Chapter 3:  Modeled Control Strategy:  Design and Analytical Results

Synopsis

In order to estimate the costs and benefits of revised ozone standards,
EPA has analyzed one possible hypothetical scenario to illustrate the
control strategies that areas across the country might employ to attain
an alternate more stringent primary standard of 0.070 ppm.
Specifically, EPA has modeled the impact that additional emissions
controls across numerous sectors would have on predicted ambient ozone
concentrations, incremental to meeting the current standard (baseline).
Thus, the modeled analysis for a revised standard focuses specifically
on incremental improvements beyond the current standard, and uses
control options that might be available to states for application by
2020.  The hypothetical scenario presented in this RIA is one
illustrative option for national attainment of a tighter standard.  It
is not a recommendation for how a tighter ozone standard should be
implemented, and states will make all final decisions regarding
implementation strategies once a final NAAQS recommendation has been
made.

In order to model a hypothetical control strategy to achieve national
attainment of 0.070 ppm incremental to attainment of the current
standard, EPA approached the analysis in stages.  First, EPA identified
controls to be included in the baseline (attainment of the current
standard).  Then, EPA applied additional known controls within
geographic areas designed to bring areas predicted to exceed 0.070 ppm
in 2020 into attainment.  This chapter presents the national
hypothetical control strategy, the geographic areas where controls were
applied, and the results of the modeling which predicted ozone
concentrations in 2020 after application of the strategy.  The 0.070 ppm
level was the only alternative standard modeled by EPA.  Chapter 4 will
explain how EPA used the results of the modeled control strategy for
0.070 ppm to estimate total tons of emissions reductions needed to
achieve ozone concentrations for the bounds of the range of the proposed
more stringent standard (0.075 and 0.070 ppm, and the more stringent
option analyzed of 0.065 ppm). Chapters 5 and 6 present the estimated
costs and benefits of the modeled costs and benefits for partial
attainment.

Because EPA’s baseline indicated that some areas were not likely to be
in attainment with the current standard by 2020 (0.08 ppm, effectively
0.084 ppm based on current rounding conventions – (Fig 3.4) EPA
expected that known controls would not be enough to bring those areas,
and likely others, into attainment with 0.070 ppm in 2020.  Modeling
results showed that to be the case (see Fig 3.13).

Because it was impossible to meet either the current or any tighter
ozone standard nationwide using only known controls, EPA conducted a
second step in the analysis, and estimated the number of further tons of
emission reductions needed to attain 0.070 ppm (presented in Chapter 4).
 It is uncertain what controls States would put in place to attain a
tighter standard, since additional control measures are not currently
recognized as being commercially available.   However, existing
emissions inventories for the areas that were predicted to be in
non-attainment after application of all known controls, do indicate that
substantial amounts of ozone precursor emissions (i.e. tons of NOx or
VOC) are available for control, pending future technology.  Chapter 4
describes the methodology EPA used to estimate the number of these tons
available and needed for control to reach attainment, and Chapters 5 and
6 present the estimated costs and benefits of this portion of attainment
which EPA had to extrapolate.

3.1 Establishing the Baseline

The regulatory impact analysis (RIA) is intended to evaluate the costs
and benefits of reaching attainment with potential alternative ozone
standards.  In order to develop and evaluate a control strategy for
attaining a more stringent (0.070 ppm) primary standard, it is important
to first estimate ozone levels in 2020 given the current ozone standard
(0.08 ppm, effectively 0.084 ppm based on current rounding conventions)
and trends (more information is provided in chapter 1).  This scenario
is known as the baseline.  Establishing this baseline allows us to
estimate the incremental costs and benefits of attaining any alternative
standard.  However, in developing the baseline it was important to
recognize that there are several areas that are not required to meet the
current standard by 2020.  The Clean Air Act allows areas with more
significant air quality problems to take additional time to reach the
current standard.  Some areas, such as Southern California, are not
required to come into attainment with the current standard until after
2020, so they would clearly not be required to attain an alternative
primary standard by 2020.  This analysis, then, identifies the levels
that these areas would be required to attain in 2020 (on their required
path for attainment of the current standard) under tighter standards of
0.075, 0.070. and 0.065 ppm, and estimates the incremental costs and
benefits of attaining that level.

The baseline includes controls EPA which estimates need to be included
to attain the current standard (0.08 ppm, effectively 0.084 ppm based on
current rounding conventions) for 2020.  Two steps were used to develop
the baseline.  First, the reductions expected in national ozone
concentrations from national rules in effect or proposed today were
considered.  Because these alone were not predicted to bring all areas
into attainment with the tighter standard, EPA used a hypothetical
control strategy to apply additional known controls.  Illustrative
control measures were used in four sectors to establish the baseline:
Non-Electricity Generating Unit Point Sources (Non-EGUs), Non-Point Area
Sources (Area), Onroad Mobile Sources and Nonroad Mobile Sources.  A
fifth sector was used in the subsequent control strategy for a tighter
alternative standard:  Electricity Generating Unit Point Sources (EGUs).
 Each of these sectors is defined below for clarity.

