8 31 05 Redline Strikeout 1 The analysis year 2010 was selected because of the availability of 2010 base case emissions inventories and modeling from the CAIR rulemaking.

 1 Impact of Selected Federal and Local Measures on Predicted 8 hour Design Values in the Eastern U. S. Illustrative Control Strategies and Projected 2010 8 hour Ozone Levels in 16 Nonattainment Areas Summary This report summarizes an illustrative analysis of two scenarios regarding 8 hour ozone concentrations in 2010 for areas in the eastern United States. One scenario looks at predicted ozone concentrations in 20101 without additional local measures or the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). The other scenario looks at the consequences of a set of targeted local control measures without CAIR. While there are significant limitations, this illustrative analysis finds that:

° Current state & federal regulations reducing ozone precursors are extremely effective. In the eastern half of the country, ninety two of 108 areas with design values above the standard today are predicted to be in attainment in 2010.

° Additional locally targeted controls provide significant further air quality gains. In particular, 10 of the remaining 16 non attainment areas in the eastern half of the country are projected to come into attainment or be within 3ppb of the standard in 2010 with a simulated strategy consisting of stationary and area source control measures. Furthermore, the analyzed strategy yields predicted air quality improvements in all 16 nonattainment areas. Six major metropolitan areas are projected to remain above the standard after applying these targeted local control measures.

° Locally targeted control measures will have positive effects beyond local ozone reductions  that is, controls in one non attainment area can reduce ozone concentrations in downwind ozone non attainment areas. In addition, by reducing VOC and NOx emissions, ozone control measures will reduce PM2.5 as well as ozone concentrations.

° There are many gaps in the illustrative analysis:

° A major limitation is the lack of a more complete assessment of emission reduction possibilities and emission reduction targets. The control measures menu in this analysis was not comprehensive ( e. g., no new state fuels or mobile source measures were considered).

° The analysis does not reflect emissions reductions that will occur as a result of CAIR. The result is an upward bias in the estimated amount of additional 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout  2 emission reductions required for attainment.

° This assessment of the air quality, health and cost impacts of a set of targeted local control measures does not include nonattainment areas in the West, due to limitations of our modeling tools.

° Other gaps include no consideration of the effect of any bottlenecks, scale effects, learning curves, or emerging technologies on the cost of the analyzed local control strategy.

° The assessment of estimated benefits is not comprehensive. First, the assessment does not include health effects that could not be quantified and monetized. Second, welfare benefits ( e. g. improved visual range, greater crop yield and tree growth) of reducing PM and O3 levels are not quantified or monetized. Third, although VOC controls may result in lower concentrations of particulate matter in some areas ( via reduced formation of secondarily formed aerosols), the resultant health and welfare effects benefits are not quantified or monetized.

° As with other benefits analyses, the benefits estimates are subject to uncertainties such as those associated with estimates of future year emissions inventories and air quality, and uncertainties in the estimated relationships between changes in pollutant concentrations and resulting changes in health effects ( e. g., choice of study, uncertain biological mechanism for health endpoint).

This limited analysis is not a substitute for the more detailed and comprehensive analyses to be conducted by the states and regional planning groups as part of the state implementation planning process. Such analyses will have more refined local emissions inventory projections and emissions reduction targets, and an expanded set of control measure possibilities. Based on those analyses, the states will make judgments concerning control needs, control options, and the practicality of attainment deadlines and reflect them in their state implementation plan submittals to EPA.

If states ultimately determine that certain areas cannot practicably attain on time, the Clean Air Act provides ways for an area to receive more time through bump up to a higher classification ( e. g. from moderate to serious). Bump up would mean that certain specific additional requirements apply as areas put in place measures needed to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable. Due to 1 hour requirements previously adopted by these areas and projected emission reductions from federal rules, many specific requirements of a higher classification might already be satisfied. Existing federal rules are projected to achieve further emissions reductions over time. In addition, the history of the Clean Air Act has repeatedly demonstrated that new, cleaner technologies are developed to help in meeting clean air goals, and the large number of emerging technologies with potential to reduce emissions indicates that the historical trend will continue.

Methodology: Emission Reduction and Air Quality Impacts This illustrative analysis includes information on the designated 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas, 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout 2The original designations appeared in the Federal Register on April 30, 2004 ( Volume 69, Number 84) on pages 23857 23951. There were some subsequent revisions to the original classifications for some Subpart 2 areas. The current classifications can be found at http:// www. epag. gov/ air/ oaqps/ greenbook/ gntc. html. This is the web address for the EPA green book of nonattainment areas.

3Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule: Air Quality Modeling Analysis; Appendix E: 8 hour Ozone: Average Ambient and Projected 2010 Base and CAIR. The document can be found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ pdfs/ finaltechn07. pdf  3 air quality simulations of base case conditions for the CAIR rule, additional air quality simulations to establish emission reduction targets and verify the results of local control strategies, and application of an air quality control strategy design model to identify emission reduction targets for each non attainment areas.

Designations of Areas for the 8 hour Ozone NAAQS. In April 2004, EPA published nonattainment attainment, and unclassifiable designations for the 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. Nationwide, there were 126 areas with design values above the standard. 2 One hundred and eight of those areas are in the Eastern United States. The other 18 areas are in California, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada.

Table 1. Summary of Designation Information for Eastern & Western Areas with 8 hour Design Values above the NAAQS Designation* Eastern Areas Western Areas Subpart 1 ( non EAC) 62 9 Subpart 1 ( EAC) 12 1 Subpart 2 Marginal ( non EAC) 13 2 Subpart 2 Marginal ( EAC) 1 0 Subpart 2 Moderate 20 2 Subpart 2 Serious 0 3 Subpart 2 Severe 17 0 __ 1_ 108 18 * Subpart 1 Clean Air Act provisions for non attainment areas less prescriptive. Subpart 2 provisions are more prescriptive. EAC areas are early action compact areas. The effective designation date for these areas was deferred.

Base Case Conditions. As part of the development of the CAIR rule, EPA developed a base case projection of emissions to 2010 and a simulation using CAM x of predicted ozone design values. 3 That base case projection of emissions and air quality simulation indicated that 92 of 108 non attainment areas were expected to have 8 hour ozone design values at or below the standard in 2010. By using that base case, we were to compare the impacts of the local control strategy with a base case that was well understood. However, in adopting that approach we precluded consideration of air quality improvements resulting from CAIR in formulating a hypothetical local control strategy. 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout 4U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AirControlNET version 4.0. Control Measure Documentation Report. Prepared by E. H. Pechan and Associates. April 2005.

5These areas are within state but not more than 100 km for VOC emissions and no more than 200 km for NOx emissions.

 4 Selection of Emission Reduction Targets. To develop illustrative emission reductions targets for each area expected to be in non attainment in 2010, six air quality simulations were conducted using the CAM x model. These predicted the impact of ozone levels of reducing nonattainment area emissions by 10%, 25%, and 50% for NOx only and for NOx as well as VOC emissions, relative to the 2010 base case. These results together with linear interpolation enabled the development of emission reduction targets for each of the areas projected to be in non attainment in 2010 under base case conditions.

These emission reduction targets were quite varied. Eight of 16 areas had emission reduction targets ranging from 5% to 20% reductions in VOC or NOx, relative to 2010 base case emissions. The other 8 areas had targets ranging from 25% in NOx only to a 50% reduction in both VOC and NOx emissions, relative to the 2010 base case.

Selection of Local Controls for Analysis. AirControlNET is a PC based relational data base tool for conducting control strategy and costing analyses. It overlays a detailed control measures data base of limited scope on EPA emissions inventories to compute source and pollutant specific emissions reductions and associated costs at various geographic levels. 4 As used in this analysis, AirControlNET included a broad menu of stationary source control measures ( e. g., add on control technologies and combustion controls) but did not provide a comprehensive menu of existing controls known to be available for all types of sources. For example, due to model limitations a lack of data on the percentage of emission reductions and associated costs, the analysis did not consider additional state strategies to reduce emissions from fuels, highway vehicles, or non road engines. The model also is limited in terms of the This lack of data also limited the number of control measures considered in area emissions sectors.

Emission reduction possibilities are considered within and nearby the non attainment area. 5 The controls are presented on a cost per ton of VOC or NOx reduced and put in ascending order. Controls are selected until the emission reduction target is met or until a cost per ton level of $ 10,000 is reached. This limitation was used in this analysis to avoid large upward biases in the control cost in view of the limited number of control measures that could be considered for selection in the local control strategy.

Examples of the NOx controls selected for some of the NOx emissions sources in some of the analyzed areas include combustion optimization, low NOx burners, low excess air, and other combustion controls; selective catalytic reduction; selective non catalytic reduction; combinations of SCR and SNCR with additional control methods, steam injection, natural gas reburn, and other measures.

