8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 1 The Second Addendum to the Economic Assessment for the 8 hour Ozone Implementation Rule Phase 2, Final 8 hour Implementation Rule Estimated Differences in Cost, Emission Reductions, Energy, and Economic Impacts from Adopting a Less Flexible RACT and RFP Implementation Framework Relative to the Regulatory Baseline, A More Flexible Implementation Framework Including a Qualitative Assessment on Consultations Regarding The Clean Air Interstate Rule, Reasonable Further Progress Scenarios, and Reformulated Gasoline Requirements and Appendix A: Technical Support Document by E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Difference Analysis as well as Appendix B: Impact of Selected Federal and Local Control Measures on Predicted 8 hour Design Values in the Eastern U. S. Illustrative Control Strategies and Projected 2010 8 hour Ozone Levels in 16 Nonattainment Areas Prepared by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards & Office of Policy Analysis & Review Office of Air and Radiation U. S. Environmental Protection Agency August 29, 2005 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 2 Table of Contents Sections of the Difference Analysis 1. Introduction and Summary 2. RACT and RFP Options 3. Data 4. Methodology 5. Estimated Differences and Limitations 6. Other Considerations Technical Appendices Appendix A: Technical Support Document for the Emission Reduction, Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment of RACT and RFP Options Appendix B: Impact of Selected Federal and Local Measures on Predicted 8 hour Design Values in the Eastern U. S. 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 3 1.0 Introduction and Summary 1.1 Background The second addendum to the 2003 Cost, Emission Reduction, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Rule Establishing the Implementation Framework for the 8 hour 0.08ppm Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( NAAQS) addresses the potential economic consequences of alternative interpretations of Clean Air Act requirements for reasonably available control technology ( RACT) and alternative reasonable further progress ( RFP) requirements. The word potential is used because of inherent uncertainties in projecting future environmental and economic factors. But, more importantly, the implementation of the RACT and RFP requirements will be carried out by the states in their implementation plan and rules development processes. Hence, the realized outcomes may be different than those projected in this assessment. RACT and RFP requirements are key elements of the Phase 2, ozone implementation rule.

1.1.1 Analytical Approach Used in the Proposal and Phase I Final Rule Assessment. The analytical approach used for the proposed rule as well as Phase 1 of the final rule compared the differences in potential cost, emission reduction, energy requirement, and economic impact of alternative implementation frameworks for the 8 hour ozone standard. The alternative frameworks were composed of different options for the required elements of state plans to attain and maintain the 8 hour O3 NAAQS.

In those analyses, the more flexible implementation framework which provided for expeditious attainment and maintenance of the 8 hr Ozone NAAQS served as the regulatory baseline. This reflects the fact that the law requires States to adopt plans to implement the 8 hour ozone standard even in the absence of this rule. The analyses compared the potential consequences of adopting an alternative, less flexible implementation framework with the consequences of adopting the more flexible framework. This yielded estimates of potential differences in cost, emission reduction, energy use, and economic impacts. There are inherent uncertainties in projecting future environmental and economic factors, and in projecting the way that the RACT and RFP requirements will be carried out by the states in their implementation plan and rules development processes. 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 1A base case air quality simulation answers the question of what would happen in the absence of state implementation of the 8 hour standard. The base case air quality simulation used in this analysis was the same one used to simulate conditions in the absence of the Clean Air Interstate Rule. Ideally, the Clean Air Interstate Rule would be part of the base case simulation.

2http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ oaqps/ greenbk/ gnca. html 3Subpart 1 " Marginal Like" areas meet the same ozone design value concentration requirements of Subpart 2 Moderate areas. Specifically, the design values are from 0.085ppm up to 0.092ppm for Subpart 1 " marginal like" and Subpart 2 marginal areas.

4 1.1.2 Distinctions in the Approach Used in the Phase II Final Rule Assessment. The economic assessment for the Phase II final rule making, uses nonattainment area designations, regulatory status ( Subpart 1 versus Subpart 2), and classification ( e. g. marginal, moderate, etc.) that have been adopted in previous rulemakings. In addition, this assessment uses more recent emissions inventory projections and base case future air quality design value simulations. 1 Such information was not available at the time of the earlier economic assessments. That, however, does not take away from the findings of those earlier assessments. Specifically, provision of less flexible implementation frameworks to attain and maintain the 8 hour ozone NAAQS relative to more flexible frameworks results in greater cost, emission reduction, energy, and economic impacts.

1.2 Geographic, Administrative Requirements, and Methodological Scope 1.2.1 Geographic Scope. There are 126 designated 8 hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( 8 hr O3 NAAQS) non attainment areas. 2 For over 80% of these areas, the potential cost, emission, energy, and emission reduction impacts are not expected to be affected by the choice of less or more flexible RACT and RFP options. There are several reasons for this. ° Most designated 8 hr O3 NAAQS non attainment areas are Subpart 2 areas which are classified as marginal or Subpart 1 " marginal like" areas. 3 The Phase 2 final rule implementing the 8 hour O3 NAAQS, consistent with the Clean Air Act, does not mandate RACT and RFP emission reduction options or requirements for such areas beyond the emission reductions needed for attainment. ° For areas whose sources already meet RACT, there is no difference between the less flexible RACT and more Flexible RACT. options. ° For areas which meet the least flexible RFP requirements under base case conditions, there is no difference in requirements between the less flexible and more flexible options. ° Finally, under base case conditions, some Subpart 2 moderate and Subpart 1 moderate like areas are projected to come into attainment early enough ( and to stay that way) to use the 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 4The Clean Data Policy Memorandum. " RFP, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard," from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. May 10, 1995 Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg/ t1/ memoranda/ clean15. pdf.

5Administrative requirements refer to Congressional Mandates such as the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness , Unfunded Mandates and Reform, and Paperwork Reduction Acts as well as Executive Orders pertaining to regulatory review, distributional considerations ( children, low income and minority, populations, and tribes), and impacts ( energy).

5 clean data policy. 4 Hence, they can avoid some of the RFP requirements of both options.

Nonetheless, for 21 of the designated non attainment areas, there could be differences in cost, emission reduction, energy, and economic impacts.

1.2.3 Administrative Requirements. 5 The economic assessment done for the proposed 8 hour ozone NAAQS implementation rule addressed the various Administrative Requirements of the rule making. However, that assessment was not a substitute for what was included in the preambles to the proposed rule, the final Phase 1 implementation rule, the Phase 2 implementation rule. It was a complement.

Similarly, that assessment plus the first and second addendums also serve as complements to the language included in the Phase 2 final 8 hour ozone NAAQS implementation rule. This rule examines two sets of options to improve air quality in designated non attainment areas. The 8 hour O3 NAAQS is taken as a given. That rule, promulgated in 1997 was designed to be protective of public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. There is nothing in the Phase 2 implementation rule making that results in a degradation of air quality for people in nonattainment areas. Baseline air quality simulations indicate that air quality will improve in these and other areas over time as a result of federal rules reducing emissions of O3 precursors. The Phase 2 implementation rule will facilitate further reductions of such precursor emissions to foster further improvements in environmental quality for people in the designated non attainment areas. including children, low income and minority populations, and tribal members.