NonEGU point sources are stationary sources that emit at least one
criteria pollutant with emissions of 100 tons per year or higher.
NonEGU point sources are found across a wide variety of industries, such
as chemical manufacturing, cement manufacturing, petroleum refineries,
and iron and steel mills.

Non-Point Area Sources (Area) are stationary sources that are too
numerous or whose emissions are too small to be individually included in
a stationary source emissions inventory.  Area sources are the
activities where aggregated source emissions information is maintained
for the entire source category instead of each point source, and are
reported at the county level.

Onroad Mobile Sources are mobile sources that travel on roadways.  These
sources include automobiles, buses, trucks, and motorcycles traveling on
roads and highways.

Nonroad Mobile Sources are any portable engine that travels by other
means than roadways.  These sources include railroad locomotives; marine
vessels; aircraft; off-road motorcycles; snowmobiles; pleasure craft;
and farm, construction, industrial and lawn/garden equipment.

Electricity Generating Unit Point Sources (EGUs) are stationary sources
producing electricity, such as fossil-fuel-fired boilers and combustion
turbines.

3.1.1  National Rules

To reduce ambient ozone concentrations, it was necessary to control
ozone precursors, NOx and VOC.  Establishing the baseline required
identifying the national rules which were expected to contribute to
reductions in NOx and VOCs between now and 2020.   Some of these include
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), and
the Clean Air Visibility Rule (CAVR); and the 2007 proposed
Locomotive/Marine rule. A complete listing of these rules is provided in
table 3.1.  In addition, EPA included the control set developed for the
hypothetical national attainment strategy presented in the PM NAAQS RIA
in the baseline for this ozone analysis.

Table 3.1 National Rules and Control Measures, by sector, contributing
to the Baseline,

Sector	Sources of Controls-National

	NOx	VOC

Non-EGUs	PM 15/35 (west only)	(none used)

Area	PM 15/35 (west only)	(none used)

Onroad Mobile	-Onroad Diesel Particulate Filters  and Retirement

- Commuter Reduction Strategies

-Idling Elimination

-Intermodal Transfer from Trucks to Rail	-Onroad Diesel Particulate
Filters and Retirement

- Commuter Reduction Strategies

Nonroad Mobile	-Diesel Marine & Locomotives Rule

-Ocean-Going Vessels Rule

-Small Spark-Ignition Engine Rule

-Nonroad Diesel Particulate Filters & Engine Rebuilds	-Small
Spark-Ignition Engine Rule

-Nonroad Diesel Particulate Filters & Engine Rebuilds

EGU	-CAIR/CAMR/ CAVR

-PM 15/35 (West only)	(none used)

3.1.2 Additional controls

Additional known controls were also included as needed in the baseline.
The applicable controls and their respective sectors are listed in table
3.2 and described below.  Details regarding the individual controls are
provided in appendix 3.  Due to the extensive reductions from EGUs
already implemented in CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, no additional EGU controls were
included in the baseline.  The East was evaluated separately from the
West, due to the nature of the controls available in each area and the
specific features of the areas needing reductions in ozone, as explained
in more detail below.

In the East, controls included in the baseline for Non-EGU and area
sources came from a variety of geographic areas and scales.  Almost all
available controls in Chicago, Houston, and the Northeast Corridor were
included in the baseline because these areas contain counties that were
projected to be nonattainment of the current ozone NAAQS in 2020 (based
on air quality modeling performed as part of the PM NAAQS RIA).

be markedly reduced by local VOC controls (≥ 0.5 ppb) by local VOC
controls of 25%.  Two additional counties that did not meet these
criteria were also included.  In the West, Non-EGU and Area Controls
were included in the baseline only for California, where they were
included state-wide.  In California, all controllable tons of NOx and
VOC emissions were reduced using known Non-EGU and Area Controls in the
baseline.  (See Fig 3.1 and Fig 3.2)

Fig. 3.1Counties Where Controls for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Were Included
for

Non-EGU Point, and Area Sources in Baseline (Current Standard  -- 0.084
ppm)

Fig. 3.2   Counties Where Controls for Volatile Organic Chemicals
(VOCs) were included for Non-EGU Point, and Area Sources in Baseline
(Current Standard -- 0.084 ppm)

In the Onroad Mobile sector, local controls were included as necessary
in the baseline for both East and West.  Counties projected to have a
monitor that exceeded the current standard were surrounded by a 200km
buffer zone, and controls were included in the counties within this
buffer that were within the same state as the exceeding monitor.  Where
some control measures overlapped for a given county, controls with the
lowest costs were included first. This is the only instance in which
controls were included in a certain order.  For a complete list of the
controls and the order in which they were included, see Appendix 3.3.
Both onroad and nonroad diesel retrofits and idling elimination were
included statewide in California with an assumed 75% market penetration,
and elsewhere in the nation with an assumed 25% market penetration for
all states with a county projected to be in nonattainment with the
current standard in 2020. The remainder of mobile controls were included
statewide in Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) states (see section 3.2.2
for more information on OTC states), with the exception of Vermont which
was not projected to have counties in nonattainment with the current
standard in 2020.  These additional mobile controls were included
statewide in California (See Fig. 3.3)

