  Xk:XhX1#XXh Xk:f#Seediscussionbelowonhowwehavedevelopedhypothetical_nonattainment_Ԁareas d( forpurposesofanalysisofthisproposed_rulemaking_Ԁandoptions.  N) ETRY03' LetterP$'3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeTC.WhatisEPAsoverallstrategyforreducingozone N pollution?   ` Ouroverallstrategyforachievingthe8hourozone  X standardisbasedonthestructureoutlinedintheCAA.The R  CAAgivesboththeStatesandEPAimportantrolesin   implementingnationalairqualitystandards. \   ` Stateshaveprimaryresponsibilityfordevelopingand V  implementingSIPsthatcontainlocalandinStatemeasures   neededtoachievetheairqualitystandardsineacharea. `  WeassistStatesbyprovidingtechnicalassistanceand Z  guidance,includingguidanceoncontrolmeasures.In  addition,wesetnationalemissionslimitsforsourcessuch d asmotorvehicles.Whereupwindsourcescontributeto ^ downwindproblemsinotherStates,wecanalsoensurethat   theupwindStatesaddressthesecontributingemissionsor h regulatethemfederally,whereaStatefailstoactto b addressthem. !   ` WeintendtoworkcloselywithStatesandTribestouse "l" anappropriatecombinationofnational,regionalandlocal f$$ pollutionreductionmeasurestomeetthestandard && expeditiouslyandinacosteffectivemanner. 'p!( 1.TheSIPsystem j)#*  ` StatesusetheSIPprocesstoidentifytheemissions +$, sourcesthatcontributetothenonattainmentproblemina ,t&. particulararea,andtoselecttheemissionsreductions N measuresmostappropriateforthatarea,consideringcosts  andavarietyoflocalfactors.UndertheCAA,SIPsmust  X ensurethatareasreachattainmentasexpeditiouslyas R  practicable.However,otherprograms,suchasFederal   controls,alsoprovidereductions,andStatesmayrelyon \  thosereductionswhendevelopingtheirattainmentplans. V   ` TheSIPsystemfornonattainmentareasisanimportant   componentoftheCAAsoverallstrategyformeetingthe8 `  hourozonestandard,butitisnottheonlycomponent.As Z  notedbelow,theCAAalsorequiresoranticipatestheuseof  nationalrulesthatwillreduceemissionsandhelpachieve d cleanerair. ^ 2.Nationalrules    ` FortheStatestobesuccessfulindevelopinglocal h plansshowingattainmentofstandards,EPAmustdoitspart b tocontrolthesourcesthataremoreeffectivelyand !  efficientlycontrolledatthenationallevelandtoensure "l" thatinterstatetransportisaddressedthroughSIPsorother f$$ means.Wealreadyhaveissuedkeynationalandregional && controlrequirementsformotorvehicles,powerplantsand 'p!( othersourcesthatwillenablemanyareastomeetthe8hour j)#* standardinthenearterm. +$,  ` Currentemissionsstandardsfornewcars,trucksand ,t&. busesarereducingmotorvehicleemissionsofVOCs N (sometimesreferredtoashydrocarbons)andNOxasolder  vehiclesareretired.Otherrulesarereducingemissions  X fromseveralcategoriesofnonroadengines._EPAs_ԀTier2 R  motorvehicleemissionstandards,togetherwiththe   associatedsulfuringasolinerequirements,willprovide \  additionalbenefitsnationallywithinthetimeperiodof V  many8hourozonenonattainmentareasanticipated   attainmentdates(65FR6698,February10,2000).Also,we `  publishedtheheavydutydieselruleonJanuary18,2001(66 Z  FR5002),whichwillcontributetoreductionsneededtomeet  the8hourozonestandardinareaswithlaterattainment d dates. ^  ` IntheeasternU.S.,dramaticreductionsinNOx   emissionsfrompowerplantsandlargeindustrialsources h willoccurbyMay2004underourrulestoreduceinterstate b transportofozonepollutionintheEast.Theserulesare !  theNOxSIPCall,publishedOctober27,1998(63FR57356), "l" andtheSection126Rule,publishedJanuary18,2000(65FR f$$ 2674). &&  ` Also,undertherequirementsofsection183(e)ofthe 'p!( CAA,wearecontemplatingeitherFederalrulesorcontrol j)#* techniquesguidelines(CTGs)forcontrollingVOCsfrom15 +$, additionalcategoriesofconsumerandcommercialproducts. ,t&. TheCTGsassistStatesindeterminingrequiredcontrolsfor N facilitiesinnonattainmentareas.The15categoriesarein  additionto6_CTGs_Ԁalreadypublishedunderthisprovisionof  X theCAA(consumerproducts,architecturalcoatings, R  automobilerefinishingcoatings,aerospacecoatings,wood   furniturecoatings,andshipbuildingandshiprepair \  coatings).TheseadditionalrulesorCTGsareexpectedto V  becompletedoverthenextfewyears.    ` Controlmeasurestargetinghazardousairpollutants `  (HAPs)alsoresultincontrolofVOCsand,insomecases, Z  NOx.Undersection112oftheCAA,EPAwasrequiredto  identifyandlistcategoriesofindustrialfacilitiesthat d emitsignificantquantitiesofoneormoreof188HAPsand ^ establishmaximumachievablecontroltechnology(MACT)   standardsforeachcategoryofsources.Becausemostofthe h organicHAPsarealsoVOCs,inmanycases,controlof b organicHAPemissionsalsoachievesreductionsinVOC !  emissions. "l"  ` RulesformostofthelistedMACTcategorieshavebeen f$$ promulgated.Althoughmanyoftheearlierpromulgatedrules && havealreadyresultedinemissionsreductionsofVOCs,the 'p!( morerecentruleswillnotbeginachievingreductionsuntil j)#* thecompliancedate,whichisgenerally3yearsfollowing +$, promulgation.Therefore,theamountofreductionsachieved ,t&. throughcontrolofHAPsthatareVOCswillcontinuetogrow N overthenextseveralyears.   ` Weseethepotentialforsignificantfurtheremissions  X reductionsfrompowerplantsandnonroadenginesatthe R  nationallevel.TheAdministrationhasproposednationwide   legislation,the ClearSkiesAct(CSA),toreducepower \  plantemissionsofNOxnationwide,aswellassulfurdioxide V  andmercury.Wearealsoproposinganationalrulethat   wouldsignificantlyreduceNOxemissionsfromnonroad `  dieselpoweredequipment.Thesenonroadsourcesconstitute Z  animportantfractionoftheNOxemissionsinventory.  D.WhatistherelationshipbetweentheSIPsystemproposed d andtheproposedClearSkieslegislation? ^  ` Abasicissueforimplementationofthe8hourozone   standardishowtotreatareasprojectedtoattainthe h standardbasedonexistingcontrols.Webelievethatan b appropriatebalanceshouldbestruckbetweentwogoals: !  avoidingrequirementsforunnecessaryadditionalcontrols "l" thatincreasecost,andensuringexpeditiousattainmentto f$$ protectpublichealth. &&  ` Todaysproposalcontainsoptionsthatstriveto 'p!( balancethesetwogoalsundertheauthorityofcurrentlaw. j)#* Theproposalcontainstwooptionsforclassifyingareas +$, underthe8hourozonestandard.Bothoptionscontain ,t&. featurestoensurethatareasprojectedtoattaincompliance N intheneartermbasedonexistingrequirementsarenot  subjecttoadditionalprescribedcontrolobligations.Of  X course,theseareaswouldbesubjecttothesame R  requirementsthatapplytoallareasdesignated   nonattainment,suchasnewsourcereview(NSR)and \  conformity.However,weareconsideringoptionsfor V  providingformoreflexibleimplementationofthese   requirements,asdescribedelsewhereinthisproposed `  rulemaking,andareactuallyproposinganoptionrelatedto Z  NSRinthisproposedrulemaking.   ` TheproposedClearSkieslegislationtakesadifferent d approachtorequirementsforareasprojectedtoattain ^ compliancethroughcontrolsthatarealreadymandated.Theproposed   CSAincludesaprovisionthatwouldcreateanewdesignation h of transitionalforareasthatareprojectedtoattain b complianceby2015basedonexistingcontrols,orwiththe !  aidofadditionalSIPcontrolsapprovedbyDecember31, "l" 2004.TheproposedCSAprovidesthatareasdesignated f$$ transitionalwouldbesubjecttotherequirementsofthe && preventionofsignificantdeterioration(PSD)programfor 'p!( newsources,whichappliesinattainmentareas.Because j)#*  transitionalwouldbethedesignationforsuchareas,they +$, wouldnotberequiredtoadoptadditionalcontrolmeasures ,t&. thatwouldberequiredforareasdesignatednonattainment, N norwouldtheybesubjecttoconformityprovisions.The  provisionincludesamidcoursechecktoensurethatthe  X arearemainsontracktowardattainment.Incaseoffailure R  toattainby2015,theareawouldberedesignatedasa   nonattainmentareaandwouldbesubjecttothenonattainment \  arearequirements.Weexpectthatmostareascurrently V  exceedingthe8hourozonestandardcouldqualifyforthis   designation,inmanycases,withoutfurtherlocalcontrols. `   ` However,becausetheClearSkieslegislationhasnot Z  beenenacted,wehavenotconsidereditinthisproposed  rulemaking.ShouldtheClearSkieslegislationbeenacted d intolaw,wewouldconductfurtherrulemakingon ^ implementationofthe8hourozonestandardundersuchlaw,   ifnecessary. h  II. WHATISTHEBACKGROUNDONTHE8HOUROZONESTANDARD?  b A.Whatisthelegalbackground? *!   ` OnJuly18,1997,werevisedtheozoneNAAQS(62FR "" 38856)bypromulgatinganozonestandardof0.08partsper $4$ million(ppm)asmeasuredoveran8hourperiod.Atthat .&& time,weindicatedthatwebelievedthatthe8hourozone '!( NAAQSshouldbeimplementedunderthelessdetailed )8#* requirementsofsubpart1ofpartDoftitleIoftheCAA 2+$, ratherthanthemoredetailedrequirementsofsubpart2. ,&. VariousindustrygroupsandStateschallengedEPAsfinal N rulepromulgatingthe8hourozoneNAAQSintheU.S.Court  ofAppealsfortheDistrictofColumbiaCircuit. v#  4      ׀InMay  X 1999,theAppealsCourtremandedtheozonestandardtoEPA R  onthebasisthatourinterpretationofitsauthorityunder   thestandardsettingprovisionsoftheCAAresultedinan \  unconstitutionaldelegationofauthority.AmericanTrucking V  Assns.,Inc.v.EPA,175F.3d1027,10341040(ATAI)affd,   195F.3d4(D.C.Cir.,1999)(ATAII).Inaddition,the `  CourtheldthattheCAAclearlyprovidedforimplementation Z  ofarevisedozonestandardundersubpart2,notsubpart1.  Id.at10481050. v#  5      ׀Wesoughtreviewofthesetwoissuesin d theU.S.SupremeCourt.InFebruary2001,theSupremeCourt ^ heldthatEPAsactioninsettingtheNAAQSwasnotan   unconstitutionaldelegationofauthority.Whitmanv. h AmericanTruckingAssoc.,121S.Ct.903,911914(2001) b (Whitman).Inaddition,theSupremeCourtheldthatthe !  D.C.CircuitincorrectlydeterminedthattheCAAwasclear "l" inrequiringimplementationonlyundersubpart2,but f$$ determinedthatourimplementationapproach,whichdidnot N providearoleforsubpart2inimplementingthe8hour  NAAQS,wasunreasonable.Id.at916919.Specifically,the  X Courtnotedwecouldnotignoretheprovisionsofsubpart2 R  that eliminate[]regulatorydiscretionallowedbysubpart   1.Id.at918.TheCourtalsoidentifiedseveralportions \  oftheCAAsclassificationschemeundersubpart2thatare V   illfittedtotherevisedstandardandremandedthe   implementationstrategytoEPAtodevelopareasonable `  approachforimplementation.Id.BecausetheD.C.Circuit Z  hadnotaddressedalloftheissuesraisedintheunderlying  case,thecourtremandedthecasetotheD.C.Circuitfor d dispositionofthoseissues.Id.at919.OnMarch26, ^ 2002,theD.C.CircuitCourtrejectedallremaining   challengestotheozoneandfineparticle(PM2.5)standards. h AmericanTruckingAssoc.v.EPA,283F.3d355(D.C.Cir. b 2002)(ATAIII).Withthatruling,EPAbegantomove !  forwardwithprogramstoprotectAmericansfromthewide "l" varietyofhealthproblemsthattheseairpollutantscan f$$ cause,suchasrespiratoryillnessesandprematuredeath. &&  ` Theimplementationruleproposedherein willprovide 'p!( specificrequirementsforState,local,andTribalair j)#* pollutioncontrolagenciestoaddressastheyprepare +$, implementationplanstoattainandmaintainthe8hour ,t&. NAAQS.EachStatewithanareathatisnotattainingthe8 N hourozoneNAAQSwillhavetodevelop!aspartofitsSIP!  emissionlimitsandotherrequirementstoattaintheNAAQS  X withinthetimeframessetforthintheCAA. v#  6      ׀Tribeswith R  jurisdictionoverTriballandsthatarenotattainingthe8   hourozonestandardf  g Ԁf  g couldvoluntarilysubmitaTribal \  implementationplan(f  g TIP)f  g Ԁbutwouldnotberequiredtof  g f  g do V  sof  g .However,incaseswhereaTIPisnotsubmitted,EPAf  g ,   workingwiththeTribes,f  g Ԁwouldhavetheresponsibilityfor `  planninginthoseareas. Z  B.WhattechnicalworkinfluencedEPAsimplementation  approach? d  ` Indeveloping_our_Ԁoriginalapproachforimplementation ^ ofthe8hourstandard,weconsideredinputfromavariety   oftechnicalinformationsourcesandexperts.Weoriginally h describedthetechnicalinformationofthephysical b processesthatproduceozone,fineparticles,andregional !  hazeandreliedonthatindevelopingaproposed "l" implementationapproach.See ImplementationofNewor f$$ RevisedOzoneandParticulateMatter(PM)NationalAmbient && AirQualityStandards(NAAQS)andRegionalHazeRegulations; 'p!( ProposedRule(December13,1996,61FR65764).Wealso j)#* participatedwithStatesintheeasternUnitedStatesinthe N OzoneTransportAssessmentGroup(OTAG),whichdocumented  thatlongdistancetransportofnitrogenoxidesacrossmuch  X oftheOTAGstudyareacontributedtohighlevelsofozone. R  ForbackgroundonOTAGandtheresultsfromthestudy,see   thefollowingwebsite:4r O  5   \  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/rto/otag/index.html6p OC  7X . V   ` ThatOTAGprocessresultedinareporttoEPAwiththe   conclusionsthatincludedthefollowing: `  !RegionalNOxreductionsareeffectiveinproducingozone Z  benefits;themoreNOxreduced,thegreaterthebenefit.  !Ozonebenefitsaregreatestwhereemissionsreductionsare d made;benefitsdecreasewithdistance. ^ !Elevatedandlow-levelNOxreductionsarebotheffective.   !Volatileorganiccompoundcontrolsareeffectivein h reducingozonelocallyandaremostadvantageoustourban b nonattainmentareas. !  !Airqualitydataindicatethatozoneispervasive,that "l" ozoneistransported,andthatozonealoftiscarriedover f$$ andtransportedfromonedaytothenext. &&  ` Asaresultoftheserecommendations,EPAcalledfor 'p!( SIPrevisionsfrom22StatesandtheDistrictofColumbia j)#* andestablishedStatewidebudgetsonNOxemissionsthat +$, thosejurisdictionswouldhavetomeetby2007.Stationary ,t&. sourceemissionsreductionstomeetthebudgetswere N requiredtobeimplementedbyMay2004 v#  7      .Thepurposeofthe  rulewastoaddresslongrangetransportbyeliminatingthe  X significantcontributionthateachStatesNOxemissions R  madetoboth1hourand8hourozonenonattainmentproblems   indownwindareas.ThecallforSIPrevisionswas \  challengedbyanumberofStates,industryandinterest V  groupsbutwaslargelyupheldbythecourtandhasremained   aviablemeansforobtainingsignificantNOxemissions `  reductions. Z   ` TheOTAGreportalsorecognizedthatVOCemissions  reductionsdonotplaymuchofaroleinlongrange d transport,andconcludedthatVOCreductionsareeffective ^ inreducingozonelocallyandaremostadvantageoustourban   nonattainmentareas. h  ` UndertheFederalAdvisoryCommitteeAct(FACA),we b alsoformedaSubcommitteeforDevelopmentofOzone, !  ParticulateMatterandRegionalHazeImplementationPrograms "l" thatprovidedrecommendationsandideastoassistusin f$$ developingimplementationapproachesfortheseprograms.We && haveincorporatedideasfromtheFACAprocessforanumber 'p!( ofSIPelements,particularlythoserelatedtotransportof j)#* ozone,theprocessfordemonstratingattainmentoftheozone N standard,andrequirementsforensuringreasonablefurther  progress.FurtherinformationontheFACAprocessandits  X reportsisfoundatthefollowingwebsite: R  4t O  5  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/faca/6r OC  7(.    ` Asnotedabove,wehavealsopromulgatednationalrules \  thatreduceVOCandNOxemissions(ozoneprecursors)from V  mobileandstationarysources,whichalsohelpaddressozone   nonattainmentproblems.Anumberofcommentersrecommended `  thatwesetadditionalnationalstandardsformoresource Z  categoriessuchthatStatesandTribesdonothaveto  controlthesesourceslocally.Theysuggestthatsuch d standardswouldeliminatetheinconsistentregulationthat ^ occurswheneachnonattainmentareachooseshowtoregulate   sourceswithinitsjurisdiction.Wecontinuetoreview h sourcecategoriesforpossibleFederalmeasuredevelopment. b  ` Thistechnicalbackdropledustobeguidedbythe !  principleofemphasizingnationalandregionalmeasuresto "l" helpareascomeintoattainmentand,wherepossible, f$$ reducingtheneedforthoselocalcontrolsthataremore && expensivethannationalandregionalmeasures.However,as 'p!( notedbelow,nationalandregionalmeasuresalonearenot j)#* anticipatedtobringallareasintoattainment.Thus,some +$, areaswillneedtoadoptlocalcontrolsthroughtheSIP ,t&. process. N  III. HOWDIDEPAOBTAINSTAKEHOLDERINPUTFORTHISEFFORT?    ` Weinitiatedaprocesstoobtainstakeholderfeedback  t onoptionstheAgencydevelopedforimplementationofthe8 n  hourozoneNAAQS.Weheldthreepublicmeetingsinaddition   toanumberofconferencecallsandmeetingswithState, x  localandTribalgovernments,environmentalgroupsand r$  industryrepresentatives.(Thelistsoftheorganizations   withwhomwehaddiscussionsareinthedocket,inaddition |  tomeetingandconferencecallsummaries.)Thepurposeof v( themeetingsandconferencecallswastoobtainstakeholder " feedbackregardingtheoptionsthatwehaddevelopedaswell  astolistentoanynewordifferentideasthatstakeholders z, wereinterestedinpresenting. &  ` Wereceivedcommentsinresponsetothemeetingsand  conferencecalls.Thecommentsfromthepublicmeetings ~0 addressedanumberofissuesrelatedtotheimplementation *!  approach. ""  ` Inadditiontocommentsreceivedatthepublic $4$ meetings,wereceivedanumberofwrittencommentsonhowto .&& implementthe8hourozoneNAAQS.Wehaveconsideredthese '!( commentsintheimplementationapproachproposedbelow. )8#*  IV. WHATISEPASSCHEDULEFORISSUINGAN8HOUROZONE 2+$, IMPLEMENTATIONRULE?  ,&.  ` Weplantoissueafinalruleonanimplementation N approachbytheendof2003.WhilethereisnotaCAA  deadlineforpromulgatingastrategytoimplementthe8hour  X ozoneNAAQS,theCAAdoesestablishadeadlineforEPAto R  promulgatedesignationsofnonattainmentareasundersection   107oftheCAA. v#  8      ׀Wehaveenteredintoaconsentdecreethat \  requiresustopromulgatedesignationsbyApril15,2004.  v#  9       V   ` Thenonattainmentdesignationforanareastartsthe   processwherebyaStatemustdevelopaSIPthatdemonstrates `  howtheairqualitystandardwillbeattainedbythe Z  attainmentdatesrequiredintheCAA.Weplantohavean  implementationstrategyinplacepriortodesignatingareas d forthe8hourozonestandard.Thiswillenableareasthat ^ aredesignatednonattainmentforthe8hourozonestandard   tounderstandtheobligationsthatattachtononattainment h designationsandassociatedclassifications. b  V.INSHORT,WHATDOESTHISPROPOSEDRULEMAKINGCONTAIN?  !   ` Thissummaryisintendedtogiveanoverviewofour N proposedrule.Itshouldnotbereliedonforthedetails  oftheactualproposal.The_proposedruledescribedin  X SectionVI.below__should_Ԁbeconsulteddirectly.Theorder R  inwhichissuesaredescribedinthissummarydoesnotmatch   exactlytheordertheseissuesarediscussedintheactual \  proposal. V  A.Classificationofareas    ` UndertheCAA,anozonenonattainmentareas `  classificationdeterminestheminimummeasuresthatmustbe Z  includedintheareasSIPformeetingthe8hourstandard  andthemaximumtimeperiodallowedfortheareatomeetthe d standard.Weareproposingtwooptionsforclassifying ^ areas.    ` Underoption1,allareaswouldbeclassifiedunder h subpart2accordingto8hourozonelevels.Asaresult, b allareaswouldbeclassifiedasmarginal,moderate, !  serious,orsevereorextreme(basedonthemostrecentair "l" qualitydata,noareaswouldfallinthe extreme f$$ classification),andwouldbesubjecttocontrol && requirementsspecifiedintheCAAforeachclassification. 'p!(  ` Underoption2,morethanhalfthenonattainmentareas j)#* wouldlikelyberegulatedundersubpart1.Allofthese +$, wouldbeareasmeetingthe1hourozonestandard.Therest ,t&. oftheareasthoseexceeding,andafewthatmaybemeeting N the1hourstandardwouldbeclassifiedundersubpart2in  thesamemannerasoption1.  X  ` Wearealsoproposingan incentivefeaturethatwould R  allowareastoqualifyforalowerclassificationunder   subpart2thantheirairqualitywoulddictateifthey \  demonstratetheywillattainbytheearlierattainmentdate V  ofalowerclassification.Forexample,anareathatwould   beclassified moderatecouldqualifyfora marginal `  classificationbyshowingitwillattainwithin3yearsof Z  designation.The incentivefeatureisproposedforusein  conjunctionwitheitherclassificationoption. d B.Attainmentdeadlines  ^  ` Weareproposingthatforareasclassifiedunder   subpart2,theperiodsforattainment(runningfromthedate h ofdesignation/classification)wouldbe3yearsformarginal b areas,6yearsformoderateareas,9yearsforserious !  areas,and15yearsforsevere15areas,and17yearsfor "l" severe17areas. f$$  ` Ifclassificationoption2wereselected,someareas && wouldbeclassifiedundersubpart1.Attainmentdatesfor 'p!( theseareaswouldbenolaterthan5yearsafter j)#* designation,althoughtheycouldbeextendedupto10years +$, afterdesignationdependingontheseverityoftheareas ,t&. airpollutionandtheavailabilityandfeasibilityof N pollutioncontrolmeasures.   ` Forallareas,theCAArequireseachplantobe  X designedtomeetthestandardasexpeditiouslyas R  practicable,regardlessofthemaximumstatutoryperiod   specifiedforattainment. \  C.HowwillEPAimplementthetransitionfromthe1hourto V  the8hourstandardinawaytoensurecontinuedmomef  nf  g tumin   Stateseffortstowardcleanerair? `   ` Thissectiondiscusseswhichobligationswouldremain Z  ineffectforareasthatweredesignatednonattainmentunder  the1hourozoneNAAQSonorafterNovember15,1990,as d areasbegintoimplementthe8hourstandard.Italso ^ proposestwoalternativesforrevokingthe1hourozone   standard:revocationinwholeandrevocationinpart. h 1.Areasdesignatednonattainmentunderthe8hour b standard.Weareproposingthatallareasdesignated !  nonattainmentforthe8hourozoneNAAQSremainsubjectto "l" certainobligationsthatappliedbyvirtueoftheareas f$$ classificationforthe1hourstandardwheretheareas1 && hourclassificationwashigherthantheareas 'p!( classificationforthe8hourstandard.Theseobligations j)#* include_major_Ԁsourcethresholds,inspectionandmaintenance +$, (I/M)programsandfuelprograms.However,these ,t&. obligationswouldnotapplytoportionsofan8hourozone N nonattainmentareathatwasnotapartofa1hourozone  nonattainmentarea.WebelievethatCongressintendedthese  X requirementstocontinuetoapplytoareasastheymove R  forwardtoaddressanozoneNAAQS.Wearesoliciting   commentwhetherareasthathavenotyetmettheattainment \  demonstrationobligationforthe1hourstandardshould V  remainobligatedtosubmita1hourozoneattainment   demonstration.f   `  f  g f  g 2.Areasf  g designatedattainmentunderthe8hourstandard. Z  SinceattainmentareasaresubjecttoPSD,notnonattainment  NSR,weproposethattheseareaswouldnotremainsubjectto d thenonattainmentNSRoffsetandmajorsourcethresholds ^ thatmightotherwiseapplyduetotheirclassificationfor   the1hourstandard.However,weareproposingthatcontrol h obligationsthatappliedbasedonanareas1hour b classificationwouldremain.Weareproposingthatthese !  areasareobligatedtosubmitamaintenanceplanunder "l" section110(a)(1).ConsistentwithEPAs CleanData f$$ Policy,weareproposingthattheseareasnotberequired && tomeetoutstandingattainmentdemonstrationandrateof 'p!( progress(ROP)requirements,solongastheyremainin j)#* attainment.However,iftheareaviolatesthe8hour +$, standardanddoesnothaveanapprovedmaintenanceplanfor ,t&. the8hourstandardundersection110(a)(1),those N obligationswillonceagainapply.Weareproposingthat  theseareaswouldneedcontingencymeasuresintheirsection  X 110(a)(1)maintenanceplans.However,unlikecontingency R  measuresundersection175A,thesecontingencymeasuresneed   notincludeanobligationtoimplementallcontrol \  obligationsinthepreviouslyapprovedSIP.f  Forallareas V  designatedattainmentforthe8hourozoneNAAQSf  g the   requirementtodemonstrateconformitytothe1hourstandard `  wouldnolongerapplyoncef  g f  g the1hourf  g Ԁstandardisrevokedor Z  determinednottoapplyforthatpurpose.  3.Concerningthef  Nf  g g Of  g f  g xf  g ԀSIPCall.g Weareproposingthat d f  Sf  g tatesmustcontinuetoadheretotheemissionbudgets ^ establishedbythef  g f  g NOxf  g ԀSIPCallg Ԁafterthe1hourstandardis   revokedinwholeorinpart.Similarly,wearenot h proposingtorevokeormodifythesection126regulationg f  g . b 4.ObligationsunderpartDoftitleIoftheCAAthatwould !  notcontinuetoapply.Weareproposingthatareasf  g would "l" notbeobligatedtocontinuetodemonstrateconformityfor f$$ the1hourstandardf  g Ԁoncethe1yeargraceperiodfor && applicationofconformityforthe8hourstandardhas 'p!( elapsedf  g .f  ԀWearealsoproposingthatwewouldnolongermake j)#* findingsoffailuretoattainthe1hourstandardand, +$, therefore,alsowouldnotreclassifyareastoahigher ,t&. classificationforthe1hourstandardbasedonafailureto N meetthe1hourstandard.  g 5.Howlongwouldtheobligationsdiscussedunderthe1  X hourstandardlast? R   ` f  g f  g Weareproposingthatthesemeasureswouldnotexpire.   However,weareproposingtwooptionsforwhentheStatemay \  relegatethesemeasurestocontingencymeasures:Option1. V  Whentheareaachievesthelevelofthe1-hourozone   standard(eveniftheareahasnotyetattainedthe8hour `  standard).Option2.Whentheareaattainsthe8-hour Z  standardandisdesignatedattainment(regardlessofwhen,  ifever,theareaattainsthe1-hourstandard). d f  6.f  Ԁf  f  g f  g Mechanismtoeffectthetransitionfromthe1hourto ^ the8hourstandard    ` Weareproposing2mechanisms.Forbothofthese h mechanisms,weareproposingthattherevocationofthe1 b hourstandardwouldoccur1yearfollowingdesignationsfor !  the8hourNAAQS.g f  g f  g Option1:f  f  g Completerevocationofthe1 "l" hourstandardf  .g Ԁf  g f  f  g Option2:g Ԁf  g ԀPartialrevocationof1hour f$$ standard. && D.Mandatorymeasures 'p!(  ` WebelievethattheCAAisclearthatonceanareais j)#* classifiedundersubpart1orsubpart2,theareasState +$, implementationplanmustcontainthemeasuresenumeratedin ,t&. theCAAforitsclassification.However,todaysproposal N containsseveralfeaturesintendedtoprovideStateswith  flexibilityonthemeasuresincludedinSIPsfor8hour  X areas.Inaddition,weareproposingtoconsidercaseby R  casewaiversiftheapplicantcanshow,consistentwithcase   lawonthisissue,thatimplementingarequirementina \  particularareawouldcause absurdresults. V  E.Consequencesoffailuretoattain    ` Theconsequencesoffailuretoattainthestandardon `  timearespecifiedbytheCAA.Ifanareaclassifiedunder Z  subpart2failstomeetthestandardbyitsdeadline,the  CAArequiresthattheareabebumpeduptoahigher d classificationandadoptarevisedplancontainingthe ^ additionalmeasuresspecifiedbytheCAAforthat   classification.Ifanareaclassifiedundersubpart1fails h tomeetthestandardbyitsdeadline,theareawouldbe b requiredtoadoptanewplandemonstratingattainment, !  