In the economic assessment for the proposed 8 hour ozone NAAQS implementation rule, the administrative requirements associated with federal rule development such as Executive Orders and other federal law requirements were addressed in the economic assessment as well as the Federal Register Notice. To avoid redundancies, the administrative requirements are addressed in the Administrative Requirements Section of the Federal Register Notice for the Final Phase 2, 8 hour Ozone NAAQS Rule making with references made to the second addendum and related assessments. 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 6Mandatory requirements such as RACT apply to emission sources of particular size. In this quantitative assessment, the assumed size was 100 tons per year of nitrogen oxides ( NOx) or volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) since this is the major source size cutoff for subpart 1 marginal and moderate areas.

6 1.2.4 Methodological Scope. This second addendum contains both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis.

<IP_ADDRESS> Qualitative Analysis. The ability to conduct a quantitative analysis for these areas is dependent on information regarding the geographic boundaries of the non attainment areas, the coverage and/ or classification of the areas, base case conditions, and expected emissions and future 8 hour design values. For 9 of the 21 areas, estimates of future 8 hour design values were not available. Hence, the assessment for those areas is qualitative.

<IP_ADDRESS> Quantitative Analysis. But, estimated future 8 hour design values were available for the remaining 12 areas. A quantitative analysis is conducted for those areas.

1.3 Results 1.3.1 12 Area Quantitative Analysis. Surprisingly, not all 12 of these areas showed differences between the less flexible and more flexible RACT and RFP implementation frameworks. However, the technical assessment indicated that 1 of the 12 had no RACT eligible sources in the nonattainment area. 6 But, the assessment found that in 11 of the areas there would be a difference between the less flexible RACT and RFP options relative to the more flexible options, the regulatory baseline. ° Cost Differences. For those 11 areas, the less flexible option could mean more than $ 21.5 million ( 1997$' s) in control cost relative. The increase is not spread evenly across the 11 areas. Estimated costs of the less flexible option for the Providence, Rhode Island nonattainment areas is over $ 14 million ( 1997 $' s). The assessment suggests these costs could be reduced by adopting the regulatory baseline, the more flexible RACT and RFP otpions. ° Emission Reduction Differences. With more control cost, there is often more emission reductions. Such is the case in this assessment. The less flexible option results in 20,000 more annual tons reduction in volatile organic compounds ( VOC) in 2009 relative to the more flexible framework. But, if what is needed to attain and maintain the standard in a lower cost manner are NOx reductions, the additional reductions of VOC may not foster more expeditious attainment and maintenance of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS for such areas. The assessment also indicates the less flexible framework could result in 8400 more tons of NOx reductions in 2009. But, if those reductions are not needed to meet the standard, they may not foster expeditious attainment and maintenance of the standard. ° Energy Differences. The less flexible RACT and RFP implementation framework could 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 7A situation is the application of controls to a particular establishment or to a sector ( e. g. gasoline service stations) or product ( e. g. consumer solvents, asphalt ).

7 mean an additional $ 1.4 million in energy expenditures. Ninety six percent of that is the result of anticipated additional natural gas use. In quantitative terms, the energy impacts of the less flexible RACT and RFP options represent about 14 million cubic meters of natural gas, 200 thousand kwhrs of electricity, and 1 thousand tons of coal. The monetized and quantified energy impacts could be averted by adopting the regulatory baseline, the more flexible RACT and RFP options. ° Economic Impact Differences. The less flexible RACT and RFP options result in economic impacts affecting more sectors and facilities. Simulations suggest higher costs for facilities, products, or services in 18 source categories. Examples of source categories include consumer solvents, cutback asphalt, oil and natural gas production, municipal landfills, fabric printing, and gasoline service stations. Hundreds of establishments could be affected if the less flexible options were adopted. The additional cost as a percent of annual revenue surrogates is estimated to be < 0.5% in 86% of the situations, < 1.0% in 92% of the situations, and < 3% in 96% of the situations. 7 There were instances where the annualized cost as a percent of the revenue surrogate could be > 6%. These potential economic impacts could be averted with adoption of the regulatory baseline, the more flexible RACT and RFP options.

1.3.2 9 Area Qualitative Analysis. Of the 9 areas treated qualitatively, all are in California. For 8 of these areas, the cost and other impact differences may arise due only to the RFP provisions of the less flexible versus more flexible options. But, a comparison of the 2002 emissions inventory with projections and interpolations for 2008 indicates reductions in VOC and NOx emissions with controls in place. If those conditions represent base case, then some of these areas might meet RFP requirements of both options without additional cost. Hence, a cost and other impact difference would not be realized. The other area may have cost and other impact differences due both the RACT and RFP provisions of the less versus the more flexible options.

1.4 Limitations.

There are a variety of limitations to any forward looking analysis. Here are some examples.

1.4.1 Double Counting. In the case of this assessment, a recently promulgated economically significant rule, the " Clean Air Interstate Air Quality Rule," is omitted from the baseline. In addition, certain states have strengthened their implementation plans to address 1 hour ozone NAAQS obligations. Omission of these factors could impact projected design values and estimated difference between the less flexible RACT and RFP framework and the regulatory baseline, the more flexible RACT and RFP framework. 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 8 1.4.2. Not Reflecting What the States Will Actually Do. The second addendum is a simulation of what certain non attainment areas will do given a less flexible RACT and RFP options relative to the more flexible RACT and RFP implementation framework options. The actual level and distribution of costs and other impacts is dependent on what is in the state implementation plans. This in turn is dependent on other factors. For example, the states may have a richer or different set of emission reduction choices than that assumed here. In addition, the states may choose to adopt cap and trade as opposed to command and control systems to satisfy their emission reduction requirements. And/ or, the states may focus more on the distribution of costs amongst the various sectors as opposed to overall level of cost to attain and maintain the 8 hour ozone NAAQS.

1.4.3. Not Doing and RFP Assessment for the California Areas. A comparison of 2002 versus 2010 VOC and NOx controlled emissions for the affected counties in the 9 California nonattainment areas indicates substantial reductions of the O3 precursor emissions. If those 2010 projections represent base case control levels, some of the 9 areas may not have cost and other impact differences due to RFP. This could happen if the areas meet the less flexible RFP option ( and hence also the more flexible option) under base case conditions. ( i. e., without developing additional local emission reduction requirements).

1.4.4. Not Factoring the Distinctions in the Timing of Control Costs. The first 6 year RFP requirements are to be met by 12 31 08. The RACT reductions must be met in spring of 2009. The control measures for the moderate area state implementation plan attainment demonstration are to be in place by the beginning of the ozone season of 2009. Of the 21 areas in the difference analysis 10 are either in Texas or California. The ozone season for those areas starts 1 01 09. Hence, there is not significant difference in the timing of the RFP control measure expenditures compared to the other controls measures. For the other nonattainment areas in the difference analysis, their ozone season in 2009 starts 4 01 09. Hence, there is a 4 month difference in the timing of the cost outlays for the RFP requirements on the one hand and RACT and the other measures needed for attainment on the other hand. This distinction in the timing of control expenditures is not reflected in this analysis. The result is a potential bias that could understate the cost difference between the less and more flexible RFP and RACT options. How big is this time difference in dollar terms? For example, with a real interest rate of 7%, control expenditures of $ 1 occurring 3 months in the future would be equivalent to $ 0.98 in expenditures today. With a 3% real interest rate, the present value of a dollar spent 3 months hence would be $ 0.99.