Fig. 3.3 Areas Where NOx and VOC Controls Were Included for Mobile
Onroad and Nonroad Sources in Addition to National Mobile Controls in
Baseline (Current Standard -- 0.084 ppm)

*Onroad retrofits and elimination of long duration idling

**Onroad retrofits elimination of long duration idling, nonroad
retrofits, BWC, and low RVP.

Table 3.2 Controls by sector included in the Baseline determination for
2020

Sector	Controls- East	Controls- West

	NOx	VOC	NOx	VOC

Non-EGUs	-LEC (Low Emission Combustion)

-LNB (Low NOx Burner)

-LNB + FGR (Flu-Gas Sulfurization)

-LNB + SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction)

-Mid-Kiln Firing

-NSCR (Non-selective Catalytic Reduction)

-OXY-Firing

-SCR

-SCR + Steam Injection

-SCR + Water Injection

-SNCR (Selective Non-catalytic Reduction)

-SNCR - Urea

-SNCR - Urea Based	(none used)	-LNB

-Mid-Kiln Firing

-NSCR

-OXY-Firing

-SCR

-SCR + Steam Injection

-SNCR

-SNCR - Urea Based	(none used)

Area	-RACT to 25 tpy (LNB)

-Water Heater + LNB Space Heaters	-CARB Long-Term Limits

-Catalytic Oxidizer

-Equipment and Maintenance

-Gas Collection (SCAQMD/ BAAQMD)

-Incineration

-Incineration >100,000 lbs bread

-Low Pressure/Vacuum Relief Valve

-OTC Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Rule

-OTC Solvent Cleaning Rule

-SCAQMD - Low VOC

-SCAQMD Limits

-SCAQMD Rule 1168

-Switch to Emulsified Asphalts

-Use of Low or No VOC Materials	-RACT to 25 tpy (LNB)

-Switch to Low Sulfur Fuel

-Water Heater + LNB Space Heaters	-Add-On Controls

-Airtight Degreasing System

-Catalytic Oxidizer

-Equipment and Maintenance

-FIP Rule (VOC content & TE)

-Gas Collection (SCAQMD/BAAQMD)

-Incineration

-Incineration >100,000 lbs bread

-Low Pressure/ Vacuum Relief Valve

-OTC Solvent Cleaning Rule

-Reformulation - FIP Rule

-SCAQMD Limits

-SCAQMD Rule 1168

-South Coast Phase III

-Switch to Emulsified Asphalts

-Use of Low or No VOC Materials

Onroad Mobile	-Onroad Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Diesel
Particulate Filters (DPF)

-Reduce Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)	-Onroad Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) and Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) c

-Reduce Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

Nonroad Mobile	-Nonroad Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Diesel
Particulate Filters (DPF)c

-Reduce Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

	-Nonroad Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and Diesel Particulate
Filters (DPF)c

-Reduce Gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

	-Aircraft NOx Engine Standard

-Ocean-Going Vessels – reductions for vessels burning residual fuels
(none used for VOC only)	-Aircraft NOx Engine Standard	(none used for
VOC only)

EGU	(none used)	(none used)	(none used)	(none used)

3.1.2 Ozone level for baseline

Establishing the baseline required design values (predicted
concentrations) of ozone across the country.  Because the intention of
this evaluation was to achieve attainment of the current ozone standard
(0.08 ppm, effectively 0.084 ppm based on current rounding conventions),
controls were included to reduce ambient ozone concentrations to 0.08
ppm (effectively 0.084 ppm based on current rounding conventions).  A
map of the country is presented in figure 3.4, which shows predicted
concentrations for the 491 counties with ozone monitors that were
included in the baseline.  Modeling projections were developed for all
appropriate counties according to procedures outline in EPA modeling
guidance.

Fig 3.4  Baseline Ozone Air Quality in 2020*

* Map shows results from a total of 491 counties with projected ozone
design values, controls from CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, the Clean Air Nonroad
Diesel Rule, the Light-Duty Vehicle Tier 2 Rule, the Heavy Duty Diesel
Rule, proposed rules for Locomotive and Marine Vessels and for Small
Spark-Ignition Engines, and mobile and stationary source controls
identified for additional reductions to PM 2.5 and precursors of Ozone.

**The current standard of 0.08 ppm is effectively expressed as 0.084 ppm
when rounding conventions are applied.

The baseline predicted that 10 counties would not meet the current ozone
standard in 2020, even after inclusion of all known controls.  For
clarity we did not include the 131 counties projected with levels below
0.065 ppm in the map.

After including known controls as described above, the analysis
predicted that the remaining 481 counties would attain the current
standard (0.08 ppm, effectively 0.084 ppm based on current rounding
conventions) by 2020.  The baseline forms the foundation for the
cost-benefit analysis conducted in this RIA, where EPA compares more
stringent primary ozone standard alternatives incrementally to national
attainment of the current standard.