includinganyrequirementmandatedbytheAdministrator. "l" F.Interstatetransport f$$  ` EPArecognizesthatozoneandozoneprecursorsare && oftentransportedacrossStateboundaries,andthat 'p!( interstatetransportcanmakeitdifficult!orimpossible! j)#* forsomeStatestomeettheirattainmentdeadlinessolelyby +$, regulatingsourceswithintheirownboundaries.Toaddress ,t&. thisconcern,theAgencyrecentlyadoptedtworules(theNOx N SIPCallandtheSection126Rule)toreduceinterstate  ozonetransportintheeasternU.S.Theseruleswere  X developedbasedonthelevelofreductionsneededtoaddress R  transportforboththe1hourand8hourstandards.For   bothrules,thecompliancedateforachievingtherequired \  emissionsreductionsisMay31,2004.Thus,unlikeinthe V  past,Statesaffectedbytransportcandeveloptheirlocal   ozoneimplementationplanswiththeknowledgethattheissue `  ofinterstatetransporthasalreadybeenaddressed up Z  front.   XThePresidentrecentlyproposedlegislationknownas d theClearSkiesActthat,amongotherthings,wouldfurther ^ reduceinterstatetransportofozoneandNOX(anozone   precursor)fromthepowersectorthroughacapandtrade h programsimilartotheacidrainprogram.Thesereductions b arebeyondthelevelsrequiredundertheNOxSIPCalland !  theSection126Rule.TheClearSkiesreductionswould "l" enableseveraladditionalareastomeetthe8hourstandard f$$ withoutimposinganyadditionallocalcontrols.Anumberof && otherareaswouldfinditeasiertomeetthe8hourstandard 'p!( becauseoftheadditionalreductionsinpowerplant j)#* emissionsthatwouldberequiredunderClearSkies. +$, However,theAgencyhasnotmadeadeterminationthatsuch ,t&. reductionsarewarrantedunderthetransportprovisionsof N theCAA.Inordertoevaluatethisissue,theAgency  intendstoinvestigatetheextent,severityandsourcesof  X interstateozonetransportthatwillexistafterthe R  existingtransportrulesareimplementedin2004.     X G.Modelingandattainmentdemonstration \   ` AnattainmentdemonstrationSIPincludestechnical V  analysestolocateandregulatesourcesofemissionsthat   arecontributingtoviolationswithinnonattainmentareas. `  Section182(a)doesnotrequiremarginalareas,whichhave Z  anattainmentdateonly3yearsfollowingdesignationto  performanyphotochemicalgridmodeling.Weareproposing d toallowareaswithattainmentdateswithin3yearsafter ^ designation!regardlessofwhethertheyarecoveredunder   subpart1or2!torelyonexistingmodeling.Areaswith h laterattainmentdates(morethan3yearsafterdesignation) b wouldberequiredtodoanattainmentdemonstrationSIP. !  ModelingdevelopedtosupportFederalorlocalcontrolsmay "l" beusediftheapplicationofthatmodelingisconsistent f$$ withourmodelingguidance. && H.ReasonableFurtherProgress(RFP) 'p!(  ` ThereareseveralissuesrelatedtotheActsRFP j)#* requirements. +$, 1.Requirementfor15percentVOCreductionsformoderate ,t&. andaboveareasduringthefirst6yearsafterthebaseyear N  ` Weareproposingtwowaystoimplementthe15percent  requirementsformoderateandaboveareastomeetnumerical  X emissionsreductionsmilestones(alsoknownasrateof R  progress,orROP,requirements).    ` Underthefirstoption,allsuchareaswouldbe \  requiredtoreducebaselineVOCemissionsby15percentover V  thefirst6yearsafterabaselineyear.    ` Underthesecondoption,areasthatpreviouslyreduced `  VOCemissionsby15percentaspartofimplementingthe1 Z  hourstandardwouldbeviewedashavingalreadymetthe  requirement.Moderateareasmeetingthiscriterionwould d complywiththegeneralsubpart1requirementtodemonstrate ^  reasonablefurtherprogresstowardmeetingthestandard.   Seriousandaboveareasmeetingthecriterionwouldbe h requiredtoachievean18percentreductioninVOCand/or b NOxoverthefirst6yearsand9percentoversubsequent3 !  yearperiodsuntiltheareasattainmentdate. "l" 2.BaseYear f$$  ` Weareproposing2002asthebaselineyear,andthat && the6yearperiodforreductionswouldrunfromJanuary1, 'p!( 2003untilDecember31,2008.WeproposethatStatesbe j)#* allowedcredittowardmeetingtheROPrequirementsforall +$, emissionsreductionsthatoccurafterthe2002baseyear ,t&. !includingreductionsfromallpost1990Federalorother N measures(exceptthosespecificallyexcludedundersection  182(b)(1))oftheCAA.Wehavealsorecentlyissueda  X memorandumthatsetsforth2002asthebaselineyearfor R  planningpurposes.    ` WearealsoproposingoptionsforotherRFPissues, \  including: V   <156789:;(Gx3>"13"  13~2G3  0 `   ThetimingofROPreductionsrelativetoattainment   dateformoderateareas.13~݌` ` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132G3  0 `   TimingofsubmissionofROPplan.13(݌Z ` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  13Ҁ2G3  0 `   CAArequirementsforcreditabilityofcontrolmeasures.13Ҁ݌` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132G3  0 `   Subpart1RFP.13݌d` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132G3  0 `   Caseswhere8hrNAareaencompassesandislargerthan ^ current1hrNAarea.13݌ ` (#` (# Ќ   >(#3x<156789:;d~I.RACM/RACT h  ` Intheeventclassificationoption2isselected,we b areproposinganinterpretationoftherequirementsfor !  reasonablyavailablecontrolmeasures(RACM)andreasonably "l" availablecontroltechnology(RACT)forareascoveredby f$$ subpart1. &&  ` ForRACT,forareaswith8hourozonelevelsthatwould 'p!( placetheminamoderateoraboveclassificationunder j)#* subpart2,weareproposingtwooptions.Underthefirst +$, option,theseareaswouldberequiredtomeetthe ,t&. traditionaltechnologybasedRACTcontrolrequirementthat N areapplicabletomoderateandaboveareasundersubpart2.  Underthesecondoption,iftheareaisabletodemonstrate  X attainmentofthestandardasexpeditiouslyaspracticable R  withemissioncontrolmeasuresintheSIP,thenRACTwillbe   met,andadditionalmeasureswouldnotberequiredasbeing \  reasonablyavailable. V   ` Forsubpart1areaswith8hourozonelevelsthatwould   placetheminamarginalclassificationifclassifiedunder `  subpart2,theRACTrequirementwouldbesimilartothatfor Z  marginalareascoveredundersubpart2.ThisRACTapproach  alsowouldbeavailabletoareasthatqualifiedformarginal d statusviatheincentivefeature. ^  ` TheRACTrequirementsforareasundersubpart1would   havetobesubmittedwithin2yearsafteranareas h nonattainmentdesignation. b  ` WeareproposingthattheStatedoesnotneedto !  performaRACTanalysisforsourcessubjecttotheStates "l" emissioncapandtradeprogramwherewehaveapprovedthe f$$ capandtradeprogramasmeetingtheNOxSIPCall && requirementsanditdoesnotneedtosubmitanewf  g ԀNOxRACTf  g  'p!( SIPforthosesources. j)#*  ` WeproposetoformallyrecognizeNOx,aswellasVOC, +$, asanozoneprecursor,sothatRACTforNOxwouldbe ,t&. requiredforareasclassifiedundereithersubpart1or N subpart2forthesamekindsofsourcescoveredunderthe1  hourozonestandard.      X  ` ForRACM,weproposetocontinuewiththesame R  interpretationthatwehaveusedforimplementingthe1hour   ozonestandard.ToshowthatallRACMhavebeenincludedin \  theplan,theStatemustshowthattherearenoadditional V  measuresthataretechnicallyandeconomicallyfeasiblethat   willadvancetheattainmentdate. `  J.Conformity Z   ` Nochangestothetransportationconformityruleare  proposedinthisrulemaking.Transportationconformityis d discussedinthisproposalforinformationalpurposes.By ^ statute,transportationconformityappliesto8hour   nonattainmentareas1yearaftertheeffectivedateofan h areasdesignation.Ourproposaltorevokethe1hour b standard1yearafter8hourozoneareadesignationsmeans !  thattransportationconformityrequirementsunderthe1hour "l" standardwouldendatthesametime8hourtransportation f$$ conformityrequirementsbegin.Weareproposingthat && conformitywouldnotapplyin1hourozonestandard 'p!( maintenanceareasafterwerevokethe1hourozonestandard. j)#*  ` Forthegeneralconformityprogram,whichensuresthat +$, federalactionswillnotinterferewithanareasair ,t&. qualityplan,wearenotproposingtoreviseitsGeneral N ConformityRegulationsinthisrulemaking.Weplanto  retaintheexistingdeminimisemissionslevelsforactions  X exemptfromtherule.Ourproposaltorevokethe1hour ^  standardoneyearafter8hourozoneareadesignationsmeans   thatgeneralconformityrequirementsunderthe1hour h  standardwouldendatthesametime8hourgeneral b  conformityrequirementsbegin.Weareproposingthat   generalconformitywouldnotapplyin1hourozonestandard l  maintenanceareasafterwerevokethe1hourozonestandard. f K.NewSourceReview   ` WeareproposingthreeoptionsforNSR,whichcouldbe p implementedinconjunctionwitheachother: j "13"  13 2#  1  .3  0 `   A statusquoNSRprogramunderwhichsubpart1areas  wouldbecoveredbysubpart1NSR,whilesubpart2 t areaswouldbecoveredbysubpart2NSR.13 :݌n ` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132#  2  .3  0 `   Amoreflexible TransitionalNSRprogramforareas !  thatsubmitearlySIPsandthatattainearly.This "x" programwouldbeavailabletoareascoveredunder r$$$ subpart1andthatareattainingthe1hourozone && standard.13Ú݌'|!(` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132#  3  .3  0 `   A CleanAirDevelopmentCommunityprogramthatwould v)(#* allowamoreflexibleNSRprogramforareasthatmanage "+$, growthinemissionsproducingactivities.13݌,&.` (#` (# Ќ  f  g VI. WHATAREEPA'SPROPOSEDFRAMEWORKSFORIMPLEMENTINGTHE N 8HOUROZONESTANDARD?    ` Asnotedabove,weoriginallyintendedtoimplementthe   8hourozonestandardundersubpart1ofpartD,titleIof  < theCAA.Thiswouldhaveallowedareasmoreflexibilityto 6  determinewhethertoregulateNOx,VOCorbothtoaddress   ozonenonattainment. @   ` Asalsonotedabove,however,theSupremeCourt :  determinedthatanapproachthatdidnotprovidefor   classifyingareasundersubpart2!andthussubjectingthose D areastothesubpart2controlrequirementsinimplementing > the8hourstandardwasunreasonable.Instructuringa  proposedimplementationrule,wehavetriedtostayasclose H aspossibletotheprinciplesnotedabove,particularlywith B regardtoseekingflexiblewaysforStatestoaddresstheir  8hourozoneproblemsbyavoidingmeasuresthatmaybe L unreasonableforanarea.Wehavespentalargeamountof F!  timeinvestigatingpossiblelegaltheoriesandpolicy "" optionstofindflexibilitywithinthestatute,as $P$ interpretedbytheSupremeCourt.Wehavealsohadthe J&& benefitofideasandrecommendationsfrommanyinterested '!( stakeholders,whoalsohavespentmuchtimedevelopingtheir )T#* owntheoriesandideas.Basedontheseefforts,webelieve N+%, that_wehave____developed_Ԁoptionsforanimplementationprogram ,&. that_are_ԀworkableundertheconstraintsoftheCAA. N Nonetheless,werecognizethatthoseconstraintswillstill  requireanumberofareastoadoptcertaincontrolmeasures  X thatmaynotbeaseffectiveasothersinachievingthe8 R  hourozonestandard.Wearesolicitinganyfurtherideas   foraddressingthissituation. \   ` Todescribeourproposedframeworksforimplementing V  the8hourozonestandard,itisnecessarytoexamineall   thecomponentsorelementsoftheprocessusedtoimplement `  thestandard.Therefore,theissuesandoptionsthatweare Z  proposingthatdealwiththeaspectsofpreparingSIPsfor  thestandardarepresentedbelowindividually.Following d that,wepresenttwopossiblealternativeframeworksthat ^ blendoneormoreoptionsfromeachoftheelementsto   illustratehowtheymayworkinconjunctionwitheachother. h Wearesolicitingcommentontheoptionspresentedforthe b individualelements,andalsoonhowtheoptionscanbe !  groupedintoaconsolidatedimplementationframework. "l"  ` Theproposalbelowdescribesonlythoseoptionsor f$$ approachesweareproposing.Weconsideredanumberof && otheroptionsandapproachesfortheelementsdiscussed 'p!( below.Theseotheroptionsthatwereconsideredbutarenot j)#*  beingproposedaredescribedinaseparatedocument +$, availableinthedocket. v#  10       N  f  g f  g A.g HowwillEPAreconcilesubparts1and2?HowwillEPA  classifynonattainmentareasforthe8hourstandard?What  X attainmentdateswouldapply? R  1.f  g f  g StatutoryframeworkandSupremeCourtdecision    ` TheCAAcontainstwosetsofrequirements!subpart1 \  andsubpart2!thatestablishrequirementsforStateplans V  implementingthenationalozoneairqualitystandardsin   nonattainmentareas.(Botharefoundinf  g ԀtitleI,partD.)f  g Ԁ `  Subpart1f  g ԀcontainsgeneralrequirementsforSIPsfor Z  f  g nonattainmentareasf  g f  g foranypollutant!includingozone  governedbyaNAAQS.Subpartf  g Ԁ2providesmorespecific d requirementsforozonef  g ԀnonattainmentSIPsf  g . ^ f  g  ` Throughoutthisproposedrulemaking,werepeatedly   discusswhetheranareaissubjecttotheplanning h requirementsofsubpart1orsubpart2.Thislanguagef  g f  g is b convenientshorthandforpurposesofthisproposal. !  Actually,ifanareaissubjecttosubpart2requirements, "l" itisalsosubjecttosubpart1requirements.Insome f$$ cases,subpart1andsubpart2requirementsareinconsistent && oroverlap.Tof  g Ԁtheextentthatsubpart2addressesa 'p!( specificplanningobligation,theprovisionsinsubpart2 N control.Forexample,undersection182(b),moderateareas  aresubjectto15percentROPrequirementsratherthanthe  X moregeneralRFPrequirementsofsection172(c)(2). R  However,moderateareasremainsubjecttothecontingency   measurerequirementofsection172(c)(9),asthat \  requirementisnotaddressedformoderateareasinsubpart V  2. v#  11          f  g  ` Whenwepublishedthe8hourozonestandardon&  ԀJuly18,' `  1997,weindicatedthatweanticipatedthatStateswould Z  implementthatstandardunderthelessprescriptivesubpart  1requirements.Morespecifically,weprovidedthatareas d designatednonattainmentforthe1hourozonestandardwould ^ remainsubjecttothesubpart2planningrequirementsfor   purposesofthe1hourstandarduntilsuchtimeastheymet h thatstandard.Butthoseareasandallotherareaswould b onlybesubjecttosubpart1forpurposesofplanningfor !  the8hourozonestandard. "l"  ` Asnotedabove,inFebruary2001,theSupremeCourt f$$ ruledthatthestatutewasambiguousastotherelationship && ofsubparts1and2forpurposesofimplementingthe8hour 'p!( NAAQS.However,theCourtalsoruledthatour N implementationapproach,whichprovidednoroleforsubpart  2inimplementingthe8hourNAAQS,wasunreasonable.Id.  X Specifically,withrespecttoclassifyingareas,theSupreme R  Courtstated:   0 ` [D]oessubpart2provideforclassifyingnonattainment \  ozoneareasundertherevisedstandard?f  g Ԁf  g It V  unquestionablydoes. ` (#` (# Whitman,121S.Ct.at917. `   ` However,despiterecognizingthatsubpart2does Z  provideclassificationsapplicableforthe8hourstandard,  theSupremeCourtalsorecognizedthatthesubpart2 d classificationscheme,specifiedinsection181,didnot ^ entirelyfitwiththerevised8hourstandardandleftitto   EPAtodevelopareasonableresolutionoftherolesof h subparts1and2inimplementingarevisedozonestandard. b Id.at482486. !   ` Inparticular,theCourtnotedg f  g Ԁthreeportionsof "l" section181!theclassificationprovisioninsubpart2f  g f  g ! f$$ thatitindicatedwere illfittedtoimplementationofthe && revisedstandard. 'p!(  <156789:(Gx3>"13"  13A2G3  0 `   f  g First,theCourtrecognizedthat1hourdesignvalues j)#* usedforestablishingtheclassificationsinTable1in +$, section181 wouldproduceatbestaninexactestimate ,t&. ofthenew8houraverages...121S.Ct.at918.13An݌N` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  13(2G3  0 `   f  g f  g f  g Secondf  g ,theCourtrecognizedthatthedesignvaluesin  Table1startatthelevelofthe1hourNAAQS!0.12  X ppm.TheCourtf  g Ԁnotedthat totheextentthenewozone R  standardisstricterthantheoldone,...the   classificationsystemofSubpart2containsagap, \  becauseitfailstoclassifyareaswhoseozonelevels V  aregreaterthanthenewstandard(andthus   nonattaining)butlessthantheapproximationofthe `  oldstandardcodifiedbyTable1.Id.f  g f  g 13(U݌Z ` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132G3  0 `   Thirdf  g ,theCourtrecognizedthat Subpart2'smethod  forcalculatingattainmentdates!whichissimplyto d countforwardacertainnumberofyearsfrom ^ November15,1990...seemstomakenosensefor   areasthatarefirstclassifiedunderanewstandard h afterNovember15,1990.Morespecifically,theCourt b recognizedthatattainmentdatesformarginal(1993), !  moderate(1996),andserious(1999)areashadpassed. "l" Id.at483484.13݌f$$` (#` (# Ќ  2.EPAsdevelopmentofoptionsf  g  &&  ` InlightoftheSupremeCourtsruling,weexaminedthe 'p!( statutetodeterminethemannerinwhichthesubpart2 j)#* classificationsshouldapplyforpurposesofthe8hour +$, ozoneNAAQS.Wepaidparticularattentiontothethree ,t&. portionsofsection181thattheSupremeCourtnotedwere N illfittedforimplementationoftherevised8hour  standard.Weexaminedthoseprovisionsinlightofthe  X legislativehistoryandtheoverallstructureoftheCAAto R  determinewhatCongressintendedforpurposesof   implementingarevised,morestringentozonestandard.We \  believethatweneedtotakeanarrowreadingconsistent V  withwhatwebelieve___Congress_Ԁintended.Consistentwith   thoseprinciples,wedevelopedseveraloptions. `  f  g 3f  g .Optionsforclassification Z   ` Weareproposingtwooptionsforcomment.Weprefer  classificationoption2becauseitprovidesmoreflexibility d toStatesandTribesastheyaddresstheiruniqueair ^ qualityproblems.Thisislikelytoallowsomeareasto   attainthestandardatalowercost.However,wearealso h solicitingcommentsonoption1,inpart,becauseitisless b complexandmaybeeasiertocommunicate,inadditiontoany !  otherideasonhowtoclassifynonattainmentareas. "l" a.Option1.Underthefirstoption,wewouldclassify8 f$$ hourf  g ozonef  g nonattainmentareasf  g Ԁaccordingtotheseverityof && theirozonepollutionf  g Ԁbasedon8hourozonef  g f  g levels. 'p!(  ` Underthisoption,all8hournonattainmentareaswould j)#* beclassifiedundersubpart2asmarginal,moderate, +$, serious,severe15,severe17,orextreme.TheCAAgives ,t&. areasinhigherclassificationswhicharethosewithmore N seriousozonepollutionproblemslongertimeperiodsfor  attainingthestandard,butalsorequirestheseareasto  X meetalongerlistofrequirementsthanareasinlower R  classifications.    ` Akeyfeatureofthisoptionistheuseof8hourozone \  designvaluesindeterminingtheseverityofanareas8 V  hourozoneproblem.However,thesubpart2classification   table(Table1ofCAAsection181)isbasedon1hourozone `  designvalues(becauseitwasdesignedforimplementationof Z  thestandardineffectin1990the1hourozonestandard).  Therefore,thisf  g Ԁoptionwouldf  g f  g requireustoadaptthesubpart d 2classificationscheme.Specifically,wewouldadoptby ^ regulationamodifiedversionofthesubpart2   classificationtablethatcontainsf  g Ԁ8hourdesignf  g f  g value h thresholdsforeachclassification,ratherthanthe b statutory1hourozonedesignvaluethresholds.Using8 !  hourdesignvaluesf  g Ԁforclassifyingareasforthe8hour "l" standardwouldreflectthemagnitudeofthe8hourozone f$$ problemmoreaccuratelythanwouldthe1hourdesignvalues && f  g inTable1f  g f  g . 'p!(  ` Weareproposingtotranslatef  g Ԁtheclassification j)#* f  g f  g thresholdsf  g ԀinTable1ofsection181f  g f  g from1hourvaluesto +$, 8hourvaluesinthefollowingmanner:Determinethe ,t&. percentagebywhicheachclassificationthresholdinTable1 N ofsection181exceedsthe1hourozonestandardandsetthef  g   8hourthresholdf  g f  g valueatthesamepercentageabovethe8  X hourozonestandard.Forexample,thethresholdseparating R  marginalandmoderateareasinTable1is15percentabove   the1hourstandard,sowewouldsetthe8hourmoderate \  arealowerthresholdvalueat15percentabovethe8hour V  standard.   f  g  ` Anexaminationofthepercentagesderivedindicated `  thatCongresssetthef  g Ԁclassificationf  g Ԁthresholdsatcertain Z  percentagesorfractionsabovethelevelofthestandard. v#  12      ׀  Thesearethepercentagesabovethestandardthatweused d andappliedtothelevelofthe8hourstandardtoyieldnew ^ thresholdlevelsforthe8hourstandard.Table2ofthis   proposedrulemakingbelowdepictshowthetranslationwould h bedoneandtheresults. b  ` Thereareotherwaysofperformingthetranslationas !  describedfurtherbelow,someofwhichhavebeensuggested "l" inpubliccomment,butwebelievethatthetranslation f$$ describedhereismostconsistentwiththeapparentintent N ofCongressinestablishingthethresholdsinthe  classificationsysteminsection181.  X XXXX ` Asmentionedabove,underf  g Ԁthisoptionf  g Ԁall8hour R  nonattainmentareaswouldbeclassifiedundersubpart2f  g Ԁand   receiveattainmentdatesconsistentwiththeir \  classificationf  g .Elsewhereinthisproposedrule,wediscuss V  howitwouldinterprettheattainmentdatesinTable1of   section181forpurposesofareasclassifiedundersubpart2 `  forthe8hourstandard.Areasthatdonotattainbytheir Z  attainmentdatewouldbereclassifiedtoahigher  classificationandbegivenalaterattainmentdateand d wouldbesubjecttothemeasuresofthehigher ^ classification(section181(b)(2)).#XXXXU#    TRP('3 Letter LandscapeY,3' Letter'3 Letter Landscape 3' LetterT.^]^]*dddd 0dd 00dd 00dd 01dd 1[.., ,q ,w  ,w  ,w  +  >[[[[+  > TABLE2  TABLE1OFSUBPART21HOUROZONECLASSIFICATIONTABLE @  @  @   TRANSLATIONTO8HOURDESIGNVALUES @  @D  @ X[[G/"  [[[[  XAreaclass =[[,!~"[[ = =[[,!~"[[ =CAAdesignvalue ~ thresholds h  1hourozoneppm =[[,!R "[[ =Percentabove ~  1hourozoneNAAQS ?[[[,!h  "[[ ?Translated8hour ~  designvalue h   thresholds R   ppmozone Y[[H,< "  [[[   YMarginal N[[=22 ~ {{[[ Nfrom `[[O!2 ~[[ `"?0.121`"?`  0.121 [[qC2 ~2 `"?0.121 `"?[[ -?0.833-?0.833 [[[rC2 ~" -?0.833 -?[[ Ӽɵ?0.0851Ӽɵ?0.085 XnXhX1#XXX Xn# |[[kO2 ~" Ӽɵ?0.0851   Ӽɵ?[[[   | 7[[&> [[ 7upto `[[O!> [[ Dl?0.138Dl?`  0.138 [[rC> 2 Dl?0.138 Dl?[[ .@15.000.@15.000 [[[rD> " .@15.000 .@[[ Zd;O?0.092Zd;O?0.092 r[[aN> " Zd;O?0.092   Zd;O?[[[   rModerate E[[4)J"{{ [[ Efrom W[[FJ[[ Dl?0.138Dl?W  0.138 [[rCJ2 Dl?0.138 Dl?[[ .@15.000.@15.000 [[[rDJ" .@15.000 .@[[ Zd;O?0.092Zd;O?0.092 {[[jNJ" Zd;O?0.092   Zd;O?[[[   { 7[[&V [[ 7upto W[[FV [[ {Gz?0.160{Gz?W  0.160 [[rCV 2 {Gz?0.160 {Gz?[[ v@@33.333v@@33.333 [[[rDV " v@@33.333 v@@[[ 1Zd?0.1071Zd?0.107 {[[jNV " 1Zd?0.107   1Zd?[[[   {Serious N[[=2b !{{) [[ Nfrom `[[O!b "[[ {Gz?0.160{Gz?`  0.160 [[rCb #2 {Gz?0.160 {Gz?[[ v@@33.333v@@33.333 [[[rDb $" v@@33.333 v@@[[ 1Zd?0.1071Zd?0.107 {[[jNb %" 1Zd?0.107   1Zd?[[[   { 7[[&n %[[ 7upto `[[O!n &[[  ףp= ?0.180 ףp= ?`  0.180 [[rCn '2  ףp= ?0.180  ףp= ?[[ I@50.000I@50.000 [[[rDn (" I@50.000 I@[[ Q?0.120Q?0.120 r[[aNn )" Q?0.120   Q?[[[   rSevere15 E[[4)z *"{{3 [[ Efrom W[[Fz +[[  ףp= ?0.180 ףp= ?W  0.180 [[rCz ,2  ףp= ?0.180  ףp= ?[[ I@50.000I@50.000 [[[rDz -" I@50.000 I@[[ Q?0.120Q?0.120 {[[jNz ." Q?0.120   Q?[[[   { 7[[& .[[ 7upto W[[F /[[ RQ?0.190RQ?W  0.190 [[rC 02 RQ?0.190 RQ?[[ v*M@58.333v*M@58.333 [[[rD 1" v*M@58.333 v*M@[[ K7A?0.127K7A?0.127 {[[jN 2" K7A?0.127   K7A?[[[   {Severe17 N[[=23{{=[[ Nfrom `[[O!4[[ RQ?0.190RQ?`  0.190 [[rC52 RQ?0.190 RQ?[[ v*M@58.333v*M@58.333 [[[rD6" v*M@58.333 v*M@[[ K7A?0.127K7A?0.127 {[[jN7" K7A?0.127   K7A?[[[   { 7[[&7[[ 7upto `[[O!8[[ Q?0.280Q?`  0.280 [[sC92 Q?0.280 Q?[[ -離`@133.333-離`@133.333 [[[sE:" -離`@133.333 -離`@[[ V-?0.187V-?0.187 w[[fN;" V-?0.187   V-?[[[  wExtreme 4[[#<[[ 4equalto = orabove W[[F>[[ Q?0.280Q?W  0.280 [[sC?2 Q?0.280 Q?[[ -離`@133.333-離`@133.333 [[[sE@" -離`@133.333 -離`@[[ V-?0.187V-?0.187^TRA" V-?0.187  V-?[[[ ^ XnXhX1#XXh Xn#Thepercentagesusedwerecalculatedbasedonthelevelofthe1hourstandardasit tB appearsin40CFR51.9,viz.,0.12ppm.Thepercentageswereappliedtothe8hour ^C standardasitappearsin40CFR51.10,viz.,0.08ppm.Ourguidanceusesarounding HD conventionfor1hourairqualitydatasuchthatvalueslessthan0.125rounddownto 2~E 0.12andthereforerepresentattainment;valuesof0.125uptoandincluding0.129 hF roundupto0.13,andthereforeindicatenonattainment.Anexacttranslationofthe RG 0.1211hourthresholdwouldhaveproduced0.081ppmasthecorresponding8hour <H threshold;however,sinceanyvaluelessthan0.085ppmwouldindicateanareais &I attainingthe8hourozonestandard,thetableslowestvaluereflectsthelowest  J valuerepresentingnonattainment,viz.,0.085ppm.  !K ^]; TRY,3' LetterP('3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT   *^]f  g f  g f  g f  g XXXXb.Option22stepapproach.Weareproposingasecond  option(ourpreferredoption)underwhichsomeareaswould#XXXX># 4 implementthe8hourstandardundersubpart1,andother X areaswouldimplementthe8hourstandardundersubpart2.   ThisoptionreliesonlanguageintheSupremeCourt 8  decision,whichisdescribedindetailbelow.  \   ` Inbrief,theoptionthatweareproposingwouldwork   asfollows: <  "13"  132G3  0 `   First,wewoulddeterminewhich8hourareasmustbe `  classifiedundersubpart2.Thesewouldbeareaswith   ozonelevelsthatexceedthe1hourozonedesignvalues @ thatCongressspecifiedinTable1ofsection181.For d theremainingareas,wewouldhavediscretiontoplace  themundersubpart1orsubpart2.13݌D` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132G3  0 `   Second,wewouldclassifyallareas.Subpart2areas h wouldbeclassifiedinthesamemannerdescribedabove  underoption1.Optionsforclassifyingsubpart1 H  areasaredescribedbelow.13<݌ l"` (#` (# Ќ  (i)Legalframeworkfor2stepapproach.f  g Underthis "$ approach,wefirstdeterminetheuniverseofareasthatmust L$& besubjecttotheprovisionsofsubpart2andtheuniverse %p!( ofareasthatfallintoaf  g f  g gapinsubpart2's '#* classificationscheme.Tf  g henf  g ,wef  g proceedtodeterminehowto P)$, classifytheareas. *t&. (ii)LegalframeworkStep1Whichsubpartappliesforan , (0  ^]<^]< TRY,3' LetterY,3' Letter 3' Letter 3' LetterT TRY,3' LetterY,3' Letter 3' Letter 3' Letter<<T   area?Withrespecttothefirststep,theSupremeCourt  notedthat totheextentthatthenewozonestandardis 4 stricterthantheoldone,...theclassification X systemofSubpart2containsagap,becauseitfailsto   classifyareaswhoseozonelevelsaregreaterthanthenew 8  standard...butlessthantheapproximationoftheold  \  standardcodifiedbyTable1[insection181(a)].121   S.Ct.at918.Thus,forthoseareaswitha1hourozone <  designvalueabovethelevelidentifiedinTable1(i.e., `  0.121ppm),Table1 specifiesaclassificationforthe   area.Forthoseareas,wewouldnothaveauthorityto @ establishclassificationsundersubpart1becausesection d 172(a)(1)(C)prohibitstheuseoftheclassification  authorityinsection172(a)(1)(A)forthoseareas. v#  13      ׀ D However,forareaswith1hourozonedesignvaluesbelow h 0.121ppm,Table1doesnotspecifyaclassification,and  thoseareasfallintoagapinthestatute.Thus,wemust H  reasonablydeterminewhethersuchareasshouldbesubjectto  l" theplanningobligationsofsubpart1orsubpart2.This "$ issueisdiscussedmorefullybelowunder Rationalefor L$& f  regulatingag f  g ll gapf  ag f  g reasunderf  sg f  g ubpart1f  og f  g nly.   ` Insummary,underthefirststepofthisapproach,we 4 examineeachnonattainmentareasmostrecent1hourdesign X valueatthetimeofdesignationunderthe8hourNAAQSto   determinewhethertheareamustbesubjecttothe 8  classificationundersubpart2.Ifanareas1hourdesign  \  valueis0.121orhigher,thenitmustbesubjecttoa   subpart2classification.Ifits1hourdesignvalueis <  lowerthan0.121,itfallsintoagapandwemustdetermine `  areasonableimplementationscheme!eithersubpart1or   subpart2!forsucharea. @ (iii)Legalframework!Step2Howshouldareasbe d classifiedundersubparts1and2?Understep2ofthis  approach,wemustdeterminehowtoclassifyareassubjectto D theclassificationprovisionsofsubpart2.Forthoseareas h subjecttotheclassificationprovisionsofsubpart2,we  believethatitismostreasonabletousetheareas8hour H  designvaluetodeterminetheappropriateclassification.  l" Thiswouldbedoneinthesamemannerasoption1,proposed "$ above,inwhichtheTable1thresholddesignvaluesare L$& convertedfrom1hourvaluesto8hourvalues. %p!(  ` AnotheroptionwouldhavebeentoapplyTable1asit '#* iswritten.Somemightarguethatthisapproachisbetter P)$, becauseitisconsistentwiththedesignvalueEPAwoulduse *t&. underthisoptiontodeterminewhetherCongressmandated , (0 thattheareabesubjecttosubpart2.Wedonotbelieve  thatCongresswouldhaveintendedtheuseof1hourdesign 4 valuesfordeterminingtheclassification!andtherefore X thecontrolobligationsandattainmentdates!of8hour   areas.Whilewebelieveitisreasonabletousethe1hour 8  designvaluesasabarometerofCongressintentastowhich  \  areasshouldbesubjecttothemoreprescriptive   requirementsofsubpart2,wedonotbelieveitmakessense <  tousethe1hourvaluestoestablisheachareas `  classificationunderthatsubpart.Theareas   classificationidentifiesthespecificcontrolrequirements @ applicabletoeachareawithinthatclassificationandthe d periodoftimetheareahastoattain.Asenacted,the  Tableprovidesthatareashavingamoresignificantozone D pollutionproblemforthe1hourstandardandthusahigher h classificationaresubjecttomorestringentcontrolsand  havealongerperiodtoattain.Becauseofthedifferent H  formandaveragingtimesofthe1hourand8hourstandards,  l" areaswithsignificant1hourproblemsmaynothaveas "$ significantan8hourproblemandviceversa.Usingthe1 L$& hourdesignvaluestoclassifyareas,therefore,could %p!( resultinareaswithlesssignificantozoneproblemsbeing '#* subjecttostricterplanningobligations(andlater P)$, attainmentdates)thanthosewithamoresignificant *t&. problem.Thus,webelieveitismoreconsistentwith , (0 Congressionalintenttouse8hourdesignvaluesasthe  meansforspecifyingthestringencyofcontrolsneededto 4 attainthe8hourozonestandardandtheassociated X attainmentdates.Wealsobelievethatthisisconsistent   withtheSupremeCourtdecision,inwhichtheCourt 8  recognizedthatthe 1houraveragesinTable1 produceat  \  bestaninexactestimateofthenew8houraverages.See   121S.Ct.at918. <   ` Asdiscussedinthefollowingsection,forareasthat `  EPAdetermineswouldbesubjectonlytosubpart1,section   172(a)(1)(A)grantsEPAdiscretiontodevelopa @ classificationscheme. d 4.Underclassificationoption2,howwouldEPAclassify  subpart1areas? D a.  Background.Asnotedabove,classificationoption2 h abovecouldresultinanumberofareasnotbeingclassified  undersubpart2.Section172(a)(1)(A)grantsEPAdiscretion H  toestablishaclassificationsystemforareascoveredunder  l" subpart1butdoesnotmandateclassifications.Section "$ 172(a)(1)(A)providesthat L$& 0 ` onorafter[thedateofdesignation],the %p!( Administratormayclassifytheareaforthepurposeof &F") applyinganattainmentdatepursuanttoparagraph(2), '#* andforotherpurposes.Indeterminingtheappropriate z(#+ classification,ifany,foranonattainmentarea,the P)$, Administratormayconsidersuchfactorsastheseverity &*%- ofnonattainmentinsuchareaandtheavailabilityand *t&. feasibilityofthepollutioncontrolmeasuresthatthe +J'/ Administratorbelievesmaybenecessarytoprovidefor , (0 attainmentofsuchstandardinsucharea.~-(1` (#` (# Ї&6 ` PriortotheSupremeCourtsremandofour  implementationapproach,wehadproposedthatall8hour 4 ozonenonattainmentareasbesubjectonlytosubpart1for X purposesofthe8hourstandard,andthatareaswouldbe   classifiedastraditional,transitional,orinternational 8  transport.Theseclassificationsweredescribedinour  \  November17,1998draftimplementationguidance. v#  14          ` Becausewearenolongerconsideringanoptionwhere <  allareaswouldbeclassifiedundersubpart1,wehave `  determinedtheclassificationschemeitproposedearlieris   notappropriate.Wearenowproposing,asdescribedbelow, @ twonewoptionsforclassifyingsubpart1areasforthe8 d hourstandard.  b.Optionsforclassifyingsubpart1areas D (i)Option1!noclassifications.Underthisoption, h subpart1areaswouldnothavedifferentclassifications.  Whensubmittinganattainmentdemonstration,eachareawould H  needtoestablishanattainmentdateconsistentwithsection  l" 172(a)(2)(A),i.e.,demonstratingattainmentas "$ expeditiouslyaspracticable,butnolaterthan5years L$& afterdesignationor10yearsafterdesignationifthe %p!( severityoftheareasairpollutionandtheavailability '#* andfeasibilityofpollutioncontrolmeasuresindicatemore  timeisneeded. 4 (ii)Option2!createanoverwhelminginterstatetransport X classification.Thisoptioncouldbeimplementedin   additiontooption1(noclassifications)forareasthat 8  qualify;inotherwords,wewouldnotclassifyareasthatdo  \  notqualifyforthistransportclassification.Underthis   option,anareacouldbeclassifiedasa TransportArea <  uponsubmissionofaSIPthatdemonstrates,usingmodeling, `  thatthenonattainmentproblemintheareaisdueto    overwhelmingtransportemissions. @  ` Weareproposingthatforsubpart1areastoqualify d foranoverwhelmingtransportclassification,theareawould  havetomeetthesamecriteriaasspecifiedforrural D transportareasundersection182(h)(ofsubpart2).This h sectionrestrictstreatmentasaruraltransportareatoan  areathatdoesnotinclude,andisnotadjacentto,anypart H  ofaMetropolitanStatisticalAreaor,whereoneexists,a  l" ConsolidatedMetropolitanStatisticalArea(asdefinedby "$ theUnitedStatesBureauoftheCensus).Theareamaybe L$& treatedasaruraltransportareaifwefindthatsourcesof %p!( VOC(and,wherewedeterminerelevant,NOx)emissionswithin '#*  theareadonotmakeasignificantcontributiontotheozone P)$, concentrationsmeasuredintheareaorinotherareas._ v#  15      _Ԁ   Sincethisclassificationwouldonlyapplytosubpart1 4 areas,areasclassifiedundersubpart2wouldnotqualify X forthisclassification.    ` Thefollowingarefeaturesofthisoption: 8  "13"  13H2G3  0 `   Theareawouldbetreatedsimilartoareasclassified  \  marginalundersubpart2forpurposesofemission   controlrequirements.13HI݌< ` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  13CJ2G3  0 `   LessrestrictiveNSRandconformityrequirementscould `  beproposedforthearea.Ifweincludethetransport   classificationoptioninthefinalimplementationrule, @ wewouldconsiderproposingaseparaterulemakingon d thedetailsofNSRandconformityrequirements.13CJpJ݌` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  13SL2G3  0 `   Theareawouldreceiveanattainmentdatethatis D consistentwithsection172(a)(2)(A),butthattakes h intoconsiderationthefollowing:13SLL݌` (#` (# Ќ  ";"  ;M0 ` 2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Theattainmentdateofupwindnonattainmentareas H  thatcontributetothedownwindareasproblem;  l" and;MM݌"$ (# (# Ќ  ";"  ;O0 ` 2G3  0 ` (#` (#  Theimplementationscheduleforupwindarea L$& controls,regardlessoftheirgeographicscope  (e.g.,national,regional,statewide,local).;O@O݌4 (# (# Ќ   ` ThisoptionwouldpartiallyaddressTribalconcerns X aboutdesignationswhereaTribalareadesignated   nonattainmentdoesnotcontributesignificantlytoitsown 8  problem.ThisisoneofthekeyissuesfortheTribeswho  \  seektohaveeconomicgrowthfromnewsourceswithintheir   jurisdictionbutthathavedifficultyobtainingemission <  reductionoffsetsfromsourceslocatedeitherinsideor `  outsideTribalareas.    ` Interstate,intrastate,andinternationaltransportare @ alsodiscussedelsewhereinthisproposedrulemaking. d 5.Rationaleforf  regulatingag f  g ll gapf  ag f  g reasunderf  sg f  g ubpart1  f  og f  g nly D  ` Thissectionisaimedsolelyatprovidingarationale h forwhyallgapareasshouldbeplacedunderthesubpart1  regulatoryframeworkratherthanthesubpart2regulatory H  framework.Issuesregardingwhatspecificrequirements  l" shouldapplytosubpart1areasareaddressedinlater "$ sectionsofthispreamble. L$&  ` f  g f  g Indevelopingclassificationoption2,wef  g exploreda %p!( numberofoptionsregardinghowtointerpretthe '#* relationshipofsubpart1andsubpart2forareaswith1 P)$, hourdesignvalueslessthan0.121.f  g f  g ԀTheseareasare *t&. referredtobelowas gapareasbecausetheir1hourdesign , (0 valuefallsbelowthelowestvalueinthesubpart2  classificationtableandthusCongressdidnotdictate 4 whethersubpart2orsubpart1applies.f  g ԀTheoptionswe X exploredrangedfromplacingalloftheseareasintothe   subpart2classificationschemetoplacingnoneofthese 8  areasintothesubpart2classificationscheme.Weare  \  proposingthelatterapproach!thatallareasthatfallinto   thegapshouldbesubjectonlytotheplanningobligations <  ofsubpart1.Whenfacedwithasimilarissuefollowing `  enactmentoftheCAAAmendmentsof1990,wedeterminedthat   areasthatCongressdidnotmandatefallintothe @ classificationschemeofsubpart2shouldbesubjecttoonly d theplanningobligationsofsubpart1. v#  16         ` f  g f  g Forclassificationoption2,wef  g believeitis D appropriatetocontinuethatinterpretationoftheCAAfor h f  g 8hourozoneareas,despitethefactthatasignificant  numberofareasdesignatednonattainmentforthe8hour H  NAAQSwillfallintothisgroup.g ԀCongressenactedsubpart2  l" withtheunderstandingthatf  g allareas(exceptmarginal  areasf  g f  g ,forwhichnonewcontrolswererequired)wouldhave 4 toemployadditionallocalcontrolstomeetthe1hourozone X standardinatimelyfashionf  g .Sincethen,manyf  g f  g control   measuresf  g Ԁhavebeenimplemented,f  g Ԁourf  g Ԁunderstandingofthe 8  importanceoff  g Ԁinterstatepollutionf  g Ԁtransporthasimproved,  \  andwehavepromulgatedinterstateNOxtransportrules.   f  g f  g Regionalmodelingf  g ԀbyEPAindicatesthatthemajorityof <  potential8f  g f  g Ԅf  g hournonattainmentareasthatfallintothegap `  willattainthe8f  g f  g Ԅf  g hourstandardby2007basedonf  g reductions   fromf  g thef  NOxg f  g ԀSIPCall,f  g f  g f  g theFederalMotorVehicleEmissions @ ControlProgram,f  g ԀandotherexistingFederalandState d controlmeasures,withoutfurtherlocalcontrols.f  g f  g    ` Ofthe76hypotheticalareasthatwouldfallintothe D gap(andwouldthusbecoveredundersubpart1under h classificationoption2),27wouldhavebeenclassifiedas  moderateifclassifiedunderoption1basedontheir8hour H  designvalues.Eighteenofthese27areasareprojectedto  l" attainby2007throughexistingregionalornational "$ measures.Iftheseareasweretobeclassifiedasmoderate L$& (underclassificationoption1),theseareaswould %p!( nonethelessberequiredtoimplementstatutorilyspecified '#* controlsformoderateareasf  g .Usingourdiscretionto P)$, regulategapareasundersubpart1isoneway(theproposed *t&. incentivefeature,discussedbelowinthissectionon , (0 classifications,isanotherway)toavoidrequiring  unnecessarynewlocalcontrolsinareasalreadyprojectedto 4 meetthestandardinthenearterm. X  ` Theother49gapareascouldberegulatedeitherunder   subpart1(underoption2)orasmarginalareasif 8  classifiedby8hourdesignvalueundersubpart2(under  \  option1).Theseareasalreadyaremeetingthe1hour   standardandareclosetomeetingthe8hourstandard. <  Becausef  g Ԁcontrolrequirementsf  g formarginalareasaresimilar `  tothoseforsubpart1areas,andbecausemostofthese   areasareprojectedtoattainwithin3years,thedifference @ inregulatorycategorymaymakenopracticaldifferencef  g for d manyf  g ofthesef  g areas.f  g f  g ԀApotentialrationaleforplacing  theseareasundersubpart1istoprovideStatesandEPA D withgreaterdiscretiontohandleimplementation h difficultiesthatmightariseinsomeoftheseareas.For  example,agapareamightfailtoattainwithinthemaximum H  attainmentdateformarginalareas(3yearsafter  l" designation)becauseofpollutiontransportfromanupwindf  g  "$ nonattainmentf  g f  g areawithalaterattainmentdeadline.In L$& thatevent,subpart2callsfortheareatobereclassified %p!( asmoderateandfortheareatoimplementadditionallocal '#* controlsspecifiedformoderateareas.Forareasunder P)$, subpart1,however,f  g wef  g f  g couldprovideadditionaltimeforthe *t&. areatoattainwhiletheupwindsourcesimplementedrequired , (0 controlsifthisweredeterminedtobeamoreeffectiveor  moreappropriatesolution.Althoughregionalmodeling 4 projectionsindicatethattheNOxSIPCallwillbringmost X gapareasintoattainmentby2007,someStateshavevoiced   concerntousthatinterstateorintrastatepollution 8  transportmayaffectfuture8hourareaswithnearterm  \  attainmentdeadlines.Subpart1wouldprovideStatesand   EPAwithmoreflexibilityontheremedyinanysuchcases. <   ` Althoughwebelievethattherearereasonstoplacegap `  areasinsubpart1,andhavethelegalauthoritytodoso,   wearenotsuggestingthatsubpart2isunreasonableforany @ areathatwouldbesubjecttosubpart2undereither d classificationoption.Also,ouranalysishereshouldnot  betakenasinconsistentwithitsproposalunder D classificationoption1,wherebyall8hourozone h nonattainmentareaswouldbesubjecttothesubpart2  planningobligations.Thatsimpleroption,inconjunction H  withtheincentivefeatureforclassifications(if  l" ultimatelyadopted),describedbelowinthissectionon "$ classification,couldprovidesimilarflexibilityoncontrol L$& measuresformost(thoughnotquiteall)areas.In %p!( addition,weareproposingwaysinwhichtobuildsome '#* flexibilityintosomeofthemandatedVOCcontrol P)$, obligationsinsubpart2,inareaswhereitwouldmakesense *t&. toprovidesuchflexibility.Afinalobservationisthat , (0 Congressdidrecognizesomebenefitinprescribingmeasures  forareasbecauseofpastfailuretoattainunderless 4 prescriptiveprovisionsoftheCAA. X  ` Placingallgapareasinsubpart1wouldresultinover   halfofthehypotheticalnonattainmentareasbeingcovered 8  bysubpart1.Tobefair,thisoptionmightappearto  \  resultinsomeareasbeingplacedinsubpart1eventhough   theyhave8hourozonedesignvaluesashighorhigherthan <  someareasthatfallunderTable1insection181andthus `  arecoveredundersubpart2.Asexplainedabove,webelieve   themosteffectivewaytodealwiththatissueisnotto @ exerciseourdiscretionandmakethoseareassubjectto d subpart2.Rather,wecanuseourdiscretionundersubpart  1todeterminehowtodefinethecontrolsrequiredunder D subpart1forsuchareasinordertoassurethemost h equitable,yeteffective,meansfortheseareastoattain  the8hourozoneNAAQS.Forexample,inthesectionofthis H  proposedrulemakingaddressingRFPundersubpart1,we  l" exploreanoptionofdefiningRFPinthesamemannerasit "$ isdefinedundersubpart2.___EPA_Ԁisopentosuggestionsas L$& tohowtomakethesubpart1planningprocessthatwould %p!( applytotheseareaseffectiveandalsoequitableinlight '#* ofthesubpart2planningobligationstowhichareaswitha P)$, similar8hourozoneproblemmaybesubject. *t&. 6.Proposedincentivefeature , (0  ` Inadditiontothetwobasicclassificationoptions  beingproposedabove,wearealsoproposinganearly 4 attainmentincentivefeaturethatcouldbeapplicableto X eitheroftheoptionsproposedabove.Underthisfeature,   forareasclassifiedundersubpart2,wewouldclassifyan 8  areaatalowerclassificationthanitwouldreceivebased  \  onitsdesignvalue,ifamodeleddemonstrationindicates   theareawillattainbyanattainmentdatethatis <  consistentwiththelowerclassification.Forinstance,if `  asubpart2areahasan8hourozonedesignvalueof0.094   ppm,itwouldordinarilybeclassifiedasmoderate,withan @ attainmentdate6yearsaftertheareasdesignationas d nonattainmentforthe8hourstandard.Ifmodeling  acceptabletoEPAdemonstratesthatthisareawillattain D within3yearsafterdesignation,theareawouldbeeligible h forclassificationasamarginalarea,sincemarginalareas  wouldhaveamaximumattainmentdateof3yearsaftertheir H  nonattainmentdesignationdate.(Seeourproposalon  l" attainmentdateselsewhereinthisproposedrulemaking.) "$  ` Thelowerclassificationwouldprovideadditional L$& flexibilitytotheareainthatitwouldavoidthemandatory %p!( controlrequirementsofthehigherclassification. Appendix '#* Aofthisproposalprovidesacomparisonofrequirements P)$, undersubparts1and2. *t&.  ` Ingrantingalowerclassificationtoan8hourozone , (0 nonattainmentareabasedonthisoption,weproposetotake  intoaccounttheextenttowhichtheareasignificantly 4 contributestodownwindnonattainmentorinterfereswith X maintenanceundersection110(a)(2)(D)oftheCAA.We   solicitcommentonpossiblemechanismsforassessingthis 8  contributionforpurposesofgrantingthelower  \  classification,andpossibletestsforwhethertograntor   denythelowerclassification. <   ` Inadditiontosolicitingcommentonthisproposed `  incentivefeatureitself,wearesolicitingcommenton   whethersuchmodeleddemonstrationwouldhavetobemade @ priortotheinitialclassificationofareas,orwhetherit d couldbesubmittedafterwehavealreadyclassifiedthearea  initiallyatthehigherclassification,inwhichcasewe D wouldhavetorevisetheclassificationdownwardata h subsequenttime.   ` WealsosolicitcommentonwhetherEPA,priorto H  initialclassifications,shoulduseEPAregionalscale  l" modeling(ratherthanurbanscalemodeling)tomake "$ determinationsofwhichareaswouldreceivealower L$& classification.Underthissuboption,anareawouldqualify %p!( forthelowerclassificationifEPAsregionalmodeling '#* indicatedthat,basedonemissionsreductionsfromexisting P)$, nationalandregionalprograms,theareawouldattainthe8 *t&. hourstandardbytheattainmentdeadlineforthenextlower , (0 classification.Inrequestingcommentonthissuboption,  EPAnotesthatregionalscalemodelingaloneisnot 4 consideredsufficientforanapprovableattainment X demonstration.Werequestcommentonwhetherregionalscale   modelingwouldnonethelessbeadequateforpurposesof 8  loweringanareasclassification.(Underthisapproach,if  \  regionalmodelingdidnotprovidegroundsforthelower   classification,Stateswouldneedtoperformlocal <  attainmentdemonstrationstotakeadvantageoftheincentive `  feature.)    ` Itshouldbenotedthatanoptionwaspresentedand @ discussedatthepublicmeetingssimilartothisincentive d featureinconjunctionwiththeoptionthatwouldhave  classifiedallareasbasedontheir8hourdesignvaluesbut D alsoreliedonmodeledresultstoadjusttheclassification. h Theoptionreceivedcriticismfromawidevarietyof  commenters,whoarguedthatmodelingcouldbeapplied H  inappropriatelyinclassifyingareas.Wenonetheless  l" believeitisappropriatetoproposethisfeatureto "$ alleviatesomeoftheotherconcernsthatmanycommenters L$& raisedaboutthemandatorymeasuresrequiredunderthe %p!( higherclassificationsofsubpart2.Furthermore,we '#* believethisoptionisjustifiedbytheintentoftheCAA, P)$, inwhichanareasclassificationisgenerallylinkedtothe *t&. amountoftimetheareaisanticipatedtoneedtoattainthe , (0 _NAAQS_.WerecognizethattheCAAwasnotoriginally  structuredtoallowlowerclassificationsbasedonanarea 4 beingprojectedtoattainearlier.However,underthe X SupremeCourtrulingthatrequiredthatweinterpretthelaw   regardingsubpart2'sapplicationtothe8hourozone 8  standard,webelieveitmayreasonablygiveareasthatare  \  projectedtoattainthe8hourozonestandardbyanearlier   dateaclassificationthatisconsistentwiththat <  attainmentdate. `  XXXX7.OtheroptionsEPAconsidered    ` Weconsideredmanyotheroptionsforclassificationand @ forthetranslationoftheclassificationtableintheCAA. d Theseoptionsarediscussedinaseparatedocumentavailable  inthedocket.m v#  17      ׀Theseotherpossiblewaysoftranslating D theclassificationtable,inouropinion,donothavethe h samedegreeofconsonancewiththeintentofCongresswhen  itenactedsubpart2asthoseweareproposing.Weare H  thereforenotproposing_them._Ԁ  l" 8.Implicationsfortheoptions "$  ` Toevaluatethepotentialimpactofthevarious L$& classificationoptions,wedevelopedasetof122 %p!( hypothetical_nonattainment_Ԁareasbasedonthecountiesthat '#* havemonitorsmeasuringviolationsofthe8hourozone  #XXXX8#XXXXstandardforthe3yearperiodof19982000.Ourinclusion 4 andgroupingofcountiesintohypothetical_nonattainment_ X areaswasdoneonlyforillustrativepurposesanddoesnot   haveanyimplicationsforthelocation,numberorboundaries 8  of_nonattainment_Ԁareasthatmayultimatelybeevaluatedand  \  recommendedbyStatesandTribesordesignatedbyEPA.The   finaldesignationswouldbeaffectedbyfactorscontainedin <  EPAsguidanceonboundariesof_nonattainment_Ԁareas(which `  is,asnotedearlier,notatopicofdiscussionorcomment   forthisnoticeofproposed_rulemaking_).Asnotedearlier, @ Table3illustratesapossibleclassificationgroupingof d _nonattainment_Ԁareasbasedoncountieswithmonitorsbasedon  theoptionsproposedabove.Thelistoftheseareasandthe D informationweusedinassessingtheconsequencesofour h proposalareavailableinthedocket._x v#  18      _  _#XXXX#_ `   l" TRP('3 Letter LandscapeY,3' Letter'3 Letter Landscape 3' LetterT^]*d d q qw  w w  w w  w ..,h ,h ,h ,h ,h ,`h ,jh ,h ,hh+  5[[[["  5  TABLE3  PROPOSEDCLASSIFICATIONOPTIONS  COUNTSOFHYPOTHETICAL_NONATTAINMENT_ԀAREAS X[[G/l    [[[[  X A[[0!f3[[ A  Subpart2 7[[&$f#[[ 7Subpart f   1 6[[[#!P [[ 6d L[[;#f   [[[ L =[[,!J  3[[ =  Extreme =[[,!J  [[ =Severe J   17 =[[,!4  "[[ =Severe J   15 =[[,!4 "[[ =Serious =[[,!J "[[ =Moderate =[[,!J "[[ =Marginal =[[,!J "[[ = ?[[[,!J "[[ ?Total U[[D,J "   [[[ UOption1(8 .  hourdesign   value) 4[[# z[[ 40 =[[,!. "[[ =1 \[[K!. "[[  ?1?\1 [[[J?. "  ?1 ?[[ [6 =[[,!. "[[ =53 ][[L!. "[[  N@61N@]61 \[[K@. "  N@61 N@[[ \0 `[[[M!. "[[ ^@122^@`122 l[[[L. " ^@122   ^@[[[ lOption1(8  t  hourdesign ^  value)!with H ! incentive 2 " feature* H[[7 #[[ # H0 P[[?4 t $" # [[ P1 \[[K! t %"[[  ?1?\1 [[[J? t &"  ?1 ?[[ [6 ][[L! t '"[[  >@30>@]30 |[[k@ t ("  >@30 >@[[  U@84U@|84 \[[K@ t )"  U@84 U@[[ \0 `[[[M! t *"[[ ^@122^@`122 u[[dL t +" ^@122   ^@[[[ uOption2(2 , stepapproach - areas<0.121 r. _ppm_Ԁ=subpart \/ 1) 4[[#F0[[ 40 =[[,!1"[[ =1 \[[K!2"[[  ?1?\1 [[[J?3"  ?1 ?[[ [6 =[[,!4"[[ =26 ][[L!5"[[  (@12(@]12 |[[k@6"  (@12 (@[[  S@76S@|76 [[[l@7"  S@76 S@[[ ^@122^@122 l[[[L8" ^@122   ^@[[[ lOption2(2 @9 stepapproach *: areas<0.121 ; _ppm_Ԁ=subpart v< 1)!with `= incentive J> feature XnXhX1#XXh Xn# H[[74?[[ # H0 P[[?4@@" # [[ P1 \[[K!@A"[[  ?1?\1 [[[J?@B"  ?1 ?[[ [6 ][[L!@C"[[  5@215@]21 |[[k@@D"  5@21 5@[[  1@171@|17 |[[k@@E"  1@17 1@[[  S@76S@|76 [[[l@@F"  S@76 S@[[ ^@122^@122 r[[[_L@G" ^@122   ^@[[[  r XnXhX1#XXh Xn#Areasthatwouldbemoderateusingtheir8hourdesignvaluebutthatare .H projectedtoattainby2007wouldbeclassifiedmarginal.6,*I    [[[  6  I ^]O TRY,3' LetterP('3 Letter Landscape 3' Letter'3 Letter LandscapeT   OaN9.Otherconsiderations   ` Inadditiontotheoverallclassificationoptionsbeing 4 proposed,itshouldbenotedthatsubpart2alsoprovides X thatclassificationsmaybeadjustedupwardordownwardfor   anareaiftheareasdesignvalueiswithin5percentof 8  anotherclassification.Thisprovision(section181(a)(4))  \  reads:   0 ` Ifanareaclassifiedunder[Table1]wouldhavebeen <  classifiedinanothercategoryifthedesignvaluein   theareawere5percentgreateror5percentlessthan `  thelevelonwhichsuchclassificationwasbased,the 6 Administratormay,intheAdministrator'sdiscretion,   within90daysaftertheinitialclassification,.. j .adjusttheclassificationtoplacetheareainsuch @ othercategory.Inmakingsuchadjustment,the  Administratormayconsiderthenumberof_exceedances_Ԁof d thenationalprimaryambientairqualitystandardfor : ozoneinthearea,thelevelofpollutiontransport  betweentheareaandotheraffectedareas,including n bothintrastateandinterstatetransport,andthemix D ofsourcesandairpollutantsinthe_area.` (#` (# _hThus,forexample,ifadownwindareaissubjectedtoa > subpart2classificationandthereisevidencethatthearea r willnotbenefitsignificantlyfromlocalcontrolsmandated  ! bysubpart2fortheareasclassificationandcanattain !B# withinthetimeperiodspecifiedforthenextlower v#% classification,theareamayobtainsomereliefbasedonthe "% ' 5percentruleintheCAA,ifapplicable. &F")  ` Thisprovisiondoesnotestablishamechanismfor z(#+ removingareasfromthesubpart2classificationscheme. &*%- B.HowwillEPAtreatattainmentdatesandotherdates +J'/ includingSIP_submittal_Ԁdatesforthe8hourozonestandardf  g f  g f  ?g  ~-(1 NP    1.g Background  f   ` g Undersubpart2oftheCAA,maximumattainmentdates 4 andmostSIP_submittal_Ԁdatesarefixedasafunctionofa X _nonattainment_ԀareasclassificationunderTable1.TheCAA   providesthatanareasattainmentdatemustbe as 8  expeditiousaspracticablebutnolaterthanthedate  \  prescribedinTable1forthatareasclassification.The   statutorydatesarespecifiedasanumberofyears(e.g.,6 <  years)fromthedateofenactmentoftheCAAAmendments, `  whichwasNovember15,1990.Becausethesedatesareaset   numberofyearsafterenactmentoftheCAAAmendments,one @ mightinitiallyconcludethatthesubpart2classifications, d withtheirassociatedattainmentdates,shouldnotapplyfor  the8hourstandard.TheSupremeCourt,however,rejecteda D conclusionthatthesubpart2classificationsdonotapply, h althoughitnotedthattheattainmentdates seem[]tomake  nosenseforareasclassifiedunderanewstandardafter H  November15,1990.121_S.Ct_.at918.  