1.5 Structure of the Second Addendum Section 2 of the addendum describes in abbreviated fashion the RACT and RFP options as they pertain to designated Subpart 1 and Subpart 2 non attainment areas. However, the official description of those options is what is contained in the Federal Register Notice for the Final Phase II O3 8 hour NAAQS implementation rule making. Section 3 describes the data and identifies the 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 8 Appendix A. Technical Support Document: Potential Impacts of Less Flexible and More Flexible RFP and RACT Options in Implementation of the 8 hour Ozone NAAQS. E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 5528 B Hempstead Way, Springfield, VA 22151, September 2005.

9 references used to select the areas with potential differences and impacts and to conduct the impact analysis. Section 4 identifies the methodology used to identify two sets of areas. One set is comprised of areas that are likely to have impact differences. The other set includes that are unlikely to have differences in impacts. For the areas expected to have impact differences, this section also describes the methodology to assess potential cost, emission reduction, energy use, and economic impacts. Section 5 describes the findings of the analysis. The limitations noted in section 1.4 apply to those findings. A technical support document is included as an appendix to the second addendum. 8 This document provides information on the base case RFP analysis for selected areas as well as the cost, emission reduction, energy, and economic impact calculations for 12 areas treated quantitatively in the difference analysis.

Section 6 provides a qualitative assessment regarding the potential consequences of the following: ° The Clean Air Interstate Rule and consultation recommendation; ° Alternative reasonable further progress ( RFP) scenarios ° year of the inventory used to calculate the first 6 year RFP requirement ° consequences of a Subpart 1 moderate area requesting and receiving an attainment date extension and the RFP requirements using a 2002 beginning year emissions inventory; and, ° the Reformulated Gasoline Requirement ( RFG).

There are 2 appendices to the Second Addendum.. ° Appendix A provides technical supporting information regarding the differences in cost, emission reduction, energy, and economic impacts between the more flexible option ( the regulatory baseline) and the less flexible RFP and RACT options ° Appendix B describes an assessment of selected federal and local measures on predicted 8 hour design values for in the eastern the U. S. 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 10 2.0 RACT and RFP Options The preambles to the 6/ 23/ 03 proposal ( Sections VI. I andVI. K) and the Phase 2 Final 8 hour ozone implementation rule ( Sections IV. E and IV. G) contain a thorough description of the RACT and RFP options. As noted in Section 1 of this addendum, the assessment in this second addendum compares the potential consequences of adopting the set of less flexible RACT and RFP options to the regulatory baseline, the set of more flexible options for RACT and RFP. The applicability of these options to any 8 hour designated non attainment area depends in part on the coverage and classification of the designated non attainment areas. The options are summarized and described in general terms in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 General Description of the More Flexible and Less Flexible RACT and RFP Options Rule Element/ Type of Area More Flexible Less Flexible RACT/ Subpart 1 areas that are " moderate like." The designated non attainment areas have 8 hr design values > 92ppb * Areas attaining within 5 years meet RACT through attainment demonstration. If the area needs another 5 years from designation to attain, sources must comply with RACT by spring 2009. This corresponds to Option 1 in the proposal. Treated like Subpart 2 areas. RACT must be installed by spring 2009. This corresponds to Option 2 in the proposal.

RFP/ Subpart 1 areas that are " moderate like." They have 8 hr design values of > 92ppb RFP is what is needed to attain. This is corresponds to Option 1 in the preamble. RFP is a 15% reduction of 2002 VOC &/ or Nox emissions by 12 31 08. This corresponds to Option 2 in the preamble. 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 11 RFP/ Subpart 2 moderate areas** If RFP is met under the 1 hr NAAQS, 15% RFP is presumed met for the 8 hr and the area must then meet Subpart 1 RFP. If not, the 15% reduction of 2002 VOC emissions by 12 31 08 applies. This corresponds to Option 2 in the preamble. RFP is a 15% reduction in 2002 VOC emissions by 12 31 08.

* The Clean Air Act provides no discretion regarding RACT provisions for Subpart 2 moderate and above areas. Under the Phase 2 rule, sources in all designated Subpart 2 moderate and above areas must comply with RACT by spring of 2009. ** The subpart 2 areas covered in the quantitative difference anaysis are either classified as marginal or moderate.

3.0 Data Certain data help determine the set of areas in the difference analysis. Other data help determine the projected differences in cost, emissions, energy, and economic impacts. The other parts of section 3 describe these data in more detail as well as the associated data sources.

3.1 Data used to determine the designated nonattainment areas included in the difference analysis Table 3.1 presents descriptions, uses, and sources of the data which help determine which designated nonattainment areas included in the difference analysis.

Table 3.1 Areas in the Difference Analysis: Data Descriptions, Uses, & Sources Description Use( s) Source 8 hr and 1 hr O3 NAAQS nonattainment areas, geographic information, coverage, classification, design values, whether areas are in the ozone transport region ( OTR). Determine which designated 8 hr non attainment areas may not be subject to different RACT or RFP options because of their coverage and/ or classification. Also, determine which areas may have already met some of the requirements as a result of the requirements of their 1 hour classification. And, determine if area may have OTR requirements. The index for the information is found at: http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ oaqps/ green bk/ o8index. html The pertinent links are " A. 1. d.": non attainment areas sorted Area/ State/ County and " B. 1.": currently designated 1 hr and 8 hr areas. OTR information at: http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ caa/ caa184. txt 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 12 Projected 8 hour O3 design values for non attainment areas in the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions ( CAMx) Determine which areas are simulated to come into attainment under base case condition by 2007 & are expected to stay that way thus using the Clean Data Policy to avert RFP requirements. Simulations and interpolations using CAM x*. See docketed excel file: 8hrEA_ diffanalysis_ projections. xls See docketed Word file: 8hrEA_ diffanalysis_ projections. doc Emissions inventory for 2002 with projections for other years Determine the amount of reductions off the 2002 emissions inventory to meet the RFP options Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document. March 4, 2005 Comparison of RFP requirements net of creditable reductions** Determine which areas meet the most stringent RFP option under base case conditions Appendix A. Technical Support Document * Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions. Simulations were conducted using the CAIR base case. Interstate Rule). ** Includes deleting from creditability emission reductions due to pre 1990 mobile source controls.