3.2 Developing the Control Strategy Analysis

After developing the baseline, EPA developed a hypothetical control
strategy to illustrate one possible national control strategy that could
be adopted to reach an alternative primary standard of 0.070 ppm by
2020.  The stricter standard alternative of 0.070 ppm was chosen as
being representative of the set of alternatives being considered by EPA
in its notice of proposed rulemaking on the ozone NAAQS.  Controls for
five sectors were used in developing the control analysis, as discussed
previously:  non-EGUs, Area, onroad mobile and nonroad mobile, along
with EGU controls only in the East (EGU controls for the West were
included in the hypothetical PM NAAQS 15/35 national control strategy,
and were therefore already in the ozone baseline).  Reductions in both
NOx and VOC ozone precursors were needed in all four remaining sectors
to meet a tighter standard.

As depicted in the flow diagram in figure 1.1, the control strategy
modeled in this RIA first applied and exhausted all known controls.
After controls were identified, the expected emissions reductions were
input to an air quality model that projected design values for ozone in
2020.  Following the control strategy, there were some areas projected
not to attain .070 in 2020 using all known control measures.  EPA was
then required to extrapolate the additional emission reductions required
to reach attainment.  The methodology used to develop those estimates
and those calculations are presented in Chapter 4.

As in the analysis for the baseline, parts of the hypothetical national
control strategy for 0.070 ppm focused on the Eastern (East) United
States (U.S.) separately from the Western U.S. (West).    However, this
RIA presents estimates of the costs and benefits of attaining
alternative ozone standards on a national basis.  Table 3.4 presents the
specific control technologies that were applied within each sector for
the 0.070 ppm control strategy.

Table 3.4: Controls for emissions reductions, by sector, for the 0.070
ppm control strategy (incremental to baseline)

Sector	Controls- East	Controls- West

	NOx	VOC	NOx	VOC

Non-EGUs	-Biosolid Injection Technology

-LEC (Low Emission Combustion)

-LNB

-LNB + FGR

-LNB + SCR

-LNB+SCR

-Mid-Kiln Firing

-NGR

-NSCR

-OXY-Firing

-SCR

-SCR + Steam Injection

-SCR + Water Injection

-SNCR

-SNCR - Urea

-SNCR - Urea Based	-LDAR (Leak Detection and Repair)

-Enhanced LDAR

-Flares Gas Recovery

Monitoring Program

-Permanent Total Enclosure (PTE)

-Wastewater Drain Control	-Biosolid Injection Technology

-LNB

-LNB + FGR

-LNB + SCR

-Mid-Kiln Firing

-NSCR

-OXY-Firing

-SCR

-SCR + Steam Injection

-SCR + Water Injection

-SNCR

-SNCR - Urea Based	(none used)

Area	-RACT to 25 tpy (LNB)

-Water Heater + LNB Space Heaters	-CARB Long-Term Limits

-Catalytic Oxidizer

-Equipment and Maintenance

-Gas Collection (SCAQMD/BAAQMD)

-Incineration

-Incineration >100,000 lbs bread

-Low Pressure/Vacuum Relief Valve

-OTC Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Rule

-OTC Portable Gas Container Rule

-OTC Solvent Cleaning Rule

-SCAQMD - Low VOC

-SCAQMD Limits

-SCAQMD Rule 1168

-Switch to Emulsified Asphalts

-Use of Low or No VOC Materials	-RACT to 25 tpy (LNB)

-Switch to Low Sulfur Fuel

-Water Heater + LNB Space Heaters	(none used)

Onroad Mobile	-Increased Penetration of Onroad SCR and DPF from 25% to
75%

-Continuous Inspection and Maintenance (OBD)	-Continuous Inspection and
Maintenance (OBD)

Nonroad Mobile7	-Increased Penetration of Nonroad SCR and DPF from 25%
to 75%

	-Ocean-Going Vessels – reductions for vessels burning residual fuels

	EGU	-Lower nested caps in OTC and MWRPO states

-Application of SCR and SNCR in coal fired units in NA counties outside
of OTC and MWRPO

	(none used)	(none used)	(none used)

3.2.1 Controls applied for a 0.070 ppm standard: Non-EGU and Area
Sectors

Non-EGU and Area control measures were identified using AirControlNET
4.1.  To reduce NOx and VOC levels, all known control measures, within a
given cost-cap, were applied, allowing for the largest emission
reduction per source over the widest geographic area. The cost-caps were
pollutant specific and applicable only in the East portion of the
analysis.  For reductions of NOx emissions the cap was $16,000/ton; this
was based upon the approximate benefit per ton of reductions (i.e. due
to the large capital component of installing these controls).  A similar
process was followed for reductions from VOCs.  The marginal cost curve
was analyzed, and there was a clear break in the curve at approximately
$6,000/ton.  Because all available controls up to the cost cap were used
in counties needing emission reductions, there was no ordering of which
controls were applied first.

Additionally, controls were added from preliminary State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) from States and Regional Planning Bodies. Supplemental
controls that estimated near-term source controls based on similar
technology were included in the Non-EGU and Area Source sectors as well.
Supplemental controls are described in further detail in appendix 3.

NOx controls were applied in the East for the 233 counties that were
projected to have concentrations of greater than 0.070 ppm in the 2020
baseline.  Additional controls were applied in surrounding counties
within 200 km of the county projected to be out of attainment (at 0.070
ppm), but not crossing state boundaries.  In the West, NOx controls were
applied statewide, rather than only to counties with violating monitors
and their immediate neighbors (See Fig. 3.5).