l" f   ` g Webelievethatapplyingtheattainmentdatesas "$ expresslyprovidedunderTable1wouldproduceabsurd L$& results.Forexample,astrictapplicationofTable1would %p!( resultinareasclassifiedasmarginalforthe8hour_NAAQS_ '#* ashavinganattainmentdateofNovember15,1993andareas P)$, classifiedasmoderateashavinganattainmentdateof *t&. November15,1996.Sincethesedateshavelongpassed,it , (0 makesnosensetoestablishthemastheapplicabledates. T.)2  ` ManyprovisionsoftheCAA,however,indicatewhat  Congressintentwasinsettingattainmentdates.For 4 example,section181(b),providesthatforareasdesignated X attainmentorunclassifiableforozoneimmediatelyfollowing   enactmentofthe1990CAAAmendmentsandsubsequently 8  _redesignated_Ԁto_nonattainment_,theattainmentdatewouldrun  \  fromthedatetheareaisclassifiedundersubpart2. v#  19      ׀   Thus,ifanareadesignatedasattainmentforthe1hour <  ozonestandardin1990were_redesignated_Ԁto_nonattainment_ `  forthe1hourozonestandardinJanuary2002andclassified   asmoderate,theareasattainmentdatewouldbe6years @ followingJanuary2002,i.e.,January2008.Similarly, d section172(a)(2)providesforattainmentdatestobe  calculatedfromthetimetheareaisdesignated D _nonattainment_.WebelievethatCongresswouldhaveintended h forareasdesignated_nonattainment_Ԁandclassifiedunder  subpart2forthe8hourstandardtohaveattainmentperiods H  consistentwiththoseinTable1(e.g.,3yearsfora  l" marginalarea,6yearsforamoderatearea,etc.),but "$ runningfromthedatetheareaisdesignatedandclassified L$& forpurposesofthe8hour_NAAQS_.Weareproposingfor %p!( _areasclassifiedundersubpart2,theperiodforattainment  (runningfromdateofdesignation/classification)wouldbe: 4  <156789:;(Gxx<156789:"13"  1332G3  0 `   marginal!3years133`݌X` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132G3  0 `   moderate!6years13+݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132G3  0 `   serious!9years13݌8 ` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  132G3  0 `   severe!15or17years13݌ \ ` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  13c2G3  0 `   extreme!20yearsf  g Ԁ(noareascurrentlyexpectedtobe   inthiscategoryforthe8hourozonestandard).13c݌< ` (#` (# Ќ   <156789:;(Gxx<156789:; ` g NotethattheCAArequireseachareatodemonstrate `  attainmentasexpeditiouslyaspracticable,regardlessof   maximumstatutoryperiods. @  ` MostSIPsubmittaldatesinsubpart2runforafixed d periodfromthedateofenactmentofthe1990CAA,whichwas  alsothedateofdesignationandclassificationbyoperation D oflawformostsubpart2areas.Undersection181(b)(1), h thestatuteprovidesthatanyfixeddateswillbeextended  byoperationoflawtoaperiodequaltothelengthoftime H  betweenthatdateofenactmentandthedateanareais  l" subsequentlydesignatedandclassified.Thus,unlessEPA "$ hasreasontocreateadifferenttimeperiod,eitheras L$& explainedspecificallybeloworinanysubsequentspecific %p!( rulemakingapplicabletoaparticularsubpart2requirement, '#* subpart2SIPsubmittalswillbedueasageneralmatterby P)$, thesameperiodoftimeafterdesignationandclassification *t&. underthe8hourstandardasprovidedinsubpart2forareas , (0 designatedandclassifiedatthetimeofenactmentofthe T.)2 1990CAA.   ` g Forareasclassifiedundersubpart1,attainmentdates 4 wouldbesetundersection172(a)(2)(A),whichprovidesthat X theSIPmustdemonstrateattainmentasexpeditiouslyas   practicable,butnolaterthan5yearsafterdesignationor 8  10yearsafterdesignationiftheseverityoftheareasair  \  pollutionandtheavailabilityandfeasibilityofpollution   controlmeasuresindicatemoretimeisneeded. <   ` Notethatindeterminingwhetheranareaactually `  attainstheNAAQSatthetimeoftheattainmentdate,EPA   wouldusetheambientairqualitydataforthethreeozone @ seasonspriortotheattainmentdate.Asanexample,ifthe d effectivedateofthenonattainmentdesignationsisMay15,  2004,themaximumattainmentdateforanareaclassified D marginalwouldbeMay15,2007.Inthisexample,EPAwould h considerthe8hourozonedataforthethreepreviousozone  seasons!2004,2005and2006. H  2.g HowwillEPAaddresstheprovisionregarding1year  l" extensionsf  g ?f  g f   "$ f   ` g Botf  hg Ԁsubpart1andsubpart2providefortwobrief L$& attainmentdateextensionsforareasinlimited %p!( circumstanceswheretheydonotattainbytheirattainment '#* date.Section172(a)(2)(C)(undersubpart1)providesfor P)$, EPAtoextendtheattainmentdatefor1yeariftheState *t&. hascompliedwithallrequirementsandcommitments , (0 pertainingtotheareaintheapplicableimplementation T.)2 plan,andnomorethanaminimalnumberofexceedancesof  therelevantNAAQShasoccurredintheareainthe 4 attainmentyear.Nomorethantwo1yearextensionsmaybe X issuedunderthissubparagraphforasinglenonattainment   area.Section181(a)(5)(undersubpart2)containsa 8  similarprovision,butinsteadofallowinga minimal  \  numberofexceedances,itprovidesforonlyoneexceedance   ofthestandardintheyearprecedingtheextensionyear. <  Thisreflectstheformofthe1hourozonestandard,which `  isexceedancebased.The8hourozonestandard,however,is   notanexceedanceformofstandard,butrathera @ concentrationbasedstandard. v#  20      ׀Wehavef  f  g issuedg Ԁguidancef  on d theportionofthesetwoprovisionsrelatingtotheStates   compliancewithallrequirementsandcommitmentspertaining D totheareaintheapplicableimplementationplan. v#  21      ׀   However,forpurposesofsection181(a)(5),weneedto 4 determineareasonableinterpretationinlightofthefact X thatthestatute,aswritten,doesnotfittheformofthe   8hourstandard.BecauseCongresshasaddressedthisissue 8  elsewhereinthestatute,webelieveitisreasonableto  \  adoptthatformulation.Therefore,wewouldapplythesame   testundersubparts1and2fordeterminingwhethertogrant <  a1yearextension,i.e.,whethertherewasaminimalnumber `  ofexceedances.Forbothsubparts,weproposetointerpret   thistomeanforthe8hourstandard,theareawouldbe @ eligibleforthefirstofthe1yearextensionsunderthe8 d hourstandardif,fortheattainmentyear,theareas4th  highestdaily8houraverageis0.084ppmorless.Anarea D thathasreceivedthefirstofthe1yearextensionsunder h the8hourstandardwouldbeeligibleforthesecond  extensioniftheareas4thhighestdaily8hourvalue, H  averagedoverboththeoriginalattainmentyearandthe  l" firstextensionyear,is0.084ppmorless. "$ 3.f  g HowdoattainmentdatesapplytoIndiancountryf  ? L$&  ` Asdiscussedelsewhereinthisproposedrulemaking,the %p!( TribalAuthorityRule(TAR),40CFR49.9provides_that '#* TribesshouldnotbetreatedinamannersimilartoStates  withregardtoschedules,includingtheattainmentdates. 4 However,theTARalsorequiresEPAtodevelopFederal X implementationplans(_FIPs_)wherenecessaryandappropriate.   (40_CFR_Ԁ49.11).Becausewebelievethatpublichealth 8  considerationsareofprimaryconcern,theattainmentdates  \  forprimary_NAAQS_Ԁshouldbemet.Therefore,EPA,in   consultationwiththeTribes,willworktoensurethatthe <  standardsareaddressedassoonaspossible,consideringthe `  needsoftheTribes,andensurethatattainmentinother   jurisdictionsisnotadverselyaffected. @ 4.HowwillEPAestablishattainmentdatesforareas d classifiedasmarginalunderthe incentivefeature  proposedundertheclassificationsectionorareascovered D undersubpart1witharequestedattainmentdateof3years h orlessafterthedesignationdate?   ` _EPA_Ԁwouldordinarilyhaveestablishedattainmentdates H  forareasthroughareviewoftheSIPandwhetherattainment  l" isasexpeditiousaspracticablebutnolaterthanthedate "$ prescribedintheCAA.Elsewhereinthisproposal,weare L$& providingthatmarginalareas(undersubpart2)andareas %p!( undersubpart1withanattainmentdatewithin3yearsafter '#* designationwouldnotactuallyhavetosubmitanattainment P)$, demonstrationwithin3yearsafterdesignation.Therefore, *t&. wemustestablishanotherprocedureforestablishingthe , (0 attainmentdatesfortheseareas.Weareproposingthe T.)2 followingprocedure.  a.Areasthatareclassifiedmarginalbasedsolelyontheir 4 8hourozonedesignvalue.Fortheseareas,weare X proposingthattheCAAattainmentdateunderTable1of   section181wouldbetheareasattainmentdate(namely,3 8  yearsafterdesignation).  \  b.Areasthatareclassifiedmarginalbasedontheproposed   incentivefeatureproposedelsewhereandareascoveredunder <  subpart1witharequestedattainmentdateof3yearsor `  lessafterthedesignationdate.Theseareareasthatare   projectedthroughmodelingtoattainwithin3years @ followingdesignation.Fortheseareas,weareproposing d thattheseStatesmustsubmitaSIPwithin1yearafter  designationthatprovidesdocumentation(viz.,concerning D themodelingandanalysesthattheareaisrelyingonto h supportitsclaim)thattheareawillattainwithin3years  followingdesignation.SuchaSIPsubmissionmustundergo H  thenormalpublichearingandcommentproceduresasforany  l" SIPsubmission. "$ C.HowwillEPAimplementthetransitionfromthe1hourto L$& the8hourstandardinawaytoensurecontinuedmomef  nf  g tumin %p!( Stateseffortstowardcleanerair? '#*  ` Asareasaredesignatedforthe8hourozone_NAAQS_,we P)$, mustaddresshowthoseareaswilltransitionfromcurrent *t&. implementationofthe1hourstandardtoimplementationof , (0 the8hourstandard.Inaddressingthisissue,we T.)2 consideredanumberoffactorsf  g ,f  g Ԁincludingtheexisting   antibackslidingprovisionsoftheCAA,f  g f  g f  g Congressintentf  g f  g ,f  g  4 asevidencedinthestatute,f  g f  g toensuref  g Ԁcontinuedprogress X towardf  g f  g attainmentoftheozonestandard,andf  g ԀtheSupreme   Courtsf  g f  g f  g f  g interpretationoff  g ԀtheCAAandCongressionalf  g Ԁintent. 8  Inf  g Ԁsubsection1off  g Ԁthissection,f  g f  g weprovidebackground  \  informationonf  g Ԁthef  g Ԁtransitionf  g Ԁprocessf  g f  g wef  g Ԁsetforthin1997   (andsubsequentlyamendedthroughregulation)f  g f  g Ԁandf  g Ԁwe <  f  g f  g summarizef  g Ԁthestatutoryantibackslidingprovisionsandf  g the `  f  g f  g Congressionalintentf  g Ԁinenactingtheseprovisionsand   subpart2oftheCAAf  g .f  g f  g Insubsection2g ,weidentifytwo @ proposedoptionstoeffectthetransitionfrom d implementationoff  g Ԁthe1hourstandardf  g f  g tof  g Ԁthe8hourstandard  thatconcerntherevocationofthe1hourstandardinwhole D orrevocationofthe1hourstandardinpart.If  g nf  g f  g subsection h 3f  g ,weindicatef  g f  g !inlightoftheCAAprovisionsand  Congressionalintent!whichf  g Ԁrequirementsthatappliedfor H  purposesofthe1hourstandardshouldcontinuetoapplyto  l" areasf  g f  g afterf  g Ԁtheyf  g f  g aredesignatedforf  g Ԁthe8hourf  g f  g standardf  g . "$ f  g f  g Next,insubsection4,f  g f  g weconsiderf  g Ԁwhetherthereisapoint L$& atwhichtheStatesf  g f  g shouldf  g Ԁnolongerberequiredto %p!( implementthoseobligationsEPAdeterminescontinuetoapplyf  g  '#* afterareasaredesignatedforthe8hourstandardf  g .f  g Ԁ P)$, Finally,insubsection5,weindicatehowitwillensure *t&. throughregulationthatthepublicknowswhich 1hour , (0 obligationsremaininplaceandforwhichareas.f   T.)2 1.f  ԀBackground  a.f  g ԀBackgroundonEPAscurrentregulationforf  g f  g governingf  g Ԁthe 4 f  g f  g transitionf  .f  g Atthetimewepromulgatedthe8hourozone X _NAAQS_ԀinJuly1997,wef  g issuedarule(40_CFR_Ԁ50.9(b))   providingthatthe1hourstandardwouldnolongerapplyto 8  anareaoncewedeterminedthattheareahadattainedthe1  \  hour_NAAQS_.(62FR38856,July18,1997).Thisprocess   becameknownas revocationofthe1hour_NAAQS_.We <  interpretedthatprovisiontomeanthatoncethe1hour `  standardwasrevoked,theareas1hourozonedesignationf  g no   longerapplied.Duetotheongoinglitigationconcerning @ the8hourozone_NAAQS_Ԁandourimplementationstrategyfor d thatstandard,wesubsequentlymodified40_CFR_f  g Ԁf  g 50.9(b)in  parttoprovidethat afterthe8-hourstandardhasbecome D fullyenforceableunderpartDoftitleIoftheCAAand h subjecttonofurtherlegalchallenge,the1-hourstandards  setforthinthissectionwillnolongerapplytoanarea H  oncewedeterminethattheareahasairqualitymeetingthe  l" 1-hourstandard.(65FR45181,July20,2000). v#  22      ׀Thus, "$ currently,threecriteriawouldneedtobemetbeforewe L$& couldrevokethe1hourstandardforanarea:(1)the8hour %p!( standardwouldneedtobefullyenforceable,(2)alllegal '#* challengestothe8hourozone_NAAQS_Ԁwouldneedtobe P)$, resolved;and(3)wewouldneedtodeterminethatanarea  hadattainedthe1hourstandard.f  f  g f  g  4  ` Inthissection,f  g Ԁweareproposingtorevise40_CFR_ X f  g f  g 50.9(b)tof  g Ԁreflectf  g Ԁmoreappropriatelyf  g Ԁtheimplementation   strategythatwedeveloppursuanttothisproposal.Atthe 8  timethatweinitiallypromulgated40_CFR_f  g Ԁf  g 50.9(b),we  \  contemplatedthatareaswouldnotbesubjecttotheplanning   obligationsofsubpart2forpurposesofimplementingthe <  revised8hourozone_NAAQS_.Furthermore,westatedthat as `  amatteroflaw,areasshouldcontinuetobesubjecttothe   planningobligationsofsubpart2forpurposesof @ implementingthe1hourstandarduntilsuchtimeasthey d attainedthe1hourozone_NAAQS_.Thus,wecontemplatedthat  the1hour_NAAQS_Ԁ!_and_Ԁtheassociateddesignationand D classificationundersubpart2foranf  g f  g area,includingany h mandatedcontrolobligationswouldcontinuetof  g Ԁapplyuntil  theareaf  g Ԁattainedthatstandardf  g f  g .Atthattime,thef  g Ԁarea H  wouldbesubjectonlytotheplanningobligationsofsubpart  l" 1.InlightoftheSupremeCourtsrulingthatwecannot "$ ignoresubpart2forpurposesofimplementingarevised L$& ozone_NAAQS_,webelieveitisappropriatetoreconsiderhow %p!( totransitionf  g fromthe1hourf  g _NAAQS_Ԁtothe8hourf  g _NAAQS_Ԁin '#* lightofthestatutorystructureoftheCAA,asamendedin P)$, 1990. *t&.  ` Ourprincipalobjectivesforthemechanismthatwould , (0 ensureasmoothtransitiontoimplementationofthe8hour T.)2 _standardaretoensure(1)thattherewillbenodegradation  ofairquality,(2)thatareascontinuetomakeprogress 4 towardf  g f  g ozoneattainmentf  g ,and(3)consistencywiththeintent X ofCongresswhenitoriginallyestablishedthe   implementationstructureforozoneinsubpart2oftheCAA. 8  f   ` Webelievetheseveralalternativeapproachesproposed  \  belowaremoreconsistentwiththeimplementationpathwe   areproposinginlightoftheSupremeCourtsremand.These <  alternativeswouldmoreeffectivelycontinuethemomentum `  towardscleanerairthanwouldhavebeenaccomplishedunder   thecurrent40CFR50.9(b)structurewhileallowing8hour @ ozonenonattainmentareastomorereadilyfocusontheir8 d hourozonestandardSIPobligations.  f  f  g f  g bf  .BackgroundontheCAAsantibackslidingprovisions.The D CAAcontainsanumberofprovisionsthatindicatethat h Congressdidnotintendtoallowf  g f  g f  g Statestoalterorremove  provisionsfromimplementationplansiftheplanf  g Ԁrevision H  f  g f  g f  g wouldjeopardizef  g thef  g airqualityprotectionprovidedinthe  l" approvedplan.f  g f  g Sf  g ection110(l)f  g f  g f  g Ԁf  g providesthatf  g ԀEPAf  g f  g maynot "$ approvef  g ԀaSIPrevisionifitf  g f  g interfereswithanyapplicable L$& requirementconcerningattainmentandRf  g f  g Of  g Poranyotherf  g  %p!( applicablerequirementoftheCAA.Congresscreateda '#* toughertestforareasthatmightwanttorelaxcontrol P)$, requirementsthatwereinf  g ԀSIPspriortotheCAAAmendments *t&. of1990.Section193oftheCAAprohibitsmodificationofa , (0 controlrequirementineffectf  f  g Ԁorrequiredg f  g Ԁtobeadoptedas T.)2 ofNovember15,1990(i.e.,enactmentofthe1990CAA  Amendments),unlesssuchamodificationwouldensure 4 equivalentorgreateremissionsreductions. X  ` WealsobelievethatCongresssetanadditional   statutorybarfor1hourozoneareasthatweredesignated 8  nonattainmentandclassifiedatthetimeofthe1990CAA  \  Amendments.Fortheseareas,Congressclassifiedtheareas    asamatteroflawandprovidedthatevenupon <  redesignationtoattainment,suchareascouldnotremove `  fromtheSIPcontrolmeasuresspecifiedinsubpart2   ( applicablerequirements),butcouldshiftthemto @ contingencymeasuresthatwouldbeimplementedto promptly d correctanyviolationofthestandard.   ` Forthesereasons,webelievethatalthoughCongress D gaveEPAthepowertorevisetheexistingozonestandard, h CongressdidnotopenthedoorforStatestoremoveSIP  approvedmeasuresortoavoidcontrolobligationswithwhich H  theyhavenotyetcomplied.  l"  ` Oneotherprovision,thoughnotdirectlyapplicable, "$ shedslightonCongressintent.In1990,Congressenacted L$& section172(e),whichapplieswhenEPArevisesaNAAQSand %p!( makesitlessstringent.Thisprovisionf  specifiesthatin '#* thosecircumstances,Statesf  g Ԁcannotrelaxcontrolobligations P)$,  g thatf  g f  g applyf  g Ԁinf  g f  g Ԁnonattainmentg areaf  g ԀSIPsoravoid_adopting *t&. thosethattheyhavenotyetadopted. v#  23      ׀BecauseCongress   specificallymandatedthatsuchcontrolmeasuresneedtobe 4 adoptedorretainedevenwhenEPArelaxesastandard,we X believethatg Congressf  g ԀdidnotintendtopermitStatesto   removecontrolmeasureswhenf  EPAf  g revisesf  g Ԁastandardg Ԁtomake 8  itf  g Ԁmorestringent,asinthecaseofthe8hourstandard.  \   ` WealsonotethatinfindingEPAssubpart1only   implementationapproachunlawful,theSupremeCourtvoiced <  concernthatEPAnotrendersubpart2 abruptlyobsolete `  because Subpart2obviouslywasenactedtogovern   implementationforsometime....Aplanreachingsofar @ intothefuturewasnotenactedtobeabandonedthenext d timeEPAreviewedtheozonestandard!whichCongressknew  couldhappenatanytime,sincetechnicalstaffpapers D alreadyhadbeencompletedin1989.Inresponsetothe h decision,wearenowproposing(asnotedaboveinthe  discussiononclassifications)tousesubpart2in H  implementingthe8hourstandard.However,the  l" classificationsystemsweareproposingtodaywouldresult "$ inthemajorityofozone_nonattainment_Ԁareasthatare L$& currentlyclassifiedforthe1hourstandardbeingplacedin %p!( alowerclassificationforthe8hourstandard.Our '#* proposedantibackslidingapproachesf  g ,discussedbelow,f  g Ԁwould  notrenderobsoletethef  g f  g congressionallyspecifiedcontrol 4 measuref  g Ԁrequirementsofsubpart2for1hourozone X _nonattainment_Ԁareasatatimewhenthoseareashavenotyet   meteitherofthehealthbasedozonestandards. 8  2.f  f  f  g f  g f  g f  g WhenwillEPArevokef  g Ԁthe1hourstandard?  \  f  g f  g  ` Wearef  g f  g proposingf  g Ԁtorevokethe1hourstandardf  g f  g either   inpartorinwholef  g Ԁ1yearfollowingdesignationsforthe8 <  hour_NAAQS_.f  g f  g ԀAsdiscussedbelow,weareproposingtwo `  differentlegalmechanismsforachievingtherevocation.   Undereitherapproach,however,thesamestipulations @ continuetoapplytoareascurrentlyorformerlydesignated d _nonattainment_Ԁforthe1hourstandard.   ` Thedecidingfactorsupportingthescheduleforthe D revocationinourproposalistoensureareasdonothavef  g Ԁto h performconformityanalysesforboththe1hourand8hour  standardsatthesametime.Asbackground,areasdesignated H  _nonattainment_Ԁforthefirsttimeforanewstandard(e.g.,  l" the8hourozonestandard)havea1yeargraceperiodbefore "$ conformityappliesfor_that_Ԁstandard(i.e.,a1yeargrace L$& periodbeforeconformityappliesforthe8hourozone &|!( standard).This1yeargraceperiodbeforeconformityis '(#* requiredforthe8hourstandardappliestoallareas \)$, designated_nonattainment_Ԁforthe8hourstandard,regardless +&. oftheir1hour_NAAQS_Ԁdesignationstatus.f  g Ԁf  Thus,under ,,(0 eitherofthemechanismsdescribedbelow,weareproposing `.)2 thatconformityforthe1hourstandardnolongerapply1  yearfollowingtheeffectivedateofthe8hourdesignation 4 (i.e.,whenthestandardisrevokedinwholeorinpart).f   X f  However,conformityobligationsforthe1hourozone   standardwouldf  remainapplicableduringthegraceperiodand 8  wouldnotbeaffectedbythedesignationofareasforthe8  \  hourstandardg .f  g Ԁf  ԀOurintentionsregardingf  g f  g conformityaswell   asamorecompletediscussionoftransportationconformity <  _appear_Ԁelsewhereinthisproposal. `  f  f  g f  g (g _i_f  g )f  g Option1:f  Ԁf  g ԀRevocationinwholef  Ԁofthe1hourstandardf  .g Ԁf  g    Underthisoption,whichisourpreferredoption,EPAwould @ revokethe1hourstandardandtheassociateddesignations d andclassifications1yearfollowingtheeffectivedatef  g f  g of  thef  g Ԁdesignationsforthe8hour_NAAQS_.f  g f  g Ԁf  g ԀThecomplete D revocationofthe1hourstandardwouldoccurinlatespring h of2005ontheeffectivedateofthe8hour_NAAQS_  designations,whichwillbeissuedbyApril15,2004.In H  ordertoaddresstheantibackslif  dingissuesdiscussedin  l" section3,below,EPAwouldpromulgateregulations "$ specifyingthoserequirementsthatwouldcontinuetoapply L$& aftertherevocationofthe1hourstandard.The %p!( regulationswouldalsospecifythegeographicareasinwhich '#* thoseobligationscontinuetoapply,sinceareasdesignated P)$, _nonattainment_Ԁforthe8hourstandardmayf  g f  g includecounties *t&. thatwerenotf  g Ԁdesignated_nonattainment_Ԁforthe1hour , (0 standard.f  g ԀTheantibackslidingregulationswouldapplyonly T.)2 totheportionofthe8hour_nonattainment_Ԁareathatwas  designated_nonattainment_Ԁforthe1hourstandard. 4 (f  iif  g )Option2:g Ԁf  g ԀPartialrevocationof1hourstandard. X Underthismechanism,EPAwouldretainthe1hourstandard   f  g andf  g f  g itsf  g Ԁassociateddesignationsandclassificationsfor 8  limitedpurposes(viz.,thosediscussedandproposedbelow  \  insection3)f  untiltheareameetsthe1hourstandard.f  g f  g f  g Ff  g orf     manyareasf  g f  g f  g ,thisislikelytoextendwellbeyondMay2005, <  thedateoflikelyrevocationunderoption1f  g .  v#  24      ׀Forall `  remainingpurposes,EPAwouldrevokethe1hourstandardand   theassociateddesignationsandclassifications1yearafter @ theeffectivedateofdesignationsforthe8hourstandard.f   d Asnotedabove,webelievethatCongressinitiallyintended  theStatesobligationsundersubpart2tocontinuetoapply D  asamatteroflaw,andthe1hourdesignationsand h classifications!establishedforthecircumstancespresent  whentherequirementswereenactedarethemechanism H  Congressidentifiedfortriggeringtheapplicabilityof  l" theserequirements.f  g f  g ԀUnderthistheory,Congresswouldhave "$ intendedthestandardtoremaininplaceforpurposesof L$& controlmeasuresand_NSR_Ԁrequirements,asdiscussedabove. %p!( Oaa     ` Whilef  g Ԁthepartialretentionofthestandarditselfand  theassociateddesignationsandclassificationswouldbethe 4 mechanismusedtoretainthespecifiedobligations,wewould X needtopromulgateregulationssimilartothosedescribedin   option1toensurethatitisclearforwhichpurposesthe 8  standardisbeingretained.  \  f  g f  g (iii)f  g ԀRequestforcomment.Bothoftheseoptionswould   achievethesamef  g result!ensuringthecontinued <  applicabilityoff  g certainf  g Ԁcontrolrequirementsinsubpart2 `  andensuringcontinuedf  g f  g improvementf  g Ԁinf  g f  g airqualityf  g ,while   shiftingthef  g focusf  g Ԁfrommodelingandotherplanning @ f  g f  g requirementsforf  g Ԁthe1hourstandardf  g f  g tof  g Ԁanalysesf  g f  g forf  g Ԁthe8 d hourstandard.f  g f  g ԀWef  g Ԁsolicitf  g Ԁcommentonwhichmechanismis  preferableforaccomplishingtheoverridingobjectiveof D preventingbackslidingf  g f  g fromf  g ԀstatutoryandSIPrequirements h whileachievingasmoothtransitiontoimplementationofthe  newstandard.f  g Inaddition,EPAalsosolicitscommenton H  whethertoretainthelimitincurrent40_CFR_Ԁf  g f  g 50.9(b)that  l" the1hourstandardwillnotberevokedforanyareauntil "$ the8hourstandardisnolongersubjecttolegalchallenge. L$& f  g f  g (iv)f  g ԀOtherpossibleapproachesforf  g f  g thetransitionfromthe %p!( 1hourtothe8hourstandardf  g . '#*  ` _EPA_Ԁconsideredotherapproachesforthetimingofthe P)$,  revocationofthe1hourozonestandard;thesearediscussed *t&. inaseparatedocumentavailableinthedocket.  v#  25      f  g f  g    f  g f  g 3.Whatobligationsf  g shouldf  g f  g continuetoapplyasanarea 4 beginstoimplementthe8hourozone_NAAQS_Ԁandwhat X obligationsshouldnolongerapply?    ` Inthissection,f  g f  g weconsiderwhatobligationsfrom 8  subpart2relativetothe1hourozonestandardshould  \  continuetoapplytoareasaftertheyhavebeendesignated   forthe8hourstandard.Weareproposingthatthe <  continuityofparticularobligationsshouldvarydepending `  ontheattainmentstatusofanareaforboththe1hourand   8hourstandard.Wefirstdiscussf  g Ԁthoseobligationsthatf  g f  g we @ proposeshouldf  g Ԁcontinuetoapplytoanareathatis d designated_nonattainment_Ԁforthe8hour_NAAQS_,f  g f  g andf  g Ԁf  thatf  g f  g wasf  g   designated_nonattainment_f  g Ԁforthe1hourf  g f  g ozonestandardonor D afterNovember15,1990f  g .Second,f  g f  g wef  g Ԁdiscusf  g sthose h obligationsthatf  g f  g shouldf  g Ԁcontinuetoapplyf  g f  g tof  g Ԁanf  g f  g areathatisf  g   designatedattainmentforthe8hour_NAAQS_,f  g f  g andthatwas H  designated_nonattainment_f  g Ԁforthe1hourf  g f  g standardonorafter  l" November15,1990.(Thissectionaddressesonlythe "$ continuedapplicationofrequirementsthatappliedbyvirtue L$& ofanareahavingbeendesignated_nonattainment_Ԁforthe1 %p!( hourstandardatsomepointfollowingenactmentoftheCAA '#* _Amendmentsof1990.Itdoesnotaddressareasthathave  beendesignatedattainmentforthe1hourstandardatall 4 timessinceNovember15,1990,becausetheywouldnothave X anycontinuingobligationsundersubpart2forpurposesof   the1hourstandard.)f  g ԀFinally,f  g f  g wef  g Ԁaddresf  g sStatesf  g f  g Ԁcontinued 8  obligationf  g sf  g Ԁwithrespecttotheg f  g f  g NOxf  g ԀSIPCall.f  Ԁf  g f  g Wef  g Ԁf  addresf  g s  \  thisissueseparatelysincethisobligationappliesf  g    statewideandf  g Ԁwithoutrespecttothedesignationstatusof <  areaswithintheState. `   ` Ingeneral,thetypesofobligationsthatapplyto   areasbyvirtueoftheir1hourclassificationcanbebroken @ intothreegroups:controlobligations;measurestoaddress d growthinnewsources;andplanningobligations.Control  measuresincludef  g specificemissionreductionf  g obligations D suchasg NOxf  g RACT,I/M,andfuelprograms,whicharef  g f  g mandatedf  g  h insubpart2.g Ԁf  g ԀMeasurestoaddressgrowthf  g f  g aref  g ԀNSRf  g Ԁ(required  undersubpart1andsubpart2)andconformity(requiredby H  subpart1)f  g .f  g ԀPlanningobligationsf  g f  g consistoff  g Ԁattainmentand  l" maintenancedemonstrationsandRFPplans.Forpurposesof "$ clarifyingwhatweareproposingwithrespecttocontrol L$& measures,wealsodiscussinthisf  g Ԁsectionf  g Ԁ discretionary %p!