3.2 Data used in the Difference Analysis There are 2 sets of areas included in the difference analysis. One set of areas is outside the CAM x domain. The assessment for the these areas is qualitative. Another set of areas is within the CAMx Domain and is treated quantitatively. The data used for the quantitative assessment are presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Difference Analysis: Data Descriptions, Uses, & Sources Description Use( s) Source( s)

Base case control levels for the sources. Identify what sources are presumed to meet RACT under the 1 hr. standard. Provide input for the control measure and cost ordering by measure, source category and ozone precursor. EPA/ gov/ air/ interstateairquality/ pdf s/ finaltechn01. pdf & Appendix A: Technical Support Document Control measures and cost ordering ($/ ton of emission reduction in ozone precursor( s) Design low cost means of meeting the less flexible RACT and RFP options relative to the regulatory baseline. Provide inputs for estimating difference in cost, emission reduction, & energy impacts. Referenced in Appendix A: Technical Support Document 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 13 Economic Data: sectors, revenue for the affected geographic areas Develop surrogates for the annual revenue to reflect annualized cost as % of annual revenues where there is a difference between the less and more flexible options Economic Census. http:// www. census. gov/ epcd/ ec97/ u s/ US000. HTM Emission reduction targets ( ERTs) for 4 areas. ERTs are the amount estimated amount of reductions needed to attain the 8 hour standard. Helps avoid an overestimate of the differences since reductions from the less flexible RACT and/ or RFP requirements can be used to help fulfill emission reductions targets objectives. Docketed excel and word file describing the process and estimates. 8hrEA_ diffanalysis_ controltrargets. doc; and, Verification_ summarytable. xls Energy Data: the amount of control cost difference resulting in additional natural gas, electricity, coal and oil use. Assess the dollar and physical quantities of additional energy requirements of the less flexible RACT & RFP options relative to the more flexible options, Appendix A: Technical Support Document 4.0 Methodology There are two major parts to the methodology. The first part allows one to determine the areas that may have cost and other impact differences. This is done by first determining those areas that are unlikely to have cost and other differences are identified. The remaining areas then are those that could have an impact difference. The second part of the methodology is used to determine the causes and nature of the impact differences.

4.1 Determining which of the designated 8 hour O3 NAAQS non attainment areas that are not expected to have a difference in impacts.

The methodology applied to the designated 8 hour O3 NAAQS Subpart 1 non attainment areas is described first followed by a description of the methodology for the Subpart 2 designated non attainment areas.

4.1.1 Methodology to determine Subpart 1 areas excluded from the difference analysis. The methodology involves 3 steps. See Figure 4.1. More information regarding step 3 is provided in Table 4.1. 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 14 1. Use the EPA Green book to determine there are 84 Subpart 1 Areas 2. Use the EPA Green book to determine that 63 of the areas are " marginal like" ( design value < 0.92ppb) and have no Subpart 1RACT or RFP requirements under the proposed Phase 2 rule making options.

3. For the remaining 21 areas, determine if there are base case RACT requirements or if creditable emission reductions can fulfill the RFP requirements under the most stringent RFP option. Where base case design value predictions are available, determine if the clean data policy may be used to avert the most stringent RFP requirements. 10 of the 21areas should not have impact differences due to the RACT and RFP options. That leaves 11 Subpart 1 areas with potential impact differences. Figure 4.1 Methodology to Determine the Excluded Subpart 1 Areas NEED TO INSERT ARROWS Table 4.1 Applying the Methodology to the 21 Subpart 1 areas.

Designated Non Attainment Area RACT Requirement in Base Case RFP Met/ Averted* in Base Case Allegan, MI Not required Averted requirement Buffalo, NY* Yes, in an OTC state Yes, via NOx reductions Cincinnati, OH* Yes, was a 1 hr moderate area Averted requirement Columbus, OH Not required Yes, Via Combination of VOC and Nox Reductions Door, WI Not required No, but some creditable reductions Erie, PA* Yes, in an OTC state Averted requirement Franklin Co., PA* Yes, in an OTC state Averted requirement Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, Waldo Cos., ME* Yes, in an OTC state Averted requirement Indianapolis, IN Not required Averted requirement Jamestown, NY* Yes, in an OTC state Averted requirement 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 15 1. Use the EPA Green book to determine there are 42 Subpart 2 areas 2. Use the EPA Green book to determine that there are 16 Subpart 2 marginal areas. These areas have no RFP ( or RACT) requirements under the either of the Proposed Phase 2 rule Kern Co., CA Yes, was 1 hr serious area Not met. Could not determine if averted.

Kewaunee Co., WI* Yes, was 1 hr moderate area Averted requirement Knoxville, TN Not required Averted requirement Louisville, KY IN* Yes, was 1 hr moderate area Averted requirement Nevada Co. ( Western Part), CA Not required Not met. Could not determine if averted.

Pittsburgh Beaver Valley, PA* Yes, in an OTC state Averted requirement Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill, NC Not required in counties that were not part of the 1 hr moderate area Averted requirement San Diego, CA Yes, was 1 hr moderate area Not met. Could not determine if averted.

South Bend Elkhart, IN Not required ( 1 hr marginal) Averted requirement Toledo, OH* Yes, was 1 hr moderate Averted requirement Youngstown Warren Sharon, OHPA Not required for OH counties Averted requirement * No projected difference for these 10 areas ** Under the Clean Data Policy 4.1.2 Methodology to determine the Subpart 2 areas excluded from the difference analysis. The methodology involves 4 steps. See Figure 4.2. Table 4.2 presents more information regarding application of steps 3 and for each affected area.

Figure 4.2 Methodology to determine the excluded Subpart 2 areas Need to insert arrows 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 16 3. For the remaining 26 moderate and above areas, determine if they meet or avert the 4. For the remaining 13 areas, determine if any did not get 15% VOC RFP for the 1 hr standard. For these areas, there is not difference between the RFP options. There are 3 such Table 4.2 Applying the methodology to 26 moderate or above Subpart 2 areas Area RFP met/ averted** in the base case Baltimore* Met requirement Boston Lawrence* Averted requirement Boston Portsmouth* Averted requirement Charlotte* Not met or averted. However, 1 hr RFP not met Chicago Not met or averted Cleveland* Not met or averted. However, 1 hr RFP not met Dallas Not met or averted Fredricksburg* Averted requirement Greater Connecticut* Met requirement Houston* Met requirement 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 17 Jefferson* Averted requirement LA San Bernadino Could not determine if averted.

LA South Coast Could not determine if averted.

Milwaukee Not met or averted.

New York* Met requirement Philadelphia* Met requirement Poughkeepsie* Averted requirement Providence Not met or averted Riverside Could not determine if averted.

Sacramento Could not determine if averted.

San Joaquin Could not determine if averted.

Sheboygan* Not met or averted. However, 1 hr RFP not met.

Springfield* Averted requirement St. Louis* Averted requirement Ventura Could not determine if averted.

Washington* Met requirement.

* Excluded from the difference analysis. ** Under the Clean Data Policy 4.2 Determining the impact differences for selected designated non attainment areas between the more flexible and less flexible sets of RFP and RACT options.

Some areas in the difference analysis are addressed in a qualitative fashion. Others are addressed in a quantitative manner.