Fig 3.5  Counties Where Controls for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Were Applied
to Non-EGU, Point, and Areas Sources for RIA Control Strategy Designed
to Meet

 0.070 ppm (incremental to Baseline)

In the East, VOC controls were applied (for area sources only) in 47
counties where the following criteria were met (including the 26
counties which included VOC controls in their baselines):  VOC emissions
within the county or an adjacent county were high (e.g. >5000 tpy of
area source emissions), and screening analyses indicated that ozone
design values would be markedly reduced (>+0.5ppb) by local VOC controls
of 25%, and the county design value was projected to be >=0.070 in the
2020 baseline.  In the West, VOCs were only applied in California, where
they were applied statewide due to the severity of the non-attainment
problem (See Fig 3.6).

Fig. 3.6  Counties Where VOC Controls Were Applied for the Control
Strategy Designed to Meet 0.070 ppm (incrementally to Baseline)

3.2.2 Controls applied for a 0.070 ppm standard: EGU Sector

For the East only, a control strategy was applied for the EGU sector
(Fig. 3.7) (EGU controls for the West were already included in the ozone
baseline since they were applied for the hypothetical national control
strategy in the PM NAAQS 15/35 RIA.)  Annual and ozone season CAIR caps
remained unchanged, but coal-fired units were targeted for this shifted
strategy within those caps.  This strategy was appropriate to consider
because transport of NOx pollution is more of a concern in the East, and
NOx from EGUs still accounts for a significant portion of emissions in
this region. California, while in need of reductions as well, was not
included in this strategy because all known controls (including EGU
controls) had already been applied in the baseline.  The development of
an EGU-component to this control strategy was based exclusively on NOx
emissions during the ozone season, although the hypothetical controls
applied would operate year-round.    The EGU sector used the Integrated
Planning Model (IPM) to evaluate the reductions that are predicted from
a specific control strategy.  Details of this tool and subsequent
analysis can be found in appendix 3.4.

Reductions in the EGU sector are influenced significantly by the 2003
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (see appendix 3.4 for more details on
CAIR).  CAIR will bring significant emission reductions in NOx, and a
result, ambient ozone concentrations in the eastern U.S. by 2020.  A map
of the CAIR region is presented in appendix 3.4.  Emissions and air
quality impacts of CAIR are documented in detail in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (under the
current 8-hr ozone standard of 0.08 ppm, effectively 0.084 ppm based on
current rounding conventions).  In addition, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA
documents in detail the additional EGU controls from that illustrative
control strategy, that were included in the ozone baseline.

To address the nonattainment in the CAIR region (especially the Midwest,
Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast), lower nested caps (a limit lower than the
current CAIR cap) were applied in these areas for NOx, while holding the
CAIR cap unchanged for the entire region.  This provides an opportunity
to reduce emissions in a cost effective manner in targeted regions.  Two
geographic regions were targeted for emissions reductions: the Midwest
Regional Planning Organization (MWRPO) consisting WI, IL, IN, MI, and
OH; and the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), consisting of DC, MD, PA,
DE, NJ, CT, NY, RI, MA, VT, NH, and ME.  These areas were chosen because
the MWRPO and OTC states are currently investigating ways of reducing
EGU emissions further in their states and because most of the potential
ozone nonattainment areas are found within these two regions.
Considering transport, as well as the local effects, reducing emissions
in these areas will help bringing the Lake Michigan and Northeast
corridor nonattainment areas into attainment.

Lower nested caps were applied in the MWRPO and OTC states, for the
ozone season only. The caps that were applied estimated the reductions
that could be obtained by, first, installing post-combustion controls to
all of the coal-fired units that were not projected to have previously
installed post-combustion controls in the base-case.  Following this,
75% of the reduction that could be obtained from these units was
subtracted from the sum of State level ozone control season NOx caps in
CAIR.  The CAIR cap for the entire region was kept unchanged.

In order to address non-attainment in the CAIR region outside of the
MWRPO and OTC, a “command and control” type strategy for coal-fired
units has been designed.  Annual and ozone season CAIR caps remained
unchanged, and coal-fired units were targeted for this reduction.
Preliminary analysis showed that most of the needed NOx reductions in
the EGU sector can be achieved through application of post-combustion
controls (e.g. Selective Catalytic Reductions (SCR) and Selective
Non-Catalytic Reductions (SNCR)) on coal units that are projected to
remain without controls under the CAIR/CAMR/CAVR cap-and-trade scheme.

Fig.  3.7 States Where Nitrogen Oxide Controls Were Applied to
Electrical Generating Units for the Control Strategy Designed to Meet
0.070 ppm

3.2.3 Controls applied for a 0.070 ppm standard: Onroad and Nonroad
Mobile Sectors

As in other sectors, there are several mobile source control strategies
that have been, or are expected to be, implemented through previous
national or regional rules.  Although many expected reductions from
these rules are included in the baseline, additional mobile source
controls were required to illustrate attainment at a 0.070 ppm standard
(See Fig 3.8).