( controlmeasuresthatarenotspecifiedinsubpart2.f  g  '#* f  Generally,thesearecontrolmeasuresorotherobligations P)$, theStateselectedandadoptedintotheSIPforpurposesof *t&. attainment,ROPoranyothergoaltobenefitairquality, , (0 butwhicharenotspecificallymandatedbysubpart2.  a.Whatobligationsshouldcontinuetoapplyforanarea 4 f  g thatisf  g designatednonattainmentforthe8hourNAAQSand X thatwasdesignatednonattainmentforthe1hourozoneNAAQS   onorafterNovember15,1990?f  g f  g f  g Wef  g Ԁbelievef  g ԀthatCongress 8  intendedeachareathatwasclassifiedforthe1-hourozone  \  NAAQSf  g Ԁundersubpart2f  g Ԁtoadoptthespecifiedcontrol   obligationsinsubpart2forthearea's1hour <  classification.Weinterpretthemandatedobligationsin `  subpart2forpurposesofanarea's1-hourozone   classificationtoremainapplicabletosuchareasbyvirtue @ ofthearea'sclassification"asamatteroflaw"in1990. d (AppendixBofthisproposedrulemakingcontainsalistof  thesubpart2requirementsthatremainapplicable.)f  f  g ԀThe D threetypesofobligationsdescribedabove(control h obligations,measurestoaddressgrowthinnewsources,and  planningobligations)arediscussedseparatelybelow.f  g  H  (i)Controlmeasures.Weareproposingthatallareas  l" designatednonattainmentforthe8hourozoneNAAQSremain "$ subjecttocontrolmeasuresthatappliedbyvirtueofthe L$& areasclassificationforthe1hourstandard.Tothe %p!( extenttheareahasmettheobligationandthecontrol '#* measureisapartoftheapprovedSIP,thef  Sf  tatecouldnot P)$, modifyorremovethatmeasureexcepttotheextentthatit *t&. couldmodifyorremovethatmeasureforpurposesofthe1 , (0 hourstandardandsubjecttoademonstrationundersection  110(l)thatmodificationorremovalwouldnotinterferewith 4 attainmentormaintenanceofthe8hourozoneNAAQS.f  g  v#  26      f  f  g Ԁf  g Ԁf  For X controlmeasuresthatthef  Sf  tatehasnotyetadopted,the   f  Stateremainsobligatedtoadoptandsubmitsuchcontrols. 8  And,onceadoptedintotheapprovedSIP,thef  Sf  g tatecouldnot  \  modifyorremovethatmeasureexcepttotheextentthatit   couldmodifyorremovethatmeasureforpurposesofthe1 <  hourstandardandsubjecttoademonstrationundersection `  110(l)thatmodificationorremovalwouldnotinterferewith   attainmentormaintenanceofthe8hourozoneNAAQS.f  g f  g ԀThis @ obligationwouldapplyonlytothepartofthe8hourozone d nonattainmentareathatwasdesignatednonattainmentforthe  1hourozoneNAAQS.f  g  D  ` Toillustratewhatweareproposing,weprovidethe h followingexample,whichwillalsobeusedinthenext  sectiondiscussingf  discretionarycontrolmeasures.f  g f  g f  g Af  g ssume H  anareaisclassifiedasmarginalforthe8hourozoneNAAQS  l" andwasclassifiedasseriousforthe1hourozoneNAAQSat "$ thetimeofthe8hourdesignations.g Ԁf  g AlsoassumeRACTfora L$& particularsourcecategoryisconsideredang 80percentf  g   reductioninuncontrolledemissionsofVOCsf  g Ԁatallmajor 4 sourcesf  g .f  g f  g Inits1hourSIP,tf  g heg Sf  g tatechosetorequire X emissionsreductionsoff  90percentf  g f  g ԀandtheRACTrequirement   appliedtoallmajorstationarysources,whichforaserious 8  areaincludesallsourcesthatemitgreaterthan50  \  tons/yearVOCs.g Ԁf  g Afterdesignationforthe8hourstandard,   thef  Sf  g tatewantstomodifythisRACTrequirementtorequire <  onlyf  g 80percentf  g Ԁreductioninemissionf  g sf  g Ԁandf  g Ԁtolimitthe `  requirementtosourcesthatemit100tons/yearofVOCs.f     f  Becausethef  g Sf  g tatecouldnothavemodifiedtheRACT @ obligationtoapplyonlytosourcesf  g f  g emittingf  g Ԁ100tons/yearf  g  d ormoreofVOCsf  g Ԁforpurposesofthe1hourstandard,the  f  Sf  tatecouldnotchangethesourcecutofffrom50tons/year D forpurposesofthe8hourstandard.The50tons/yearmajor h sourcethresholdwouldcontinuetobean applicable  requirementforthef  g Ԁf  g partofthef  g areathatwasdesignated H  nonattainmentforthe1hourNAAQS.f  g TheStatef  g ,however,f  g   l" couldf  g f  g applyf  g ԀRACTf  g f  g onlytof  g Ԁsourcesthatemit100tons/yearor "$ moreforanyportionoftheareathatwasnotapartofthe L$& 1hourseriousnonattainmentf  g Ԁarea.f  Ԁf  g f  g f  g Whilethe80percent %p!( controllevelwouldbeconsideredmandatoryf  g ,f  g theg 90percentf  g  '#* controllevelwasnotmandatedbytheCAAandthusis P)$, considereda discretionarycontrolmeasuref  g f  g .f  g f  Ԁg Ԁg Weaddress *t&. belowf  g Ԁhowf  g Ԁmodificationf  Ԁofadiscretionarycontrolmeasuref   , (0 wouldbetreatedunderthisproposal.   ` Thef  g f  g sameg principlef  g wouldholdtrueforcontrolmeasures 4 inamaintenanceplanforanareathatwasdesignated X nonattainmentforthe1hourstandardatorafterf  g f  g November   15,f  g Ԁ1990andthatwassubsequentlyredesignatedto 8  attainmentunderthe1hourozonestandard. v#  27      ׀g Ԁf  g Subpart2  \  controlmeasures(includingthosethathadbeenshiftedto   contingencymeasures)couldnotberemovedfromtheSIPand <  couldbemodifiedonlytotheextentthattheycouldhave `  beenmodifiedifthe1hourstandardremainedineffectfor   thearea.Iftheg Sf  g tatehadpreviouslyshiftedamandated @ subpart2controlmeasuretoitscontingencyplan,wewould d notrequirethattheareabegintoimplementthatmeasureg Ԁf  g as  partofits8hourimplementationplan,f  g iff  g f  g themeasurewasf  g  D notrequiredunderitsclassificationunderthe8hour h standardf  g .However,themeasurewouldneedtoremainasa  contingencymeasurefortheareaandcouldnotberemoved H  fromtheSIP.  l" (ii)Discretionarycontrolmeasures.ManyapprovedSIPs "$ containcontrolmeasuresthatarenotspecifiedunder  subpart2forthearea,butthatthef  Sf  g tatechosetoadoptas 4 partofthedemonstrationofattainmentorpartoftheROP X requirementforthe1hourNAAQS.Forthesekindsof   measures,weareproposingthatnoadditionalburdenbe 8  placedonthef  g Sf  g tate.Forpurposesofthe1hourstandard,  \  g Sf  g tatesmaycurrentlyreviseorremovethoserequirementsso   longastheymakeademonstrationconsistentwithsection <  110(l)thatsuchremovalormodificationwouldnotinterfere `  withattainmentoforprogresstowardthe1hourozoneNAAQS   (oranyotherapplicablerequirementoftheCAA).Underthe @ CAA,forpurposesofthe8hourstandard,thesame d obligationwouldapplyexceptthef  g Sf  g tatewouldneedtomake  thedemonstrationwithrespecttothe8hourstandard D insteadofthe1hourstandard. h  ` Intheexampleabove,f  g f  g iff  g Ԁag Sf  g tatewantstorevisethe  controllevelforcertainsourcesfromg 90percentf  g Ԁcontrolto H  g 80percentf  g Ԁcontrol,thef  g f  g Statemaydosobecausesubpart2  l" mandatedRACTinthisexampleisan80percentlevelof "$ controlratherthana90percentcontrollevel.Thef  g Ԁg 90 L$& percentf  g Ԁcontrolf  g levelf  g Ԁf  g f  g thuswas discretionary.f  g f  g Wearef  g  %p!( proposingthatf  g f  g nof  g Ԁadditionf  g f  g alburden,beyondf  g Ԁthestatutory '#* f  g sectionf  g 110(l)testf  g ,f  g ԀbeplacedontheStatef  g Ԁtoalterthis P)$, requirementf  g f  g .Thus,torevisethecontrollevel,theState *t&. wouldneedtodemonstratef  g ,f  g Ԁconsistentwithsection110(l)f  g ,f  g  , (0 thatthelowercontrolleveloff  g 80percentf  g Ԁwouldnot  interferewithattainmentofthe8hourstandardorRFPfor 4 the8hourstandard(oranyotherapplicablerequirementof X theCAA).    ` AnumberofSIPscontainenforceablecommitmentsto 8  adoptadditionaldiscretionaryemissionreductioncontrol  \  measuresinthefuture.TheStateremainsobligatedto   thesecommitmentstothesameextentasiftheywereadopted <  measures.TheonlywayaStatemaymodifyorremovesucha `  commitmentisthroughademonstrationundersection110(l).   (iii)Measurestoaddressgrowth.f  g f  g For1hournonattainment @ NSRrequirementsinplaceatthetimeanareaisdesignated d nonattainmentforthe8hourstandard,wf  g earef  g Ԁproposingf  g that  f  g f  g thef  g majorsourcef  Ԁapplicabilityf  g Ԁcutoffsandoffsetratios D f  f  g f  f  g f  g continuetoapplytotheextentthearef  g af  g Ԁhaf  g f  g sf  g Ԁahigher h classificationforthe1hourf  g standardf  g Ԁthanforthe8hour  f  g standard.g f  ԀWef  seenorationaleundertheCAA!giventhef  g  H  Congressionalintentforareas classifiedbyoperationof  l" law!whyf  g theexistingf  g NSRf  g Ԁrequirementsf  g Ԁshouldnotremain "$ f  g applicablerequirementf  g sf  g fortheportionofthe8hour L$& nonattainmentareathatwasclassifiedhigherforthe1hour %p!( standard.f  g ԀHowever,ifanareahasbeenredesignatedto '#* attainmentforthe1hourstandardasofthedateof P)$, designationforthe8hourstandard,andisthusnolonger *t&. implementingthenonattainmentNSRprogramforitsprevious , (0 1hourozoneclassification,itwouldnotneedtorevert  backtotheprogramithadforpurposesofthe1hour 4 standard.Forexample,ifanareaisclassifiedmoderate X underthe8hourstandard,butf  g Ԁwasclassifiedsevereunder   the1hourstandardatthetimeofthe8hourdesignations, 8  theportionofthe8hournonattainmentareathatwas  \  classifiedsevereforthe1hourstandardwouldremain   subjecttoanoffsetratioof1.3:1andamajorsource <  thresholdof25tons/yearf  g .f  g Tf  g heremainingportionsofthe8 `  hourareawouldbesubjecttotheoffsetratiof  g Ԁformoderate   areas(1.15:1)andthemoderateareamajorsourcethreshold @ (100tons/year).Ifthesevere1hourarea_hadbeen d _redesignated_Ԁtoattainmentpriortothetimeofthe8hour  designationsandwassubjecttoPSDratherthan_NSR_, D however,theentiredesignatedareaforthe8hourstandard h wouldbesubjecttotheoffsetratioandmajorsource  thresholdforamoderatearea. H  (iv)Planning_SIPs_.Mostareasthatare_nonattainment_Ԁunder  l" the1hourstandardhavealreadyadoptedattainmentand_ROP_ "$ plans.However,thereareafewareasthatremainobligated L$& tosubmitattainmentor_ROP_Ԁ_SIPs_.Wehaveoutlinedour %p!( proposalforaddressing_ROP_Ԁf  elsewheref  g ing thisproposed '#* _rulemaking_f  g Ԁandwillnotrepeatthoseoptionsindetailhere. P)$, Ingeneral,however,weareproposingthatf  Sf  g tatesarestill *t&. obligatedtoaddressseparately_ROP_Ԁthatdoesnotoverlap , (0 with_ROP_Ԁobligationsforthe8hour_NAAQS_f  g f  g .f  g Wf  g herethef  g Ԁ_ROP_f  g   obligationsoverlap,theareaneednotseparatelyaddress 4 _ROP_Ԁforthe1hourstandard.f  f  g f  g ԀFor_ROP_Ԁalreadyadoptedinto X theSIP,weareproposingthattheg Sf  g tatemayremoveor   revisecontrolmeasuresneededtomeetthe_ROP_Ԁmilestoneif 8  suchcontrolmeasureswere discretionary,asdiscussed  \  above.f  g f  g Butf  g ,af  g f  g Sf  g tatecouldnotreviseorremovecontrol   measuresiftheywouldinterferewithmeetingthe_ROP_Ԁgoalsf  g . <  Ig notherwords,theCAAmandated_ROP_Ԁemissionreduction `  targetsf  g thatappliedforthe1hourstandardf  g wouldstill   havetobemet,butf  g f  g discretionaryf  g Ԁmeasuresadoptedtomeet @ thosetargetscouldbemodified,iftheStatemakesthe d necessaryshowingundersection110(l).f  g    ` Withrespecttoattainmentdemonstrations,weare D solicitingcommentontheinterpretation_we_Ԁshouldtakefor h f  g f  g thetwof  g Ԁscenariosf  g Ԁwebelieveexistf  g .f  g ԀThefirstscenario  wouldbeaStatethatdoesnothaveafullyapproved H  attainmentdemonstrationunderthe1hourstandardbecause  l" ithasfailedtoactinatimelymanner.Thesecond "$ scenarioisanareasubjecttoanobligationtosubmitan L$& attainmentdemonstrationunderthe1hourstandardinthe %p!( future.Ingeneral,sinceattainmentdemonstrationsare '#* planning_SIPs_,andf  g Ԁf  g Sf  g tatesmustnowbeplanningtoattainthe P)$, 8hour_NAAQS_,onemightarguethatCongressf  g f  g couldnothavef  g  *t&. intenf  g def  g dareastocontinuetoplantomeetastandardthat , (0 f  g f  g EPAf  g Ԁnolongerf  g f  g Ԁconsiderstobeadequatelyprotectiveof  publichealthf  g .Thisisespeciallytruewhentodosowould 4 divertresourcesfromplanningtomeetthe8hourstandard.f  g f  g  X Incontrast,onecouldarguethatallowingareastobypass   planningobligationsunderf  g Ԁthe1hourstandardf  g f  g willdelay 8  attainmentofhealthprotectionsinceStateshavemoretime  \  tosubmitattainmentplansunderthe8hourstandardthan   underthe1hourstandard. v#  28      ׀ <   ` f  g Tf  g herearesomecaseswhereag Sf  g tatedoesnothavea `  fullyapprovedattainmentdemonstrationbecauseithas   failedtoactinatimelymanner.f  g f  g Tof  g Ԁliftthatobligation @ fromthoseareasf  ԀsimplybecauseEPAhadadoptedamore d stringent_NAAQS_f  g Ԁcouldresultinamorepreferential  treatmentofthoseareasoverareasthatdidadoptfully D _approvable_Ԁattainmentdemonstrationsf  g Ԁwiththerequisite h controlsf  g .Forexample,ifanareahasadoptedcontrolsto  demonstrateattainmentofthe1hourstandard,itmaynot H  removethosecontrolsfromitsSIPwithoutademonstration  l" thatthosecontrolswouldnotinterferewithattainmentor  progresstowardthe8hourstandard(oranyotherapplicable 4 requirementoftheCAA).f  g f  g Sf  g uchanarealikelywouldhave X morestringentcontrolobligationsinplacethanthearea   withoutafullyapprovedattainmentSIPandwouldhavea 8  highhurdletoremovingoralteringthosecontrols.g Ԁf  g In  \  contrast,theareawithoutafullyapprovedattainment   demonstrationwouldlikelymakeslowerprogresstoward <  attainingthe8hour_NAAQS_Ԁf  g f  g (f  g atleastintheshorttermf  g f  g )f  g  `  becauseitdoesnotf  g havef  g f  g allnecessaryf  g Ԁmeasuresinits   approvedSIPf  g and!withoutaclearrequirementtothe @ contrarywouldf  g Ԁbeundernopressuretohavethosemeasures d initsSIPuntilitsattainmentdemonstrationforthe8hour  _NAAQS_Ԁisdue. D  ` Forthefollowingexamplesf  Ԁofactualsituationsf  g ,weare h solicitingcommentonwhethertoretaintheobligationto  developa1hourattainmentdemonstrationf  g orf  g todetermine H  thatf  g thef  g requirementnolongerapplies.Inaddition,weare  l" solicitingcommentonf  g f  g twof  g Ԁalternativef  g sf  g Ԁthatmightaddress "$ someoftheinequities,whilenotsubjectingf  Sf  tatestothe L$& morecomplicatedplanningassociatedwithf  g f  g developingtwo %p!( separatef  g Ԁattainmentdemonstrationf  g sf  g Ԁ(oneunderthe1hour '#* standardandanotherunderthe8hourstandard).f  g f  g Underthe P)$, ff  g irstf  g f  g Ԁalternativeapproach,f  g Ԁf  g f  g f  g areasthataresubjecttoan *t&. obligationtosubmitaneworrevisedattainment , (0 demonstrationf  g f  g wouldf  g ԀinsteadberequiredtosubmitaSIP  revisionthatwouldobtainanadvanceincrementofemissions 4 reductionstowardattainmentofthe8hourozonestandard X withinaspecified,shortterm_timeframe_.f  Ԁf  Forexample,g we   couldf  g Ԁrequiretheseareastosubmitwithin1yearof 8  promulgationoftheimplementationruleaplanrevisionthat  \  requiresaspecificpercentageofemissionsreductions   (e.g.,f  5percentf  g Ԁorg 10percentf  g )fromthebaselineemissions <  forthe8hour_NAAQS_.Inaddition,wecouldrequirethat `  themeasuresbeimplementedinthenearterm,e.g.,nomore   than2yearsaftertherequiredsubmissiondate.f  f  g f  g f  g f  g Underthe @ secondf  g Ԁalternative,f  g Ԁareaswithanoutstandingobligationto d submita1hourattainmentdemonstrationf  g f  g wouldf  g Ԁberequired  tosubmittheir8hourozoneattainmentdemonstrationearly D inlieuofbeingrequiredtosubmita1hourattainment h _demonstration.f  g f  g Submittalofaf  g nearly8hourattainment  demonstrationwouldlikelypreventtheinequityf  g f  g ofareas H  avoidingf  g Ԁemissionsreductionsintheshortterm,as  l" describedintheprecedingfootnote. "$ g f  g Example1:f  g ԀAnareahasnotf  g f  g metinpartorinfullf  g Ԁa L$& pastdueobligationtosubmita1hourattainment %p!( demonstrationf  g f  g ԀrequiredbecauseEPAreclassifiedtheareato '#* ahigherclassificationafteritfailedtoattainthe1hour P)$, standardbyitsattainmentdate.f   *t&. f  g f  g f  g f  g Example2:g Ԁf  g ԀAnareaissubjecttoanobligationtosubmit , (0 anattainmentdemonstrationinthefuturef  g f  g ,asisthecase  whereEPAapplieditsattainmentdateextensionpolicy 4 ratherthanreclassifyinganareathatfailedtomeetits X attainmentdateandEPAhassubsequentlyf  g Ԁreclassifiedf  g f  g the   areaorsoonwilldoso,becauseofthecourtsrejectionof 8  theextensionpolicy.g Ԁf  g f  f  g   \  (v)Otherobligations.AnumberofareashaveSIPsthat   containcommitmentstoreviewtheirprogresstoward <  attainingthe1hourNAAQS(insomecases,thesearecalled `   midcoursereviews).TheseSIPapprovedcommitmentsare   enforceablef  g ,f  g ԀandEPAandtheg Sf  g tatescanusethesemidcourse @ reviewstoensurethatprogressisbeingmadeconsistent d withtheanalysisintheareas1hourattainment  demonstration.TheStateremainsobligatedtohonorthese D commitments. h b.Whatobligationscontinuetoapplyforareasthatare  f  g designatedattainmentunderthe8hourstandardandthat H  weredesignatednonattainmentforthe1hourstandardonor  l" afterNovember15,1990? "$ (i)ObligationsrelatedtoNSR.f  g f  g Areasthataref  g Ԁin L$& attainmentforthe8hourf  g ozoneNAAQSf  g Ԁwouldnotbesubject %p!( tononattainmentNSRforthe8hourstandardf  f  f  g f  g f  g .Wef  g Ԁbelievef  g Ԁit '#* makeslittlesensetorequirenonattainmentNSRf  g tocontinue P)$, f  g simplybecausef  g f  g theseareasf  g Ԁwerepreviouslydesignated *t&. nonattainmentforthe1hourstandard.Thus,wepropose , (0 thattheseareaswouldbesubjecttoPSDandwouldnotbe  subjecttothenonattainmentNSRoffsetandmajorsource 4 thresholdsthatappliedf  g f  g underf  g Ԁtheirclassificationforthe X 1f  g f  g Ԅf  g hourstandard.   (ii)Obligationsrelatedtoplanningobligationsotherthan 8  maintenanceplans.f  f  g WithrespecttoSIPf  g f  g pf  g lanningobligations  \  (ROPplansandattainmentdemonstrations),f  g f  g weareproposingf  g    thattheSIPf  g f  g pf  g lanningrequirementsthatappliedforpurposes <  ofthe1hourstandardwouldnotcontinuetoapplytothese `  areasaslongastheycontinuetomaintainthe8hourNAAQS.   Thus,eveniftheseareashavef  g f  g failedtomeetf  g ԀROPor @ attainmentplanobligationsforthe1hourstandard,they d wouldnotberequiredtomeetthemforsolongasthey  remaininattainmentwiththe8hourstandard.(As D discussedbelow,however,weareproposingthatsuchareas h developamaintenanceplanundersection110(a)(1).)This  approachisconsistentwithEPAs CleanDataf  g f  g Policyf  f  g  v#  29       H  f  g underthe1hourstandard,f  g whichprovidesforthf  g f  g ef  g seplanning  l" obligationstobestayedonceanareaattainsthestandard, "$ butonlyforsolongasf  g f  g anareaf  g Ԁremainf  g sf  g Ԁinattainmentf  g Ԁofthe L$& 1hourstandardf  g .f  g ԀIfsuchanareaviolatesthe8hourNAAQS %p!( !priortohavinganapprovedmaintenanceplanineffect(as  proposedbelowtoberequiredfortheseareas)!those 4 obligationswouldonceagainapplyinthesamemannerthat X theyapplyinareasdesignatednonattainmentforthe8hour   ozoneNAAQS. 8  (iii)Obligationsrelatedtocontrolmeasuresand  \  maintenanceplans.Theissueofwhatobligationremains   withrespectto nondiscretionarycontrolmeasures <  approvedintotheSIPorrequiredundertheCAAismore `  difficult.OurapproachfortheseisbasedontheCAAs   requirementsformaintenanceplans.(Consistentwithour @ proposalf  g f  g fordiscretionarycontrolmeasuresinf  g Ԁareas d designatednonattainmentforthe8hourNAAQSf  g f  g ,wewould  permitareastomodifyf  g Ԁdiscretionarymeasuresforareas D designatedattainmentforthe8hourNAAQSf  g Ԁsolongas h section110(l)ismetf  g .)g Ԁf  g    ` IfEPAdeterminedthattheseareas v#  30      ׀wererequiredto H  developmaintenanceplanspursuanttosection175A,then  l" theywouldneedtokeep(ortoadoptandthenkeep)those "$ controlmeasuresintheSIP,thoughtheycouldshiftthemto L$& contingencymeasures.f  Ԁf  Somecommentersurgedustorequire %p!( allareaspreviouslydesignatednonattainmentforthe1hour '#* NAAQStoretain(wheretheareahadbeenredesignated_to P)$, attainment)ordevelopf  (wheref  g Ԁtheareawasstilldesignated  _nonattainment_Ԁforthe1hour_NAAQS_Ԁatthetimeof8hour 4 designations)asection175Amaintenanceplan.However,we X donotbelievethataf  g sectionf  g 175Amaintenanceplanis   mandatedorisnecessaryforareasf  Ԁinitiallyf  g Ԁdesignated 8  attainmentforthe8hour_NAAQS_.  \   ` Section175Amaintenanceplansarerequiredforareas   thatweredesignated_nonattainment_Ԁfora_NAAQS_Ԁandthen <  subsequently_redesignated_Ԁtoattainmentforthat_NAAQS_.g Ԁf  g The `  areasaddressedinthissectionhaveneverbeendesignated   _nonattainment_Ԁforthe8hourozone_NAAQS_.Moreover,they @ haveamaintenanceobligationthatalreadyappliesf  g f  g :f  g Ԁsection d 110(a)(f  1f  g )requiresareastodemonstratehowtheywillattain  andmaintainf  g f  g aneworrevisedf  g Ԁ_NAAQS_.' v#  31      ׀Therefore,wedonot D believethatCongressmandatedthatsuchareasbesubjectto h f  g thesection175Amaintenanceplanobligationforthe8hour  _NAAQS_,norf  g f  g dowebelievef  g Ԁitf  g Ԁisf  g Ԁnecessarytointerpretthat H  provisiontoapply.  l" f  g f  g  ` f  g f  g Forf  g anf  g areaf  g Ԁthatf  g f  g wasf  g Ԁnever_redesignated_Ԁtoattainment "$ forthe1hourstandardandneverhadf  g af  g section175A L$& maintenanceplanf  g ,weareproposingthatf  g f  g iftheareaf  g Ԁwantf  g sf  g Ԁto %p!( reviseanyf  g partf  g off  g f  g itsf  g Ԁcurrent1hourf  g f  g SIP,theareamust '#* firstadoptf  g f  g Ԁandsubmitf  g af  g maintenanceplanf  g Ԁconsistentwith  section110(a)(f  1)g .f  g Moreover,eveniftheStateelectsnot 4 toreviseitsexistingSIP,weareproposingthatthearea X submitasection110(a)(1)maintenanceplanwithin3years   ofdesignationasattainmentforthe8hour_NAAQS_.f  g ԀWe 8  believethatf  g f  g thef  g Ԁmaintenanceplanf  g Ԁshouldprovidefor  \  g continuedf  g maintenanceofthe8hourstandardfor10years   followingf  g f  g f  g designationforthe8hour_NAAQS_f  g f  g Ԁandshould <  includecontingencymeasures.f  g f  g Unlikesection175Af  g ,section `  110(a)(g 1f  g )doesnotaddresscontingencymeasuresandthus   doesnotspecifythatmandatedcontrolsintheexistingSIP @ mustbeshiftedtocontingencymeasuresifmodifiedor d removed.Weareproposingthatiftheg Sf  g tateadopts  sufficientcontingencymeasures,andifitmakesa D demonstrationconsistentwithsection110(1),itcanmodify h orremovecontrolmeasuresintheapprovedSIP.   ` Wearef  alsof  g proposingthatareaswithapproved1hour H  section175Amaintenanceplanswillbeabletomodifythose  l" maintenanceplansconsistentwiththeirobligationtohavea "$ maintenanceplanforthe8hour_NAAQS_Ԁundersection L$& 110(a)(f  1f  ).Fortheseareas,weareproposingthatthe %p!( followingobligationscouldberemovedfromtheSIPif_______the_ '#* f  g Sf  tatedemonstratesthattheareawillmaintainthe8hour P)$, standardconsistentwithsection110(a)(g 1f  g )foraperiodof *t&. 10yearsfollowingf  f  g designationforf  g thef  g f  g 8hour_NAAQS_f  g : , (0 _f  g  <156789:;(Gxx<156789:;f  g f  g f  g "13"  f  g 13q%2G3  0 `   f  g theobligationtosubmitamaintenanceplanforthe1  hourstandard8yearsafterapprovaloftheirinitial 4 1hourmaintenanceplan;f  f  g f  g 13q%%݌X` (#` (# Ќ  "13"  133'2G3  0 `   f  g f  g therequirementtoimplementcontingencymeasuresupon   aviolationofthe1-hourozonestandard;however,such 8  areaswouldneedcontingencymeasuresaspartofa  \  maintenanceSIPforthe8hourNAAQSandf  Sf  g tatescould   electtomodifytheexistingcontingencymeasure <  triggersothatitisbasedonaviolationor `  exceedanceofthe8hourstandard.f  f  g f  g f  g 133'`'݌ ` (#` (# Ќ  (iv)Obligationsrelatedtoconformity.Forallareas @ designatedattainmentforthe8hourozoneNAAQSf  g ,f  g Ԁf  g the d requirementtodemonstrateconformitytothe1hourstandard  wouldnolongerapplyoncef  g f  g the1hourf  g Ԁstandardisrevokedin D wholeordeterminednottoapplyforthatpurposeundera h partialrevocationofthe1hourstandard(asproposed  below).Undersection176oftheCAAf  g ,conformityappliesto H  areasdesignatednonattainmentorsubjecttotherequirement  l" todevelopamaintenanceplanpursuanttosection175A. "$ Areasdesignatedattainmentforthe8hourstandardwouldno L$& longerbesubjecttotheobligationtodemonstrate %p!( conformitytothe1houremissionsf  g budgetsinanapproved '#* attainmentorf  g ԀROPf  g ԀSIPoranapprovedsection175A P)$, maintenanceplanf  g f  g forf  g Ԁthe1hourstandard.Thereasonfor *t&. thisisthat,undertheoptionsproposedbelow,they_would , (0 eithernof  f  g g Ԁlongerbedesignated_nonattainment_Ԁforthe1hour  standardf  g Ԁorf  g Ԁthe_nonattainment_Ԁdesignationwouldnolonger 4 applyforpurposesofconformity,andtheareawouldno X longerberequiredtodevelopamaintenanceplanunder   section175Aforpurposesofthe1hourstandardf  g .f  g f  g  8  c.Whathappenswithrespecttothef  _Nf  g g Of  g f  g x_f  g ԀSIPCall?  \   ` Section110(a)(2)(D)oftheCAAestablishes   requirementsforStatestoaddresstheproblemoftransport. <  f  g f  g ItrequiresaSIPtoprohibitf  g ԀtheStatessourcesfrom `  emittingairpollutantsinamountsthatwillcontribute   significantlyto_nonattainment_,orinterferewith @ maintenance,inoneormoredownwindStates.g Ԁf  g Asnotedabove d insectionIofthisproposal,in1998,EPAcalledong 22  Sf  g tatesandtheDistrictofColumbia( f  g Sf  g tates)toreduce D emissionsofg _NOx_f  g ԀconsistentwithbudgetssetforeachState. h (63FR57356,October27,1998).Furthermore,EPAgranted  petitionsundersection126andthusdirectlyregulated H  certainsourcesoff  g _NOx_f  g Ԁemissionsinmanyoftheg Sf  g tates  l" coveredbytheg _NOx_f  g ԀSIPCall.(65FR2674,January18, "$ 2000).f  g f  g ԀBelow,werefertothesef  g Ԁf  g collectivelyasthef  g _NOx_ L$& transportf  g Ԁrules. %p!(  ` Theg _NOx_f  g transportrulesweref  g Ԁdesignedtopreventupwind '#* _NOx_emissionsfromcontributingto_nonattainment_Ԁina P)$, downwindareaforboththe1hourand8hourozone_NAAQS_. *t&. EPA,however,stayedthe8hourbasisforf  g theg _NOx_Ԁg f  g transportf  g f  g  , (0 rulesinresponsetotheextensiveandextendedlitigation  (describedabove)thatoccurredconcerningtheestablishment 4 ofthe8hourozonestandard.f  g f  g Wef  g Ԁintendf  g Ԁtotake_rulemaking_ X actiontoliftthestayofthe8hourbasisforf  g f  g thesef  g Ԁrulef  g sf  g .   