Examples of the VOC measures selected for some of the VOC sources in some of the analyzed 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout  5 areas include measures to reduce emissions from solvents, adhesives, paints and coatings used by various sectors, consumer products, landfill gas collection and other measures.

After the slate of stationary and area source controls was developed, EPA conducted an air quality simulation to estimate the air quality impact of those controls.

Emission Reduction and Air Quality Impacts of Analyzed Local Control Strategy The analyzed local control strategy results in annual NOx emission reductions of nearly 485 thousand tons and nearly 292 thousand tons VOC emission reductions. In the 2010 base case, 16 areas have design values in excess of the standard. With the local control strategy, 10 of the 16 areas have 2010 design values that are projected to meet the standard or come to within 3 ppb of the standard.

Areas Projected to Meet or Approach the Standard Through Analyzed Local Strategy. Of the original 16 areas in nonattainment in the 2010 base case, the areas projected to meet the standard with the local control strategy include Beaumont Port Arthur, Detroit Ann Arbor, Kent Queen Anne Cos., Providence, and Washington, D. C. Interestingly, the analysis makes apparent that both Beaumont Port Arthur and Providence benefit from the local control strategy emission reductions for upwind nonattainment areas, and it is likely that other cities in the analysis benefited from upwind reductions as well.

In addition, another 5 areas  Atlanta, Buffalo Niagara, Cleveland Akron Lorain, Dallas Fort Worth, and Sheboygan   come within 1 to 3 ppb of the standard with the analyzed local controls. Note that actual SIP demonstrations typically include not only local modeling but other types of information in a " weight of evidence" analysis which a state may use to help demonstrate that a proposed set of control measures is sufficient to provide for attainment; such considerations are beyond the scope of this analysis. If needed, further emissions reductions to assist attainment in these areas could come from measures in AirControlNET and other measures not in AirControlNET.

Table 2 provides examples of emission reducing measures not included in the analysis.

Table 2. Examples of Measures Not Included in the Analysis: Cleaner Gasoline Measures: Use of lower RVP or other cleaner gasolines Cleaner Vehicle Measures: Compressed natural gas and clean diesel buses Use of hybrid vehicles or clean fueled vehicles for fleets Incentives for purchase of new cleaner vehicles Re powering and retrofit for on road diesel vehicles In use highway vehicle emissions Truck idle reduction/ truck stop electrification OBD based I/ M for motor vehicles I/ M for heavy duty vehicles Remote emissions sensing Non road engine emissions early replacement, repowering, and retrofit of non road diesel equipment Non road diesel idle reduction ( e. g., locomotives) Cleaner gasoline for non road engines 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout 6For example, the NOx control efficiency of combustion controls has increased substantially over time; EPA estimated 70 percent control for certain applications in the CAIR rulemaking.

 6 Lawnmower rebates and gas can replacement programs Other mobile measures Smartway/ improve truck and rail freight efficiency Port emissions reductions ( e. g., diesel engines) Airports ( e. g., ground support equipment, ground transport)

Stationary source measures Most process changes Fuel switching Energy efficiency improvements in any sector Urban heat island reduction Other Areas. The remaining 6 areas are Baltimore, Chicago Gary Lake Co., Houston Galveston Brazoria, Milwaukee Racine, New York City Long Island, and Philadelphia Wilmington Atlantic City. Based on 2001 2003 data, these six areas had 8 hour design values ranging from 101 ppb to 106 ppb. In the base case air quality model simulation for 2010, the projected design values improve, ranging from 91.3 to 100.5 ppb. With the analyzed local control strategy, ozone levels further improve but remain above the standard, ranging from 89.7 ppb to 97.7 ppb.

The analysis suggests that the analyzed set of controls would not bring these areas into attainment by 2010. However, as noted above, the strategies considered in this analysis were not comprehensive, and the impacts of CAIR were not reflected. Further work beyond the scope of this analysis is needed to assess attainment strategies for 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas. As part of the state implementation planning process, the states and regional planning groups will conduct more detailed local emissions inventory projections and modeling to more precisely estimate emission reduction needs, and comprehensively consider potential control measures. In addition, factoring in updated improvements in control technologies could foster air further decreases in the projected post strategy design values. 6 Based on those analyses, the states and EPA will make judgments concerning control needs, control options, and practicable attainment deadlines as part of the SIP process.