All of the local mobile source controls included in the ozone baseline
were expanded for the hypothetical national control strategy to attain
0.070 ppm standard.  In the case of onroad and nonroad SCR and DPF, the
measure was applied at a greater penetration rate – to 75% of the
equipment population.  All local measures were applied to sources in
additional geographic areas.  Continuous inspection and maintenance,
which allows for much more rapid identification of vehicles failing
their emissions standard, was added.  Descriptions of the mobile source
rules and measures can be found in appendix 3.3.

As in the baseline, onroad SCR and DPF and elimination of idling were
applied statewide for all states with a county projected to exceed the
0.070 ppm standard.  All other controls were applied to counties within
a 200 km buffer from counties projected to exceed the 0.070 ppm
alternative standard with the following exceptions:

counties in neighboring states were omitted from the buffer zone

controls were applied statewide to Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
states, with the exception of Vermont

controls were applied statewide in California.

Fig.  3.8  Areas Where NOx and VOC Controls Were Applied to Mobile
Onroad and Nonroad Sources in Addition to National Mobile Controls for
the 0.070 ppm Control Strategy

*Onroad retrofits and elimination of long duration idling

**Onroad retrofits, elimination of long duration idling, nonroad
retrofits, BWC, low RVP, and increase frequency of inspection and
maintenance.

3.2.4 Data Quality for this Analysis

The estimates of emission reductions associated with our control
strategies above are subject to important limitations and uncertainties.
 EPA’s analysis is based on its best judgment for various input
assumptions that are uncertain.  As a general matter, the Agency selects
the best available information from available engineering studies of air
pollution controls and has set up what it believes is the most
reasonable framework for analyzing the cost, emission changes, and other
impacts of regulatory controls.  EPA is working on approaches to
quantify the uncertainties in these areas and will incorporate them in
future RIAs as appropriate.

3.3 Geographic distribution of Emissions reductions

The following maps break out NOx and VOC reductions into the controlling
sectors.  The maps for NOx and VOC reductions are presented in Figures
3.3 and 3.4, respectively.  Figure 3.5 indicates the emission reductions
attributed to each sector.

Prior to reading the maps, there is an important caveat to consider.
The control strategy above focuses on reducing emissions of VOCs and
NOx, the two precursors to ozone formation.  However, in some cases, the
application of the control strategy actually increased the level of NOx
or VOC emissions.  This is due to controls that affect multiple
pollutants and complex interactions between air pollutants.

Emissions of NOx do not decrease everywhere within the CAIR region. As
explained earlier, the NOx EGU control strategy was designed to achieve
emission reductions specifically in the non-attainment areas, while
retaining the overall CAIR cap constant . Application of nested and
lower (ozone season) caps for the states in the MWRPO and OTC regions
and local controls (SCR and SNCR) on the uncontrolled coal units in the
non-attainment counties outside of the OTC and MWRPO within CAIR region
result in increase of emissions elsewhere within CAIR region.  While
there are substantial NOx emission reductions within the OTC and MWRPO
expected for the 2020 ozone season (roughly 55,500 tons) as a result of
cap-and-trade program with lower caps and local command-and-control
reductions in other non-attainment counties where uncontrolled coal
units exist, there is the possibility of increased emissions from the
remainder of sources within CAIR region.   This approach provides a cost
affective opportunity of reducing emissions where the reductions are
most needed to help reach attainment.  It is important to recall that
this is a hypothetical control strategy, the states or other authorities
may take additional steps to minimize these increases if warranted.

Fig 3.9  Tons of Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) Emission Reductions From Controls
Designed to Meet 0.070 Standard

*Reductions are negative and increases are positive

Fig. 3.10 Percentage of Total Annual NOx Emissions Reduced from Various
Sources

 Fig. 3.11 Tons of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emission Reductions
From Controls Designed to Meet 0.070 ppm Standard

*Reductions are negative and increases are positive

Fig. 3.12 Percentage of Total Annual VOC Emissions Reduced from Various
Sources*

3.4 Ozone Design Values for partial attainment

After determining the emissions reductions from NOx and VOC, we used
modeling tools (see section 2.3.2) to determine ozone design values for
2020.  Figure 3.13 shows a map of the design values after modeling the
control strategy to reach 0.070 ppm.  The map legend is broken out to
demonstrate under this control strategy, with no adjustments, which
counties would reach the more stringent alternative standard analyzed
(0.065 ppm) and the other end of the proposal range (0.075 ppm).  It is
understood that this illustrative strategy would not be the exact
hypothetical strategy used to try to attain either of these alternative
standards, due to over- and under-attainment in many counties.  (Chapter
4 describes EPA’s methodology for estimating tons of reductions needed
to hypothetically attain these other two possible alternative
standards.)  In addition, because ozone formation is dependent on a
variety of factors, it is not possible to directly attribute changes in
predicted ozone concentrations to emission reductions of a specific
precursor from a specific sector.

A full listing of the counties and their design values is provided in
table appendix 3..

Figures 3.14 and 3.15 show the tons of emissions reduced by the
hypothetical RIA 0.070 ppm control strategy, and the tons of emissions
remaining after application of those controls, by sector.

