Monday,

June 2, 2003 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 51 Proposed Rule To Implement the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Proposed Rule VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32802 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 51 [ FRL   7504   2]

RIN: 2060   AJ99 Proposed Rule To Implement the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is proposing two discrete frameworks to implement the 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standard ( NAAQS or standard). We are proposing this rule so that States may know which statutory requirements apply for purposes of developing State implementation plans ( SIPs) under the Clean Air Act ( CAA) to implement the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. The intended effect of the rule is to provide certainty to States regarding their planning obligations such that States may begin SIP development upon designation and classification for the 8 hour standard. Following are the principles that guided us in the development of these frameworks to implement the 8 hour ozone standard: To protect public health, provide incentives for expeditious attainment of the 8 hour ozone standard and avoid incentives for delay; to provide reasonable but expeditious attainment deadlines; to have a basic, straightforward structure that can be communicated easily; to provide flexibility to States and EPA on implementation approaches and control measures while ensuring that the implementation strategy is supported by the CAA; to emphasize national and regional measures to help areas come into attainment and, where possible, reduce the need for those local controls that are more expensive than national and regional measures; and to provide a smooth transition from implementation of the 1 hour ozone NAAQS to implementation of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, we intend to clarify the role of Tribes in implementing the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. The two frameworks we are proposing are based on two different classification options, which affect the requirements that would apply to individual nonattainment areas. We prefer classification option 2 because it provides more flexibility to States and Tribes as they address their unique air quality problems. This is likely to allow some areas to attain the standard at a lower cost. However, we are also soliciting comments on option 1, in part because it is less complex and may be easier to communicate, as well as on other ways to classify nonattainment areas. This proposed rulemaking does not propose to establish attainment/ nonattainment designations nor does it address the principles that will be considered in the designation process; we have already issued guidance on the principles that States should consider in making designation recommendations, and we will issue further guidance separate from this rulemaking if appropriate. Finally, we are not taking comment at this time on appropriate tests under the 8 hour standard for demonstrating conformity of Federal actions to SIPs. We intend to conduct a separate rulemaking on this issue prior to designating areas under the 8 hour ozone standard. In this proposal, we do not yet propose regulatory text, primarily because a number of options are being proposed for many of the implementation elements, and we believe it would be better to obtain public comment on the options conceptually first. After we receive and consider comment on the proposed options, but before publishing a final rule, we will issue proposed regulatory text. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 2003. We have scheduled public hearings on this proposal for June 17, 2003, June 19, 2003, and June 27, 2003. ADDRESSES: All comments should be submitted to Docket # OAR 2003   0079. When mailing documents, comments, or requests to the EPA Docket Center through the U. S. Postal Service, please use the following address: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West ( Air Docket), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room: B108; Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. To mail comments or documents through a courier service, the mailing address is: EPA Docket Center ( Air Docket), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room: B108; Mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. The normal business hours are 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Comments can be submitted to the address above, by fax ( 202) 566   1741, or by e mail to A and R Docket@ epa. gov. The voice telephone number is ( 202) 566   1742. In addition, we have placed a variety of materials regarding implementation options on the Web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ naaqs/ ozone/ o3imp8hr. While this Web site is not an exact duplicate of the Air Docket, we have placed materials that we have generated and materials that have been submitted in an electronic format on the Web site. We request that comments be submitted by e mail to facilitate expeditious distribution within EPA and placement on the Web site. The public hearings will be held from 8: 30 a. m. to 5 p. m. at the following locations: Marriott Dallas/ Ft. Worth Airport North, 8440 Freeport Parkway, Irving, Texas, 75063, on June 17, 2003; Palace Hotel, 2 New Montgomery Street, San Francisco, California 94105, on June 19, 2003; and Holiday Inn Select Old Town Alexandria, 480 King Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, on June 27, 2003. Persons wishing to speak at the public hearings should contact: Ms. Barbara Bauer, E. H. Pechan, at phone number ( 919) 493   3144 ext. 188 or by e mail at barbara. bauer@ pechan. com. Oral testimony may be limited to 3 to 5 minutes depending on the number of people who sign up to speak. Commenters may also supplement their oral testimony with written comments. The hearing will be limited to the subject matter of the proposal, the scope of which is discussed below. The public hearing schedule, including lists of speakers, will be posted on EPA's Web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ naaqs/ ozone/ o3imp8hr. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be made available for copying during normal working hours at the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center at the above address listed for inspection of documents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Silvasi, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C539   02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number ( 919) 541   5666 or by e mail at: silvasi. john@ epa. gov or Ms. Denise Gerth, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C539   02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number ( 919) 541   5550 or by email at: gerth. denise@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice uses a number of acronyms and terms that are defined when first used. A list appears in appendix D for convenience. In a number of places, this document refers to time periods ( e. g., so many years) after designation or after the designation date. By this, we mean the effective date of designation by EPA.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32803 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules Outline I. What is the 8 hour ozone problem and EPA's strategy for addressing it? A. What is the ozone standard and the health problem? B. What is the geographic extent of the 8 hour ozone problem? C. What is EPA's overall strategy for reducing ozone pollution? 1. The SIP system 2. National rule D. What is the relationship between the SIP system proposed and the proposed Clear Skies legislation? II. What is the background on the 8 hour ozone standard? A. What is the legal background? B. What technical work influenced EPA's implementation approach? III. How did EPA obtain stakeholder input for this effort? IV. What is EPA's schedule for issuing an 8 hour ozone implementation rule? V. In short, what does this proposed rulemaking contain? A. Classification of areas B. Attainment deadlines C. Transition from the 1 hour to the 8 hour standard D. Mandatory measures E. Consequences of failure to attain F. Interstate transport G. Modeling and attainment demonstration H. Reasonable Further Progress ( RFP) 1. Requirement for 15 percent VOC reductions for moderate and above areas during the first 6 years after the base year 2. Base year I. Reasonably available control measures/ Reasonably available control technology ( RACM/ RACT) J. Conformity K. New Source Review VI. What are EPA's proposed frameworks for implementing the 8 hour ozone standard? A. How will EPA reconcile subparts 1 and 2? How will EPA classify nonattainment areas for the 8 hour standard? What attainment dates would apply? 1. Statutory framework and Supreme Court decision 2. EPA's development of options 3. Options for classification 4. Under classification option 2, how would EPA classify subpart 1 areas? 5. Rationale for regulating all `` gap'' areas under subpart 1 only 6. Proposed incentive feature 7. Other options EPA considered 8. Implications for the options 9. Other considerations B. How will EPA treat attainment dates and other dates including SIP submittal dates for the 8 hour ozone standard? 1. Background 2. How will EPA address the provision regarding 1 year extensions? 3. How do attainment dates apply to Indian country? 4. How will EPA establish attainment dates for areas classified as marginal under the `` incentive'' feature proposed under the classification section or areas covered under subpart 1 with a requested attainment date of 3 years or less after the designation date? C. How will EPA implement the transition from the 1 hour to the 8 hour standard in a way to ensure continued momentum in States' efforts toward cleaner air? 1. Background 2. When will EPA revoke the 1 hour standard? 3. What obligations should continue to apply as an area begins to implement the 8 hour ozone NAAQS and what obligations should no longer apply? 4. Does the requirement for continued implementation of the obligations addressed above expire at some point? 5. How will EPA ensure that the public knows which areas must continue provisions under the 1 hour SIPs if EPA revokes the 1 hour standard? D. Should prescribed requirements of subpart 2 apply in all 8 hour nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2, or is there flexibility in application in certain narrowly defined circumstances? 1. Background 2. Approach being proposed 3. Other approaches considered E. What is the required timeframe for obtaining emissions reductions to ensure attainment by the attainment date? F. How will EPA address long range transport of ground level ozone and its precursors when implementing the 8 hour ozone standard? 1. Background 2. EPA's anticipated approach 3. Other concerns about transport 4. Other options considered G. How will EPA address transport of ground level ozone and its precursors for rural nonattainment areas, multi State nonattainment areas, areas affected by intrastate transport, and international transport? 1. Rural transport nonattainment areas 2. Multi state nonattainment areas 3. Intrastate transport 4. International transport 5. Additional ways of addressing transport 6. State Tribal transport H. How will EPA address requirements for modeling and attainment demonstration SIPs when implementing the 8 hour ozone standard? 1. Multi pollutant assessments ( oneatmosphere modeling) 2. Areas with early attainment dates 3. Areas with later attainment dates 4. Modeling guidance 5. Mid Course review I. What requirements for RFP should apply under the 8 hour ozone standard? 1. Background 2. Proposed features in general 3. For subpart 2 areas, should the initial 15 percent RFP requirement be limited to VOC emissions? 4. What baseline year should be required for the emission inventory for the RFP requirement? 5. Should moderate areas be subject to prescribed additional RFP requirements prior to their attainment date? 6. What is the timing of the submission of the ROP plan? 7. How should CAA restrictions on creditable measures be interpreted? Which national measures should count as generating emissions reductions credit toward RFP requirements? 8. For areas covered by subpart 1 instead of subpart 2, how should the RFP requirement be structured? 9. How should the RFP requirements be implemented for areas designated for the 8 hour ozone standard that entirely or in part encompass an area that was designated nonattainment for the 1 hour ozone standard? 10. Will EPA's `` Clean Data Policy'' continue to apply under the 8 hour standard for RFP? 11. How will RFP be addressed in Tribal areas? 12. How will RFP targets be calculated? J. Are contingency measures required in the event of failure to meet a milestone or attain the 8 hour ozone NAAQS? 1. Background 2. Proposal K. What requirements should apply for RACM and RACT for 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas? 1. Background 2. Proposed approach for RACT in general for areas covered under subpart 2 3. Proposed approach for RACT in general for areas covered under subpart 1 4. Proposed approach for previous sourcespecific major source RACT determinations 5. Proposed approach for NOX RACT determinations in areas affected by the NOX SIP Call 6. Proposed approach for NOX as an ozone precursor 7. Proposed approach for RACM 8. Proposed submission date for RACT and RACM requirements L. How will the section 182( f) NOX provisions be handled under the 8 hour ozone standard? M. What aspects of transportation conformity and the 8 hour ozone standard are addressed in this proposal? 1. What is transportation conformity? 2. Why is EPA discussing transportation conformity in this proposed rulemaking? 3. Are any changes being made to transportation conformity in this proposed rulemaking? 4. When does transportation conformity apply to 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas? 5. How does the 1 year grace period apply in metropolitan areas? 6. How does the 1 year grace period apply in `` donut'' areas? 7. How does the 1 year grace period apply in isolated rural areas? 8. Does conformity apply for the 1 hour ozone standard once the 1 hour ozone standard is revoked? 9. What are EPA's plans for amending the conformity rule to address the 8 hour ozone standard? 10. What impact will the implementation of the 8 hour ozone standard have on a State's Transportation Conformity SIP? 11. What other parts of this proposal could affect transportation conformity determinations?