4.2.1 Methodology for areas treated qualitatively. The model ( CAM x) used to predict future ozone design values in the east meets certain performance criteria when applied there. That model does not consistently meet those performance criteria when applied in the west. Hence, the air quality model cannot be used in the west to predict base case future air quality design values and associated information used to help determine what the quantified cost and other differences might be. However, where those differences could arise ( e. g. RFP or RACT or both) can be determined by looking at the present and past 1 hour O3 NAAQS classifications for those areas. In addition, the base year ( 2002) and projected ( 2010) emissions inventory given controls can be compared to look at the direction and relative size of emission changes overtime. 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 18 The baseline RACT requirements and RFP are identified for these areas. For example, areas having a 1 hour classification of moderate had to meet RACT under the 1 hour standard and are assumed to meet it. If that is the case, there is no difference between the less and more flexible RACT requirements. An assessment was not performed to see if the least flexible RFP requirements could be met in the base case. Hence, there is a potential difference due the RFP options in all the areas. See Table 4.3 Table 4.3 Areas Treated Qualitatively and Where Impact Differences May Arise Area Difference Possible Because of RACT Options Difference Possible Because of RFP Options Kern CO.( eastern Kern only)* No Yes LA San Bernardino** No Yes LA South Coast** No Yes Nevada Co* Yes Yes Riverside** No Yes Sacramento** No Yes San Diego* No Yes San Joaquin** No Yes Ventura** No Yes * Subpart 1 ** Subpart 2 4.2.2 Methodology for areas treated quantitatively. There are 8 Subpart 1 areas and 4 Subpart 2 areas in the quantitative difference analysis. The methodology for the Subpart 1 areas is described in section <IP_ADDRESS> while the methodology for the 4 Subpart 2 areas is described in section <IP_ADDRESS>.

<IP_ADDRESS> Methodology for the 8 Subpart 1 areas treated quantitatively. Each of the 8 areas has no cost in meeting the regulatory baseline, the more flexible RACT and RFP options. Table 4.4 identifies the area that have may have additional cost in meeting either the less flexible RACT or RFP options.

Table 4.4. Some of the features of the 8 Subpart 1 areas treated quantitatively in the difference analysis.

Area more flexible RACT more flexible RFP less flexible RACT less flexible RFP Allegan no cost no cost cost no cost 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 19 Columbus no cost no cost cost no cost Door no cost no cost cost cost Indianapolis no cost no cost cost no cost Knoxville no cost no cost cost no cost Raleigh Durham* no cost no cost cost no cost South Bend no cost no cost cost no cost Youngstown* no cost no cost cost no cost * Parts of the non attainment area had prior RACT requirements. Cost differences are expected for parts of these areas. Those parts that did not have prior 1 hour O3 NAAQS or OTR requirements.

These 8 Subpart 1 " moderate like" areas are projected to meet the 8 hr O3 NAAQS under base case conditions. Hence, there are no further reductions in emissions required to attain and maintain the standard. The requirements for the more flexible set of options as described in general terms in Table 2.1 would define RACT and RFP as what is needed to meet the standard in an expeditious manner. Because these areas are projected in the base case to meet the standard in the time prescribed in the statute, they are presumed to incur no cost in adhering to the more flexible set of RACT and RFP options.

That is not the case for the less flexible option set. For the less flexible set of options, there may be RACT costs for all 8 areas. In addition, Door is not projected to avert the less flexible RFP requirements. Hence, under the less flexible option Door would have to contend with RACT and RFP requirements. However, the RACT would be creditable in meeting the RFP requirement.

RACT is specific determination for individual sources or groups of sources. What is provided in this second addendum difference analysis is illustrative and not a substitute for the RACT determinations made by the states. However, for purposes of this analysis, RACT is presumed unmet in the base case if the follow conditions apply for a particular source: ° Base case control efficiency is zero ° Base case emissions are greater than 100 tons ° Control measure exist that have an efficiency of < 80% ° Cost for the least costly measure getting reductions is <$ 1561/ ton ( 1997 dollars )

The assessment of RACT cost includes a search of control measures and emissions inventory data in view of the above conditions.

Emission reductions from RACT requirements are creditable in meeting remaining RFP requirements. The reductions from the 2002 base emission are compared to the interpolated emissions inventory values for 2008 with adjustments for emission reductions due to motor vehicle 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 9Appendix A: Technical Support Document 20 controls required prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act. The result is the net additional reductions in VOC or NOx to meet the 15% RFP requirement. Emission reductions to meet the less flexible RFP requirements for these areas can come from within as well as outside the non attainment area. If they come from outside the area certain restrictions apply. They must be within the state and no more than 200km away for NOx reductions and no more than 100 km away for VOC reductions. In addition, if reductions come from outside the non attainment area, the 2002 and projected base case 2008 emissions from those facilities must be added to the emissions from within the nonattainment area. AirControlNET is used to determine the lower cost way to meet the less flexible RFP option. The technical appendix describes the procedures and base case and difference analysis results. 9 With the cost estimates for RACT and where appropriate RFP ( i. e. Door) comes information on the amount of emission reductions as well as energy use relative to the regulatory baseline, the more flexible RACT and RFP options. The investment and operating cost estimates are put on an annual basis and compared to annual revenues associated with facilities of that type. The result would be a potential price increase needed to cover the cost of control ( not taking into account market adjustments). These ( e. g. cost, emission reduction, energy requirements, economic impacts) are all the parts of the Phase 2 differences analysis results for these 8 areas.

<IP_ADDRESS> Methodology for the 4 Subpart 2 areas treated quantitatively in the difference analysis. The difference analysis for these areas is affected by consideration of emission reduction targets to attain and maintain the standard and estimated RACT requirements for a couple of counties in one of the areas. Table 4.5 provides a description of some of the features of the four areas.

Table 4.5. Some of the features of the 4 Subpart 2 areas treated quantitatively in the difference analysis.*

Area More Flexible RFP Less Flexible RFP*** Emission Reduction Target ( ERT)*

Chicago Expected to meet requirements in the base case. cost. 1731 tons of VOC reductions yes. 62,296 tons of NOx in counties other than Cook or Lake. 52,952 of VOC for those counties Dallas** 1370 tons of VOC from base case cost. 5931 tons of VOC reductions yes. 27,700 tons of NOx reductions 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 21 Milwaukee Expected to meet requirements in the base case. cost. 803 tons of VOC reductions yes. 34,804 tons of NOx reductions Providence Expected to meet requirements in the base case cost. 8209 tons of VOC yes. 3684 tons of NOx reductions * The ERT is an estimate of what is required for attainment. The figures in the table are approximations. More detail is provided in the Technical Support Document. ** There are some counties in this non attainment area under the 8 hour standard that were not part of the nonattainment area under the 1 hour standard. That means that there is a mandatory RACT requirement for affected sources in those counties ( Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwell). Application of RACT to those sources is expected to bring 2884 tons of NOx reductions. VOC RACT requirements appear met in the base case. Also, with the more flexible option the area has some choices in meeting the RFP requirement. It can get the reductions from the " new" counties. Or, bring the other counties into the base from which the 15% is determined and get the reductions from those counties. Bringing the old counties into the base would be 1370 + 4561 or 5931 tons of VOC reductions. *** These RFP tonnages do not reflect adjustments that would have to be made if the reductions are secured outside the non attainment area. See the Technical Support Document ( Appendix A).