In the event an area cannot practicably attain by the maximum date for its classification, the Clean Air Act provides the opportunity for more time. An area regulated under subpart 2, such as the six areas discussed above, could receive a later attainment date through a state request to bump up to a higher classification ( e. g. from moderate to serious). The Act requires EPA to a grant a state request for an area to receive a higher classification; the state plan still must have an attainment date that is as expeditious as practicable. Although bump up means that certain additional specified requirements apply, an area may already be meeting most or all of these specified requirements due to controls previously adopted to implement the 1 hour ozone standard. This is because these areas had 1 hour classifications that were higher than their 8 hour classifications, and because the Phase 1 final implementation rule for the 8 hour O3 NAAQS contains anti backsliding provisions generally requiring continued implementation of the control measures required for the 1 hour classification. Although additional statutorily specified control requirements may be satisfied by measures already in place, the area's plan still must include measures sufficient to provide for attainment by its new attainment date. These reductions may be achieved through 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout 7 Antibacksliding provisions of the Phase 1 Ozone Implementation Rule do not identify the 1 hour new source review requirement as an applicable requirement for purposes of the 8 hour standard. Thus, States are not required to retain 1 hour NSR obligations to the extent they are more stringent than what would apply for an area's 8 hour classification.

 7 implementation of measures that are necessary to demonstrate reasonable further progress ( RFP), or additional reductions beyond RFP may be needed to demonstrate timely attainment. Preliminary analyses indicate that already required control measures ( e. g., motor vehicle and nonroad engine rules, CAIR, etc.) may largely or fully fulfill reasonable further progress requirements for many areas. Minimum federal new source review requirements would be more stringent due to bump up. 7 However, because States may choose whether to retain 1 hour NSR requirements that are more stringent than required for an area's 8 hour classification, an area by area examination would be necessary to determine whether bump up would require a State to adopt more stringent NSR rules than already exist in the approved SIP.

One reason that more time could help such an area attain is that emissions of ozone precursors, and ozone levels, are projected to decline in the eastern United States for the next decade and beyond as a result of existing federal rules ( e. g., motor vehicle and non road engine emission standards, CAIR). In addition, more time could allow for implementation of innovative measures and emerging technologies that could achieve additional pollution reductions. Our experience over the past 30 years, and the promise of numerous cleaner technologies emerging today, strongly suggest that technological innovation and " learning by doing" will continue to produce new, cleaner processes and performance improvements that reduce air pollution at reasonable cost. The Clean Air Act itself has spurred such advances, as innovative companies have responded to the challenges of the Act with great success, producing breakthroughs such as alternatives to ozone depleting chemicals and new super performing catalysts for automobile emissions, as well as improvements in control efficiency and cost for technologies such as scrubbers and SCR. EPA is compiling many examples of emerging or developing technologies that may help in meeting air quality goals in the short or medium term.

Cost Estimates The estimated cost of the analyzed local control strategy is $ 2.0 billion in year 2000 dollars. However, the estimated cost of control is not distributed evenly across the 16 areas. This geographic variation in cost is the result of different emission reduction targets, source emissions inventories, and control measures applicable to that area. See Table 3 regarding the variations in total cost and Table 4 for the variations in marginal cost ( the cost of the highest dollar control measure selected in the local strategy).

Table 3. Variations in Total Cost Across Non attainment Areas Range* of Annual Cost Areas with Total Local Control Strategy Cost within that Range $ 20 thousand to $ 3.3 million Kent Queen Anne Cos.; Beaumont Port Arthur; Sheboygan; Providence Atlanta $ 14 million to $ 61 million Cleveland Akron Lorain; Washington DC MD VA; Buffalo Niagra; 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout  8 Detroit Anne Arbor; Milwaukee Racine; Dallas Fort Worth; Baltimore $ 290 million to $ 650 million Chicago Cook & Lake Cos.; Houston Galveston Brazoria; Philadelphia Wilmington Atlantic City, New York City Long Island * The ranges are specified so as to avoid overstating the variations in cost. For example, there are no areas that have estimated local control strategy costs ranging from $ 3.4 to $ 13 million. Hence, the range is not artificially expanded to go from $ 3.4 million to $ 61 million.