f  g f  g  ` g f  g f  g Wef  g f  g Ԁbelievef  g Ԁitimportanttog ensuref  g Ԁthatthetransition 8  tothe8-hourstandarddoesnothavetheeffectof  \  jeopardizingthecontrolsf  g requiredf  g Ԁtobeinplacef  g Ԁunderthe   g _NOx_f  g transportrulesf  g .RegardlessofwhetherEPAliftsthe <  stayofthe8hourbasisforthef  g f  g serulesf  g ,thecontrols `  requiredhavesubstantialbenefitsforreductionsofboth1   hourand8hourozonelevels.g f  g f  g Wef  g f  g Ԁbelievef  g Ԁthatrelaxingsuch @ controlswouldbecontrarytotheprinciplesf  g f  g wef  g Ԁidentified d aboveforaneffectivetransition.Consequently,f  g f  g wearef  g   proposingthatf  Sf  g tatesmustcontinuetoadheretothe D emissionbudgetsestablishedbythef  g f  g _NOx_f  g ԀSIPCallg Ԁafterthe h 1hourstandardisrevokedinwholeorinpart,asproposed  belowf  g .Similarly,f  g f  g wearef  g Ԁnotproposingtorevokeormodify H  itssection126regulationg f  g .  l"  ` However,g Sf  g tatesretaintheauthoritytorevisethe "$ controlobligationstheyhaveestablishedforspecific L$& sourcesorsourcecategories,f  g f  g iftheycontinuetomeetf  g Ԁtheir %p!( SIPCallbudgets.Inaddition,consistentwithsection '#* 110(l),theg Sf  g tateswouldneedtodemonstratethatthe P)$, modificationincontrolobligationswouldnotinterferewith *t&. attainmentoforprogresstowardthe8hour_NAAQS_Ԁf  g orf  g Ԁwith , (0 anyotherapplicablerequirementoftheCAAf  g .  d.WhatadditionalobligationsunderpartDoftitleIof 4 theCAAwouldnotcontinuetoapplyafterthe1hour X standardisrevokedinwholeorinpart?    ` Asdiscussedg f  g elsewhereinf  g Ԁthisproposal,f  g f  g wearef  g  8  proposingthatareasf  g wouldnotbeobligatedtocontinueto  \  demonstrateconformityforthe1hourstandardf  g Ԁoncethe1   yeargraceperiodforapplicationofconformityforthe8 <  hourstandardhaselapsedf  g .f   `   ` Inaddition,EPAwouldnotf  g takecertainactionswith   respecttothe1hourozone_NAAQS_.g Ԁf  g First,weareproposing @ thatwewouldnolongermakefindingsoffailuretoattain d the1hourstandardand,therefore,f  g Ԁwouldnotreclassify  areastoahigherclassificationforthe1hourstandard D basedonafailuretomeetthe1hourstandard.Webelieve h thatareasshouldfocustheirresourcesonattainmentofthe  8hourstandardandthatitwouldbecounterproductiveto H  f  g f  g establishnewobligationsforf  g Ԁg Sf  g tatesf  g withrespecttothe1  l" hourstandardaftertheyhavebegunplanningforthe8hour "$ standard.(Moreover,wenotethattheattainmentdatesfor L$& marginal,moderateandseriousareashavepassedandtheCAA %p!( doesnotprovideforf  g f  g reclassificationofsevereareasf  g Ԁinthe '#* absenceofarequestbytheStatef  g .)EPA,ofcourse,f  g f  g mustf  g Ԁensurethat P)$, areasarecontinuingtomakeprogresstowardcleanerair. *t&. f  g f  g If  g fEPAdeterminesthatag Sf  g tateisnotadequately , (0 implementinganapprovedSIPandachievingairquality  reductionsinatimelymanner,EPAmayenterintoan 4 informalprocesstoensuretheg Sf  g tatetakesanynecessary X action+ v#  32      ׀orf  g ,alternatively,f  g Ԁmayf  g f  g takemoreformalactionsuch   asmakingafindingoffailuretoimplementtheSIPor 8  issuingf  g ԀaSIPCalltorequireaction.Asnotedabove,many  \  areashave_SIPs_Ԁthatcontaincommitmentstoreviewtheir   progresstowardattainingthe1hour_NAAQS_Ԁ( midcourse <  review).TheseSIPapprovedcommitmentsareenforceablef  g ,f  g  `  andEPAandtheg Sf  g tatescanusethesemidcoursereviewsto   ensurethatprogressisbeingmadeconsistentwiththe @ analysisintheareas1hourattainmentdemonstration. d g 4.Doestherequirementforcontinuedimplementationofthe  obligationsaddressedaboveexpireatsomepoint? D  ` f  g f  g TheSIPobligationsunderthe1hourstandardforan h areasclassificationunderthe1hourstandardwouldnot  expireafterthe1hourstandardisrevokedinwholeorin H  part.However,ff  g orthosemandatoryrequirementsthat  l" continuetoapplytoanareaduetotheareas "$ classificationforthe1hour_NAAQS_,weareproposingtwo L$& optionsforwhentheStatemayf  g f  g movef  g Ԁthemandatorymeasures %p!( tof  g ԀamaintenanceplanintheSIPandtreatthemasf  g  '#* contingencymeasures:  a.Option1.Whentheareaachievesthelevelofthe 4 1-hourozonestandard(eveniftheareahasnotyetattained X the8hourstandard).Therationaleforthisoptionisthat   f  g f  g Congressintendedanareaf  g Ԁtocontinuetoimplementthese 8  obligationsuntilitattainedthe1-hourstandardf  ,f  Ԁatwhich  \  timetheareaf  g f  g wouldf  g Ԁbeabletodiscontinueimplementationf  g    uponashowingofcontinuedmaintenance.However,insucha <  case,thef  g f  g f  g areaf  g Ԁf  g couldnotremovethemeasuresfromtheSIP; `  rather,itcouldshiftsuchmeasurestocontingency   measures. @ b.Option2.Whentheareaattainsthe8-hourstandardand d isdesignatedattainment(regardlessofwhen,ifever,the  areaattainsthe1-hourstandard).Therationaleforthis D optionisthatthe8-hourstandardisthestandardthatEPA h hasdeterminedwillprotectpublichealthandthe  environment.f  g f  g Of  g nceanareademonstratesitf  g hasmetandf  g can H  maintainthef  g f  g healthprotectivef  g Ԁstandard,itwouldbe  l" appropriatetoremoveormodifythosecontrols. "$  ` Itshouldbenotedthateitherofthesetwooptions L$& couldapplyforeitherofthetransitionoptions,discussed %p!( insection2,abovef  g f  g f  g f  g f  g . '#*    ` g XXXXItshouldalsobenotedthattheSIPobligationswould P)$, includenotonlyrequirementsinthef  g 1hourf  g nonattainment *t&. areabutalsofortheSIPingeneral,includingtheSIP , (0 requirementstoaddresstheNOxSIPCall.f  g f  g Weareproposing  undertf  g heantibackslidingprovisioninsection110(l)to 4 requirethattheSIPretaintheNOxSIPCallcontrolsf  g that X havealreadybeenapproved.Intheabsenceofappropriate   regionalscalemodelingthatwoulddemonstratethatchanging 8  aSIPCallcontroltoacontingencymeasurewouldnot  \  interferewithattainmentormaintenanceinanyotherState,   theStatecouldnotshiftSIPCallcontrolstrategiesto <  contingencymeasures.#XXXXd#XXXXԀTheStatewould,ofcourse,alsohave `  tosubmitademonstrationthattheSIPchangewouldnot   interferewithattainmentorreasonablefurtherprogressfor @ anyairqualitystandardorotherapplicablerequirementof d theAct.#XXXX&i#Ԁ  5f  g .HowwillEPAensurethatthepublicknowswhichf  g f  g areas D mustcontinueprovisionsunderthe1hourSIPsifEPA h revokesthe1hourstandardf  g ?   ` _EPA_Ԁwouldpromulgateregulatoryprovisionsidentifying H  theobligationstowhichareasremainsubject,and  l" identifyingtheareas.IfEPAultimatelychoosestorevoke "$ the1hourstandardandtheassociateddesignationsand L$& classificationsshortlyafterdesignationsforthe8hour %p!( standard(asproposedbelow),EPAwouldensurethatthere '#* areprovisionsinf  g f  g theCodeofFederalRegulations(CFR)f  g Ԁthat P)$, continuetodefinetheboundariesforthoseareas.The *t&. reasonforthisisthatboundariesfor8hourozone , (0 nonattainmentareasmaynotbecoextensivewiththosefor  the1hourstandardf  ,f  ԀandEPAwouldneedtomakeclearwhich 4 areasorportionsofareasmustcontinuetoimplement X obligationsduetotheir1hourclassification.f     f  g D.f  g f  g Shouldprescribedrequirementsofsubpart2applyinall 8  8hournonattainmentareasclassifiedundersubpart2,oris  \  thereflexibilityinapplicationincertainnarrowlydefined   circumstances? <  1.Background `   ` The1990CAAAmendmentsoverhauledtheCAAs   requirementsforozonenonattainmentareasand,indoingso, @ specifiednewmandatorymeasuresformanyareas.Thenew d approachembodiedinsubpart2wastoclassifyareas  accordingtotheseverityoftheirpollution.Areaswith D moreseriousozonepollutionwereallowedmoretimetomeet h thestandard!butwererequiredtoadoptmorenumerousand  stringentmeasuresdependingontheirclassification. H  Congressionalproponentsofthisapproacharguedthat  l" specifyingmandatorymeasuresinthestatutewasnecessary "$ becauseStatesandEPA,priorto1990,hadfailedtoensure L$& thatSIPsachievesteadyreasonableprogressinreducing %p!( emissionsortorequirereadilyavailablemeasuresthatwere '#* costeffectiveandneededtomeetthestandard. P)$,  ` Mandatorysubpart2requirementsformoderateand *t&. higherclassifiedareasinclude,forexample,specificROP , (0 requirements(includinga15percentVOCreductionfor  moderateandaboveareas),basicI/Mprograms,arequirement 4 thatsourcessubjecttoNSRobtainemissionsoffsetsata X ratioof1.15to1,andRACTforNOxsourcesaswellasVOC   sources.Seriousandsevereareasaresubjecttoadditional 8  measuressuchasfurtherROPrequirements,applicabilityof  \  NSRtosmallersources,enhancedI/M,andapplicabilityof   RACTtosmallersources.(AppendixApresentsasummary <  comparisonofmeasuresundersubparts1and2.) `   ` Fortheproposed8hourozoneimplementationstrategy,   EPAhasexaminedtheissueofmandatorymeasuresfromboth @ legalandpolicystandpoints.EPAslegalviewisguidedby d theSupremeCourtdecision.TheCourtheldthatCongress  drasticallylimitedEPAsdiscretiononwhetherthe D mandatoryrequirementsofsubpart2willapplyto8hour h areasbyconcludingthattheclassificationschemeof  subpart2appliedforpurposesofarevisedozoneNAAQS. H  ATAI,175F3dat10481050.  l"  ` Asdiscussedelsewhere,theSupremeCourtdecision "$ statesthatsubpart2providesforclassificationofareas L$& underthe8hourstandard.Withrespecttotherequirements %p!( ofsubpart2,theSupremeCourtstated, Theprincipal '#* distinctionbetweenSubpart1andSubpart2isthatthe P)$, lattereliminatesregulatorydiscretionthattheformer *t&. allowed.Whitman121S.Ct.at918.TheCourtwentonto , (0 state, WhereasSubpart1gives_EPA_Ԁconsiderablediscretion  toshapenonattainmentprograms,Subpart2prescribeslarge 4 partsofthembylaw.Id.TheCourtalsostated, EPAmay X notconstruethestatuteinawaythatcompletelynullifies   textuallyapplicableprovisionsmeanttolimitits 8  discretion.Id.918919.  \   ` Onceanareaisclassifiedundersubpart2,thesubpart   2requirementsapply.EPAmayhavesomelimitedabilityto <  changeorlimitsubpart2controls,consistentwiththe `  statutorylanguage,butEPAcannotbroadlywaivethose   requirements.Forexample,EPAmayhavesomeflexibilityto @ modifyregulatoryrequirementsforprogramssuchasNSR d (discussedelsewhereinthisproposedrulemaking).  Furthermore,subpart2providesdiscretiontoEPAin D implementingcertainprovisionsalready,suchaswaiversfor h stageIIvaporrecovery,NOxRACTandNOxNSR.Inaddition,  caselawmayprovideEPAwithsomeflexibilitytowaive H  federallyapplicablerequirementsonacasebycasebasis  l" whereapplicationoff  thoserequirementsg wouldproducean "$  absurdresult. L$&  ` Withrespecttopolicyconsiderations,somecommenters %p!( atpublicmeetingsorinwrittensubmissionstoEPAhave '#* expressedtheviewthatmandatorymeasuresareneededto P)$, ensureactionsaretaken,butanumberofcommentershave *t&. raisedconcerns.TheseincludewhethermandatedVOC , (0 controlswillbeappropriateforallareasinthefuture,  andwhethermandatorymeasuresareappropriateinareas 4 projectedtoattaininthenearterm.Anumberof X commentersrecommendedthatEPAallowforflexibilityin   implementingthe8hourozonestandardandnotrequire 8  mandatorymeasures,suchaslocalVOCmeasures,wherethey  \  wouldnotbeveryeffectiveinachievingattainmentofthe   standard.Inmanycases,particularlyforareasthatwould <  benewnonattainmentareasunderthe8hourstandard,region `  wideNOxcontrolsandnationalcontrolsonmobilesources   arepredictedtogreatlyreducetheareasozonelevelsand @ tobringmanyintoattainmentwithoutadditionallocal d emissioncontrols.   ` Althoughanumberofcommentswerereceivedonthe D issueofflexibility,manycommentersonthisissuetookthe h positionthattheywouldpreferareastobeclassifiedunder  subpart1ratherthansubpart2.Somecommentersdid H  recommendthatEPAmaketheargumentthatnewinformation  l" abouttherelativebenefitsofNOxandVOCcontrolwould "$ leadtoallowingmoretailoredcontrolsforanumberof L$& areas,ratherthantheonesizefitsallapproachofsubpart %p!( 2.However,commentersdidnotsuggesthowtheCAAcouldbe '#* interpretedtoallowtheflexibilitytheywereadvocating P)$, forthemandatoryrequirementsofsubpart2.Other *t&. commentersarguedthatthesubpart2measuresaremandatory , (0 undertheCAAforareasclassifiedundersubpart2andthat  theCAAdoesnotprovideflexibilitytowaivethose 4 requirements. X  ` RegardingtheVOC/NOxissue,weobservethatscientific   understandingofozonepollutionandtheimpactofcontrol 8  strategieshasimprovedovertime.Priorto1990,themain  \  focusofozonecontrolstrategieswasVOCcontrol.Since   then,scientificstudieshavemoreclearlyrecognizedthe <  roleofNOx,biogenicemissions,andtransportofozoneand `  NOxinozonenonattainment.Inresponse,EPAsozone   strategyforthe1hourstandardevolvedtoputgreater @ emphasisoncontrollingNOxinadditiontoVOCandto d requirecontrolofNOxemissionsthatcontributeto  interstateozoneproblems. D  ` WerecognizethattherelativeeffectivenessofVOCand h NOxcontrolswillvaryfromareatoarea,depending  significantlyuponVOC/NOxratiosintheatmosphere. H  CurrentscientificinformationshowsthatVOCreductions  l" willreduceozoneinurbanareasandinotherareaswhere "$ thereisexcessNOxavailableforreaction.Ozonelevelsin L$& areasthatarelessurbanandhavelowerNOxemissions,or %p!( thathavehighbiogenicVOClevels,maybemoresensitiveto '#* NOxcontrolandlesssensitivetoVOCcontrol.Because P)$, ozoneformationisgreatlyaffectedbymeteorological *t&. conditionsandsource/receptororientation,ozoneformation , (0 maybelimitedbyeitherVOCorNO00x0concentrationsat  differenttimesandlocationswithinthesamearea. 4  ` Inordertosupporttheapproachproposedbelow,we X solicitrelevanttechnicalinformationonthisissuefrom   Statesandothers. 8  2.Approachbeingproposed  \     ` Inlinewiththelegalinterpretationabove,weare   proposingthatsubpart2requirementswouldapplytoeach <  areaclassifiedundersubpart2consistentwiththeareas `  classification.However,todaysproposalcontainsseveral   featuresintendedtoprovideStateswithflexibilityonthe @ measuresrequiredtobeincludedinSIPsfor8hourareas. d  ` First,asexplainedinthesectiononclassifications  above,proposedclassificationoption2wouldresultina D numberofareasbeingclassifiedundersubpart1ratherthan h undersubpart2.Second,forbothclassificationoptions,  weareproposinganincentivefeaturethatwouldallowareas H  toqualifyforalowerclassificationwithfewermandatory  l" requirementsiftheareacouldshowitwillmeetthe "$ standardbythedeadlineforthelowerclassification.This L$& would,forexample,allowanyareaprojectedtoattainby %p!( 2007basedonexistingFederalmeasuresandanyStateor '#* localmeasuresapprovedintotheSIPtobeclassifiedas P)$,  marginalandtoavoidsubpart2mandatorymeasures!someof *t&. whichmaybesignificantthatapplytohigher  classifications. 4   ` Undereitherofourproposedclassificationframeworks, X amajorityofpotential8hourareaswouldnotbesubjectto   significantsubpart2mandatorymeasuresbecausetheywould 8  beclassifiedmarginalorlower.Basedonouranalysisof  \  hypotheticalnonattainmentareas,therewouldbefewerthan   10potential8hournonattainmentareasclassified serious <  orabove,andtheseareasalreadyareimplementing `  requirementsapplicabletoseriousoraboveareasforthe1   hourstandard.Therefore,themainimpactofsubpart2 @ mandatorymeasuresin8hourimplementationwouldbeon(1) d areasthatareclassifiedasmoderate,anddidnothaveto  meetmoderateoraboverequirementsforthe1hourstandard, D (2)areasclassifiedasmoderateorabovethatwouldbe h subjecttoROPrequirementsforthe8hourNAAQS,and(3)  newcountiesorareasincludedaspartofaseriousor H  higherclassifiednonattainmentarea.  l"  ` Asathirdflexibilitymechanism,weareproposingto "$ considerallowingcasebycasewaiverswhensufficient L$& evidenceispresentedthatapplicationofaspecific %p!( requirementinaparticularareawouldcauseabsurdresults. '#* Evidenceofanabsurdresultmight,forexample,includea P)$, modeleddemonstrationthatfutureVOCreductionsrequired *t&. undersubpart2foraparticularareawouldactuallycause , (0 ozonetoincreasemorethanademinimisamountand  thereforeincreasetheamountofNOxemissionsreductions 4 neededfortheattainmentdemonstration.Suchashowing X wouldalsohavetoaccountforthepotentialbenefitsofthe   mandatedcontrolsindownwindareasindeterminingwhether 8  onthewholetheapplicationofthesubpart2measurewould  \  produceanabsurdresult.    ` Webelievethatabsurdresultswillhappenonlyrarely <  inthosecaseswhereapplicationoftherequirementinthat `  areawouldthwarttheintentofCongressinenactingthe   relevantprovisionsoftheCAA.Insuchcases,EPAmaybe @ abletoprovidelimitedrelieftothearea,butonlytothe d degreeneededtoprotectCongressionalintent.Forexample,  webelievethatthepurposeofthe15percentVOCROP D requirementistoensurethatareasmakeprogresscleaning h uptheirairandmovingtowardtheirgoalofattainmentin  thefirst6yearsfollowingtheemissionsbaselineyear.If H  anareacoulddemonstratethatreductionsinVOCwould  l" providenoprogresstowardattainingthestandard,EPAmay "$ beallowedtointerpretthestatutetoallowforreduction L$& inNOxemissionsinstead._EPA_Ԁcouldnot,however,simply %p!( waivetherequirementfortheareatomeettheROPgoalsof '#* theCAA.Moreover,itwouldnotbesufficientforthearea P)$, toshowthatVOCreductionswouldbelessbeneficialthan *t&. NOxreductions.Whileonemightcontendthatsucharesult , (0 isnotthemostlogicalresult,itisnotabsurd.Theabove  exampleisasimplisticexampleapplicationoftheabsurd 4 resultstestinanyspecificsituationwouldlikelybemore X complex.Inanyspecificsituation,wewouldneedto   considerallofthefactsinlightofvariousstatutory 8  provisions.Forexample,wewouldneedtoconsiderthat  \  anothergoaloftheSIPprovisionsintheCAAistomitigate   transportofozone(andozoneprecursors).Therefore,in <  determiningwhetherthereisan"absurdresult,"wewould `  notonlyneedtoconsidertheimplicationsforthespecific   areaassertinganabsurdresult,butalsotheeffectson @ downwindareas. d  ` AStateattemptinganabsurdresultsdemonstration  wouldhavetoworkverycloselywithEPAtoensurethatthe D demonstrationpassesthehigheststandardsoftechnical h credibility.Ifwehadinformationthattheagencybelieves  supportsanabsurdresultsshowing,wewouldmakethat H  informationavailabletotheState.TheStatewould,of  l" course,havetosubjectthisdemonstrationtothesame "$ publicprocesscarriedoutfortheSIPsubmissionitself L$& priortosubmissiontoEPAoftheSIPcontainingthe %p!( demonstration.Innowaywouldthiswaiverexemptanarea '#* fromtherequirementtodemonstrateattainmentbythe P)$, attainmentdateortodemonstrateRFPtowardattainment *t&. consistentwiththeareasclassification.Wewouldhaveto , (0 reviewtheStatesdemonstrationastowhethertheresultis  "absurd"inlightoftheparticularstatutoryrequirementat 4 issueandwithinthecontextofthestatuteasawhole. X SimplybecauseaStatemaydemonstrateanabsurdresultfor   purposesofmeetingonestatutoryprovision,suchasthe 8  requirementfora15percentVOCreductionwithin6years  \  afterabaseyear,thisdoesnotimplythatsomeother   provisionoftheCAAthatrequiresVOCreductionsis <  automaticallyconsidered absurd. `  3.Otherapproachesconsidered    ` Weconsideredanumberofotheroptionsforallowing @ additionalflexibilityforsubpart2requirements.These d otheroptionsthatwereconsideredbutarenotbeing  proposedaredescribedinaseparatedocumentavailablein D thedocket.- v#  33       h E.Whatistherequiredtimeframeforobtainingemissions  reductionstoensureattainmentbytheattainmentdate? H   ` _XXXX ` Section_Ԁ172(c)(2)oftheCAArequiresthatemissions "$ reductionsneededforattainmentbephasedinsuchthat_RFP_ L$& towardattainmentisachieved.Forareasclassifiedas %p!( moderateundersubpart2,theirattainmentdatewouldbeas '#* expeditiouslyaspracticablebutnolaterthan6yearsafter  thedateofclassification.TheirROPrequirementwouldbe 4 atleasta15percentVOCemissionsreductionfromthebase X yeartobeachievednolaterthan6yearsafterthebase   year.However,iftheareaneededmorethan15percentVOC 8  reductionsinordertodemonstrateattainment,thenany  \  additionalreductionswouldalsohavetobeachievedbythe   _f  g beginning_Ԁofthe_f  g ozone_Ԁseasonpriortotheareasattainment <  date. `   ` Statesshouldbeawareoftheconsequencesoffailing   toimplementthecontrolmeasuresnecessaryforattainment @ sufficientlyfarinadvanceoftheattainmentdate.For d areascoveredundersubpart2,section181(a)(5)oftheCAA  doesallowforuptotwo1yearattainmentdateextensions D incertaincircumstances.Weareproposinghowthose h extensionprovisionswouldbeimplementedelsewhereinthis  proposalunderthediscussionofattainmentdates.To H  obtainthefirstofthe1yearextensions,theCAAbasically  l" requiresthattheareabemeetingthelevelofthestandard "$ intheattainmentyearitself,eveniftheareahasnot L$& actuallyattainedconsideringthemostrecent3yearsof %p!( data.Thus,theStatesshouldensurethattheemissions '#* reductionsbeimplementedtoensurethatozonelevelsfor P)$, theozoneseasonprecedingtheattainmentdatearebelowthe *t&. levelofthestandard.Ifanareadoesnotmeetthe , (0 eligibilityrequirementsfora1yearextension(asproposed  elsewhereinthisrulemaking)intheattainmentyear,then 4 theareawouldnotbeeligibleforanattainmentdate X extension,andEPAwouldhaveanobligationtoreclassify   theareatoahigherclassification( bumpup).Amarginal 8  areawithanattainmentdate3yearsafteritsnonattainment  \  designationthatfailstoattainwouldbesubjecttobumpup   toatleastmoderate,andwouldthenhavetoprepareaplan <  toattainwithin3yearsafterward(6yearsaftertheir `  nonattainmentdesignation).    ` Thereisfurtherdiscussionofthissituationasit @ relatestothe1hourozonestandardintheGeneralPreamble d ofApril16,1992(57FR13498,13506);thisdiscussionmay  havesomeapplicabilitytothe8hourstandard. D  ` Areascoveredundersubpart1arealsoabletoobtain h uptotwo1yearextensionsoftheattainmentdate(see  section172(a)(2)(C)).Thereisnoprovisionforbumpupin H  classificationsimilartothatundersubpart2.However,if  l" anareafailstoattain,section179oftheCAAprovides "$ thatEPApublishafindingthattheareafailedtoattain. L$& TheStatethenmustsubmitwithin1yearafterthat %p!( publicationarevisiontotheSIPthatprovidesfor '#* attainmentwithinthetimeprovidedundersection179. P)$, Section179alsoprovidesthattheSIPrevisionmustalso *t&. includeanyadditionalmeasuresthatEPAmayprescribe. , (0  ` Elsewhereinthisnoticeofproposedrulemaking,we  alsorefertorequiringthatemissionreductionsneededto 0 forattainmentneedtobeimplementedbytheattainment X date.Bythis,wemeanthattheymustbeimplementedbythe  f  g beginningofthef  g ozoneseasonpriortotheattainmentdate.f  g Ԁ 4  Inotherwords,iftheattainmentdateisApril15,2010,  \  thereductionswouldneedtobeimplementedbythebeginning    oftheozoneseasoninthepreviousyear(2009).Ozone 8  seasonsaredefinedin40_CFR_ԀPart58,AppendixD;formany `  States,theozoneseasonstartsMarch1orApril1.f  g #XXXXҝ#XxXXX     #XXXXx8#F.HowwillEPAaddresslongrangetransportofground < levelozoneanditsprecursorswhenimplementingthe8hour d ozonestandard?  1. ` Background @  ` Althoughmuchprogresshasbeenmadeoverthelast h decadetoimproveairquality,manyStatescontainareas  thathavenotyetattainedthe1hourozonestandardand/or D  thatareviolatingthe8hourozonestandard.Someofthese l" areasaresignificantlyaffectedbyinterstateozone !$ transportfromupwindareas.Windcurrentscantransport H#& ozoneandNOx,aprimaryprecursortoozone,longdistances, $p!( affectingmultipleStatesdownwindofasourcearea._______EPA_ &#* recognizesthatthistypeofinterstatetransportcanmake L($, itdifficult!orimpossible!forsomeStatestomeettheir )t&. attainmentdeadlinessolelybyregulatingsourceswithin + (0 theirownboundaries.The1990AmendmentstotheCAAreflect P-)2  Congressawarenessthatozoneisaregional,andnotsolely  alocal,problem.Section110(a)(2)(D)providesan 4 importanttoolforaddressingtheproblemoftransport.It X providesthataSIPmustcontainadequateprovisionsto   prohibitsourcesinaStatefromemittingairpollutantsin 8  amountsthatcontributesignificantlytononattainment,or  \  interferewithmaintenance,inoneormoredownwindStates.   Section110(k)(5)authorizesEPAtofindthataSIPis <  substantiallyinadequatetomeetanyCAArequirement, `  includingtherequirementsofsection110(a)(2)(d).IfEPA   makessuchafinding,itmustrequiretheStatetosubmit, @ withinaspecifiedperiod,aSIPrevisiontocorrectthe d inadequacy.TheCAAfurtheraddressesinterstatetransport  ofpollutioninsection126,whichauthorizesanyStateto D petitionEPAforafindingdesignedtoprotecttheState h fromsignificantupwindsourcesofairpollutantsfromother  States. H   ` Inthepastseveralyears,EPAhasconductedtwo  l" rulemakingstocontrolinterstateozonetransportinthe "$ easternU.S.In1998,EPAissuedtheNOxSIPCall,which L$& requirescertainStatesintheeasternU.S.tomeet %p!( statewideNOxemissionsbudgets(63FR57356,October27, '#* 1998.)Stateprogramstoimplementtherulehavefocusedon P)$, reducingemissionsfromelectricpowergeneratorsandlarge *t&. industrialemitters.Inaddition,inresponsetopetitions , (0 _submittedbyseveralnortheasternStatesundersection126,  EPAissuedaseparaterule(usuallyknownastheSection126 4 Rule)toestablishFederalcontrolrequirementsforcertain X electricpowergeneratorsandindustrialboilersand   turbinesinupwindStates(64FR28250,May25,1999and65 8  FR2674,January18,2000).Forbothrules,thecompliance  \  dateforachievingtherequiredNOxreductionsisMay31,   2004.Thesetwotransportrulesoverlapconsiderably,with <  theNOxSIPCallbeingthebroaderactionaffectingmore `  States.AlltheStatesaffectedbytheSection126Ruleare   coveredbytheNOxSIPCall.Therefore,EPAcoordinatedthe @ tworulemakingsandestablishedamechanismunderwhichthe d Section126RulewouldbewithdrawnforsourcesinaState  whereEPAhasapprovedaSIPmeetingtheNOxSIPCall.2 v#  34      ׀ D  ` InboththeNOxSIPCallandtheSection126Rule,EPA h madedeterminationsofwhetherupwindsourcesare  significantlycontributingtodownwindnonattainment H  problemsunderboththe1hourand8hourozonestandards.  l" InthefinalSIPCallrule,EPAdeterminedthatthesame "$ levelofreductionswasneededtoaddresstransportforboth L$& the1hourand8hourstandards.A v#  35      ׀Thus,unlikeinthe  past,Statesaffectedbytransportcandeveloptheirnew 4 ozoneimplementationplanswiththeknowledgethattheissue X ofinterstatetransporthasalreadybeenaddressedupfront.   ThisapproachwillprovidetheseStateswithcertaintythat 8  theywillbenefitfromsubstantialemissionsreductionsfrom  \  upwindsourcesandgivethemsignificantlyimprovedboundary   conditionsthattheycanrelyonastheyworktoidentify <  additionalemissionreductionstheywillneedtoincludein `  alocalarea'sattainmentSIP.   