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32804 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 1 Due to the continued litigation over the 8 hour standard, EPA revised 40 CFR 50.9( b) in July 2000, to limit its authority to revoke the 1 hour standard until such time as the 8 hour standard became fully enforceable and no longer subject to legal challenge. ( 65 FR 45182, July 20, 2000). N. What requirements for General Conformity should apply to the 8 hour ozone standard? 1. What is the purpose of the General Conformity regulations? 2. How is the General Conformity program currently structured? 3. Who runs the General Conformity program? 4. How does an agency demonstrate conformity? 5. General Conformity regulation revisions for the 8 hour ozone standard 6. How does the 1 year grace period apply to General Conformity determinations? O. How should the NSR Program be implemented under the 8 hour ozone NAAQS? 1. Background 2. Nonattainment NSR under the 8 hour ozone standard 3. Under what circumstances is a transitional program needed during the interim period? 4. Elements of the Appendix S transitional program 5. Will a State be required to assure that the increased emissions from a new major source do not cause or contribute to a violation in a nearby nonattainment area before it issues a preconstruction permit under Appendix S? 6. What happens at the end of the interim period? 7. What is the legal basis for providing this transitional program? 8. How should the NSR requirements be implemented for new 8 hour ozone areas that encompass the old 1 hour ozone nonattainment areas after EPA revokes the 1 hour ozone standard? 9. NSR option to encourage development patterns that reduce overall emissions   Clean Air Development Communities 10. Tribal concerns P. How will EPA ensure that the 8 hour ozone standard will be implemented in a way which allows an optimal mix of controls for ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze? 1. Could an area's 8 hour ozone strategy affect its PM2.5 and/ or regional haze strategy? 2. What guidance has EPA provided regarding ozone, PM2.5 and regional haze interaction? 3. What is EPA proposing? Q. What emission inventory requirements should apply under the 8 hour ozone NAAQS? R. What guidance should be provided that is specific to Tribes? S. What are the requirements for Ozone Transport Regions ( OTRs) under the 8 hour ozone standard? T. Are there any additional requirements related to enforcement and compliance? U. What requirements should apply to emergency episodes? V. What ambient monitoring requirements will apply under the 8 hour ozone NAAQS? W. When will EPA require 8 hour attainment demonstration SIP submissions? 1. Background 2. Option being proposed VII. Proposal of integrated frameworks using various options VIII. Other Considerations A. Will EPA be contemplating incentives for areas that want to take early action for reducing ozone under the 8 hour standard? 1. What are the Ozone Flex Guidelines for the 1 hour ozone NAAQS? 2. What is the `` Early Action Compact'' for implementing the 8 hour ozone NAAQS? 3. What is EPA's response to the Texas `` Early Action Compact?'' 4. Did EPA consider other options for incentives for areas that take early actions for reducing ozone? 5. What is the difference between the early action compact program and the transitional NSR program? B. Clarification of how transition from 1 hour to 8 hour standard will work for early action compact areas, for conformity, and for NSR and PSD. C. How will EPA's proposal affect funding under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ( CMAQ) Program? D. Are there any environmental impact differences between the two major classification options being proposed? IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations X. Appendices Appendix A   Comparison of Subpart 1 & 2 Requirements Appendix B   ` ` Applicable Requirements'' under Subpart 2 Appendix C   Comparison of Transitional NSR and Early Action Compact Programs Appendix D   Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Appendix E   Application of Conformity, New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration under Various Transition Cases I. What Is the 8 Hour Ozone Problem and EPA's Strategy for Addressing it?

A. What Is the Ozone Standard and the Health Problem? Ground level ozone pollution is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds ( VOC) and nitrogen oxides ( NOX) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, often referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including on road and off road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller `` area'' sources. In 1979, we promulgated the 0.12 ppm, 1 hour ozone standard, ( 44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997, we promulgated a revised standard of 0.08 ppm, measured over an 8 hour period ( i. e., the 8 hour standard). In general, the 8 hour standard is more protective of public health and more stringent than the 1 hour standard, and there are more areas that do not meet the 8 hour standard than there are areas that do not meet the 1 hour standard. At the time that we promulgated the revised 8 hour standard, we also promulgated a rule providing for the phase out of the 1 hour standard, ( 62 FR 38856 ( codified at 50.9( b)). That rule provided that the 1 hour standard would no longer apply to an area once we determined that the area had attained the 1 hour standard. 1 Ozone can irritate the respiratory system, causing coughing, throat irritation, and/ or uncomfortable sensation in the chest. Ozone can reduce lung function and make it more difficult to breathe deeply, and breathing may become more rapid and shallow than normal, thereby limiting a person's normal activity. Ozone also can aggravate asthma, leading to more asthma attacks that require a doctor's attention and/ or the use of additional medication. In addition, ozone can inflame and damage the lining of the lungs, which may lead to permanent changes in lung tissue, irreversible reductions in lung function, and a lower quality of life if the inflammation occurs repeatedly over a long time period ( months, years, a lifetime). People who are particularly susceptible to the effects of ozone include children and adults who are active outdoors, people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, and people with unusual sensitivity to ozone. More detailed information on health effects of ozone can be found at the following Web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ naaqs/ standards/ ozone/ s_ o3_ index. html. The focus of today's proposed rule is implementation of the revised 8 hour ozone air quality standard issued by EPA in 1997, including the transition from implementation of the 1 hour VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32805 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 2 See discussion below on how EPA has developed hypothetical nonattainment areas for purposes of analysis of this proposed rulemaking and options. Modeling analyses for projections to 2007 are found in: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Technical Support Document for the Heavy Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements: Air Quality Modeling Analyses. EPA420   R   00   028. December 2000. Located at: http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ regs/ hd2007/ frm/ r00028. pdf. Information on the modeling analyses for projections to 2010 and 2020 are found in `` Technical Addendum: Methodologies for the Benefit Analysis of the Clear Skies Initiative.'' September 2002. This can be found at the following Web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ clearskies/ Tech_ adden. PDF. Results are summarized in `` Human Health and Environmental Benefits Achieved by the Clear Skies Initiative.'' July 1, 2002. http:// www. epa. gov/ clearskies/ CSIhealth_ env_ benefits7 01. ppt.

3 Latest Findings on National Air Quality   2001 Status and Trends. U. S. EPA; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division; Research Triangle Park, NC. September 2002. EPA 454/ K   02   001. Found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ airtrends/ ozone. html. standard to implementation of the 8 hour standard.

B. What Is the Geographic Extent of the 8 hour Ozone Problem? Although the nation as a whole has made significant progress since 1970 in reducing ground level ozone pollution ( sometimes called `` smog''), ozone remains a significant public health concern. At present, unhealthy ozone levels   exceeding the 8 hour standard   occur over wide geographic areas including most of the nation's major population centers. These areas include much of the eastern half of the United States and large areas of California. The geographic extent of the 8 hour ozone problem is expected to shrink between now and 2020 due to existing regulatory requirements. We estimate that existing control measures ( e. g., Federal motor vehicle standards, EPA's regional NOX rule known as the NOX SIP Call, and local measures already adopted under the CAA) will dramatically reduce the number of areas 2 not attaining the 8 hour ozone standard   from 122 in 2000 ( using data from 1998, 1999, and 2000), to 51 in 2007, to 30 in 2010 and 13 in 2020. See Table 1 below. The total population living in areas that we have hypothesized may be designated nonattainment is also projected to decline over time   from 178 million in 2000, to 143 million in 2007, to 116 million in 2010, to 82 million in 2020. However, the number of people living in areas with excessive ozone levels remains high for the foreseeable future because existing control programs alone will not eliminate unhealthy ozone levels in some of the nation's largest population centers. Based on information in EPA's Trends Report issued in 2002,3 over the past 20 years, national ambient ozone levels decreased 18 percent based on 1 hour data and 11 percent based on 8 hour data. Between 1982 and 2001, emissions of VOCs decreased 16 percent. During that same time period, emissions of NOX increased 9 percent. For the period 1982 to 2001, the downward trend in 1 hour ozone levels seen nationally is reflected in every broad geographic area in the country. The Northeast and West exhibited the most substantial improvement over the last 20 years, while the South and North Central regions experienced the least rapid progress in lowering ozone concentrations. Similar to the 1 hour ozone trends, all regions experienced improvements in 8 hour ozone levels between 1982 and 2001 except the North Central region, which showed little change during this period.

TABLE 1.   8 HOUR OZONE HYPOTHETICAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS AND POPULATION [ Projected by modeling]

2000 2007 2010 2020 Number of areas   base case ( without Clear Skies Act controls) ................................................... 122 51 30 13 Number of areas with Clear Skies Act controls .............................................................................. 122 51 24 12 Population ( millions)   base case ( without Clear Skies Act controls) ............................................. 178 143 116 82.4 Population ( millions)   with Clear Skies Act controls ....................................................................... 178 143 103 82.1 Note: The number of areas 1 projected to each future year is based on modeled projections without consideration of application of new emission control measures that would be required under the SIP process for areas designated nonattainment for the 8 hour NAAQS. 1 See discussion below on how we have developed hypothetical nonattainment areas for purposes of analysis of this proposed rulemaking and options.

C. What Is EPA's Overall Strategy for Reducing Ozone Pollution?

Our overall strategy for achieving the 8 hour ozone standard is based on the structure outlined in the CAA. The CAA gives both the States and EPA important roles in implementing national air quality standards. States have primary responsibility for developing and implementing SIPs that contain local and in State measures needed to achieve the air quality standards in each area. We assist States by providing technical assistance and guidance, including guidance on control measures. In addition, we set national emissions limits for sources such as motor vehicles. Where upwind sources contribute to downwind problems in other States, we can also ensure that the upwind States address these contributing emissions or regulate them federally, where a State fails to act to address them. We intend to work closely with States and Tribes to use an appropriate combination of national, regional and local pollution reduction measures to meet the standard expeditiously and in a cost effective manner.

1. The SIP System States use the SIP process to identify the emissions sources that contribute to the nonattainment problem in a particular area, and to select the emissions reductions measures most appropriate for that area, considering costs and a variety of local factors. Under the CAA, SIPs must ensure that areas reach attainment as expeditiously as practicable. However, other programs, such as Federal controls, also provide reductions, and States may rely on those reductions when developing their attainment plans. The SIP system for nonattainment areas is an important component of the CAA's overall strategy for meeting the 8 hour ozone standard, but it is not the only component. As noted below, the CAA also requires or anticipates the use of national rules that will reduce emissions and help achieve cleaner air.