Table 4. Variations in the Marginal Cost of Control Across the Non attainment Areas Range* of Marginal Cost Areas with Local Control Strategy Marginal Cost within that $' s per ton Range 60 to 1000 Kent Queen Anne Cos.; Beaumont Port Arthur; Sheboygan; Atlanta; Cleveland Akron Lorain; Washington DC MD VA 1700 to 3400 Buffalo Niagra Falls; Dallas Fort Worth; Detroit Ann Arbor; Providence 5600 to 7300 Baltimore, Milwaukee Racine; Chicago Cook & Lake Cos.

8700 to 10,000 Philadelphia Wilmington Atlantic City; New York City Long Island; Houston Galveston Brazoria * The ranges are specified so as to avoid overstating the variations in marginal cost. For example, there are no areas with marginal cost range from $ 1100 to $ 1600 per ton. Hence, that range is not artificially expand to go from $ 60 to $ 1600 per ton.

With consideration of available local control measures not considered in this analysis, some areas may be able to achieve the standard at lower costs while other areas may achieve further emission reductions and air quality improvements for additional costs.

Benefits The simulated local control strategy resulted in 485 thousand tons of NOx reductions and 292 thousand tons of VOC reductions. NOx is a precursor to both fine particulate matter ( PM2.5) as well as ozone. VOC reductions may include some constituents which are classified as toxic air pollutants while also being a precursor to fine particulate matter and ozone. The benefits of these reductions should include the net gains to human health and welfare effects as a result of changes in concentrations of PM2.5, ozone, and air toxics.

The quantified and monetized benefit estimates are the result of a multi step procedure. For example, in the case of ozone, ozone concentrations are predicted for certain episodes in 2010 using the 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout 8 The document can be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ interstateairquality/ pdfs/ finaltech08. pdf.

 9 base case emissions inventory and CAM x. Those resulting values are then extended to the entire ozone season. With the local control strategy NOx and VOC emission reductions, there is a different 2010 emission inventory reflecting the controls. The control strategy inventory is used in another simulation of the CAM x model. The outputs of the two simulations are differences in ozone concentrations between the base case and local control strategy emissions inventories. These ozone concentrations changes are then used in concentration response models to predict changes in an endpoint. These endpoints are then monetized.

In the case of particulate matter related benefits, there are fewer steps. Because of the similarity in the geographic area covered by the CAIR, the anticipated reduction as a result of NOx emission reductions from electrical generating units, the emissions to air quality relationships developed there are used in this assessment by scaling quantified and monetized benefits in terms of tons in the CAIR rule versus tons reduced in the local control strategy simulation. This is used in term to estimate the benefits of reduced NOx from the non EGU sector.

Scope of the Benefit Assessment. The benefit estimates provided in the local control strategy assessment are incomplete. Additional air quality analysis would be needed to more fully characterize the benefits. Even then, there are categories of benefits which EPA is not yet able to quantify or monetize. See Table 5. Also, as with other benefits analyses, the benefits estimates are subject to uncertainties such as those associated with estimates of future year emissions inventories and air quality, and uncertainties in the estimated relationships between changes in pollutant concentrations and resulting changes in health effects ( e. g., choice of study, uncertain biological mechamism).

Table 5. Only Some Potential Benefits of the Local Control Strategy Quantified & Monetized Emission Reductions Potential Categories of Benefits from the Local Strategy Ozone Health Ozone Welfare PM2.5 Health PM2.5 Welfare Toxics NOx Reductions From EGUs* Estimated Not Covered Estimated Not Covered Not Applicable From non EGUs Estimated Not Covered Estimated Not Covered Not Applicable VOC Reductions Estimated Not Covered Not Covered Not Covered Not Covered * EGU are electrical generating units.

Ozone Non Mortality Health Benefits. Ozone non mortality health benefits are quantified based on the same health endpoints and methodologies used in the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule ( EPA 452/ R 05 002, March 2005). 8 We estimate that the analyzed control strategy in 2010 would result in $ 55 million in non mortality health benefits associated with ozone reductions ( year 2000 dollars):

° 570 fewer incidences of adult hospital admissions for respiratory causes, with monetized value of $ 10 million 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout  10 ° 530 fewer incidences of child hospital admissions for respiratory causes, with monetized value of $ 4.1 million ° 130 fewer emergency room visits related to asthma, with monetized value of $ 0.04 million ° 260,000 fewer school absences, with monetized value of $ 20 million ° 280,000 fewer minor restricted activity days, with monetized value of $ 15 million ° reduced outdoor worker productivity with monetized value of $ 5.7 million.