2.EPA'santicipatedapproach. @  ` InprovidingtheirviewstoEPAonthe8-hourozone d implementationrule,theOzoneTransportCommission(OTC)  andotherStatecommentershavearguedthattheNOxSIPCall D andtheSection126Rulearenotfullyadequate.Intheir h view,additionalstepsareneededtoreduceinterstate  transportofozoneandNOxtoassistdownwindareasin H  meetingthe8hourozonestandard.Inparticular,these  commentershaveexpressedcontinuedconcernaboutupwind 4 emissionsfrompowerplantsandothermajorsourcesand X transportedpollutionfromupwindcities.    ` Asdescribedabove,EPAhasalreadytakentwoactions 8  toaddresstheissueofinterstatetransportforpurposesof  \  the8hourstandard.TheNOxSIPCallandtheSection126   RulerequirethatStateswithintheSIPCallmake <  significantemissionsreductionsfrompowerplantsandother `  majorsourcesthatcontributetoozonenonattainmentin   downwindareas.Forbothrules,thecompliancedatefor @ achievingtherequiredemissionsreductionsisMay31,2004. d  ` EPAintendstoinvestigatetheextent,severityand  sourcesofinterstateozonetransportthatwillexistafter D theNOxSIPCallandtheSection126Ruleareimplementedin h 2004.TheAgencybelievesthatitmaybeappropriateto  considertheneedtoreduceinterstatetransportthat H  contributestounhealthylevelsofPM2.5indownwind  l" nonattainmentareaswhenlookingatanyadditional "$ requirementsforreducingthetransportofozoneorozone L$& precursors. %p!(  ` Asnotedabove,thePresidentrecentlyproposedtheCSA '#* that,amongotherthings,wouldachievesignificant P)$, reductions!beyondthoserequiredundertheSIPCalland *t&. theSection126Rule!intheregionaltransportofozone , (0 andozoneprecursors.DetailedmodelingbyEPAfortheyear  2010showsthatthe2008PhaseINOxlimitsintheCSAwould 4 reducemaximum8hourozonelevelsinmanypartsofthe X easternU.S.,includinganumberofareaslikelytobe   designatednonattainmentforthe8hourstandard.The 8  modelingresultsareavailableonthewebat  \  4H O  5    _www.epa.gov/clearskies   6    7X.    ` TheClearSkiesreductionswouldenableseveral <  additionalareastomeetthe8hourstandardwithout `  imposinganyadditionallocalcontrols.Anumberofother   areaswouldfinditeasiertomeetthe8hourstandard @ becauseoftheadditionalreductionsinpowerplant d emissionsthatwouldberequiredunderClearSkies.  However,theAgencyhasnotmadeadeterminationthatsuch D reductionsarewarrantedunderthetransportprovisionsof h theCAA.Asnotedabove,inordertoevaluatethisissue,  theAgencyintendstoinvestigatetheextent,severityand H  sourcesofinterstateozonetransportthatwillexistafter  l" theexistingtransportrulesareimplementedin2004. "$  ` TheAgencywelcomesinputfromStatesandother L$& interestedpartiesastohowtodealwithozonetransport %p!( effectivelyandequitablyandonthetechnicalandother '#* issuesthatwillhavetobeconfrontedaspartofan P)$, evaluationofwhatfurtherstepsshouldbetakenbeyondthe *t&. existing_NOx_SIPCalltodealwithozonetransport. , (0 3.Otherconcernsabouttransport.   ` EPArealizesthat,whatevermeasuresmaybetakenin 4 thefuture,attainmentdemonstrationsforsomeareaswould X continuetobecomplicatedbytheeffectsofozoneand   transportfromupwindsourcesandother_nonattainment_Ԁareas 8  incaseswhereupwindsourcecontrolsarescheduledfor  \  implementationafterthedownwindareasattainmentdate   (e.g.,2007attainmentdate). <   ` Downwindareascouldbeinoneoftwosituations.In `  thefirstsituation,anareamightbereceivingsuchhigh   levelsoftransportedozoneorozoneprecursorsthatevenif @ ittotallyeliminateditsownemissions,theincomingozone d andprecursorswouldbesufficienttocontinuetocause  violationsofthestandardbeyondtheapplicableattainment D date.Inthesecondsituation,theareamightbeableto h achieveadditionallocalreductionssufficientto  demonstrateattainment.Inthissecondcase,thequestion H  arisesastowhetheritisequitabletorequirethose  l" reductionsortoallowmoretimeforthereductionsinthe "$ "upwind"areatotakeplace./ v#  36       L$&  ` EPAsolicitscommentonhowtoaddressthisissue.EPA  believesthatasubpart1areacouldbegrantedalater 4 attainmentdateifwarrantedconsideringtransport.For X areasclassifiedundersubpart2,thestatuteprovidesno   expressreliefforthesesituations.Theareadoeshavethe 8  optionofrequestingtobeclassifiedtothenexthigher  \  classification.Thus,wherethedemonstrationofattainment   iscomplicatedbytransportbetweentwoareasofdifferent <  classifications,theStateisstillresponsiblefor `  developingandsubmittingdemonstrationswhichshowthatthe   standardwillbeattainedbytheapplicabledate.Inother @ words,theStatemustprovideforsufficientemissions d reductionsonaschedulethatwillensureattainmentinits  area. D / / ` OneapproachwouldbeforStatestoworktogetherina h collaborativeprocesstoperformthenecessaryanalysesto  identifyappropriatecontrolsthatprovideforattainment H  throughoutthemultiStatearea.EPAbelievesthatthe  l" wordinginsections172(c)(1)and182(b)(1)(A)(_i_)requires "$ theStatetodevelopaplanprovidingsuchemissions L$& reductions.Statesworkingtogetherinacollaborative %p!( processcouldperformacomprehensiveassessmentofthe '#* impactsofallcontrolmeasuresbeingimplementedinboth P)$, thelocalandupwindareas.Theanalysismayshowthe *t&. extenttowhichthedownwindareaisdependentonupwind  strategieswhilefullymeetingitsownrequirements 4 associatedwithitsclassification.Upwindareasmay X provideacomprehensiveassessmentoftheimpactsofall   controlmeasuresbeingimplementedonthedownwindareas. 8  4.Otheroptionsconsidered  \   ` Weconsideredanumberofotheroptionsandapproaches   foraddressingtransport.Theotheroptionsthatwere <  consideredbutarenotbeingproposedaredescribedina `  separatedocumentavailableinthedocket.^ v#  37         G.HowwillEPAaddresstransportofgroundlevelozoneand @ itsprecursorsforrural_nonattainment_Ԁareas,multiState d _nonattainment_Ԁareas,areasaffectedbyintrastatetransport,  andinternationaltransport? D 1.Ruraltransport_nonattainment_Ԁareas h  ` Section182(h)recognizesthattheozoneproblemina  ruraltransportareaisalmostentirelyattributableto H  emissionsfromupwindareas.Therefore,theonly  l" requirementsfortheruralareaaretheminimalrequirements "$ specifiedforareasexpectedtoattainwithin3yearsof L$& designation,theassumptionbeingthatthecontrolsinthe %p!( upwindareawillsolvethef  remaining_nonattainment_Ԁg problem '#* intheruraltransportareaaswell.Inthesecases,the  timingforattainmentwilldependontheschedulefor 4 adoptionandimplementationofcontrolmeasuresinthe X upwindareas.   2.Multistate_nonattainment_Ԁareas 8   ` Section182(j)(2)formultiState_nonattainment_Ԁareas  \  (i.e.,portionsofthe_nonattainment_Ԁarealieintwoormore   States)recognizesthatoneStatemaynotbeableto <  demonstrateattainmentfortheportionofthe_nonattainment_ `  areawithinitsbordersifotherStatescontainingthe   remainingportionsofthe_nonattainment_Ԁareadonotadopt @ andsubmitthenecessaryattainmentplanfortheirportions d ofthe_nonattainment_Ԁarea.Insuchcases,eventhoughthe  areaasawholewouldnotbeabletodemonstrateattainment, D thesanctionprovisionsofsection179shallnotapplyin h theportionofthe_nonattainment_ԀarealocatedinaState  thatsubmittedanattainmentplan. H   ` Section182(j)definesamultiStateozone  l" _nonattainment_Ԁareaasanozone_nonattainment_Ԁarea,portions "$ ofwhichlieintwoormoreStatesf  g .Section182(j)(1)(A) L$& and(B)setcertainrequirementsforsuchareas.First, %p!( eachStateinwhichamultiStateozone_nonattainment_Ԁarea '#* lies,musttakeallreasonablestepstocoordinatethe P)$, implementationoftherequiredrevisionsto_SIPs_Ԁforthe *t&. given_nonattainment_Ԁarea[section182(j)(1)(A)].Next, , (0 section182(j)(1)(B)requirestheStatestouse  photochemicalgridmodelingoranyotherequallyeffective 4 analyticalmethodapprovedbyEPAfordemonstrating X attainment.EPA_Ԁispreventedbysection182(j)from   approvinganySIPrevisionsubmittedunderthatsectionifa 8  Statehasfailedtomeettheaboverequirements.  \   ` Pursuanttosection182(j)(1)(A),Statesthatinclude   portionsofamultiStateozone_nonattainment_Ԁareaare <  requiredtodevelopajointworkplanasevidenceofearly `  cooperationandintegration.Theworkplanshouldincludea   schedulefordevelopingtheemissionsinventories,andthe @ attainmentdemonstrationfortheentiremultiStatearea. d EachStatewithinamultiStateozone_nonattainment_Ԁareais  responsibleformeetingalltherequirementsrelevanttothe D givenarea.Careshouldbetakentocoordinatestrategies h andassumptionsinamodeledareawiththoseinother,  nearbymodeledareasinordertoensurethatconsistent, H  plausiblestrategiesaredeveloped.  l" 3.Intrastatetransport "$  ` SeveralStateairagencyrepresentativeshavevoiceda L$& concernaboutintrastatetransportofozoneandprecursor %p!( emissionsandhaveaskedEPAtoaddressthisconcern.One '#* State,forinstance,notesthatithasupwindareasthatare P)$,  affectingdownwindareasandinsomecasesmaybepreventing *t&. _adownwindareafromattainingthestandardbyitsstatutory  date. 4   ` WebelievethattheCAArequiresindividualStates,as X aninitialmatter,todealwithintrastatetransport.We   realizethatsomeStatesarestructuredwithsemiautonomous 8  localairagenciesthatareempoweredtoaddressmajor  \  elementsoftheSIPprocess,includingpreparationofthe   attainmentdemonstration.f  Inthosesituations,g f  g f  g ԀtheCAA <  providesthattheStateretainsufficientbackstopauthority `  toensureallareaswithinitsbordersreachattainment,   (110(a)(2)(E)).AStatecould,ofcourse,recommend @ designationofnonattainmentareasthatarelargeenoughto d encompassupwindanddownwindareasoftheStateandrequire  thattheindividualjurisdictionsworktogetheronan D attainmentplanthataccountsfortransportandresultsin h attainmentbytheattainmentdatefortheentire  nonattainmentarea.OraStatecouldrequiretheindividual H  agenciestoworktogetherinthesamemannerasmultiState  l" organizations.Inthiscase,therewouldbeseparate "$ nonattainmentareaswithindependentagenciesexpectedto L$& worktogethertoaddresstransportamongthenonattainment %p!( areas.Tofacilitatethisprocess,theStatef  couldg f  g f  g Ԁrequire '#* theagenciestosignamemorandumofagreementwhich P)$, describesthetechnicalandadministrativeapproachfor *t&. performingthemodelinganalysisandidentifyingthe , (0 appropriatecontrolsmeasures.UponaStatesrequest,we  wouldbewillingtoprovidesupportfortheseactivities. 4  ` Wealsosolicitcommentsonotherwaysofaddressing X intrastatetransportwithinthecontextoftheCAA   provisions. 8  4.Internationaltransport  \  a.Internationaltransboundarytransport.International   transboundarytransportofozoneandozoneprecursorscan <  contributetoexceedancesoftheNAAQS.Itislikelythat `  theinternationaltransportofairpollutantswillaffect   theabilityofsomeareastoattainandmaintainthe8hour @ ozoneNAAQS.AsStatesandEPAimplementcontrolstrategies d andnationalemissionreductionprograms,theimpactofhigh  backgroundlevelsemanatingfromoutsidetheU.S.mayplaya D largerroleinfutureattainmentdemonstrations.Wehave h developedaninformationdocumenton International  TransboundaryInfluencesandMeetingtheNAAQS,whichis H  locatedintheDockettothisproposedrulemaking.This  l" documentprovidesinformationoneffortswithCanadaand "$ Mexicotoaddresstransboundaryairpollutionaswellas L$& additionalinformationforintercontinentalmodelingwork %p!( currentlyunderwaywithinEPA. '#* b.Section179BandtheSIPapprovalprocess.Section179B P)$, oftheCAA(InternationalBorderAreas),appliesto *t&. nonattainmentareasthatareaffectedbyemissionsemanating , (0 fromoutsidetheUnitedStates.ThissectionrequiresEPA  toapproveaSIPforanonattainmentareaif:itmeetsall 4 oftherequirementsapplicableundertheCAA,otherthana X requirementthattheareademonstrateattainmentand   maintenanceoftheozoneNAAQSbytheapplicableattainment 8  date;andtheaffectedStateestablishestoEPA's  \  satisfactionthattheSIPwouldbeadequatetoattainand   maintaintheozoneNAAQSbytheapplicableattainmentdate <  butforemissionsemanatingfromoutsidetheUnitedStates. `  Further,anyStatethatestablishestothesatisfactionof   EPAthattheStatewouldhaveattainedthe8hourozone @ NAAQS,butforemissionsemanatingfromoutsidetheU.S., d wouldnotbesubjecttotheattainmentdateextension  providedinsection181(a)(5),thefeeprovisionsofsection D 185,andthebumpupprovisionsforfailuretoattainfor8 h hourozoneNAAQSspecifiedinsection181(b)(2)f  g .J v#  38         ` Indemonstratingthatanareacouldattainthe8hour H  ozoneNAAQSbutforemissionsemanatingfromoutsidethe  l" U.S.,approvedEPAmodelingtechniquesshouldbeusedtothe "$ bestextentpracticable.Anemissioninventory L$& incorporatingvehicleemissionsreleasedintheU.S.by %p!( foreignvehicles,i.e.,thosevehiclesregisteredinthe '#* adjacentforeigncountry,mustbecompletedbythe_States P)$, beforemodelingtheU.S.sideonlyandattemptingto  demonstrateattainment.L v#  39      ׀Werecognizethatadequatedata 4 maynotbeavailableformobileandstationarysources X outsidetheUnitedStates.Therefore,modeling,perEPAs    modelingguidancedescribedelsewhereinthesectionon 8  attainmentdemonstrations,maynotbepossibleinallcases.  \  Becauseveryfewareasarelikelytobeaffectedbythis   provision,EPAwilldetermineonacasebycasebasis <  whethertheStatehassatisfactorilymadetherequired `  demonstration.TheStateisencouragedtoconsultwith___EPA_   RegionalOfficeindevelopinganyalternatedemonstration @ methods.MethodsthattheStatemaywanttoconsider d include:usingozoneepisodesthatdonotinvolve  internationaltransportofemissionsformodeling(see D guidancedocumententitled"CriteriaforAssessingRoleof h TransportedOzone/PrecursorsinOzone_Nonattainment_ԀAreas"),  runningthemodelwithboundaryconditionsthatreflect H  generalbackgroundconcentrationsontheU.S.side,  l" analyzingmonitoringdataifadensenetworkhasbeen "$  established,andusingreceptormodeling.Statesshould L$& _conferwiththeappropriateEPARegionalOfficetoestablish  appropriatetechnicalrequirementsfortheseanalyses. 4  5.Additionalwaysofaddressingtransport X  ` Additionalapproachestoaddresstransportare   discussedinthesectiononclassifications. 8  6.StateTribaltransport  \   ` StateshaveanobligationtonotifyTribesaswellas   otherStatesinadvanceofanypublichearing(s)ontheir <  Stateplansthatwillsignificantlyimpactf  such `  g jurisdictions.Under40CFR51.102(6)(i),Statesmust   notifytheaffectedStatesofhearingsontheirSIPs;this @ requirementextendstoTribesunder301(d)oftheCAAand d theTAR.(40CFRPart49).Therefore,affectedTribesthat  haveachieved treatmentasStatesstatusmustbeinformed D ofthecontentsofsuchplansandtheextentof h documentationtosupporttheplans.Forexample,inthe  casewheretheStatemodelsprojectedemissionsandair H  qualityundertheSIP,theTribesshouldbemadeawareof  l" thesemodelinganalyses.Tribesmaywishtodetermineif "$ theTribalareahasbeenaffectedbyupwindpollutionand L$& whetherprojectedemissionsfromtheTribalareahavebeen %p!( consideredinthemodelinganalyses. '#*  ` Generally,Triballandshavefewmajorsources,butin P)$, manycases,airqualityinIndiancountryisaffectedbythe *t&. transport!bothlongrangeandshorterdistancetransport!_Ԅ , (0 ofpollutants.Inmanycases,Tribal_nonattainment_Ԁproblems  causedbyupwindsourceswillnotbesolvedbylongrange 4 transportpolicies,astheTribes'geographicareasare X small.Tribesaresovereignentities,andnotpolitical   subdivisionsofStates.Strategiesusedforintrastate 8  transportarenotalwaysavailable.Mostofthestrategies  \  andpoliciesusedbyStatesindealingwithshortrange   transportarenotavailabletoTribes,e.g.,requiringlocal <  governmentstoworktogetherandexpandingtheareato `  includethef  upwindg sources.UnlikeTribes,Statescan   generallyrequirelocalgovernmentstoworktogether,or @ makethe_nonattainment_Ԁareabigenoughtocovercontributing d andaffectedareas.f  Webelievethatig f  f  g tisalsounfairto  Tribestorequiredisproportionatef  Ԁlocalg Ԁregulatoryefforts D tocompensateforupwindemissions.Inmanycases, h attainmentcouldnotbereachedevenifemissionsfromthe  Tribewerezero. H   ` Toaddresstheseconcerns,weproposetotakecomment  l" onthefollowing:EPAwillreview_SIPs_Ԁfortheir "$ effectivenessinpreventingsignificantcontributionsto L$& _nonattainment_ԀindownwindTribalareaswiththesame %p!( scrutinyitappliestoreviewing_SIPs_Ԁwithrespectto '#* impactsondownwindStates.WhereaTribehaf  sf  f  g Ԁ treatmentin P)$,  thesamemannerasStates,EPAwillsupporttheTribein *t&. reviewingupwindarea_SIPs_ԀduringtheStatepubliccomment  period. 4  H.f  g {OYHowwillEPAaddressrequirementsformodelingand X attainmentdemonstration_SIPs_Ԁwhenimplementingthe8hour   ozonestandard? 8   ` AnattainmentdemonstrationSIPconsistsof(1)  \  technicalanalysestolocateandidentifysourcesof   emissionsthatarecausingviolationsofthe8hour_NAAQS_ <  within_nonattainment_Ԁareasf  Ԁ(i.e.,analysesrelatedtothe `  emissionsinventoryrequiredforthe_nonattainment_Ԁarea),   (2)g f  g Ԁadoptedmeasureswithschedulesforimplementationf  Ԁand @ othermeansandtechniquesnecessaryandappropriatefor d attainmentg ,f  Ԁg (3)commitmentf  s,g Ԁinsomecases,f  g Ԁtoperforma  midcoursereview,and(4)contingencymeasuresrequired D undersection172(c)(9)oftheCAAthatcanbeimplemented h withoutfurtheractionbytheStateortheAdministratorto  coveremissionsshortfallsin_RFP_Ԁplansandfailuresto H  attain.f  g ԀWearesolicitingpubliccommentonthefollowing  l" guidance.f  ԀAssociatedwiththeattainmentdemonstrationalso "$ arethe_RFP_/_ROP_ԀplansandtheSIPsubmissionconcerning L$& _RACM_,forwhichweareproposingruleselsewhereinthis %p!( proposal.g  '#* 1.Multipollutantassessments(oneatmospheremodelingN v#  40      ) P)$,  ` Manyfactorsaffectingformationandtransportof  secondaryfineparticles(i.e.,PM2.5components)arethe 4 sameasthoseaffectingformationandtransportofozone. X Forexample,similaritiesexistinsourcesofprecursorsfor   ozoneandsecondaryfineparticles.Sourcesof_NOx_maylead 8  toformationofozoneaswellasnitrateswhichcontribute  \  totheformationofsecondaryfineparticles.Sourcesof   VOCmaycontributetoozoneformationandmayalsobe <  sourcesorprecursorsfororganicparticles.Presenceof `  ozoneitselfmaybeanimportantfactoraffectingsecondary   particleformation.Asozonebuildsup,sodohydroxyl(OH) @ radicalsasaresultofequilibriumreactionsbetweenozone, d waterandOHinthepresenceofsunlight.Hydroxylradicals  areinstrumentalinoxidizinggasphaseSO2tosulfuric D acid,whichf  isg eventuallyf  g Ԁabsorbedbyliquidaerosoland h convertedtoparticulatesulfateinthepresenceofammonia.  Therefore,strategiestoreduceozonecanalsoaffect H  formationofsecondaryfineparticleswhichcontributeto  l" visibilityimpairment. "$  ` Therefore,modelsanddataanalysisintendedtoaddress L$& visibilityimpairmentneedtobecapableofsimulating %p!( transportandformationofbothsecondaryfineparticlesand '#* ozone.Ataminimum,modelingshouldincludepreviously P)$, _implementedorplannedmeasurestoreduceozone,secondary  fineparticles,andvisibilityimpairment.Anintegrated 4 assessmentoftheimpactcontrolshaveonozone,secondary X fineparticles,andregionalhazeprovidessafeguardsto   ensureozonecontrolswillnotprecludeoptimalcontrolsfor 8  secondaryfineparticlesandvisibilityimpairment.  \   ` Theconceptofmodelingcontrolimpactsonallthree   programsisfurtherstrengthenedbythealignmentofthe <  implementationprocessforozoneandsecondaryfine `  particles.AsthedatesforattainmentdemonstrationSIPs   begintocoincide,thepracticalityofusingcommondata @ basesandanalysistoolsforallthreeprogramsbecomesmore d viableandencouragesuseofsharedresources.   ` Statesthatundertakemultipollutantassessmentsas D partoftheirattainmentdemonstrationwouldassessthe h impactoftheirozoneattainmentstrategiesonsecondary  fineparticlesandvisibilityorperformaconsistent H  analysisforozone,secondaryfineparticles,and  l" visibility.Tofacilitatesuchaneffort,wewould "$ encourageStatestoworkcloselywithestablishedregional L$& hazeRegionalPlanningOrganizations(RPOs)andf  the %p!( jurisdictionsg f  g Ԁresponsibleforf  Ԁdevelopingg ԀPM2.5implementation '#* plans.ThoughtheCSA,ifenactedasintroduced,would P)$, providesubstantialimprovementinairqualityforozone, *t&. PM2.5andvisibility,StatesareencouragedtofollowEPAs , (0 {OY { {  leadandperformsimilarmultipollutantassessmentsaspart  oftheirozoneattainmentdemonstrations,consideringthe ` programsthatareinplaceatthetimeoftheassessment.  X Multipollutantassessmentsarediscussedelsewhereinthis   proposedrulemaking. d  2.Areaswithearlyattainmentdates \   ` Undersection182(a),f  marginalg areasf  ,whichhaveg f  g Ԁan   attainmentdateofonly3yearsafterdesignationf  ,g Ԁarenot h  requiredtoperformf  g Ԁacomplexmodelinganalysisusing `  photochemicalgridmodelingf  .Areascoveredundereither   subpart1or2withozoneconcentrationsg f  g Ԁclosetothelevel l oftheNAAQS(e.g.,withinf  0.005g f  g Ԁppmf  g f  g ),willmostlikelycome d intoattainmentwithin3yearsf  afterg f  g Ԁdesignationas  nonattainmentwithoutanyadditionallocalplanningasa p resultofnationaland/orregionalemissioncontrolmeasures h thatarescheduledtooccur.Wehavegoodreasontobelieve  theseareaswillcomeintoattainment.Regionalscale t   modelingfornationalrules,suchastheNOxSIPCalland  "l" TierIImotorvehicletailpipestandards,demonstratesmajor #$ ozonebenefitsforthef  3yearg f  g Ԁperiodof20042006.This x%& periodwouldberelevantfordemonstratingattainmentwithin $'p!( 3yearsofdesignation,assumingdesignationsoccurinearly (#* 2004.Manysimilarareasclassifiedasmarginalforthe1 |*$, hourozoneNAAQSin1990cameintoattainmentwithinthe (,t&. initial3yearperiod.f    g Asanadditionalsafeguard,if - (0 attainmentdemonstrationmodelingisperformedusingmulti  Stategeographicareas,mostoftheseareaswithearly ` attainmentdateswillbeincludedinthemodelinganalyses  X conductedbyareaswithlaterattainmentdates.Thiswill   provideanopportunityforreviewoftheimpactcontrol d  programswillhaveonareaswithearlyattainmentdates.f   \   ` g Experiencewiththe1hourozoneattainment   demonstrationshasshownthat3yearsisnotenoughtimeto h  performthedetailedphotochemicalgridmodelingneededto `  developthedemonstrationandcompletetheregulatory   processneededtoadoptandimplementcontrolmeasures l sufficientlybeforetheattainmentdate.Itwouldnotbe d reasonabletorequiretheseareastoexpendtheamountof  resourcesneededtoperformacomplexmodelinganalysis p givenhowclosetheseareasaretomeetingthelevelofthe h NAAQS.f  ԀTherefore,weproposethatnoadditionalmodeled  attainmentdemonstrationwouldberequiredforareaswith t   airqualityobservationsclosetothelevelofthestandard  "l" asdescribedaboveandwhereregionalornationalmodeling #$ existsandisappropriateforuseintheareademonstrates x%& thatanareawillattainthe8hourstandardwithin3years $'p!( afterdesignation.Thisproposalwouldapplyforareas (#* coveredundereithersubpart1orsubpart2.g  |*$,  ` Areaswithearlyattainmentdateswithairquality (,t&. observationsthatarenotclosetotheleveloftheNAAQS - (0 f  (asdescribedabove)g andregionalscalemodelingfor  nationalrulesthatdemonstratestheywillnotbein ` attainmentwithin3yearsofdesignationshouldconsider  X requestingreclassificationtothenexthigher   classification.Thisreclassificationwouldprovide d  additionaltimefordevelopinganattainmentdemonstration \  SIPandf  adoptingandg implementingthecontrolmeasures   needed.f  g  h  3.Areaswithlaterattainmentdates `   ` Areaswithlaterattainmentdates(morethan3years   afterdesignation)f  ,regardlessofwhethertheyarecovered l undersubpart1orsubpart2,g Ԁwouldberequiredtodoan d attainmentdemonstrationSIP.Local,regionalandnational  modelingdevelopedtosupportFederalorlocalcontrolsmay p beusedprovidedthemodelingisconsistentwithEPAs h modelingguidance,describedbelow.SeveralStateshave  investedconsiderabletimeandresourcesinregional8hour t   ozonemodelingprojectsfollowingthisguidance.Since  "l" exceedancesofthe8hourozoneNAAQSaremorepervasive #$ than1hourozoneexceedances,weencouragemultiState x%& applicationsofthemodelingguidance.Statesshouldwork $'p!( togetherandleverageoffworkunderdevelopmentand (#* resourcesspentontheseprojects.Thiswillbemost |*$, beneficialindevelopingattainmentdemonstrationsto (,t&. achievef  g attainmentf  g . - (0 4.Modelingguidance   ` Section182(b)(1)(A)requiresozonenonattainment ` areastodevelopanattainmentdemonstrationwhichprovides  d forreductionsinVOCandNOxemissions"asnecessaryto   attainthenationalprimaryambientairqualitystandardfor p  ozone.Section172(c),requiresareascoveredunder h  subpart1todemonstrateattainment.Asnotedabove,ifa   subpart1areahasanattainmentdatebeyond3yearsof t  designation,wewouldrequiretheStatetodevelopan  l  attainmentdemonstration.   ` Section182(c)(2)(A)providesthatf  forseriousand x higherclassifiedareasg the"attainmentdemonstrationmust $p bebasedonphotochemicalgridmodelingoranyother  analyticalmethoddeterminedbytheAdministrator,inthe | Administrator'sdiscretion,tobeatleastaseffective."A (t photochemicalgridmodelshouldmeetseveralgeneral   criteriaforittobeacandidateforconsiderationinan    attainmentdemonstration.g f  g ԀNotethat,unlikeinprevious ,"x" guidance(U.S.EPA,1991),wearenotrecommendinga #$$ specificmodelforuseintheattainmentdemonstrationfor %& the8hourNAAQSforozone.Atpresent,thereisnosingle 0'|!( modelwhichhasbeenextensivelytestedandshowntobe ((#* clearlysuperiororeasiertousethanotheravailable *$, models. XXXXGeneralcriteriaforattainmentdemonstrationsare 4,&. containedin40CFRpart51,appendixW(i.e., EPAs -,(0 GuidelineonAirQualityModels,68FR18440,April15,  2003).#XXXXF# AppendixWreferstoEPAsMay1999draft Guidance ` ontheUseofModelsandOtherAnalysesinAttainment  X Demonstrationsforthe8HourOzoneNAAQSforasetof   generalrequirementsthatanairqualitymodelshouldmeet d  toqualifyforuseinanattainmentdemonstrationforthe8 \  hourozoneNAAQS.f  g Q v#  41      ׀XXXXThus,Statesmaychoosefromseveral   alternatives.