2. National Rules For the States to be successful in developing local plans showing attainment of standards, EPA must do its part to control the sources that are VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32806 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 4 On July 18, 1997, we also promulgated a revised particulate matter ( PM) standard ( 62 FR 38652). Litigation on the PM standard paralleled the litigation on the ozone standard and the court issued one opinion addressing both challenges. However, issues regarding implementation of the revised PM NAAQS were not litigated. more effectively and efficiently controlled at the national level and to ensure that interstate transport is addressed through SIPs or other means. We already have issued key national and regional control requirements for motor vehicles, power plants and other sources that will enable many areas to meet the 8 hour standard in the near term. Current emissions standards for new cars, trucks and buses are reducing motor vehicle emissions of VOCs ( sometimes referred to as hydrocarbons) and NOX as older vehicles are retired. Other rules are reducing emissions from several categories of non road engines. EPA's Tier 2 motor vehicle emission standards, together with the associated sulfur in gasoline requirements, will provide additional benefits nationally within the time period of many 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas' anticipated attainment dates ( 65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000). Also, we published the heavy duty diesel rule on January 18, 2001 ( 66 FR 5002), which will contribute to reductions needed to meet the 8 hour ozone standard in areas with later attainment dates. In the eastern U. S., dramatic reductions in NOX emissions from power plants and large industrial sources will occur by May 2004 under our rules to reduce interstate transport of ozone pollution in the East. These rules are the NOX SIP Call, published October 27, 1998 ( 63 FR 57356), and the Section 126 Rule, published January 18, 2000 ( 65 FR 2674). Also, under the requirements of section 183( e) of the CAA, we are contemplating either Federal rules or control techniques guidelines ( CTGs) for controlling VOCs from 15 additional categories of consumer and commercial products. The CTGs assist States in determining required controls for facilities in nonattainment areas. The 15 categories are in addition to 6 CTGs already published under this provision of the CAA ( consumer products, architectural coatings, automobile refinishing coatings, aerospace coatings, wood furniture coatings, and shipbuilding and ship repair coatings). These additional rules or CTGs are expected to be completed over the next few years. Control measures targeting hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) also result in control of VOCs and, in some cases, NOX. Under section 112 of the CAA, EPA was required to identify and list categories of industrial facilities that emit significant quantities of one or more of 188 HAPs and establish maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards for each category of sources. Because most of the organic HAPs are also VOCs, in many cases, control of organic HAP emissions also achieves reductions in VOC emissions. Rules for most of the listed MACT categories have been promulgated. Although many of the earlier promulgated rules have already resulted in emissions reductions of VOCs, the more recent rules will not begin achieving reductions until the compliance date, which is generally 3 years following promulgation. Therefore, the amount of reductions achieved through control of HAPs that are VOCs will continue to grow over the next several years. We see the potential for significant further emissions reductions from power plants and non road engines at the national level. The Administration has proposed nationwide legislation, the `` Clear Skies Act'' ( CSA), to reduce power plant emissions of NOX nationwide, as well as sulfur dioxide and mercury. We are also proposing a national rule that would significantly reduce NOX emissions from non road diesel powered equipment. These nonroad sources constitute an important fraction of the NOX emissions inventory.

D. What Is the Relationship Between the SIP System Proposed and the Proposed Clear Skies Legislation?

A basic issue for implementation of the 8 hour ozone standard is how to treat areas projected to attain the standard based on existing controls. We believe that an appropriate balance should be struck between two goals: Avoiding requirements for unnecessary additional controls that increase cost, and ensuring expeditious attainment to protect public health. Today's proposal contains options that strive to balance these two goals under the authority of current law. The proposal contains two options for classifying areas under the 8 hour ozone standard. Both options contain features to ensure that areas projected to attain compliance in the near term based on existing requirements are not subject to additional prescribed control obligations. Of course, these areas would be subject to the same requirements that apply to all areas designated nonattainment, such as new source review ( NSR) and conformity. However, we are considering options for providing for more flexible implementation of these requirements, as described elsewhere in this proposed rulemaking, and are actually proposing an option related to NSR in this proposed rulemaking. The proposed Clear Skies legislation takes a different approach to requirements for areas projected to attain through controls that are already mandated. The proposed CSA includes a provision that would create a new designation of `` transitional'' for areas that are projected to attain compliance by 2015 based on existing controls, or with the aid of additional SIP controls approved by December 31, 2004. The proposed CSA provides that areas designated transitional would be subject to the requirements of the prevention of significant deterioration ( PSD) program for new sources, which applies in attainment areas. Because `` transitional'' would be the designation for such areas, they would not be required to adopt additional control measures that would be required for areas designated nonattainment, nor would they be subject to conformity provisions. The provision includes a mid course check to ensure that the area remains on track toward attainment. In case of failure to attain by 2015, the area would be redesignated as a nonattainment area and would be subject to the nonattainment area requirements. We expect that most areas currently exceeding the 8 hour ozone standard could qualify for this designation, in many cases, without further local controls. However, because the Clear Skies legislation has not been enacted, we have not considered it in this proposed rulemaking. Should the Clear Skies legislation be enacted into law, we would conduct further rulemaking on implementation of the 8 hour ozone standard under such law, if necessary.

II. What Is the Background on the 8 Hour Ozone Standard?

A. What Is the Legal Background? On July 18, 1997, we revised the ozone NAAQS ( 62 FR 38856) by promulgating an ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million ( ppm) as measured over an 8 hour period. At that time, we indicated that we believed that the 8 hour ozone NAAQS should be implemented under the less detailed requirements of subpart 1 of part D of title I of the CAA rather than the more detailed requirements of subpart 2. Various industry groups and States challenged EPA's final rule promulgating the 8 hour ozone NAAQS in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 4 In May VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32807 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 5 The Court addressed a number of other issues, which are not relevant here. 6 The CAA requires EPA to set ambient air quality standards and requires States to submit SIPs to implement those standards. 7 The EPA's NOX SIP Call mandated reductions by May 2003. However, the Court's stay of the rule pending litigation resulted in a 1 year delay to May 2004. 1999, the Appeals Court remanded the ozone standard to EPA on the basis that our interpretation of its authority under the standard setting provisions of the CAA resulted in an unconstitutional delegation of authority. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027, 1034   1040 ( ATA I) aff'd, 195 F. 3d 4 ( D. C. Cir., 1999) ( ATA II). In addition, the Court held that the CAA clearly provided for implementation of a revised ozone standard under subpart 2, not subpart 1. Id. at 1048   1050.5 We sought review of these two issues in the U. S. Supreme Court. In February 2001, the Supreme Court held that EPA's action in setting the NAAQS was not an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Whitman v. American Trucking Assoc., 121 S. Ct. 903, 911   914 ( 2001) ( Whitman). In addition, the Supreme Court held that the D. C. Circuit incorrectly determined that the CAA was clear in requiring implementation only under subpart 2, but determined that our implementation approach, which did not provide a role for subpart 2 in implementing the 8 hour NAAQS, was unreasonable. Id. at 916   919. Specifically, the Court noted we could not ignore the provisions of subpart 2 that `` eliminate[] regulatory discretion'' allowed by subpart 1. Id. at 918. The Court also identified several portions of the CAA's classification scheme under subpart 2 that are `` ill fitted'' to the revised standard and remanded the implementation strategy to EPA to develop a reasonable approach for implementation. Id. Because the D. C. Circuit had not addressed all of the issues raised in the underlying case, the court remanded the case to the D. C. Circuit for disposition of those issues. Id. at 919. On March 26, 2002, the D. C. Circuit Court rejected all remaining challenges to the ozone and fine particle ( PM2.5) standards. American Trucking Assoc. v. EPA, 283 F. 3d 355 ( D. C. Cir. 2002) ( ATA III). With that ruling, EPA began to move forward with programs to protect Americans from the wide variety of health problems that these air pollutants can cause, such as respiratory illnesses and premature death. The implementation rule proposed herein will provide specific requirements for State, local, and Tribal air pollution control agencies to address as they prepare implementation plans to attain and maintain the 8 hour NAAQS. Each State with an area that is not attaining the 8 hour ozone NAAQS will have to develop   as part of its SIP   emission limits and other requirements to attain the NAAQS within the timeframes set forth in the CAA. 6 Tribes with jurisdiction over Tribal lands that are not attaining the 8 hour ozone standard could voluntarily submit a Tribal implementation plan ( TIP) but would not be required to do so. However, in cases where a TIP is not submitted, EPA, working with the Tribes, would have the responsibility for planning in those areas.

B. What Technical Work Influenced EPA's Implementation Approach? In developing our original approach for implementation of the 8 hour standard, we considered input from a variety of technical information sources and experts. We originally described the technical information of the physical processes that produce ozone, fine particles, and regional haze and relied on that in developing a proposed implementation approach. See `` Implementation of New or Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter ( PM) National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations; Proposed Rule'' ( December 13, 1996, 61 FR 65764). We also participated with States in the eastern United States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group ( OTAG), which documented that long distance transport of nitrogen oxides across much of the OTAG study area contributed to high levels of ozone. For background on OTAG and the results from the study, see the following Web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ naaqs/ ozone/ rto/ otag/ index. html. That OTAG process resulted in a report to EPA with the conclusions that included the following:   Regional NOX reductions are effective in producing ozone benefits; the more NOX reduced, the greater the benefit.   Ozone benefits are greatest where emissions reductions are made; benefits decrease with distance.   Elevated and low level NOX reductions are both effective.   Volatile organic compound controls are effective in reducing ozone locally and are most advantageous to urban nonattainment areas.   Air quality data indicate that ozone is pervasive, that ozone is transported, and that ozone aloft is carried over and transported from one day to the next. As a result of these recommendations, EPA called for SIP revisions from 22 States and the District of Columbia and established Statewide budgets on NOX emissions that those jurisdictions would have to meet by 2007. Stationary source emissions reductions to meet the budgets were required to be implemented by May 2004.7 The purpose of the rule was to address longrange transport by eliminating the significant contribution that each State's NOX emissions made to both 1 hour and 8 hour ozone nonattainment problems in downwind areas. The call for SIP revisions was challenged by a number of States, industry and interest groups but was largely upheld by the court and has remained a viable means for obtaining significant NOX emissions reductions. The OTAG report also recognized that VOC emissions reductions do not play much of a role in long range transport, and concluded that VOC reductions are effective in reducing ozone locally and are most advantageous to urban nonattainment areas. Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA), we also formed a Subcommittee for Development of Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional Haze Implementation Programs that provided recommendations and ideas to assist us in developing implementation approaches for these programs. We have incorporated ideas from the FACA process for a number of SIP elements, particularly those related to transport of ozone, the process for demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard, and requirements for ensuring reasonable further progress. Further information on the FACA process and its reports is found at the following Web site: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ faca/. As noted above, we have also promulgated national rules that reduce VOC and NOX emissions ( ozone precursors) from mobile and stationary sources, which also help address ozone nonattainment problems. A number of commenters recommended that we set additional national standards for more source categories such that States and Tribes do not have to control these sources locally. They suggest that such standards would eliminate the inconsistent regulation that occurs when each nonattainment area chooses how to regulate sources within its jurisdiction. We continue to review source categories for possible Federal measure development. This technical backdrop led us to be guided by the principle of emphasizing national and regional measures to help areas come into attainment and, where possible, reducing the need for those VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32808 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 8 Section 107( d) of the CAA sets forth a schedule for designations following the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. The Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty first Century ( TEA   21) revised the deadline to publish nonattainment designations to provide an additional year ( to July 2000), but HR3645 ( EPA's appropriation bill in 2000) restricted EPA's authority to spend money to designate areas until June 2001 or the date of the Supreme Court ruling on the standard, whichever came first. 9 American Lung Association v. EPA ( D. D. C. No. 1: 02CV02239). local controls that are more expensive than national and regional measures. However, as noted below, national and regional measures alone are not anticipated to bring all areas into attainment. Thus, some areas will need to adopt local controls through the SIP process.