Ozone Mortality Health Benefits. Ozone mortality is one category where new studies suggest significant additional economic benefits. Over the past several years, EPA has consulted with the Science Advisory Board regarding evidence for an independent ozone mortality effect. Because of new studies and the recommendations from the SAB, EPA sponsored three independent meta analyses of the ozonemortality epidemiology literature to inform a determination on including this important health endpoint. The three meta analyses were published in the journal Epidemiology in July 2005. ( Bell et al, 2005; Ito et al, 2005; Levy et al, 2005) The meta analyses, as well as a major study in the the Journal of the American Medical Association ( Bell et al, 2004), reported that on average, short term changes in ozone are significantly associated with premature mortality, and that the significance of the association is robust to adjustment for particulate matter. The JAMA study used the extensive National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study database to examine associations between ozone and premature mortality in 95 U. S. urban communities. The Agency believes that publication of these studies significantly enhances the scientific defensibility of benefits estimates for ozone that include the benefits of premature mortality reductions. In the future we plan to examine a variety of ozone mortality quantification methods, including approaches that provide information on relative probability of different benefits levels. Using effect estimates similar to those found in these new studies, EPA estimates that the monetary value of the ozone related premature mortality benefits could be substantial. In the interim, for this analysis, ozone mortality health benefits are quantified based on the same ozone mortality studies and quantification methodology used in the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule ( EPA 452/ R 05 002, March 2005, pp. C 9 to C 11). We estimate ozone mortality benefits from the analyzed local controls scenario for 2010 at roughly 180 reduced premature mortalities per year with corresponding monetized benefits of approximately $ 1.1 billion annually ( year 2000 dollars). As with other health endpoints, use of ozone mortality effects estimates from different studies could result in a higher or lower estimate.

PM Non Mortality Benefits. We estimate that the reductions in EGU NOx emissions which are part of the analyzed control strategy in 2010 would result in $ 19 million in non mortality health benefits associated with PM reductions ( year 2000 dollars), including:

° 37 fewer incidences of chronic bronchitis in adults 26 years and older; monetized value of $ 13 million ° 91 fewer incidences of non fatal myocardial infactions in adults 18 and older; monetized value of $ 7.5 million ( 3% discount rate)/ $ 7.3 million ( 7% discount rate) ° 23 fewer incidences of hospital admissions for respiratory causes ( includes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and asthma); monetized value of $ 0.17 million ° 20 fewer incidences of hospital admissions for cardiovascular causes ( includes total cardiovascular and subcategories for ischemic heart disease, dysrhythmias and heart failure) in those 17 and older; monetized value of $ 0.43 million 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout  11 ° 53 fewer emergency room visits for asthma in those 18 years or younger; monetized value of $ 0.02 million ° 85 fewer incidences of chronic bronchitis in children 8 12 years old; monetized value of $ 0.03 million ° 1,012 fewer incidences of lower respiratory symptoms in children 7 14 years; monetized value of $ 0.02 million ° 799 fewer incidences of upper respiratory symptoms in asthmatic children 9 11 years old; monetized value of $ 0.02 million ° 1,279 fewer incidences of aggravation of asthma; monetized value of $ 0.05 million ° 7,459 fewer work loss days in adults 18 65 years; monetized value of $ 0.96 million. ° 43,157 fewer minor restricted activity days in adults 18 65 years; monetized value of $ 2.1 million.

PM Mortality Benefits. We estimate that EGU NOx reductions in the analyzed control strategy will result in 69 fewer instances of premature mortality associated with long term exposure to PM, with a monetized value of $ 361 million at a 3% discount rate, or $ 304 million at a 7% discount rate. The CAIR RIA provides relevant background on EPA's treatment of PM mortality in this assessment.

Additional PM Health Benefits. There are also monetized PM benefits from local control strategy NOx reductions in the non EGU sector. Emission reductions from this sector accounts for about two thirds of the Nox emission reductions from the local control strategy. These reductions come from sources such as industrial boilers, cement kilns, and gas turbines. If the estimated health benefits per ton of NOx reduction were half as much as that for the EGU reductions, the total would be $ 340 million. If the benefits were equivalent, the estimate would be $ 680 million. Without corresponding air quality modeling to undergird these estimates there is uncertainty. Clearly, the PM health benefits for these non EGU NOX reductions are not zero. The average of these two estimates is chosen for purposes of this illustrative analysis. We are assuming that emission reductions from these boilers are on a benefit per ton basis 75% of that seen with reductions from EGU on a per ton basis.