#XXXXҌ#ԀTheseincludehavingreceivedascientific h  peerreview,beingapplicabletothespecificapplicationon `  atheoreticalbasis,andhavinganadequatedatabaseto   supportitsapplication.Itisalsoimportantthatpast l applicationsindicatemodelestimatesarenotlikelytobe d biasedlowandthatthemodelisappliedconsistentlywitha  protocolonmethodsandprocedures.Weplantofinalize p thisguidanceatthesametimethefinalimplementationrule h ispublished.Commentsonthisdocumentaresolicitedas  partofthisproposal. t    ` Theguidancedescribeshowtoapplyairqualitymodels.  "l" Theoutputfromsuchamodelisf  g usedtosupportan #$ attainmentdemonstration.Therecommendedprocedurefor x%& applyingamodelincludesdevelopingaconceptual $'p!( descriptionoftheproblemtobeaddressedf  ;g f  g Ԁdevelopinga  modeling/analysisprotocolf  ;g f  g Ԁselectinganappropriatemodel ` tosupportthedemonstrationf  ;g f  g Ԁselectingappropriate  X meteorologicalepisodesortimeperiodstomodelf  ;g f  g Ԁchoosing   anappropriateareatomodelwithappropriate d  horizontal/verticalresolutionf  ;g f  g Ԁgeneratingmeteorological \  andairqualityinputstotheairqualitymodelf  ;g f  g Ԁgenerating   emissionsinputstotheairqualitymodelf  ;g f  g Ԁevaluating h  performanceoftheairqualitymodelf  ;g Ԁandperforming `  diagnostictests.Afterthesestepsarecompleted,the   modelisusedtosimulateeffectsofcandidatecontrol l strategies. d  ` Theguidancerecommendsproceduresforestimatingifa  controlstrategytoreduceemissionsofozoneprecursors p willleadtoattainmentofthe8hourNAAQSforozone.It h explainswhatismeantbyamodeledattainment  demonstration,amodeledattainmenttest,ascreeningtest, t   andaweightofevidencedetermination.Italsoidentifies  "l" additionaldatawhich,ifavailable,shouldenhancethe #$ credibilityofmodelresultsandresultsofotheranalyses x%& usedinaweightofevidencedetermination.f  g ԀStatesshould $'p!( workcloselywiththeappropriateU.S.EPARegional (#* Office(s)inexecutingeachstepf  g f  g . |*$,  ` Wearef  g planningtomakesubstantialchangestothe (,t&. f  g f  g draftf  g Ԁversionofthisdocument.Changesinclude:(1)the - (0 futureyearofemissionestimatestomodel,(2)the  recommendedlengthoftimeperiodtomodel(i.e.,uptofull ` ozoneseason),and(3)theuseofspatialfieldsofambient  X concentrationsaspartofthe modeledattainmenttest.We   welcomepubliccommentsontheguidancef  Ԁatanytimeandwill d  considerthosecommentsinanyfuturerevisionofthe \  document.Commentssubmittedonthemodelingguidance   documentshouldbeidentifiedassuchandwillnotbe h  docketedaspartofthisrulemaking,norwilla `  comment/responsesummaryofthesecommentsbeapartofthe   final8hourozoneimplementationrulesincetheywillnot l affecttheruleitself.g f  g ԀThefinalversionoftheguidance d isscheduledforreleasebyDecember2003andwillbeposted  onEPAswebsite(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/).f  g  p 5.Midcoursereview(MCR) h  ` AMCRprovidesanopportunitytoassesswhethera  nonattainmentareaisorisnotmakingsufficientprogress t   towardattainmentofthe8hourozonestandard,aspredicted  "l" initsattainmentdemonstration.Thereviewutilizesthe #$ mostrecentmonitoringandotherdatatoassesswhetherthe x%& controlmeasuresreliedoninaSIPsattainment $'p!( demonstrationhaveresultedinadequateimprovementinair (#* quality.WebelievethatacommitmenttoperformaMCRisa |*$, criticalelementinanattainmentdemonstrationthatemploys (,t&. alongtermprojectionperiodandreliesonweight_of - (0 evidence.Becauseoftheuncertaintyinlongterm  projections,webelievesuchattainmentdemonstrationsneed ` tocontainprovisionsforperiodicreviewofmonitoring,  X emissions,andmodelingdatatoassesstheextenttowhich   refinementstoemissioncontrolmeasuresareneeded. d   ` f  Anumberofg f  g ԀStateshaveparticipatedinaconsultative \  processwithEPA,whichresultedinthedevelopmentofthe   1hour_MCR_Ԁguidance.W v#  42      ׀Weareupdatingthe1hour_MCR_ h  f  policyg f  g Ԁandtechnicalguidancetoinclude8hourmetricsand `  aresolicitingcommentonappropriaterevisions;final_MCR_   guidanceincorporating8hourmetricswillbeavailableat l thetimeweissueourfinalimplementationrule.States d shouldconsultwithEPApriortousingamethodologyother  thantheonedevelopedthroughthepublicconsultative p process. h  ` Theprocedureforperforminga_MCR_Ԁcontainsthreebasic  steps:(1)f  g f  g f  g f  g performf  g f  g f  g anadministrativetest(e.g.,demonstrate t   f  g f  g whetherf  g Ԁtheappropriateemissionlimitswereadoptedand  "l" implemented);(2)analyzeavailableairquality, #$ meteorology,emissionsandmodelingdataanddocument x%& findings;and(3)documentconclusionsregardingwhether $'p!( progresstowardattainmentisbeingmadeusingaweightof  evidencedetermination(whichmayormaynotincludenew ` modelinganalyses).  X  ` EPAdoesnotrequestthatStatescommitinadvanceto   adoptnewcontrolmeasuresasaresultofthe_MCR_Ԁprocess. d  Basedonthe_MCR_,ifEPAdeterminessufficientprogresshas \  notbeenmade,EPAwoulddeterminewhetheradditional   emissionsreductionsarenecessaryfromtheStateorStates h  inwhichthe_nonattainment_ԀareaislocatedorupwindStates, `  orboth.EPAwouldthenrequiretheappropriateStateor   Statestoadoptandsubmitthenewmeasureswithina l specifiedperiod.Weanticipatethatthesefindingswould d bemadeascallsforSIPrevisionsundersection110(k)(5)  and,therefore,theperiodforsubmissionofthemeasures p wouldbenolongerthan18monthsafterthe_EPA_Ԁfinding. h Thus,Statesshouldcompletethe_MCR_Ԁ3ormoreyearsbefore  theapplicableattainmentdatetoensurethatanyadditional t   controlsthatmaybeneededcanbeadoptedinsufficient  "l" timetoreduceemissionsbythestartoftheozoneseasonin #$ theattainmentyearf  .g f  g  x%& I.Whatrequirementsfor_RFP_Ԁshouldapplyunderthe8hour $'p!( ozonestandard? (#* 1.Background |*$,  ` Section172(c)(2),whichislocatedinsubpart1of (,t&. partDoftitleI,requiresStateplansfor_nonattainment_ - (0 areastorequire_RFP_.Section171(1)oftheCAAdefines_RFP_  tomean suchannualincrementalreductionsinemissionsof ` therelevantairpollutantasarerequiredbythispart  X [partDoftitleI]ormayreasonablyberequiredbythe   Administratorforthepurposeofensuringattainmentofthe d  applicable[_NAAQS_]bytheapplicabledate. \   ` Subpart2ofpartDoftitleIprovidesmorespecific   _RFP_Ԁrequirementsforozoneareasclassifiedundersection h  181.(Ingeneral,wehaveusedtheterm _RFP_asthemore `  genericprogressrequirement,whereasithasusedtheterm    rateofprogressor _ROP_todenotethespecificsubpart2 l progressrequirementsthataredefinedasspecificpercent d reductionsfromabaselineemissionsinventory.)In  particular,itspecifiesthebaseyearemissioninventory p uponwhich_ROP_Ԁistobeplannedforandimplemented,the h incrementsofemissionsreductionsrequiredoverspecified  timeperiods,andtheprocessfordeterminingwhetherthe t   _ROP_Ԁmilestoneswereachieved.  "l"  ` Subpart2doesnotspecify_ROP_Ԁrequirementsfor #$ marginalareas.Section182(b)(1)(A)mandatesa15percent x%& VOCemissionreduction,accountingforgrowth,between1990 $'p!( and1996formoderateandaboveozone_nonattainment_Ԁareas. (#* Furthermore,section182(c)(2)(B)oftheCAArequireseach |*$, seriousandaboveozone_nonattainment_ԀareatosubmitaSIP (,t&. revisionprovidingforanactualVOCemissionreductionof - (0 atleastg f  g 3percentf  g Ԁperyearaveragedovereachconsecutive  3yearperiodbeginningin1996untiltheareasattainment ` date(thepost1996_ROP_Ԁplan).Section182(c)(2)(C)ofthe  X CAAallowsforsubstitutionof_NOx_forVOCemissions   reductionsinthepost1996_ROP_Ԁplan._EPAs_Ԁpolicy,the_NOx_ p  SubstitutionGuidance(December15,1993;availableat h  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html),addressesthe   substitutionof_NOx_emissionsreductionsforVOCemissions t  reductions.Thebaselineemissioninventoryfordetermining  l  therequired_ROP_Ԁreductionsisspecifiedas1990.   ` Therequirementsfor_RFP_Ԁunder_subparts_Ԁ1and2,as x describedabove,aretheminimumrequiredforanarea.More $p reductionsmaybenecessaryforattainmentwithinthe  _nonattainment_Ԁareaorwheretheareacontributestoa | downwindareas_nonattainment_Ԁproblem.Moreover,anupwind (t areathatcontributesto_nonattainment_Ԁinadownwindarea   mayneedmorereductionsinashortertimeinorderforthe    downwindareatoreachattainmentbyitsrequiredattainment ,"x" date. #$$ 2.Proposedfeaturesingeneral. %&  ` Indevelopinganapproachforaddressingthe_RFP_ 0'|!( requirementsforthe8hourozonestandard,weproposethe ((#*  following: *$, !Thesamebaselineyearwouldbeusedbothtoaddressgrowth  (inemissions,vehiclemilestraveled(_VMT_)orotherwise) ` andtocalculatethe_RFP_Ԁtargetlevel.  X  f  g f  g !Emissionsf  g Ԁreductionsfromoutsidethe_nonattainment_Ԁareaup   to100kmforVOCand200kmfor_NOx_(andstatewideifunder d  aregionalstrategy)wouldbeallowedconsistentwithEPAs \  existingDecember1997interimimplementationpolicyfor1   hourozone_NAAQS_.Z v#  43       h  f  !f  g Forareasclassifiedundersubpart2,the_ROP_Ԁrequirements `  specifiedinsubpart2wouldapply,namelyaf  g f  g 15percentf  g ԀVOC   emissionreduction,accountingforgrowth,inthefirst6 l yearsafterthebaselineyearformoderateandaboveozone d _nonattainment_Ԁareas.Inaddition,forareasclassifiedas  seriousandabove,the_ROP_Ԁprovisionsinsubpart2requirea p VOCor_NOx_emissionreductionofatleastthreeg f  g Ԁpercentf  g Ԁper h yearaveragedovereachconsecutive3yearperiodbeginning  6yearsafterthebaselineyear(specifiedasunderthe1990 t   _CAAA_).Areasclassifiedundersubpart2asmarginal,which  "l" arerequiredtoattain3yearsfollowingclassification,are #$ subjectonlytosuch_RFP_Ԁasnecessarytoattain.Webelieve x%& theperiodsfor_RFP_Ԁundersubpart2forthe8hourozone  _NAAQS_Ԁshouldrunfromthedateofthebaselineyearunder ` subpart2,andwouldbeequivalenttotheperiodsunderthe  X 1hourozone_NAAQS_.Thus,thefirst15percentreduction   wouldberequiredforthe6yearperiodstartingfromthe d  lastday(December31)ofthebaselineyearandthefirst3 \  yearperiodforthesubsequentthreepercentperyear   emissionreductionrequirementinseriousareaswouldbegin h  6yearsafterthelastday(December31)ofthebaseline `  year.Thebaselineissueisdiscussedinsection4below.   3.Forsubpart2areas,shouldtheinitial15percentf  g Ԁ_RFP_ l requirementbelimitedtoVOCemissions?f  g f  g  d f  g  ` Currently,formanyareasofthecountry,particularly  intheEasternU.S.outsidemajormetropolitanareas,there p isagreaterneedfor_NOx_reductionsratherthanVOC h reductions.However,undertheprescribedrequirementsof  theCAA,_NOx_substitutionisonlyallowedforthepost1996 t   _ROP_Ԁrequirement(threeg f  g Ԁpercentf  g Ԁperyearaveragedover3  "l" years),notfortheinitialf  15percent_ROP_Ԁrequirement.We #$ areproposing2optionstoaddressthisissue. x%& f  g a.Option1.Continuetorequiref  g f  g 15percentf  g ԀVOCreductions $'p!( within6yearsafterthebaselineyearforallareas (#* designatedmoderateandaboveforthe8hourozone_NAAQS_. |*$, After6years,allseriousandaboveareaswouldberequired (,t&. toachieveaninef  g f  g Ԁpercentf  g ԀreductioninVOCand/or_NOx_ - (0 emissionsevery3years,i.e.,g f  g Ԁanaverageofthreepercentf  g   peryear. ` b.Option2.Forf  g Ԁthoseareasthathaveapprovedf  g f  g 15percentf  g   X plansfortheir1hourozone_SIPs_,anf  g additional15percent   VOCreductionisnotnecessary.Areasthatareclassified d  asmoderateunderthe8hourstandardthathavealready \  implementedtheir15percentplansundertheir1hourozone   _SIPs_Ԁwouldbeconsideredtohavemetthestatutory15 h  percentrequirementandwouldbecoveredunderthemore `  generic_RFP_Ԁrequirementsofsubpart1.Subpart1_RFP_   requirementsarediscussedbelow.Areasthatareclassified l asseriousandaboveunderthe8hourstandardthathave d alreadyimplementedtheir15percentplansunderthe1hour  ozonestandardwouldhavetoincludeintheir_SIPs_Ԁan p additional_RFP_Ԁplanthatwouldachieveanaverageofthree h percentperyearofVOCand/or_NOx_overeach3yearperiod  until___their_Ԁattainmentyear.Werecognizethatitwouldbe t   difficulttosubmitaplanthatprovidesforthefirstnine  "l" percentemissionreductionwithin3yearsafter #$ _nonattainment_Ԁdesignation.Therefore,consistentwithwhat x%& Congressdidundersection182(b)(1),weproposetoallow $'p!( thefirst_ROP_Ԁincrementtobeaveragedover6years.We (#* proposethatanareaclassifiedseriousorabovesubmitits |*$, _ROP_Ԁplanwithin2yearsafterdesignationthatprovidesfor (,t&. 18percentemissionsreductions(VOCand/or_NOx_)overthe - (0 first6yearsfromthebaselineyearandthensubmitwithin  3yearsafterdesignationa_ROP_Ԁplanthatprovidesnine ` percentemissionsreductions(VOCand/or_NOx_)overeachof  X thenext3yearperiodsuntiltheareasattainmentdate.   f  g  ` Thisoptionrf  g ecognizespreviouseffortsbyareasthat d  submitted15percentg Ԁplansasrequiredunderthe1hour \  ozone_NAAQS_f  g Ԁandpf  g rovidesflexibilitytoStatestouseamix   of_NOx_andVOCreductionstomeetf  Ԁg f  g theadditional_ROP_/_RFP_ h  g requirements.Webelievethatthestatutecanbe `  interpretedtorequirethemandatory15percentVOC   reductiononlyonceforagivenarea.Once15percentVOC l reductionrequirementshavebeenmet,anareawouldactually d havetoachievegreateremissionsreductions,i.e.,an  averageofthreepercentperyear,butcouldchooseeither p VOCor_NOx_reductionsasappropriate.Wepreferthissecond h optionbecauseitprovidesmoreflexibilityforthe_ROP_Ԁplan  tobeconsistentwiththeareasneedsinattainingthe t   standard.  "l" c.OtheroptionsthatEPAconsidered.Weconsideredother #$ optionsforaddressingthisissuethatarenotbeing x%& proposedhere;discussionofthemappearsinaseparate $'p!( document,availableinthedocket._ v#  44      ׀However,wesolicit (#* commentsonotheroptionsandwhatpossiblerationales  !legalandscientific!mightbeusedtojustifythose ` options.  X 4.Whatbaselineyearshouldberequiredfortheemissionf  g    inventoryforthe_RFP_Ԁrequirement? d   ` Thebaselineinventoryfor_RFP_Ԁ(undersubpart2)is \  usedasthestartingpointforthedeterminationofatarget   levelofemissionsforthefutureyear_RFP_Ԁandasthe h  baselinefromwhichcreditablereductionsaredetermined. `  Wecurrentlyanticipatedesignating_nonattainment_Ԁareasin   2004.Underthe ConsolidatedEmissionsReportingRule(67 l FR39602,June10,2002)revisedemissionsinventoriesare d requiredfortheyears2002and2005;therefore,f  g f  g wepropose  torequiref  g Ԁusef  g Ԁoff  g Ԁthe2002inventoryasthebaseline p inventoryforthe_RFP_Ԁrequirement.Thiswouldbethemost h recentlyavailableinventoryatthetimeofdesignation.We  recentlyissuedamemorandumidentifying2002asthe t   anticipatedemissioninventorybaseyearfortheSIP  "l" planningprocesstoaddressthe8hourozoneandthePM2.5 #$ standards.af v#  45       x%&  ` Weconsideredotheroptionsforaddressingthisissue  thatarenotbeingproposedhere;discussionofthemappears ` inaseparatedocument,availableinthedocket.d v#  46        X 5.Shouldmoderateareasbesubjecttoprescribed   additional_RFP_Ԁrequirementspriortotheirattainmentdate? d   ` Forareasinitiallyclassifiedmoderateandhigher \  underthe1hourozonestandard,thebaselineinventorywas   definedas1990intheCAAAmendmentsof1990.Therefore, h  the6yearperiodfortheinitial15percent_ROP_Ԁrequirement `  endedinthesameyearastheattainmentdateformoderate   areas,viz.,1996.Forareasclassifiedmoderateandhigher l underthe8hourozonestandard,however,weareproposing d thatthe15percent_ROP_Ԁtargetlevelofemissionswouldbe  calculatedforthe6yearperiodafterthe2002baseline p year,i.e.,20032008.Moderateareaswouldberequiredto h meetanattainmentdatenolaterthan6yearsafterthearea  isdesignated_nonattainment_Ԁforthe8hourstandard.Ifthe t   effectivedateofdesignationof_nonattainment_Ԁareasis,for  "l" instance,May15,2004,theattainmentdatewouldbeMay15, #$ 2010.Thisleavesapproximatelya1yeargapbetweenthe x%& endofthe6yearperiodforthe15percent_ROP_Ԁrequirement $'p!( (i.e.,December31,2008)andtheattainmentdate.Ifwe  weretoalsorequiremoderateareastoobtainanadditional ` threepercentperyearreductionsbeyond2008forthe1  X additionalyearsuntil2010,the_ROP_Ԁrequirementwouldbe   morethanwhatwebelieveCongressintendedformoderate d  areasundersubpart2.Additionalthreepercentperyear \  reductionswereonlyrequiredforseriousandhigher   classified1hourozone_nonattainment_Ԁareas.Weare h  proposingthattheonlyspecific_ROP_Ԁrequirementapplicable `  formoderateareasisthe15percentVOCrequirementbetween   theendof2002andtheendof2008.However,section l 172(c)(2)alsoapplies,requiringareastomeet_RFP_ d generally.Therefore,amoderateareawouldalsohaveto  provideanyadditionalemissionsreductions!VOCand/or p _NOx_!neededtoprovideforattainmentbytheareas h attainmentdate.Inproposingthisapproach,weare  interpretingthesubpart1_RFP_Ԁrequirementtomeanthatthe t   areamustachievewhateverfurtherreductionisneededfor  "l" attainmentintheremainingperiodpriortotheattainment #$ date(2009and2010). x%&  ` Weareproposingthatseriousandhigherclassified $'p!( areaswouldneedtoprovideintheir_SIPs_Ԁanadditional (#* averageofthreepercentperyearemissionsreductionsover |*$,  eachsubsequent3yearperiodbeyondtheinitial6year (,t&. periodthroughtheattainmentyear,consistentwithwhat  Congressspecifiedinsection182(c)(2)(B)oftheCAA. `  6.Whatisthetimingofthesubmissionofthe_ROP_Ԁplan?g f    X  ` Section182(b)(1)requiresthatmoderateandhigher   classifiedareassubmittheir15percent_ROP_Ԁplanswithin3 d  yearsafter1990.Fortheattainmentdatesunderthe8hour \  ozonestandard,weproposeinterpretingtheCAAslanguage   referringtothedateofenactmentofthe1990CAA h  Amendmentstomeanthedateofdesignationsforthe8hour `  standard.Ifweweretorequirethe_ROP_Ԁplanstobe   submittedwithin3yearsaftertheir_nonattainment_ l designationdate(i.e.,in2007ifwedesignatein2004), d theplanswouldhavetobeimplementedwithin1yearafter  submissiontoensurethe15percentemissionsreductionsare p achievedbytheendoftherelevant6yearperiod(i.e., h December2008).Webelievethiswouldlikelynotbe  sufficienttimetoensurethatthereductionswouldoccurby t   therequireddeadline.Therefore,weproposethatthe_ROP_  "l" SIPbesubmittedwithin2yearsafter_nonattainment_ #$ designation!by2006.Thiswouldprovide2yearsforthe x%& Statetodevelopandsubmitits_ROP_Ԁplan,andanother2 $'p!( yearsforthecontrolmeasurestobeimplemented. (#* g f  g f  g f  g f  g 7.Howf  g ԀshouldCAArestrictionsoncreditablemeasuresbe |*$,  interpreted?Whichnationalmeasuresshouldcountas (,t&. generatingemissionsreductionscredittoward_RFP_  requirements? `   ` Section182(b)(1)containsf  g Ԁprovisionf  sg f  g thatlimit  X _creditability_Ԁtowardmeeting_RFP_Ԁforcertainlimited   emissionreductionmeasuresrequiredpriortotheenactment d  oftheCAAAmendmentsof1990.f  g f  g f  g f  g f  g g f  g ԀWebelievethesespecific \  restrictionsshouldcontinuetoapplyforpurposesofthe8   hour_NAAQS_ԀaswrittenintheCAA.WebelievethatCongress h  intendedtopreventareasfromtakingcreditfor_RFP_Ԁonly `  forthosespecificmeasuresthatwerealreadyadoptedandin   place(orrequiredtobeinplace)priortothedateof l enactmentoftheCAAAmendmentsof1990(November15,1990). d Webelievethatthissamelogicholdstrueforthe_RFP_  requirementasitappliestothe8hourozonestandard, p namelypreventingcredittowardthemandatory_RFP_Ԁpercent h reductionsforcontinuingreductionsfromthosespecific  measurescitedintheCAAthatwerealreadyadoptedandin t   placepriortothedateofenactmentoftheCAAAmendments  "l" of1990.ThereisnoindicationintheCAAthatthis #$ exclusionshouldbechanged.Congressmandatedmany x%& emissionsreductionsinthe1990CAAAmendmentswithno $'p!( indicationthattheyshouldnotbecreditedtomeeting_RFP_ (#* orattainmentofanyexistingorrevised_NAAQS_.Therefore, |*$, wearef  g Ԁg f  g proposingthatallemissionf  g sreductionsthatoccurf   (,t&. afterthebaselineemissioninventoryyearfromallFederal - (0 andanyothermeasures(nototherwiseidentifiedinsection  182(b)(1)(D))g f  g f  g f  g f  g wouldbecreditabletothe_RFP_Ԁrequirement. ` Forexample,emissionsreductionsthatoccurafterthe2002  X baselineemissioninventoryyearthatresultfromtheTier2   andsulfuringasolinerulesthatwereissuedbyEPAafter d  theCAAAmendmentsof1990arecreditabletowardthe_RFP_ \  requirementforthe8hourozonestandard.Anotherexample   ofemissionsreductionsthatwouldbecreditabletowardthe h  _RFP_Ԁrequirementforthe8hourozonestandardwouldbeVOC `  emissionsreductionsfromcertain_MACT_Ԁstandardsthatwill   notproduceemissionsreductionsuntilafterthe2002 l baseline;thesewouldincludeseveralrecentlypromulgated d _MACT_Ԁstandards(suchasthosecoveringseveralsurface  coatingoperations)andalso_MACT_Ԁstandardsthatare p expectedtobepromulgatedinthesummerof2003. h Reductionsthatoccurpriortothebaselineyearwouldbe  incorporatedintothebaselineandcouldnotbecredited. t   8.Forareascoveredbyf  g Ԁsubpart1insteadofsubpart2,how  "l" shouldthe_RFP_Ԁrequirementbestructured? #$  ` Asdescribedabove,the_RFP_Ԁrequirementundersubpart1 x%& ismoregeneralthanthatundersubpart2,andEPAthushas $'p!( moreflexibilityindeterminingwhat_RFP_Ԁmeansundersubpart (#* 1.f  g ԀForinstance,theStatemayrelyonemissionsreductions |*$, ofVOCor_NOx_oracombinationofbothtomeetits_RFP_ (,t&. requirement.However,wearealsomindfuloftheneedfor - (0 ensuringequitybetweenareaswithsimilar8hourozone  problemscoveredundersubpart1andthosecoveredunder ` subpart2.f  g ԀWeareproposingf  f  g rulesforthreekindsofareas:  X (a)Areaswithattainmentdates3yearsorlessafter   designation;(b)Areaswithattainmentdatesbetween3and6 d  yearsafterdesignation;and(c)Areaswithattainmentdates \  beyond6yearsafterdesignation.NotethattheCAA   requiresthatattainmentdatesforareassubjectonlyto h  subpart1benolongerthan10yearsafterdesignation. `  a.Areaswithattainmentdates3yearsorlessafter   designation.Weproposea_RFP_Ԁrequirementfortheseareas l similartothatforareasundersubpart2thatare d classifiedasmarginal.Suchanareawouldnotbesubject  toaseparate_RFP_Ԁrequirement,butwouldhavetoattainthe p standardbyitsattainmentdate. h b.Areaswithattainmentdatesbetween3to6yearsafter  designation.Theseareaswouldhaveattainmentdates t   similartosubpart2areasclassifiedasmoderate.We  "l" proposetwooptionsfortheseareas: #$ (_i_)Option1.Thisoptionwouldrequirethe_RFP_Ԁplantobe x%& submittedwiththeattainmentdemonstrationwithin3years $'p!( afterdesignationofthe_nonattainment_Ԁarea.f  g ԀTheSIPwould (#* havetoshowthatallemissionsreductionsneededfor |*$, attainmentwouldbeimplementedf  g Ԁbytheattainmentdate. (,t&. Thissituationwouldoccur,forexample,foranareawitha - (0 baseyearinventoryof2002,designationin2004,arequired  attainmentSIPsubmissiondateof2007andanattainment ` dateof2010.Whereareashaveonly3yearsafterSIP  X submissionbeforeattainment,thisoptionf  f  g recognizesthat   theremaybeonlyashortamountoftimeavailablef  g Ԁto d  achieveanyspecifiedemissionsreductionsbeyondthat \  neededtodemonstrateattainmentf  g Ԁandthereforewouldnot   requireashowingthataspecifiedamountofemissions h  reductionsoccurbetweenthetimeofSIPsubmissionandthe `  attainmentdate.   (ii)Option2.Thisoptionwouldrequiretheseareastobe l treatedinamannersimilartosubpart2areasclassifiedas d moderate.The_RFP_ԀSIPwouldhavetoprovidefora15  percentemissionreductionfromthebaselineyearwithin6 p yearsafterthebaselineyear.The_RFP_ԀSIPwouldhavetobe h submittedwithin2yearsafterdesignation.However,since  theareaissubjectonlytosubpart1,_NOx_emissions t   reductionscouldbesubstitutedforsomeorallofthe15  "l" percentreductionrequirement,consistentwithEPAs_NOx_ #$ substitutionpolicy. v#  47      ׀Also,wearesolicitingcommenton x%& whetherapercentageotherthan15percentshouldbe $'p!( requiredastheminimum.Additionalmeasuresthatwould (#* providetheremainingportionoftheemissionsreductions |*$, neededforattainmentwouldhavetobesubmittedwiththe  areasattainmentdemonstrationwithin3yearsafter ` designation.  X c.Areaswithattainmentdatesbeyond6yearsafter   designation.Theseareasaresimilarinattainmentdatesto d  areasclassifiedundersubpart2asseriousorhigher.We \  areproposingthatthe_RFP_Ԁplanshowincrementsofprogress   fromthebaselineemissioninventoryyearuntilthe h  attainmentdate.The_RFP_ԀSIPwouldfirsthavetoprovide `  fora15percentemissionreductionfromthebaselineyear   within6yearsafterthebaselineyear.The15percent_RFP_ l SIPwouldhavetobesubmittedwithin2yearsafter d designation.However,sincetheareaissubjectonlyto  subpart1,_NOx_emissionsreductionscouldbesubstitutedfor p someorallofthe15percentreductionrequirement, h consistentwithEPAs_NOx_substitutionpolicy.Also,weare  solicitingcommentonwhetherapercentageotherthan15 t   percentwouldbemoreappropriate.Then,foreach  "l" subsequent3yearperiodouttotheattainmentdate,another #$ _RFP_ԀSIPwouldhavetoprovideforanadditionalincrementof x%& progressnolessthantheamountofemissionsreductions $'p!( thatwouldbeproportionaltothetimebetweentheendof (#* thefirstincrement(in2008)totheattainmentdate.This |*$,  second_RFP_ԀSIPwouldhavetobesubmittedatthesametime (,t&. astheattainmentdemonstration,namelywithin3yearsafter  designation. `  9.Howshouldthe_RFP_Ԁrequirementsbeimplementedforareas  X designatedforthe8hourozonestandardthatentirelyorin   partencompassanareathatwasdesignated_nonattainment_Ԁfor d  the1hourozonestandard? \   ` Weareproposingthefollowingapproachtoaddressthis   issue.Developanewbaselineandnew_ROP_/_RFP_Ԁemission h  reductiontargetsfortheentire8hourstandard `  _nonattainment_Ԁarea(theold1hourstandard_nonattainment_   areaandthenewlyaddedportionofthe8hourstandard l _nonattainment_Ԁarea).Emissionsreductionsfrommeasuresin d the1hourozoneSIPthatareachievedafterthe8hour  ozone_NAAQS_Ԁbaselineyearcouldcount(subjectto p _creditability_Ԁrestrictionsasdiscussedaboveinthis h proposed_rulemaking_)towardmeetingthe_RFP_Ԁrequirementfor  theentire8hourarea. t    ` Thisapproachwouldseta_ROP_Ԁtargetfortheentire8  "l" hourozone_nonattainment_Ԁarea.TheStatewouldhaveto #$ ensurethatthetargetisatleastasstringentasthe1 x%& hour_ROP_/_RFP_Ԁtarget,thusensuringnobackslidingonthe1 $'p!( hour_NAAQS_