III. How Did EPA Obtain Stakeholder Input for This Effort?

We initiated a process to obtain stakeholder feedback on options the Agency developed for implementation of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. We held three public meetings in addition to a number of conference calls and meetings with State, local and Tribal governments, environmental groups and industry representatives. ( The lists of the organizations with whom we had discussions are in the docket, in addition to meeting and conference call summaries.) The purpose of the meetings and conference calls was to obtain stakeholder feedback regarding the options that we had developed as well as to listen to any new or different ideas that stakeholders were interested in presenting. We received comments in response to the meetings and conference calls. The comments from the public meetings addressed a number of issues related to the implementation approach. In addition to comments received at the public meetings, we received a number of written comments on how to implement the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. We have considered these comments in the implementation approach proposed below.

IV. What Is EPA's Schedule for Issuing an 8 Hour Ozone Implementation Rule?

We plan to issue a final rule on an implementation approach by the end of 2003. While there is not a CAA deadline for promulgating a strategy to implement the 8 hour ozone NAAQS, the CAA does establish a deadline for EPA to promulgate designations of nonattainment areas under section 107 of the CAA. 8 We have entered into a consent decree that requires us to promulgate designations by April 15, 2004.9 The nonattainment designation for an area starts the process whereby a State must develop a SIP that demonstrates how the air quality standard will be attained by the attainment dates required in the CAA. We plan to have an implementation strategy in place prior to designating areas for the 8 hour ozone standard. This will enable areas that are designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone standard to understand the obligations that attach to nonattainment designations and associated classifications.

V. In Short, What Does This Proposed Rulemaking Contain? This summary is intended to give an overview of our proposed rule. It should not be relied on for the details of the actual proposal. The proposed rule described in Section VI. below should be consulted directly. The order in which issues are described in this summary does not match exactly the order these issues are discussed in the actual proposal.

A. Classification of Areas Under the CAA, an ozone nonattainment area's classification determines the minimum measures that must be included in the area's SIP for meeting the 8 hour standard and the maximum time period allowed for the area to meet the standard. We are proposing two options for classifying areas. Under option 1, all areas would be classified under subpart 2 according to 8 hour ozone levels. As a result, all areas would be classified as marginal, moderate, serious, or severe or extreme ( based on the most recent air quality data, no areas would fall in the `` extreme'' classification), and would be subject to control requirements specified in the CAA for each classification. Under option 2, more than half the nonattainment areas would likely be regulated under subpart 1. All of these would be areas meeting the 1 hour ozone standard. The rest of the areas   those exceeding, and a few that may be meeting the 1 hour standard   would be classified under subpart 2 in the same manner as option 1. We are also proposing an `` incentive feature'' that would allow areas to qualify for a lower classification under subpart 2 than their air quality would dictate if they demonstrate they will attain by the earlier attainment date of a lower classification. For example, an area that would be classified `` moderate'' could qualify for a `` marginal'' classification by showing it will attain within 3 years of designation. The `` incentive feature'' is proposed for use in conjunction with either classification option.

B. Attainment Deadlines We are proposing that for areas classified under subpart 2, the periods for attainment ( running from the date of designation/ classification) would be 3 years for marginal areas, 6 years for moderate areas, 9 years for serious areas, and 15 years for severe 15 areas, and 17 years for severe 17 areas. If classification option 2 were selected, some areas would be classified under subpart 1. Attainment dates for these areas would be no later than 5 years after designation, although they could be extended up to 10 years after designation depending on the severity of the area's air pollution and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. For all areas, the CAA requires each plan to be designed to meet the standard as expeditiously as practicable, regardless of the maximum statutory period specified for attainment.

C. How Will EPA Implement the Transition From the 1 Hour to the 8 Hour Standard in a Way To Ensure Continued Momentum in States' Efforts Toward Cleaner Air?

This section discusses which obligations would remain in effect for areas that were designated nonattainment under the 1 hour ozone NAAQS on or after November 15, 1990, as areas begin to implement the 8 hour standard. It also proposes two alternatives for revoking the 1 hour ozone standard: revocation in whole and revocation in part. 1. Areas designated nonattainment under the 8 hour standard. We are proposing that all areas designated nonattainment for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS remain subject to certain obligations that applied by virtue of the area's classification for the 1 hour standard where the area's 1 hour classification was higher than the area's classification for the 8 hour standard. These obligations include major source thresholds, inspection and maintenance ( I/ M) programs and fuel programs. However, these obligations would not apply to portions of an 8 hour ozone nonattainment area that was not a part of a 1 hour ozone nonattainment area. We believe that Congress intended these requirements to continue to apply to areas as they move forward to address an ozone NAAQS. We are soliciting comment whether areas that have not yet met the attainment demonstration obligation for the 1 hour standard VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32809 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules should remain obligated to submit a 1 hour ozone attainment demonstration. 2. Areas designated attainment under the 8 hour standard. Since attainment areas are subject to PSD, not nonattainment NSR, we propose that these areas would not remain subject to the nonattainment NSR offset and major source thresholds that might otherwise apply due to their classification for the 1 hour standard. However, we are proposing that control obligations that applied based on an area's 1 hour classification would remain. We are proposing that these areas are obligated to submit a maintenance plan under section 110( a)( 1). Consistent with EPA's `` Clean Data Policy,'' we are proposing that these areas not be required to meet outstanding attainment demonstration and rate of progress ( ROP) requirements, so long as they remain in attainment. However, if the area violates the 8 hour standard and does not have an approved maintenance plan for the 8 hour standard under section 110( a)( 1), those obligations will once again apply. We are proposing that these areas would need contingency measures in their section 110( a)( 1) maintenance plans. However, unlike contingency measures under section 175A, these contingency measures need not include an obligation to implement all control obligations in the previously approved SIP. For all areas designated attainment for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS the requirement to demonstrate conformity to the 1 hour standard would no longer apply once the 1 hour standard is revoked or determined not to apply for that purpose. 3. Concerning the NOX SIP Call. We are proposing that States must continue to adhere to the emission budgets established by the NOX SIP Call after the 1 hour standard is revoked in whole or in part. Similarly, we are not proposing to revoke or modify the section 126 regulation. 4. Obligations under part D of title I of the CAA that would not continue to apply. We are proposing that areas would not be obligated to continue to demonstrate conformity for the 1 hour standard once the 1 year grace period for application of conformity for the 8 hour standard has elapsed. We are also proposing that we would no longer make findings of failure to attain the 1 hour standard and, therefore, also would not reclassify areas to a higher classification for the 1 hour standard based on a failure to meet the 1 hour standard. 5. How long would the obligations discussed under the 1 hour standard last? We are proposing that these measures would not expire. However, we are proposing two options for when the State may relegate these measures to contingency measures: Option 1. When the area achieves the level of the 1 hour ozone standard ( even if the area has not yet attained the 8 hour standard). Option 2. When the area attains the 8 hour standard and is designated attainment ( regardless of when, if ever, the area attains the 1 hour standard). 6. Mechanism to effect the transition from the 1 hour to the 8 hour standard. We are proposing 2 mechanisms. For both of these mechanisms, we are proposing that the revocation of the 1 hour standard would occur 1 year following designations for the 8 hour NAAQS. Option 1: Complete revocation of the 1 hour standard. Option 2: Partial revocation of 1 hour standard.

D. Mandatory Measures We believe that the CAA is clear that once an area is classified under subpart 1 or subpart 2, the area's State implementation plan must contain the measures enumerated in the CAA for its classification. However, today's proposal contains several features intended to provide States with flexibility on the measures included in SIPs for 8 hour areas. In addition, we are proposing to consider case by case waivers if the applicant can show, consistent with case law on this issue, that implementing a requirement in a particular area would cause `` absurd results.''

E. Consequences of Failure To Attain The consequences of failure to attain the standard on time are specified by the CAA. If an area classified under subpart 2 fails to meet the standard by its deadline, the CAA requires that the area be bumped up to a higher classification and adopt a revised plan containing the additional measures specified by the CAA for that classification. If an area classified under subpart 1 fails to meet the standard by its deadline, the area would be required to adopt a new plan demonstrating attainment, including any requirement mandated by the Administrator.

F. Interstate Transport EPA recognizes that ozone and ozone precursors are often transported across State boundaries, and that interstate transport can make it difficult   or impossible   for some States to meet their attainment deadlines solely by regulating sources within their own boundaries. To address this concern, the Agency recently adopted two rules ( the NOX SIP Call and the Section 126 Rule) to reduce interstate ozone transport in the eastern U. S. These rules were developed based on the level of reductions needed to address transport for both the 1 hour and 8 hour standards. For both rules, the compliance date for achieving the required emissions reductions is May 31, 2004. Thus, unlike in the past, States affected by transport can develop their local ozone implementation plans with the knowledge that the issue of interstate transport has already been addressed `` up front.'' The President recently proposed legislation known as the Clear Skies Act that, among other things, would further reduce interstate transport of ozone and NOX ( an ozone precursor) from the power sector through a cap and trade program similar to the acid rain program. These reductions are beyond the levels required under the NOX SIP Call and the Section 126 Rule. The Clear Skies reductions would enable several additional areas to meet the 8 hour standard without imposing any additional local controls. A number of other areas would find it easier to meet the 8 hour standard because of the additional reductions in power plant emissions that would be required under Clear Skies. However, the Agency has not made a determination that such reductions are warranted under the transport provisions of the CAA. In order to evaluate this issue, the Agency intends to investigate the extent, severity and sources of interstate ozone transport that will exist after the existing transport rules are implemented in 2004.

G. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration An attainment demonstration SIP includes technical analyses to locate and regulate sources of emissions that are contributing to violations within nonattainment areas. Section 182( a) does not require marginal areas, which have an attainment date only 3 years following designation to perform any photochemical grid modeling. We are proposing to allow areas with attainment dates within 3 years after designation   regardless of whether they are covered under subpart 1 or 2   to rely on existing modeling. Areas with later attainment dates ( more than 3 years after designation) would be required to do an attainment demonstration SIP. Modeling developed to support Federal or local controls may be used if the application of that modeling is consistent with our modeling guidance.

H. Reasonable Further Progress ( RFP) There are several issues related to the Act's RFP requirements.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32810 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 1. Requirement for 15 Percent VOC Reductions for Moderate and Above Areas During the First 6 Years After the Base Year We are proposing two ways to implement the 15 percent requirements for moderate and above areas to meet numerical emissions reductions milestones ( also known as rate ofprogress or ROP, requirements). Under the first option, all such areas would be required to reduce baseline VOC emissions by 15 percent over the first 6 years after a baseline year. Under the second option, areas that previously reduced VOC emissions by 15 percent as part of implementing the 1 hour standard would be viewed as having already met the requirement. Moderate areas meeting this criterion would comply with the general subpart 1 requirement to demonstrate `` reasonable further progress'' toward meeting the standard. Serious andabove areas meeting the criterion would be required to achieve an 18 percent reduction in VOC and/ or NOX over the first 6 years and 9 percent over subsequent 3 year periods until the area's attainment date.

2. Base Year We are proposing 2002 as the baseline year, and that the 6 year period for reductions would run from January 1, 2003 until December 31, 2008. We propose that States be allowed credit toward meeting the ROP requirements for all emissions reductions that occur after the 2002 base year   including reductions from all post 1990 Federal or other measures ( except those specifically excluded under section 182( b)( 1)) of the CAA. We have also recently issued a memorandum that sets forth 2002 as the baseline year for planning purposes. We are also proposing options for other RFP issues, including:   The timing of ROP reductions relative to attainment date for moderate areas.   Timing of submission of ROP plan.   CAA requirements for creditability of control measures.   Subpart 1 RFP.   Cases where 8 hr NA area encompasses and is larger than current 1 hr NA area.