Limitations. The incomplete coverage of benefits categories is a source of uncertainty. However, there are also other sources of uncertainty. These include the following:

° Omissions of benefits ( e. g., individual health endpoints that could not be monetized). ° Lack of local control strategy specific air quality modeling regarding PM2.5 changes from NOX and VOC emission reductions. ° Several sources of uncertainty which may affect the benefits estimates ( and not necessarily the costs) ° baseline incidence rates for the effects ° mortality function and associated lags ° economic valuation and aggregation of endpoints ° averting and mitigating behavior ° other factors noted in CAIR RIA ( choice of study, potential for a threshold, etc.)

° Emission reductions for the benefits analysis include greater reductions   4631 and 5378 more tons of NOX and VOC respectively   than the corresponding cost analysis. This would cause the benefits to be slightly overestimated relative to the costs. 8 31 05 Redline Strikeout  12


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25384-25386]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10202]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0267; FRL-9665-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from wine storage. We are
approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [DOCKET
NUMBER], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                 Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted          Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..........................              4694  Wine Fermentation and           12/15/05          11/18/11
                                                       Storage Tanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2011, EPA determined that the November 18, 2011
submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4694 met the completeness criteria in 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 4694 in the SIP. CARB
originally submitted Rule 4694 to EPA on June 16, 2006, and EPA will
refer to that version of the rule as the ``originally submitted Rule
4694.'' While we can act on only the most recently submitted version,
we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.
    On August 18, 2011, SJVUAPCD adopted Resolution No. 11-08-20 in
which the Governing Board approved ``* * * an amendment to its earlier
SIP submittal of Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks), as
set forth in the strike-out version of the Rule, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.'' The Resolution also stated
that the strike-out text represents SJVUAPCD's withdrawal of those
provisions for consideration by EPA for SIP approval. This revised SIP
submittal of Rule 4694 was submitted to EPA from CARB on November 18,
2011, and will be referred to in this notice as the ``amended submittal
of Rule 4694.''

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. The amended submittal
of Rule 4694 applies to wineries that store fermented wine in bulk
containers (i.e., storage tanks), and requires that the stored wine be
maintained at or below 75 degrees Fahrenheit and the storage tanks to
be equipped with pressure-vacuum relief valves. EPA's technical support
document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD regulates an
ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81). Because Rule 4694
regulates major sources, Rule 4694 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. SJVUAPCD
evaluated RACT for emissions from wine fermentation and storage.
    While EPA has not developed a CTG document for wine fermentation
and storage, this category includes sources that emit more than 10 tons
per year of VOCs (i.e., major sources). Consequently, Rule 4694 must
fulfill RACT.
    SJVUAPCD evaluated six technologies for controlling emissions from
wine fermentation and wine storage. SJVUAPCD concluded that while the
control technologies were technologically feasible, they were not
demonstrated to be economically feasible at this time. Furthermore,
SJVUAPCD determined that there are no control technologies currently
achieved in practice in this source category. Consequently, SJVUAPCD
concluded that there are no reasonably available control technologies
for wine fermentation and wine storage.
    EPA agrees with SJVUAPCD's conclusion that emission controls have
not been demonstrated in practice for wine fermentation emissions on
the scale of the affected facilities. Therefore EPA agrees that RACT
for wine fermentation emissions at this time is no controls.
    For wine storage emissions, SJVUAPCD concluded that the six control
technologies as well as the use of pressure-vacuum relief valves and
temperature control was not cost effective and that RACT for wine
storage is also no controls. We note however that the amended submittal
of Rule 4694 requires pressure-vacuum relief valves and temperature
control, and EPA is not aware of reasonably available control
technology that might be beyond this control technology. EPA therefore
concludes that the amended submittal of Rule 4694 meets or exceeds RACT
for emissions from wine storage. The TSD has more information on our
evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.
    On January 10, 2012, EPA partially approved and partially
disapproved the RACT SIP submitted by California on June 18, 2009 for
the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area (2009 RACT SIP), based in part
on our conclusion that the State had not fully satisfied CAA section

182 RACT requirements for wine fermentation and storage tank
operations. See 77 FR 1417, 1425 (January 10, 2012). Final approval of
Rule 4694 would satisfy California's obligation to implement RACT under
CAA section 182 for this source category for the 1-hour ozone and 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-10202 Filed 4-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P