5.0 Estimated Differences and Limitations 5.1 Areas with Quantitative Analysis Tables 5.1 through 5.4 present the estimated quantitative differences in cost, emission reduction, energy, and economic impacts for the less flexible RACT and RFP options relative to the regulatory baseline, the more flexible options. The detailed information is found in Appendix A: Technical Support Document.. 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 22 5.1.1 Emission Reduction Differences. Eleven of the 12 areas are found to have emission reduction differences. For Allegan County, Michigan and Door, Wisconsin, although there were RACT requirements under the less flexible option, sources either did not meet the RACT size requirements and/ or the criteria used in this analysis and set forth in section <IP_ADDRESS>. The less flexible RACT and RACT options result in 20,155 more tons VOC and 8414 tons of NOx emissions reductions than the more flexible RACT and RFP options. The total estimated emission reductions of VOC and NOx under the less flexible RACT and RFP options were 75820 and128616 respectively.

Table 5.1 Emission Reductions Differences Between the Less Flexible & More Flexible RACT & RFP Options Area VOC Emissions ( TPY) NOx Emissions ( TPY) Cause Allegan Co., MI 0 0 No RACT sources Chicago Gary Lake Cook 2713 0 Less flexible RFP Columbus, OH 0 1061 Less flexible RACT Dallas, TX 7078 0 Less flexible RFP Door, WI 1025 0 Less flexible RFP Indianapolis, IN 0 723 Less flexible RACT Knoxville, TN 0 4030 Less flexible RACT Milwaukee, WI 1085 0 Less flexible RFP Providence, RI 8254 0 Less Flexible RFP Raleigh Durham, NC 0 965 Less Flexible RACT South Bend Elkhart, IN 0 333 Less Flexible RACT Yngstown Warren Sharon 0 1302 Less Flexible RACT The desirability of these reductions is a function, in part, of their effectiveness in achieving 8 hour O3 NAAQS attainment and maintenance objective. For example, Dallas, Milwaukee, and Providence have a NOx emission reduction target to attain and maintain the standard. But, the less flexible options yields reductions of the VOC. All the areas with additional NOx reductions attributable to the less flexible option do need those reductions to meet the standard under base case conditions.

5.1.2 Cost Differences between the Less Flexible and More Flexible RACT & RFP Options The estimated cost to apply the less flexible RACT and RFP implementation framework options is 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 23 $ 22 million more than the regulatory baseline, the more flexible RACT and RFP implementation framework options. Table 5.2 provides the estimates of the cost differences by area.

Table 5.2. Estimated Cost Difference by Area of the Less Flexible verus the More Flexible Option Area Cost Difference ( Millions of 1997$' s per year)

Allegan, MI 0 Chicago, ILL IN 0.5 Columbus, OH 1.0 Dallas, TX 2.1 Door, WI 0.3 Indianapolis, IN 0.8 Knoxville, TN 1.0 Milwaukee, WI < 0.05 Providence, RI 14.1 Raleigh Durham Chapel Hill, NC 0.4 South Bend Elkhart, IN 0.4 Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA 0.8 As suggested in section 5.1.1, these additional costs result from emission reductions that are not necessarily needed for expeditious attainment and maintenance of the 8 hr O3 NAAQS. Most of the additional cost from adopting the less flexible RACT and RFP implementation framework options occur in Providence for additional VOC reductions. This area has taken steps to reduce VOC emission as part of efforts to meet the 1 hour O3 NAAQS. Hence, the incremental cost of additional VOC reductions there may be higher relative to some of the other areas.

5.1.3. Energy Differences Between the Less and More Flexible RACT and RFP Options. More energy use is expected with the less flexible RACT and RFP implementation framework. The cost of this additional energy use is estimated at $ 1.4 million ( 1997 $' s). Eighty five percent of this is the result of estimated increases in natural gas use. The amount of anticipated direct additional electricity, natural gas, and coal use is about 200 thousand KWHrs, 14 million cubic meters, and 100 tons respectively. The percent of the cost associated with additional electricity, natural gas and coal use by control measure is presented in Table 5.3. More information regarding the allocation of the costs is presented in Appendix A: Technical Support Document.

Table 5.3. Estimated Additional Direct Energy Impacts of the Less Flexible RACT and RFP Options By 8 31 05. Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment_ Redline Strike out of 5th Draft 24 Control Measure as a Percent of Energy Cost Control Measure Coal Electricity Natural Gas Natural Gas Reburning 0 0 85.45 Selective Catalytic Reduction 0 3.6 0 Selective Non Catalytic Reduction 3.8 1.3 0 Thermal Incineration 0 8.2 6.1 Water Injection 0 3.6 0 5.1.4. Estimated Additional Potential Economic Impacts of the Less Flexible RACT and RFP Options. These are only approximations of the sources that may have additional costs and hence the potential for additional economic impact relative to the regulatory baseline, the more flexible RACT and RFP implementation framework option. Estimates of annualized costs are compared to surrogates for annual revenue as explained in the Technical Support Document in Appendix A. Table 5.4 identifies the source categories to which controls are applied, the number of times that occurs, and the range of annualized cost to annualized revenue surrogate percentages.

In some instances controls may only be applied to some facilities within a category. An average revenue surrogate per facility is developed. This may or may not correspond to the actual revenues at the facility which may have to put on additional controls under the less flexible Phase 2 implementation framework option. The technical support document in Appendix A estimates the annualized cost to sales percentages in the for over 200 source categories. For most of these applications, annualized cost as a percent of the annual revenue proxy is less than 0.1%. However, for 8 of the applications for the source categories noted in Table 5.4, the percentage is between 1 and 3. And, for 4 of the applications the percentage is even higher, ranging from 3.1 to more than 17%.

5.2 Areas with a Qualitative Analysis. As noted in the methodology section, there are 9 areas where a qualitative analysis is conducted. We know from the quantitative assessment of 12 areas in section 5.2 that the less flexible option is likely to result in more emission reductions, higher costs, higher energy requirements, and more economic impacts. In Appendix B, there is a comparison of the 2002 emission inventories along with projected 2010 and interpolated 2008 emission of VOC and NOx. The information suggestions that the less flexible option's impacts may be diminished because of projected emissions with control requirements in place. 8 29 05. Fifth Draft of the Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment.

25 Table 5.4 Sources, Application of Additional Controls, Cost to Revenue Ratios Source Category Number of Applications*

Automobile Refinishing 6 Cement Manufacturing 1 Consumer Solvents 96 Cutback Asphalt 31 Fabric Printing & Coating 10 Glass Manufacture 9 IC Boilers 10 IC Engines 2 Industrial Maintenance Coatings 4 Municipal Landfills 11 Oil and Natural Gas Production 16 Rubber & Plastics Manufacture 4 Service Stations 4 Steel Production 1 Traffic Markings 1 Utilities 8 Wood Products & Furniture 5 * The number of applications totals 219. However, this may be less than the number of sources affected. For examples, controls applying to all service stations in an area could affect more than one service station.