I. RACM/ RACT In the event classification option 2 is selected, we are proposing an interpretation of the requirements for reasonably available control measures ( RACM) and reasonably available control technology ( RACT) for areas covered by subpart 1. For RACT, for areas with 8 hour ozone levels that would place them in a moderate or above classification under subpart 2, we are proposing two options. Under the first option, these areas would be required to meet the traditional technology based RACT control requirement that are applicable to moderate and above areas under subpart 2. Under the second option, if the area is able to demonstrate attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable with emission control measures in the SIP, then RACT will be met, and additional measures would not be required as being reasonably available. For subpart 1 areas with 8 hour ozone levels that would place them in a marginal classification if classified under subpart 2, the RACT requirement would be similar to that for marginal areas covered under subpart 2. This RACT approach also would be available to areas that qualified for marginal status via the incentive feature. The RACT requirements for areas under subpart 1 would have to be submitted within 2 years after an area's nonattainment designation. We are proposing that the State does not need to perform a RACT analysis for sources subject to the State's emission cap and trade program where we have approved the cap and trade program as meeting the NOX SIP Call requirements and it does not need to submit a new NOX RACT SIP for those sources. We propose to formally recognize NOX, as well as VOC, as an ozone precursor, so that RACT for NOX would be required for areas classified under either subpart 1 or subpart 2 for the same kinds of sources covered under the 1 hour ozone standard. For RACM, we propose to continue with the same interpretation that we have used for implementing the 1 hour ozone standard. To show that all RACM have been included in the plan, the State must show that there are no additional measures that are technically and economically feasible that will advance the attainment date.

J. Conformity No changes to the transportation conformity rule are proposed in this rulemaking. Transportation conformity is discussed in this proposal for informational purposes. By statute, transportation conformity applies to 8 hour nonattainment areas 1 year after the effective date of an area's designation. Our proposal to revoke the 1 hour standard 1 year after 8 hour ozone area designations means that transportation conformity requirements under the 1 hour standard would end at the same time 8 hour transportation conformity requirements begin. We are proposing that conformity would not apply in 1 hour ozone standard maintenance areas after we revoke the 1 hour ozone standard. For the general conformity program, which ensures that federal actions will not interfere with an area's air quality plan, we are not proposing to revise its General Conformity Regulations in this rulemaking. We plan to retain the existing de minimis emissions levels for actions exempt from the rule. Our proposal to revoke the 1 hour standard one year after 8 hour ozone area designations means that general conformity requirements under the 1 hour standard would end at the same time 8 hour general conformity requirements begin. We are proposing that general conformity would not apply in 1 hour ozone standard maintenance areas after we revoke the 1 hour ozone standard.

K. New Source Review We are proposing three options for NSR, which could be implemented in conjunction with each other: 1. A `` status quo'' NSR program under which subpart 1 areas would be covered by subpart 1 NSR, while subpart 2 areas would be covered by subpart 2 NSR. 2. A more flexible `` Transitional'' NSR program for areas that submit early SIPs and that attain early. This program would be available to areas covered under subpart 1 and that are attaining the 1 hour ozone standard. 3. A `` Clean Air Development Community'' program that would allow a more flexible NSR program for areas that manage growth in emissionsproducing activities.

VI. What Are EPA's Proposed Frameworks for Implementing the 8 Hour Ozone Standard? As noted above, we originally intended to implement the 8 hour ozone standard under subpart 1 of part D, title I of the CAA. This would have allowed areas more flexibility to determine whether to regulate NOX, VOC or both to address ozone nonattainment. As also noted above, however, the Supreme Court determined that an approach that did not provide for classifying areas under subpart 2   and thus subjecting those areas to the subpart 2 control requirements   in implementing the 8 hour standard was unreasonable. In structuring a proposed implementation rule, we have tried to stay as close as possible to the principles noted above, particularly with regard to seeking flexible ways for States to address their 8 hour ozone VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32811 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 10 Additional Options Considered for `` Proposed Rule to Implement the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. March 2003. 11 State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule.'' April 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 13498 at 13501 and 13510). problems by avoiding measures that may be unreasonable for an area. We have spent a large amount of time investigating possible legal theories and policy options to find flexibility within the statute, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. We have also had the benefit of ideas and recommendations from many interested stakeholders, who also have spent much time developing their own theories and ideas. Based on these efforts, we believe that we have developed options for an implementation program that are workable under the constraints of the CAA. Nonetheless, we recognize that those constraints will still require a number of areas to adopt certain control measures that may not be as effective as others in achieving the 8 hour ozone standard. We are soliciting any further ideas for addressing this situation. To describe our proposed frameworks for implementing the 8 hour ozone standard, it is necessary to examine all the components or elements of the process used to implement the standard. Therefore, the issues and options that we are proposing that deal with the aspects of preparing SIPs for the standard are presented below individually. Following that, we present two possible alternative frameworks that blend one or more options from each of the elements to illustrate how they may work in conjunction with each other. We are soliciting comment on the options presented for the individual elements, and also on how the options can be grouped into a consolidated implementation framework. The proposal below describes only those options or approaches we are proposing. We considered a number of other options and approaches for the elements discussed below. These other options that were considered but are not being proposed are described in a separate document available in the docket. 10 A. How Will EPA Reconcile Subparts 1 and 2? How Will EPA Classify Nonattainment Areas for the 8 hour Standard? What Attainment Dates Would Apply?

1. Statutory Framework and Supreme Court Decision The CAA contains two sets of requirements   subpart 1 and subpart 2   that establish requirements for State plans implementing the national ozone air quality standards in nonattainment areas. ( Both are found in title I, part D.) Subpart 1 contains general requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas for any pollutant   including ozone   governed by a NAAQS. Subpart 2 provides more specific requirements for ozone nonattainment SIPs. Throughout this proposed rulemaking, we repeatedly discuss whether an area is subject to the planning requirements of subpart 1 or subpart 2. This language is convenient shorthand for purposes of this proposal. Actually, if an area is subject to subpart 2 requirements, it is also subject to subpart 1 requirements. In some cases, subpart 1 and subpart 2 requirements are inconsistent or overlap. To the extent that subpart 2 addresses a specific planning obligation, the provisions in subpart 2 control. For example, under section 182( b), moderate areas are subject to 15 percent ROP requirements rather than the more general RFP requirements of section 172( c)( 2). However, moderate areas remain subject to the contingency measure requirement of section 172( c)( 9), as that requirement is not addressed for moderate areas in subpart 2. 11 When we published the 8 hour ozone standard on July 18, 1997, we indicated that we anticipated that States would implement that standard under the less prescriptive subpart 1 requirements. More specifically, we provided that areas designated nonattainment for the 1 hour ozone standard would remain subject to the subpart 2 planning requirements for purposes of the 1 hour standard until such time as they met that standard. But those areas and all other areas would only be subject to subpart 1 for purposes of planning for the 8 hour ozone standard. As noted above, in February 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute was ambiguous as to the relationship of subparts 1 and 2 for purposes of implementing the 8 hour NAAQS. However, the Court also ruled that our implementation approach, which provided no role for subpart 2 in implementing the 8 hour NAAQS, was unreasonable. Id. Specifically, with respect to classifying areas, the Supreme Court stated:

[ D] oes subpart 2 provide for classifying nonattainment ozone areas under the revised standard? It unquestionably does.

Whitman, 121 S. Ct. at 917. However, despite recognizing that subpart 2 does provide classifications applicable for the 8 hour standard, the Supreme Court also recognized that the subpart 2 classification scheme, specified in section 181, did not entirely fit with the revised 8 hour standard and left it to EPA to develop a reasonable resolution of the roles of subparts 1 and 2 in implementing a revised ozone standard. Id. at 482   486. In particular, the Court noted three portions of section 181   the classification provision in subpart 2   that it indicated were `` ill fitted to implementation of the revised standard.''   First, the Court recognized that 1 hour design values used for establishing the classifications in Table 1 in section 181 `` would produce at best an inexact estimate of the new 8 hour averages * * *'' 121 S. Ct. at 918.   Second, the Court recognized that the design values in Table 1 start at the level of the 1 hour NAAQS   0.12 ppm. The Court noted that `` to the extent the new ozone standard is stricter than the old one, * * * the classification system of Subpart 2 contains a gap, because it fails to classify areas whose ozone levels are greater than the new standard ( and thus nonattaining) but less than the approximation of the old standard codified by Table 1.'' Id.   Third, the Court recognized that `` Subpart 2' s method for calculating attainment dates   which is simply to count forward a certain number of years from November 15, 1990 * * * seems to make no sense for areas that are first classified under a new standard after November 15, 1990.'' More specifically, the Court recognized that attainment dates for marginal ( 1993), moderate ( 1996), and serious ( 1999) areas had passed. Id. at 483   484.

2. EPA's Development of Options In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, we examined the statute to determine the manner in which the subpart 2 classifications should apply for purposes of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. We paid particular attention to the three portions of section 181 that the Supreme Court noted were ill fitted for implementation of the revised 8 hour standard. We examined those provisions in light of the legislative history and the overall structure of the CAA to determine what Congress intended for purposes of implementing a revised, more stringent ozone standard. We believe that we need to take a narrow reading consistent with what we believe Congress intended. Consistent with those principles, we developed several options.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32812 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 12 The upper thresholds of the marginal, moderate, serious, severe 15, and severe 17 classifications are precise percentages or fractions above the level of the standard, namely 15.000 percent ( 3  20ths more than the standard), 33.333 percent ( one third more than the standard), 50.000 percent ( one half more than the standard), 58.333 percent ( 7  12ths more than the standard) and 133.333 percent ( one and one third more than the standard). 3. Options for Classification We are proposing two options for comment. We prefer classification option 2 because it provides more flexibility to States and Tribes as they address their unique air quality problems. This is likely to allow some areas to attain the standard at a lower cost. However, we are also soliciting comments on option 1, in part, because it is less complex and may be easier to communicate, in addition to any other ideas on how to classify nonattainment areas. a. Option 1. Under the first option, we would classify 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas according to the severity of their ozone pollution based on 8 hour ozone levels. Under this option, all 8 hour nonattainment areas would be classified under subpart 2 as marginal, moderate, serious, severe 15, severe 17, or extreme. The CAA gives areas in higher classifications   which are those with more serious ozone pollution problems   longer time periods for attaining the standard, but also requires these areas to meet a longer list of requirements than areas in lower classifications. A key feature of this option is the use of 8 hour ozone design values in determining the severity of an area's 8 hour ozone problem. However, the subpart 2 classification table ( Table 1 of CAA section 181) is based on 1 hour ozone design values ( because it was designed for implementation of the standard in effect in 1990   the 1 hour ozone standard). Therefore, this option would require us to adapt the subpart 2 classification scheme. Specifically, we would adopt by regulation a modified version of the subpart 2 classification table that contains 8 hour design value thresholds for each classification, rather than the statutory 1 hour ozone design value thresholds. Using 8 hour design values for classifying areas for the 8 hour standard would reflect the magnitude of the 8 hour ozone problem more accurately than would the 1 hour design values in Table 1. We are proposing to translate the classification thresholds in Table 1 of section 181 from 1 hour values to 8 hour values in the following manner: Determine the percentage by which each classification threshold in Table 1 of section 181 exceeds the 1 hour ozone standard and set the 8 hour threshold value at the same percentage above the 8 hour ozone standard. For example, the threshold separating marginal and moderate areas in Table 1 is 15 percent above the 1 hour standard, so we would set the 8 hour moderate area lower threshold value at 15 percent above the 8 hour standard. An examination of the percentages derived indicated that Congress set the classification thresholds at certain percentages or fractions above the level of the standard. 12 These are the percentages above the standard that we used and applied to the level of the 8 hour standard to yield new threshold levels for the 8 hour standard. Table 2 of this proposed rulemaking below depicts how the translation would be done and the results. There are other ways of performing the translation as described further below, some of which have been suggested in public comment, but we believe that the translation described here is most consistent with the apparent intent of Congress in establishing the thresholds in the classification system in section 181. As mentioned above, under this option all 8 hour nonattainment areas would be classified under subpart 2 and receive attainment dates consistent with their classification. Elsewhere in this proposed rule, we discuss how it would interpret the attainment dates in Table 1 of section 181 for purposes of areas classified under subpart 2 for the 8 hour standard. Areas that do not attain by their attainment date would be reclassified to a higher classification and be given a later attainment date and would be subject to the measures of the higher classification ( section 181( b)( 2)).