Using this strategy, it is possible to reach attainment in 365 counties.
 However, there are still an additional 126 counties that will remain
out of attainment with an alternative standard of 0.070 ppm using this
control strategy.  All known controls were applied to this scenario, but
attainment was not possible everywhere.  Because of this partial
attainment outcome, it will be necessary to extrapolate additional
reductions in NOx and VOC in order to assess the costs and benefits of
full attainment nationwide.  Chapter 4 will address this extrapolation
methodology.

Fig. 3.13 Projected Ozone Air Quality in 2020 after Application of the
0.070 ppm Control Strategy *

* Map shows results from a total of 491 counties with projected ozone
design values, controls from CAIR/CAMR/CAVR, the Clean Air Nonroad
Diesel Rule, the Light-Duty Vehicle Tier 2 Rule, the Heavy Duty Diesel
Rule, proposed rules for Locomotive and Marine Vessels and for Small
Spark-Ignition Engines, and mobile and stationary source controls
identified for additional reductions to PM 2.5 and precursors of Ozone.

**The current standard of 0.08 ppm is effectively expressed as 0.084 ppm
when rounding conventions are applied.

Table 3.6 Tons of Emissions Remaining after Application of the 0.070
ppm Control Strategy

Pollutant	Sector	2020 Emissions After Controls Applied for PM2.5 15/35
(tons)

	2020 Emissions After Controls Applied for  PM2.5 15/35 and Ozone 0.084
Control Strategy Baseline (tons)

	0.070 ppm  Reductions (tons)

	2020 Emissions After Controls Applied for  PM2.5 15/35 and Ozone 0.070
ppm Control Strategy (tons)

NOX	Area 	1,500,000	1,500,000	30,000	1,400,000

	Onroad 	2,100,000	2,000,000	170,000	1,800,000

	Nonroad 	2,400,000	2,200,000	8,000	2,200,000

	EGU	1,900,000	1,900,000	7,800	1,900,000

	Non-EGU 	2,600,000	2,300,000	800,000	1,500,000

VOC	Area 	7,100,000	7,000,000	84,000	6,900,000

	Onroad 	1,700,000	1,700,000	86,000	1,600,000

	Nonroad 	1,200,000	1,200,000	12,000	1,200,000

	EGU	45,000	45,000	26	45,000

	Non-EGU 	1,300,000	1,300,000	3,400	1,300,000

Fig. 3.14  Annual VOC Emissions Remaining after PM NAAQS 15/35, Ozone
Current Standard, and 0.070 ppm Control Strategies (Entire US )

Fig. 3.15 Annual NOx Emissions Remaining after PM NAAQS 15/35, Ozone
Current Standard, and 0.070 ppm Control Strategies (Entire US)

References:

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 40 CFR
Part 50 (2006)

Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone
(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions
to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule, 40 CFR Parts 51, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78 and
96 (2005).

Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units,  40 CFR Parts 60, 63, 72, and
75 (2005)

Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) Determinations, 40 CFR Part 51 (2005)

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine
Compression-Ignition Engines Less than 30 Liters per Cylinder, Proposed
rule, 40 CFR Parts 92, 94, 1033, 1039, 1042, 1065 and 1068 (2007)

Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment;
proposed rule, 40 CFR Parts 60, 63, 85, 89, 90, 91, 1027, 1045, 1048,
1051, 1054, 1060, 1065, 1068, and 1074 (2007)

USEPA. 2007, Regulatory Announcement: EPA Proposal for More Stringent
Emissions Standards for Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition
Engines. EPA420-F-07-015

USEPA. 2007, Proposed Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-Ignition
Engines, Equipment, and Vessels. EPA420-F-07-032

 References for these rules are provided at the end of this chapter.
Controls are explained in Appendix 3.

 0.08 ppm, effectively 0.084 ppm based on current rounding conventions

 Porter County, IN, was included, despite being below the emissions
threshold, due to its close proximity to Chicago.  Harris County, TX,
was included because of local information about the benefits of VOC
control, and concerns about the screening tool performance in the 36km
region of which Houston is a part.

 0.08 ppm, effectively 0.084 ppm based on current rounding conventions

 Onroad and Nonroad DPF were applied in the baseline, and SCR retrofit
technologies were chosen because of the need to reduce NOx emissions..

 Reductions from Ocean-Going Vessels burning residual fuels were applied
in the Baseline analysis for the east, but inadvertently omitted for the
west.  The omission was not identified in time to include it in the
initial Baseline analysis for the west.

 Available online at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf"
 http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf

 For Onroad and Nonroad Mobile Source control measures, all measures
applied for the Baseline analysis were applied to additional geographic
areas in the .070 analysis.

 Reductions from Ocean-Going Vessels burning diesel fuel were applied in
the Base Case analysis.  However, we inadvertently omitted the
associated reductions that would occur in vessels burning residual
fuels.  These additional reductions were applied in the Baseline
analysis for the east and in the .070 analyses for the east and west.
The omission was not identified in time to include it in the initial
Baseline analysis for the west, but was included in the Baseline
national PM co-benefits analysis for the east and west.

 See   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/AirControlNET.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/AirControlNET.htm  for a description of how
AirControlNET operates and what data is included in this tool.

 See   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/technical.html"
http://www.epa.gov/CAIR/technical.html

   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html

 Detailed analysis showed that 75% reduction provides the most
cost-effective way of reducing emissions at the areas, considering
transport, with the most air quality impacts.