6.0 Other Considerations The Phase 2 ozone implementation rule economic assessment included designated non attainment areas thought to have a potential difference in cost as a result of adopting a less flexible as opposed to a more flexible implementation framework. The scope of the quantitative assessment included estimates of the cost, emission reduction, energy, and economic impacts of adopting a less flexible 8 29 05. Fifth Draft of the Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment.

10For example, 8 hour non attainment areas designated as moderate must fulfill their RFP obligations by 12 31 08.

26 framework relative to the regulatory baseline: the more flexible framework.

However, there are also other considerations which are addressed qualitatively. These include the potential consequences of the following : ° the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR) and consultation recommendation ° alternative reasonable further progress ( RFP) scenarios ° RFP requirements determined from an emissions inventory from a more recent year such as 2004, not a 2002 ° assuming a Subpart 1 area requests and receives an attainment date extension and has to comply with RFP requirements using a 2002 emissions inventory ° the Reformulated Gasoline Requirement ( RFG)

6.1 CAIR and Recommended Consultations.

EPA issued CAIR under Section 110( a)( 2)( d) to require states to control emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the PM2.5 or 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standards by downwind areas in other states. Reductions are required in two phases; for NOx, compliance with the initial NOx cap must be achieved by 2009. EPA has encouraged states to achieve reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions from electrical generating units ( EGUs) 25MW and greater under an EPA administered multi state trading program.

CAIR and the state plans designed to attain and maintain the 8 hour ozone standard in individual non attainment areas, will work together to promote attainment of the 8 hour ozone standard. For example, to the extent that CAIR controls improve air quality in a downwind state, the downwind state will have lower emission reduction targets for attaining and maintaining the 8 hour ozone standard. In addition, CAIR emission reductions in a state will help the state's own nonattainment areas meet the 8 hour ozone standard, and reductions closer to the violating monitor generally will have greater impact. Depending on the timing of the CAIR emission reductions, CAIR emission reductions in and nearby nonattainment areas also can help satisfy reasonable further progress requirements. 10 A simulated local control strategy looked a 16 areas projected to be in non attainment in 2009 and 2010 without CAIR in place. The strategy predicted reductions in NOx emissions from 25MW and 8 29 05. Fifth Draft of the Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment.

11The NOx reduction outside the non attainment areas for the simulated local strategy had to be from the same state as the non attainment area but could be no farther than 200km from the nonattainment area.

27 larger EGUs of about 200 thousand tons per year within the non attainment areas and nearby. 11 The CAIR and local control strategy NOx reductions were estimated off the same " base case" emission inventory. However, the 200 thousand tons of local control strategy NOx reductions are not in addition to the NOx reductions resulting from the CAIR. But, the distribution of NOx emission reductions given only the CAIR requirement may be different from a situation where there is both the CAIR as well as ozone attainment plan requirements.

There is analytical uncertainty which clouds the comparison between CAIR and the local control strategy NOx emissions reductions for specific EGUs. Some of the analytical uncertainty stems from the fact that the CAIR simulations used a market framework and greater adjustment possibilities for the electrical generating units. For example, in those simulations, there could be reduced power output at some units. The local control strategy simulation used an engineering cost approach. This approach did not provide for price adjustments in factor markets or price demand elasticity effects in product markets. Perhaps more importantly, some of the analytical uncertainty results from the inability to accurately forecast what state and local air quality officials will require of the electrical generating units in their ozone NAAQS attainment plans.

Despite those uncertainties, NOx emissions for 25MW and above EGUs under the local control strategy analysis were compared to emissions for the same set of units under the CAIR. In some non attainment and nearby areas, there were no differences in the predicted NOx levels. For other areas, under the CAIR, there were lower predicted NOx emissions ( meaning more emission reductions). And, for still other areas, there were lower predicted NOx emissions ( meaning more emission reductions) with the local control strategy simulation.

Regardless of the simulations and comparisons, the economic entities that own the electrical generating units must make decisions how to meet the CAIR as well as other state and local NOx emission reduction provisions. The CAIR implementation plans are due in 2006. Ozone nonattainment areas must submit plan requirements by 2007. Without consultation with state and local authorities, an optimal strategy for CAIR compliance alone may not be optimal for compliance with both the CAIR and O3 attainment plan requirements. Power companies can reduce regulatory uncertainty and lower cost by consulting with the state and local air quality officials early. Similarly, air quality officials who are concerned with meeting air quality improvement requirements at lower cost may also wish to engage power companies and other emission sources who may face multiple environmental requirements within a short time period. Achieving targeted tarted reductions from certain EGUs can lower the overall cost of the local attainment strategy where the incremental cost of targeted EGU emission reductions is less than the cost of achieving similar reductions and air quality improvements from other types of sources. 8 29 05. Fifth Draft of the Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment.

28 The intent of these consultations would not be to upset market behavior or incentives. Furthermore Rather, we anticipate that these consultations will affect individual control decisions for a few areas.

6.2 Alternative Reasonable Further Progress Scenarios 6.2.1 Using a 2004 Emissions Inventory, not 2002, for Calculating the RFP Requirement. RFP requirements apply to Subpart 2 moderate and above areas as well as Subpart 1 areas that require an attainment date beyond 5 years from designation. Emission reductions from state and federal rules promulgated since the passage of the 1990 amendments may be used as credits against the RFP requirement. However, emission reductions from meeting pre 1990 federal rules and state obligations are not creditable toward meeting the 15% RFP requirement.

The 15% is a percentage of certain ( e. g. VOC) anthropogenic emissions during the ozone season for a particular year. If the year is 2002, the RFP requirement is 15% of the 2002 ozone season emissions for VOC and/ or NOx. If the year is 2004, the requirement is 15% of 2004 ozone season emissions. If emissions are expected to decline overtime, a later year for calculating the 15% would mean a smaller absolute RFP requirement. For example, 15% of 1000 is more than 15% of 750.

But, certain non attainment areas may forego RFP emissions reduction credits by using a 2004 emissions inventory in lieu of a 2002 emissions inventory. For example, the State of Texas implemented its NOx emission reduction strategy between 2002 and 2004. In addition, New York City invested heavily in low emitting diesel construction equipment after September 11, 2001. But, these emission reductions are not creditable toward achieving a 15% RFP requirement if the 2004 emissions inventory is used.

Another consideration in assessing use of a 2002 versus 2004 emissions inventory to determine the RFP requirement is how much time is provided for the regulated sources to meet the RFP requirement and how much time is provided the states to develop and submit the RFP plan to EPA. For Subpart 2 areas that are classified as moderate or higher, the first 6 year ( 15%) RFP requirement using the 2002 emissions inventory as a base must be met by 12 31 08. The state RFP plans are due to EPA by 6 15 07. For states using a 2004 emissions inventory, the RFP plan is also due 6 15 07. For Subpart 2 areas that are classified as moderate or higher choosing to use the 2004 emissions inventory, the RFP requirement must be met at the start of the ozone season in 8 29 05. Fifth Draft of the Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment.