TABLE 2.   TABLE 1 OF SUBPART 2 1 HOUR OZONE CLASSIFICATION TABLE [ Translation to 8 Hour Design Values]

Area class CAA design value thresholds 1 hour ozone ppm Percent above 1 hour ozone NAAQS Translated 8 hour design value thresholds ppm ozone Marginal .......................................................... from ................................................................ 0.121 0.833 1 0.085 up to ............................................................... 0.138 15.000 0.092 Moderate ......................................................... from ................................................................ 0.138 15.000 0.092 up to ............................................................... 0.160 33.333 0.107 Serious ............................................................ from ................................................................ 0.160 33.333 0.107 up to ............................................................... 0.180 50.000 0.120 Severe 15 ....................................................... from ................................................................ 0.180 50.000 0.120 up to ............................................................... 0.190 58.333 0.127 Severe 17 ....................................................... from ................................................................ 0.190 58.333 0.127 up to ............................................................... 0.280 133.333 0.187 Extreme ........................................................... equal to or above ........................................... 0.280 133.333 0.187 1 The percentages used were calculated based on the level of the 1 hour standard as it appears in 40 CFR 51.9, viz., 0.12 ppm. The percentages were applied to the 8 hour standard as it appears in 40 CFR 51.10, viz., 0.08 ppm. Our guidance uses a rounding convention for 1 hour air quality data such that values less than 0.125 round down to 0.12 and therefore represent attainment; values of 0.125 up to and including 0.129 round up to 0.13, and therefore indicate nonattainment. An exact translation of the 0.121 1 hour threshold would have produced 0.081 ppm as the corresponding 8 hour threshold; however, since any value less than 0.085 ppm would indicate an area is attaining the 8 hour ozone standard the table's lowest value reflects the lowest value representing nonattainment, viz., 0.085 ppm.

b. Option 2   2 step approach. We are proposing a second option ( our preferred option) under which some areas would implement the 8 hour standard under subpart 1, and other areas would implement the 8 hour VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32813 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 13 Section 172( a)( 1)( C) provides that the provisions of section 172( a) `` shall not apply with respect to nonattainment areas for which classifications are specifically provided'' in other sections of part D. Similarly, section 172( a)( 2)( D) provides that the attainment date provisions in section 172( a)( 2) do not apply `` to nonattainment areas for which attainment dates are specifically provided'' elsewhere in part D. 14 Proposed Implementation Guidance for the Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter ( PM) National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) and the Regional Haze Program. November 17, 1998. Found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg/ t1pgm. html. standard under subpart 2. This option relies on language in the Supreme Court decision, which is described in detail below. In brief, the option that we are proposing would work as follows:   First, we would determine which 8 hour areas must be classified under subpart 2. These would be areas with ozone levels that exceed the 1 hour ozone design values that Congress specified in Table 1 of section 181. For the remaining areas, we would have discretion to place them under subpart 1 or subpart 2.   Second, we would classify all areas. Subpart 2 areas would be classified in the same manner described above under option 1. Options for classifying subpart 1 areas are described below. ( i) Legal framework for 2 step approach. Under this approach, we first determine the universe of areas that must be subject to the provisions of subpart 2 and the universe of areas that fall into a `` gap'' in subpart 2' s classification scheme. Then, we proceed to determine how to classify the areas. ( ii) Legal framework   Step 1   Which subpart applies for an area? With respect to the first step, the Supreme Court noted that `` to the extent that the new ozone standard is stricter than the old one, * * * the classification system of Subpart 2 contains a gap, because it fails to classify areas whose ozone levels are greater than the new standard * * * but less than the approximation of the old standard codified by Table 1 [ in section 181( a)].'' 121 S. Ct. at 918. Thus, for those areas with a 1 hour ozone design value above the level identified in Table 1 ( i. e., 0.121 ppm), Table 1 `` specifies'' a classification for the area. For those areas, we would not have authority to establish classifications under subpart 1 because section 172( a)( 1)( C) prohibits the use of the classification authority in section 172( a)( 1)( A) for those areas. 13 However, for areas with 1 hour ozone design values below 0.121 ppm, Table 1 does not specify a classification, and those areas fall into a gap in the statute. Thus, we must reasonably determine whether such areas should be subject to the planning obligations of subpart 1 or subpart 2. This issue is discussed more fully below under `` Rationale for regulating all `` gap'' areas under subpart 1 only.'' In summary, under the first step of this approach, we examine each nonattainment area's most recent 1 hour design value at the time of designation under the 8 hour NAAQS to determine whether the area must be subject to the classification under subpart 2. If an area's 1 hour design value is 0.121 or higher, then it must be subject to a subpart 2 classification. If its 1 hour design value is lower than 0.121, it falls into a gap and we must determine a reasonable implementation scheme   either subpart 1 or subpart 2   for such area. ( iii) Legal framework   Step 2   How should areas be classified under subparts 1 and 2? Under step 2 of this approach, we must determine how to classify areas subject to the classification provisions of subpart 2. For those areas subject to the classification provisions of subpart 2, we believe that it is most reasonable to use the area's 8 hour design value to determine the appropriate classification. This would be done in the same manner as option 1, proposed above, in which the Table 1 threshold design values are converted from 1 hour values to 8 hour values. Another option would have been to apply Table 1 as it is written. Some might argue that this approach is better because it is consistent with the design value EPA would use under this option to determine whether Congress mandated that the area be subject to subpart 2. We do not believe that Congress would have intended the use of 1 hour design values for determining the classification `` and therefore the control obligations and attainment dates   of 8 hour areas. While we believe it is reasonable to use the 1 hour design values as a barometer of Congress' intent as to which areas should be subject to the more prescriptive requirements of subpart 2, we do not believe it makes sense to use the 1 hour values to establish each area's classification under that subpart. The area's classification identifies the specific control requirements applicable to each area within that classification and the period of time the area has to attain. As enacted, the Table provides that areas having a more significant ozone pollution problem for the 1 hour standard and thus a higher classification are subject to more stringent controls and have a longer period to attain. Because of the different form and averaging times of the 1 hour and 8 hour standards, areas with significant 1 hour problems may not have as significant an 8 hour problem and vice versa. Using the 1 hour design values to classify areas, therefore, could result in areas with less significant ozone problems being subject to stricter planning obligations ( and later attainment dates) than those with a more significant problem. Thus, we believe it is more consistent with Congressional intent to use 8 hour design values as the means for specifying the stringency of controls needed to attain the 8 hour ozone standard and the associated attainment dates. We also believe that this is consistent with the Supreme Court decision, in which the Court recognized that the `` 1 hour averages'' in Table 1 `` produce at best an inexact estimate of the new 8 hour averages.'' See 121 S. Ct. at 918. As discussed in the following section, for areas that EPA determines would be subject only to subpart 1, section 172( a)( 1)( A) grants EPA discretion to develop a classification scheme.

4. Under Classification Option 2, How Would EPA Classify Subpart 1 Areas?

a. Background. As noted above, classification option 2 above could result in a number of areas not being classified under subpart 2. Section 172( a)( 1)( A) grants EPA discretion to establish a classification system for areas covered under subpart 1 but does not mandate classifications. Section 172( a)( 1)( A) provides that on or after [ the date of designation], the Administrator may classify the area for the purpose of applying an attainment date pursuant to paragraph ( 2), and for other purposes. In determining the appropriate classification, if any, for a nonattainment area, the Administrator may consider such factors as the severity of nonattainment in such area and the availability and feasibility of the pollution control measures that the Administrator believes may be necessary to provide for attainment of such standard in such area.

Prior to the Supreme Court's remand of our implementation approach, we had proposed that all 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas be subject only to subpart 1 for purposes of the 8 hour standard, and that areas would be classified as traditional, transitional, or international transport. These classifications were described in our November 17, 1998 draft implementation guidance. 14 Because we are no longer considering an option where all areas would be VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32814 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 15EPA's guidance on such determinations appears in `` Criteria for Assessing the Role of Transport of Ozone/ Precursors in Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' May 1991. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ scram001/ tt25. htm. Look for zip file name UAMIVGUIDE. Unzip to access file name UAMCRIT. 16 These areas included: ( a) The transitional areas under section 185A ( areas that were designated as an ozone nonattainment area as of the date of enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990 but that did not violate the 1 hour ozone NAAQS between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1989); ( b) nonattainment areas that had incomplete ( or no) recent attaining data and therefore could not be designated attainment; and ( c) areas that were violating the 1 hour ozone standard by virtue of their expected number of exceedances, but whose design values were lower than the threshold for which an area can be classified under Table 1 of subpart 2 ( submarginal areas). See 57 FR 13498 at 13524 col. 3 et seq. ( April 16, 1992). classified under subpart 1, we have determined the classification scheme it proposed earlier is not appropriate. We are now proposing, as described below, two new options for classifying subpart 1 areas for the 8 hour standard. b. Options for classifying subpart 1 areas ( i) Option 1   no classifications. Under this option, subpart 1 areas would not have different classifications. When submitting an attainment demonstration, each area would need to establish an attainment date consistent with section 172( a)( 2)( A), i. e., demonstrating attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after designation or 10 years after designation if the severity of the area's air pollution and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures indicate more time is needed. ( ii) Option 2   create an overwhelming interstate transport classification. This option could be implemented in addition to option 1 ( no classifications) for areas that qualify; in other words, we would not classify areas that do not qualify for this transport classification. Under this option, an area could be classified as a `` Transport Area'' upon submission of a SIP that demonstrates, using modeling, that the nonattainment problem in the area is due to `` overwhelming transport'' emissions. We are proposing that for subpart 1 areas to qualify for an overwhelming transport classification, the area would have to meet the same criteria as specified for rural transport areas under section 182( h) ( of subpart 2). This section restricts treatment as a rural transport area to an area that does not include, and is not adjacent to, any part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area or, where one exists, a Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area ( as defined by the United States Bureau of the Census). The area may be treated as a rural transport area if we find that sources of VOC ( and, where we determine relevant, NOX) emissions within the area do not make a significant contribution to the ozone concentrations measured in the area or in other areas. 15 Since this classification would only apply to subpart 1 areas, areas classified under subpart 2 would not qualify for this classification. The following are features of this option:   The area would be treated similar to areas classified marginal under subpart 2 for purposes of emission control requirements.   Less restrictive NSR and conformity requirements could be proposed for the area. If we include the transport classification option in the final implementation rule, we would consider proposing a separate rulemaking on the details of NSR and conformity requirements.   The area would receive an attainment date that is consistent with section 172( a)( 2)( A), but that takes into consideration the following:   The attainment date of upwind nonattainment areas that contribute to the downwind area's problem; and   The implementation schedule for upwind area controls, regardless of their geographic scope ( e. g., national, regional, statewide, local). This option would partially address Tribal concerns about designations where a Tribal area designated nonattainment does not contribute significantly to its own problem. This is one of the key issues for the Tribes who seek to have economic growth from new sources within their jurisdiction but that have difficulty obtaining emission reduction offsets from sources located either inside or outside Tribal areas. Interstate, intrastate, and international transport are also discussed elsewhere in this proposed rulemaking.