 PAGE

 PAGE   8

(

>

A

E

Q

^

t

†

‹

Å

Ì

Ü

(

7

{

˜

ž

¦

§

®

ð

ñ

h

  hd

  hd

hþ|

  hd

  hd

h

  hd

gdd

F

h

 hd

hþ|

hþ|

hþ|

hþ|

h

h

yt

\

yt

\

yt

\

yt

\

yt

h7

hþ|

hþ|

hþ|

\

yt

gdd

\

yt

h°

h7

 h7

ô

ô



hÉ

hÉ

 h

ô

ô

hd

 h7

 h7

\

ô

摧姮

hîY

ò

\

摧姮

摧姮

\

ô

\

ô

\

ô

㜀$␸䠀$摧ὠ

h`

 h`

 h

 h`

  h`

  h`

h`

 hc

 h4

 h

 h

 h7

hÑ

 determination for 2020 (continued)

Non-Electrical Generating Unit (79%)

Electrical Generating Unit Point(<1%)

On-Road (17%)

Non-Road (<1%)

Area (3%)

Non-Electrical Generating Unit Point (2%)

On-Road (46%)

Non-Road (6%)

Area (45%)

*EGU < 1%


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, April 1, 2016 9:10 AM
To:
ACCCI<EMAIL_ADDRESS>BATTEN, KATIE M<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Re: Coke letters signed - will send out Monday 4/4 by mail and by email

Great! Thanks. We won't start the "clock" until the letters are stamped before mailing, which will be Monday at the earliest. Then I will send out a calendar of real dates based on the "weeks from signature" in the ICR. Exact day is not a critical thing for submissions. No "penalty" for missing any target date by a couple days.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: ACCCI<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 8:45:02 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee
Cc: BATTEN, KATIE M; GABRIELLE RAYMOND
Subject: Re: Coke letters signed - will send out Monday 4/4 by mail and by email

Thanks.  I'll be sending you an updated ownership spreadsheet with email addresses a little later today.  DCA

Sent from my iPhone

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

On Apr 1, 2016, at 5:22 AM, Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:
We will post these copies on ICR website today 4/1/16. Same versions, just new date. Letters will be sent by email to you two on Monday.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35327-35329]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14421]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0546; FRL-9685-8]

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 the manufacture of
polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene products. We are approving
a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (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 July 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0546, 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: Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118<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. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. 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 Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..........................            4682  Polystyrene, Polyethylene,        12/15/2011      02/23/2012
                                                     and Polypropylene Products
                                                     Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 13, 2012, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD
Rule 4682 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?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 4682 into the SIP on June
13, 1995 (60 FR 31086). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on September 20, 2007 and CARB submitted them to us on
March 7, 2008. On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we proposed a limited
approval and limited disapproval of the 2007 version of SJVUAPCD Rule
4682. However, the 2011 version of the rule superseded the 2007
version, and we do not intend to finalize action on the 2007 version.

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. Rule 4682 was
designed to reduce emissions of VOCs from the manufacturing, processing
and storage of products composed of polystyrene, polyethylene, and
polypropylene. 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), so Rule 4682 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. ``Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission Limits--SIP
Revision Policy,'' memorandum from John R. O'Connor, OAQPS, dated
January 20, 1984.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we proposed a limited approval and
limited disapproval of a previous version of SJVUAPCD Rule 4682. We
determined that the rule largely fulfills the relevant criteria
summarized above. The rule improves the SIP by clarifying language,
adding definitions, and adding control requirements. The rule also
improves the SIP by adding requirements for compliance plans, record
keeping, and testing. The rule is generally clear and contains
appropriate monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements to
ensure that emission limits are adequately enforceable. We found our
approval of the submittal would comply with CAA section 110(l), because
the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the on-going process
for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards are met, and the submitted SIP revision
is at least as stringent as the rule previously approved into the SIP.
While we found the rule largely fulfilled relevant Clean Air Act 110
and Part D requirements, we identified one deficiency.
    The rule established an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100
pounds of total material processed, as averaged on a monthly basis. EPA
generally cannot approve compliance periods exceeding 24 hours unless
specific criteria are met, including a clear explanation of why the
application of RACT is not economically or technically feasible on a
daily basis. The District revised the rule and added supporting
documentation to address the deficiency.
    The District identified two major processes covered by Rule 4682,
extrusion foam and expanded polystyrene molding production, and split
the rule requirements by process type. Both processes are still subject
to an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total
material processed, calculated over a monthly period. Expandable
polystyrene molding facilities, however, are now subject to an
additional emission limit of 3.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total
material processed, calculated daily. Based on the evaluation of the
revision, we propose that Rule 4682 is consistent with RACT and the
criteria for approving averaging times exceeding 24 hours. The TSD has
detailed information on our evaluation.
    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 polystyrene manufacturing operations. See 77
FR 1417, 1425 (January 10, 2012). Final approval of Rule 4682 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 and thereby terminate all CAA sanction and Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) implications of our RACT SIP action as it relates to
polystyrene manufacturing.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. 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.

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: May 25, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-14421 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P