5. Rationale for Regulating All `` Gap'' Areas Under Subpart 1 Only This section is aimed solely at providing a rationale for why all gap areas should be placed under the subpart 1 regulatory framework rather than the subpart 2 regulatory framework. Issues regarding what specific requirements should apply to subpart 1 areas are addressed in later sections of this preamble. In developing classification option 2, we explored a number of options regarding how to interpret the relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 2 for areas with 1 hour design values less than 0.121. These areas are referred to below as `` gap'' areas because their 1 hour design value falls below the lowest value in the subpart 2 classification table and thus Congress did not dictate whether subpart 2 or subpart 1 applies. The options we explored ranged from placing all of these areas into the subpart 2 classification scheme to placing none of these areas into the subpart 2 classification scheme. We are proposing the latter approach   that all areas that fall into the gap should be subject only to the planning obligations of subpart 1. When faced with a similar issue following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, we determined that areas that Congress did not mandate fall into the classification scheme of subpart 2 should be subject to only the planning obligations of subpart 1.16 For classification option 2, we believe it is appropriate to continue that interpretation of the CAA for 8 hour ozone areas, despite the fact that a significant number of areas designated nonattainment for the 8 hour NAAQS will fall into this group. Congress enacted subpart 2 with the understanding that all areas ( except marginal areas, for which no new controls were required) would have to employ additional local controls to meet the 1 hour ozone standard in a timely fashion. Since then, many control measures have been implemented, our understanding of the importance of interstate pollution transport has improved, and we have promulgated interstate NOX transport rules. Regional modeling by EPA indicates that the majority of potential 8 hour nonattainment areas that fall into the gap will attain the 8 hour standard by 2007 based on reductions from the NOX SIP Call, the Federal Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program, and other existing Federal and State control measures, without further local controls. Of the 76 hypothetical areas that would fall into the gap ( and would thus be covered under subpart 1 under classification option 2), 27 would have been classified as moderate if classified under option 1 based on their 8 hour design values. Eighteen of these 27 areas are projected to attain by 2007 through existing regional or national measures. If these areas were to be classified as moderate ( under classification option 1), these areas would nonetheless be required to implement statutorily specified controls for moderate areas. Using our discretion to regulate gap areas under subpart 1 is one way ( the proposed incentive feature, discussed below in this section on classifications, is another way) to avoid requiring unnecessary new local controls in areas VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32815 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules already projected to meet the standard in the near term. The other 49 gap areas could be regulated either under subpart 1 ( under option 2) or as marginal areas if classified by 8 hour design value under subpart 2 ( under option 1). These areas already are meeting the 1 hour standard and are close to meeting the 8 hour standard. Because control requirements for marginal areas are similar to those for subpart 1 areas, and because most of these areas are projected to attain within 3 years, the difference in regulatory category may make no practical difference for many of these areas. A potential rationale for placing these areas under subpart 1 is to provide States and EPA with greater discretion to handle implementation difficulties that might arise in some of these areas. For example, a gap area might fail to attain within the maximum attainment date for marginal areas ( 3 years after designation) because of pollution transport from an upwind nonattainment area with a later attainment deadline. In that event, subpart 2 calls for the area to be reclassified as moderate and for the area to implement additional local controls specified for moderate areas. For areas under subpart 1, however, we could provide additional time for the area to attain while the upwind sources implemented required controls if this were determined to be a more effective or more appropriate solution. Although regional modeling projections indicate that the NOX SIP Call will bring most gap areas into attainment by 2007, some States have voiced concern to us that interstate or intrastate pollution transport may affect future 8 hour areas with near term attainment deadlines. Subpart 1 would provide States and EPA with more flexibility on the remedy in any such cases. Although we believe that there are reasons to place gap areas in subpart 1, and have the legal authority to do so, we are not suggesting that subpart 2 is unreasonable for any area that would be subject to subpart 2 under either classification option. Also, our analysis here should not be taken as inconsistent with its proposal under classification option 1, whereby all 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas would be subject to the subpart 2 planning obligations. That simpler option, in conjunction with the incentive feature for classifications ( if ultimately adopted), described below in this section on classification, could provide similar flexibility on control measures for most ( though not quite all) areas. In addition, we are proposing ways in which to build some flexibility into some of the mandated VOC control obligations in subpart 2, in areas where it would make sense to provide such flexibility. A final observation is that Congress did recognize some benefit in prescribing measures for areas because of past failure to attain under less prescriptive provisions of the CAA. Placing all gap areas in subpart 1 would result in over half of the hypothetical nonattainment areas being covered by subpart 1. To be fair, this option might appear to result in some areas being placed in subpart 1 even though they have 8 hour ozone design values as high or higher than some areas that fall under Table 1 in section 181 and thus are covered under subpart 2. As explained above, we believe the most effective way to deal with that issue is not to exercise our discretion and make those areas subject to subpart 2. Rather, we can use our discretion under subpart 1 to determine how to define the controls required under subpart 1 for such areas in order to assure the most equitable, yet effective, means for these areas to attain the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. For example, in the section of this proposed rulemaking addressing RFP under subpart 1, we explore an option of defining RFP in the same manner as it is defined under subpart 2. EPA is open to suggestions as to how to make the subpart 1 planning process that would apply to these areas effective and also equitable in light of the subpart 2 planning obligations to which areas with a similar 8 hour ozone problem may be subject.

6. Proposed Incentive Feature In addition to the two basic classification options being proposed above, we are also proposing an early attainment incentive feature that could be applicable to either of the options proposed above. Under this feature, for areas classified under subpart 2, we would classify an area at a lower classification than it would receive based on its design value, if a modeled demonstration indicates the area will attain by an attainment date that is consistent with the lower classification. For instance, if a subpart 2 area has an 8 hour ozone design value of 0.094 ppm, it would ordinarily be classified as moderate, with an attainment date 6 years after the area's designation as nonattainment for the 8 hour standard. If modeling acceptable to EPA demonstrates that this area will attain within 3 years after designation, the area would be eligible for classification as a marginal area, since marginal areas would have a maximum attainment date of 3 years after their nonattainment designation date. ( See our proposal on attainment dates elsewhere in this proposed rulemaking.) The lower classification would provide additional flexibility to the area in that it would avoid the mandatory control requirements of the higher classification. Appendix A of this proposal provides a comparison of requirements under subparts 1 and 2. In granting a lower classification to an 8 hour ozone nonattainment area based on this option, we propose to take into account the extent to which the area significantly contributes to downwind nonattainment or interferes with maintenance under section 110( a)( 2)( D) of the CAA. We solicit comment on possible mechanisms for assessing this contribution for purposes of granting the lower classification, and possible tests for whether to grant or deny the lower classification. In addition to soliciting comment on this proposed incentive feature itself, we are soliciting comment on whether such modeled demonstration would have to be made prior to the initial classification of areas, or whether it could be submitted after we have already classified the area initially at the higher classification, in which case we would have to revise the classification downward at a subsequent time. We also solicit comment on whether EPA, prior to initial classifications, should use EPA regional scale modeling ( rather than urban scale modeling) to make determinations of which areas would receive a lower classification. Under this suboption, an area would qualify for the lower classification if EPA's regional modeling indicated that, based on emissions reductions from existing national and regional programs, the area would attain the 8 hour standard by the attainment deadline for the next lower classification. In requesting comment on this suboption, EPA notes that regional scale modeling alone is not considered sufficient for an approvable attainment demonstration. We request comment on whether regional scale modeling would nonetheless be adequate for purposes of lowering an area's classification. ( Under this approach, if regional modeling did not provide grounds for the lower classification, States would need to perform local attainment demonstrations to take advantage of the incentive feature.) It should be noted that an option was presented and discussed at the public meetings similar to this incentive feature in conjunction with the option that would have classified all areas based on their 8 hour design values but also relied on modeled results to adjust the classification. The option received VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32816 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 17 Additional Options Considered for `` Proposed Rule to Implement the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. March 2003. 18 Background Information Document, Hypothetical Nonattainment Areas for Purposes of Understanding the EPA Proposed Rule for Implementing the 8 hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Illustrative Analysis Based on 1998   2000 Data. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Draft, April 2003. Available at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ naaqs/ ozone/ o3imp8hr/. criticism from a wide variety of commenters, who argued that modeling could be applied inappropriately in classifying areas. We nonetheless believe it is appropriate to propose this feature to alleviate some of the other concerns that many commenters raised about the mandatory measures required under the higher classifications of subpart 2. Furthermore, we believe this option is justified by the intent of the CAA, in which an area's classification is generally linked to the amount of time the area is anticipated to need to attain the NAAQS. We recognize that the CAA was not originally structured to allow lower classifications based on an area being projected to attain earlier. However, under the Supreme Court ruling that required that we interpret the law regarding subpart 2' s application to the 8 hour ozone standard, we believe it may reasonably give areas that are projected to attain the 8 hour ozone standard by an earlier date a classification that is consistent with that attainment date.

7. Other Options EPA Considered We considered many other options for classification and for the translation of the classification table in the CAA. These options are discussed in a separate document available in the docket. 17 These other possible ways of translating the classification table, in our opinion, do not have the same degree of consonance with the intent of Congress when it enacted subpart 2 as those we are proposing. We are therefore not proposing them.

8. Implications for the Options To evaluate the potential impact of the various classification options, we developed a set of 122 hypothetical nonattainment areas based on the counties that have monitors measuring violations of the 8 hour ozone standard for the 3 year period of 1998   2000. Our inclusion and grouping of counties into hypothetical nonattainment areas was done only for illustrative purposes and does not have any implications for the location, number or boundaries of nonattainment areas that may ultimately be evaluated and recommended by States and Tribes or designated by EPA. The final designations would be affected by factors contained in EPA's guidance on boundaries of nonattainment areas ( which is, as noted earlier, not a topic of discussion or comment for this notice of proposed rulemaking). As noted earlier, Table 3 illustrates a possible classification grouping of nonattainment areas based on counties with monitors based on the options proposed above. The list of these areas and the information we used in assessing the consequences of our proposal are available in the docket. 18 TABLE 3.   PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION OPTIONS COUNTS OF HYPOTHETICAL NONATTAINMENT AREAS Subpart 2 Subpart 1 Extreme Severe 17 Severe 15 Serious Moderate Marginal Total Option 1 ( 8 hour design value) ........................ 0 1 1 6 53 61 0 122 Option 1 ( 8 hour design value)   with incentive feature* ......................................................... 0 1 1 6 30 84 0 122 Option 2 ( 2 step approach   areas < 0.121 ppm = subpart 1) .......................................... 0 1 1 6 26 12 76 122 Option 2 ( 2 step approach   areas < 0.121 ppm = subpart 1)   with incentive feature 1 ... 0 1 1 6 21 17 76 122 1 Areas that would be moderate using their 8 hour design value but that are projected to attain by 2007 would be classified marginal.

9. Other Considerations In addition to the overall classification options being proposed, it should be noted that subpart 2 also provides that classifications may be adjusted upward or downward for an area if the area's design value is within 5 percent of another classification. This provision ( section 181( a)( 4)) reads:

If an area classified under [ Table 1] would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on which such classification was based, the Administrator may, in the Administrator's discretion, within 90 days after the initial classification, * * * adjust the classification to place the area in such other category. In making such adjustment, the Administrator may consider the number of exceedances of the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone in the area, the level of pollution transport between the area and other affected areas, including both intrastate and interstate transport, and the mix of sources and air pollutants in the area.

Thus, for example, if a downwind area is subjected to a subpart 2 classification and there is evidence that the area will not benefit significantly from local controls mandated by subpart 2 for the area's classification and can attain within the time period specified for the next lower classification, the area may obtain some relief based on the 5 percent rule in the CAA, if applicable. This provision does not establish a mechanism for removing areas from the subpart 2 classification scheme. B. How Will EPA Treat Attainment Dates and Other Dates Including SIP Submittal Dates for the 8 Hour Ozone Standard?

1. Background Under subpart 2 of the CAA, maximum attainment dates and most SIP submittal dates are fixed as a function of a nonattainment area's classification under Table 1. The CAA provides that an area's attainment date must be `` as expeditious as practicable but no later than'' the date prescribed in Table 1 for that area's classification. The statutory dates are specified as a number of years ( e. g., 6 years) from the date of enactment of the CAA Amendments, which was November 15, 1990. Because these dates are a set number of years after enactment of the CAA Amendments, one might initially VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32817 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 19 Section 181( b) provides that `` any absolute, fixed date applicable in connection with any such requirement is extended by operation of law by a period equal to the length of time between the date of the enactment of the CAAA of 1990 and the date the area is classified under this paragraph.'' Under section 181( b), the date of classification is the same as the date of redesignation to nonattainment. 20 See 40 CFR 50.9( a); the 1 hour standard for ozone ``* * * is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 parts per million ( 235 µ g/ m3) is equal to or less than 1 in order for the area to be considered attaining the standard, as determined by Appendix H to this part.'' Thus, the 1 hour standard is an `` exceedance'' based standard, since the number of exceedances of the standard ( yearly average over 3 years under appendix H) must be equal to or less than 1. In contrast, see 40 CFR 50.10( b); the 8 hour standard for ozone is ``* * * met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8 hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm, as determined in accordance with Appendix I to this part.'' Thus, this is a concentration based standard, because meeting the standard is determined by calculating the concentration, not the number of exceedances as under the 1 hour standard. 21 Memorandum of February 3, 1994, from D. Kent Berry re: `` Procedures for Processing Bump Ups and Extension Requests for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment Areas.'' U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. conclude that the subpart 2 classifications, with their associated attainment dates, should not apply for the 8 hour standard. The Supreme Court, however, rejected a conclusion that the subpart 2 classifications do not apply, although it noted that the attainment dates `` seem[ ] to make no sense'' for areas classified under a new standard after November 15, 1990. 121 S. Ct. at 918. We believe that applying the attainment dates as expressly provided under Table 1 would produce absurd results. For example, a strict application of Table 1 would result in areas classified as marginal for the 8 hour NAAQS as having an attainment date of November 15, 1993 and areas classified as moderate as having an attainment date of November 15, 1996. Since these dates have long passed, it makes no sense to establish them as the applicable dates. Many provisions of the CAA, however, indicate what Congress' intent was in setting attainment dates. For example, section 181( b), provides that for areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for ozone immediately following enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments and subsequently redesignated to nonattainment, the attainment date would run from the date the area is classified under subpart 2.19 Thus, if an area designated as attainment for the 1 hour ozone standard in 1990 were redesignated to nonattainment for the 1 hour ozone standard in January 2002 and classified as moderate, the area's attainment date would be 6 years following January 2002, i. e., January 2008. Similarly, section 172( a)( 2) provides for attainment dates to be calculated from the time the area is designated nonattainment. We believe that Congress would have intended for areas designated nonattainment and classified under subpart 2 for the 8 hour standard to have attainment periods consistent with those in Table 1 ( e. g., 3 years for a marginal area, 6 years for a moderate area, etc.), but running from the date the area is designated and classified for purposes of the 8 hour NAAQS. We are proposing for areas classified under subpart 2, the period for attainment ( running from date of designation/ classification) would be:   Marginal   3 years.   Moderate   6 years.   Serious   9 years.   Severe   15 or 17 years.   Extreme   20 years ( no areas currently expected to be in this category for the 8 hour ozone standard). Note that the CAA requires each area to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, regardless of maximum statutory periods. Most SIP submittal dates in subpart 2 run for a fixed period from the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA, which was also the date of designation and classification by operation of law for most subpart 2 areas. Under section 181( b)( 1), the statute provides that any fixed dates will be extended by operation of law to a period equal to the length of time between that date of enactment and the date an area is subsequently designated and classified. Thus, unless EPA has reason to create a different time period, either as explained specifically below or in any subsequent specific rulemaking applicable to a particular subpart 2 requirement, subpart 2 SIP submittals will be due as a general matter by the same period of time after designation and classification under the 8 hour standard as provided in subpart 2 for areas designated and classified at the time of enactment of the 1990 CAA. For areas classified under subpart 1, attainment dates would be set under section 172( a)( 2)( A), which provides that the SIP must demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years after designation or 10 years after designation if the severity of the area's air pollution and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures indicate more time is needed. Note that in determining whether an area actually attains the NAAQS at the time of the attainment date, EPA would use the ambient air quality data for the three ozone seasons prior to the attainment date. As an example, if the effective date of the nonattainment designations is May 15, 2004, the maximum attainment date for an area classified marginal would be May 15, 2007. In this example, EPA would consider the 8 hour ozone data for the three previous ozone seasons   2004, 2005 and 2006.

2. How Will EPA Address the Provision Regarding 1 Year Extensions? Both subpart 1 and subpart 2 provide for two brief attainment date extensions for areas in limited circumstances where they do not attain by their attainment date. Section 172( a)( 2)( C) ( under subpart 1) provides for EPA to extend the attainment date for 1 year if the State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan, and no more than a minimal number of exceedances of the relevant NAAQS has occurred in the area in the attainment year. No more than two 1 year extensions may be issued under this subparagraph for a single nonattainment area. Section 181( a)( 5) ( under subpart 2) contains a similar provision, but instead of allowing a `` minimal'' number of exceedances, it provides for only one exceedance of the standard in the year preceding the extension year. This reflects the form of the 1 hour ozone standard, which is exceedance based. The 8 hour ozone standard, however, is not an exceedance form of standard, but rather a concentration based standard. 20 We have issued guidance on the portion of these two provisions relating to the State's compliance with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan. 21 However, for purposes of section 181( a)( 5), we need to determine a reasonable interpretation in light of the fact that the statute, as written, does not fit the form of the 8 hour standard. Because Congress has addressed this issue elsewhere in the statute, we believe it is reasonable to adopt that formulation. Therefore, we would apply the same test under subparts 1 and 2 for determining whether to grant a 1 year extension, i. e., whether there was a minimal number of exceedances. For both subparts, we propose to interpret this to mean for the 8 hour standard, the area would be eligible for the first of the 1 year extensions under the 8 hour standard if, for the attainment year, the area's 4th highest daily 8 hour average is 0.084 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 20: 45 May 30, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 02JNP2. SGM 02JNP2 32818 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 105 / Monday, June 2, 2003 / Proposed Rules 22 On December 27, 2002 ( 67 FR 79460), EPA proposed to stay the applicability of its authority to revoke the 1 hour standard pending rulemaking to consider whether to modify the approach for transitioning to the 8 hour standard. ppm or less. An area that has received the first of the 1 year extensions under the 8 hour standard would be eligible for the second extension if the area's 4th highest daily 8 hour value, averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension year, is 0.084 ppm or less.

3. How Do Attainment Dates Apply to Indian Country? As discussed elsewhere in this proposed rulemaking, the Tribal Authority Rule ( TAR), 40 CFR 49.9 provides that Tribes should not be treated in a manner similar to States with regard to schedules, including the attainment dates. However, the TAR also requires EPA to develop Federal implementation plans ( FIPs) where necessary and appropriate. ( 40 CFR 49.11). Because we believe that public health considerations are of primary concern, the attainment dates for primary NAAQS should be met. Therefore, EPA, in consultation with the Tribes, will work to ensure that the standards are addressed as soon as possible, considering the needs of the Tribes, and ensure that attainment in other jurisdictions is not adversely affected.

4. How Will EPA Establish Attainment Dates for Areas Classified as Marginal Under the `` Incentive'' Feature Proposed Under the Classification Section or Areas Covered Under Subpart 1 With a Requested Attainment Date of 3 Years or Less After the Designation Date? EPA would ordinarily have established attainment dates for areas through a review of the SIP and whether attainment is as expeditious as practicable but no later than the date prescribed in the CAA. Elsewhere in this proposal, we are providing that marginal areas ( under subpart 2) and areas under subpart 1 with an attainment date within 3 years after designation would not actually have to submit an attainment demonstration within 3 years after designation. Therefore, we must establish another procedure for establishing the attainment dates for these areas. We are proposing the following procedure. a. Areas that are classified marginal based solely on their 8 hour ozone design value. For these areas, we are proposing that the CAA attainment date under Table 1 of section 181 would be the area's attainment date ( namely, 3 years after designation). b. Areas that are classified marginal based on the proposed incentive feature proposed elsewhere and areas covered under subpart 1 with a requested attainment date of 3 years or less after the designation date. These are areas that are projected through modeling to attain within 3 years following designation. For these areas, we are proposing that these States must submit a SIP   within 1 year after designation   that provides documentation ( viz., concerning the modeling and analyses that the area is relying on to support its claim) that the area will attain within 3 years following designation. Such a SIP submission must undergo the normal public hearing and comment procedures as for any SIP submission.

C. How Will EPA Implement the Transition From the 1 Hour to the 8 Hour Standard in a way To Ensure Continued Momentum in States' Efforts Toward Cleaner Air?