12The date for meeting the 15% RFP requirement is determined by 2 factors. The first is a date 6 years from the inventory used to calculate the requirement. That would be 2010 using the 2004 inventory. The second factor is assurance that the RFP requirement is met as expeditiously as practicable. For example, given that emission reductions to attain and maintain the 8 hour standard for Subpart 2 moderate areas must be met at the start of the 2009 ozone season, that is the binding factor. And, the RFP requirement based on a 2004 emissions inventory must be met by at least the start of the 2009 ozone season.

29 2009.12 In moderate areas with a 12 month ozone season, the RFP requirement would have to be met by 1 01 09. For affected areas with an ozone season starting in April, use of the 2004 inventory may afford regulated sources another 3 months to meet the RFP requirements.

Yet another consideration for states looking at the choice of a 2002 versus a 2004 emission inventory for calculating the 15% RFP requirement is the amount of additional effort to produce a quality assured emissions inventory. The 2002 emissions inventory is available. It was prepared to fulfill the triennial emissions inventory requirements under 40 CFR 51, subpart A. Under those provisions, the next triennial inventory will be developed for the year 2005. But, with a 1 to 3 year time lag for quality assurance and the need to have public review and comment on the RFP plan which is due to EPA 6 15 07, the use of the 2005 inventory for determining the 15% RFP requirements may not be feasible. However, with a willingness on the part of the state to spend the additional resources to expedite data collection and quality assurance activities, a quality assured 2004 emissions inventory may be available for use in determining the 15% RFP requirement.

But, a consideration that affected state and local governments may want to undertake before seriously considering an inventory other than 2002 is whether the RFP requirement using the 2002 emissions inventory presents a substantial burden. In simulations for many areas ( See Technical Appendix A Table 4), a projected 2008 inventory was compared to one for 2002. Taking into account the creditable and non creditable emission reductions over this period, the more flexible RFP requirements for most of the areas were met under base case conditions.

6.2.2 RFP requirement for a Subpart 1 area requiring more than 5 years to attain the 8 hour standard. Base case air quality modeling ( without consideration of CAIR) suggests that Buffalo Niagra Falls, a Subpart 1 " moderate like" area, would remain above the standard in 2010 without further emission reductions. EPA does not know whether or not the state will submit an attainment demonstration showing attainment in 5 years. Whether or not attainment can be demonstrated in 5 years may be dependent upon reductions in upwind emissions as a result of the CAIR and Canadian emission reduction programs as well as reductions in mobile and area source emissions from additional local controls in and nearby Buffalo Niagra Falls.

However, to analyze the potential consequences if the area's attainment date was longer than 5 years, an assessment of the projected 2008 emissions inventory and the RFP requirement off the 2002 emissions inventory was conducted. The assessment showed that under base case conditions, 8 29 05. Fifth Draft of the Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment.

13See Technical Memo from Frank Divitta of E. H. Pechan to Allen C. Basala of EPA 7 27 05.

14Of course, this analysis does not include Subpart 1areas in California. For those areas, we do not know if they will meet the 15% in the base case or if they will submit a plan showing demonstrating attainment in 5 years.

30 a 15% VOC only RFP requirement would be met with an additional 116 tons of emission reductions in 2008. In the case of a 15% Nox requirement, the area would achieve emission reductions greater than the 15% requirement under base case conditions. 13 Subpart 1 moderate like areas can use percentage reductions in either VOC or NOx emission to fulfill the 15% requirement. In this assessment, the 15% requirement is estimated to be fulfilled without additional expenditures. 14 6.3 Reformulated Gasoline Requirements ( RFG)

The Clean Air Act of 1990 identifies criteria met by 9 areas that must meet RFG requirements. Those areas are Baltimore, Chicago, Hartford, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, and San Diego. See Section 211( k)( 10)( D). There are also areas which were reclassified as severe under the 1 hour standard under section 181( b) of the Clean Air Act. These areas include Atlanta, Baton Rouge, Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley, and Washington, DC ( which was already an opt in area). However, none of these bump up areas are classified as severe or above under the 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standard ( NAAQS).

As stated in the preamble, today's rule specifies that the nine original RFG mandatory areas must continue to use RFG at least until they are redesignated to attainment for the 8 hour standard. Similarly, areas that have been reclassified as severe areas under section 181( b) of the Clean Air Act for the 1 hour ozone NAAQS, and which were not redesignated to attainment for the 1 hour NAAQS prior to its revocation, must continue to use RFG at least until they are redesignated to attainment for the 8 hour standard. This does not change or affect any discretion EPA may otherwise have under the RFG provisions to modify or remove RFG requirements. The EPA is reserving for future consideration what RFG requirements apply to areas that were reclassified as severe under the 1 hour standard, but were redesignated to attainment for that standard prior to its revocation. The only such area that was redesignated to attainment prior to revocation of the 1 hour standard is Atlanta, Georgia. The EPA is also reserving for future consideration whether areas must continue using RFG after they are redesignated to attainment for the 8 hour standard, for the original nine mandatory areas as well as the areas reclassified to severe.

The RFG requirements result from provisions in the Clean Air Act and should continue to deliver air quality improvement benefits for these 14 areas relative to no RFG requirement. The cost of a potential requirement to continue RFG after an area is redesignated in attainment of the 8 hour standard would depend on whether the area could maintain the standard without RFG and the state's 8 29 05. Fifth Draft of the Second Addendum to the O3 Implementation Cost, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment.

31 choices regarding which control measures can be waived ( or moved to the contingency measures column). If the RFG measure were needed for an area to maintain air quality meeting the 8 hour standard, a potential requirement to continue RFG would impose no added cost relative to the cost of maintaining the standard. If the area could maintain the standard without RFG but with continuation of other emission reducing measures, the incremental cost of continuing the RFG requirement would depend on the cost of RFG versus the cost of alternative measures to maintain the air quality standard.


[Federal Register: March 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 14175-14176]
[DOCID:fr30mr09-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59622; File No. SR-FICC-2009-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Technical Modifications

March 23, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on February 27, 2009, the
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by FICC. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. FICC
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of
the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder \3\ so that the proposal
was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FICC proposes to amend the rules of its Government Securities
Division (``GSD'') and Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'')
in order to make them consistent with the rules of the National
Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC''), an affiliated clearing
agency.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Payment of Fines
    Prior to this rule change, GSD Rule 37, Section 8, provided that a
member must pay a fine assessed by FICC within 30 calendar days of
notification that the fine has been assessed. There was no
corresponding provision in MBSD's or NSCC's rules.
    Consistent with FICC's project to harmonize its rules with those of
affiliated clearing agencies that have common members, FICC proposes to
delete GSD Rule 37, Section 8, and to adopt the language used in NSCC
Rule 17 by stating that fines shall be payable at such time and in such
manner as determined by FICC. Initially, such fines will be collected
through the GSD monthly billing process after notification to the
member, which is consistent with the manner and timing

that MBSD and NSCC collect such fines. GSD members will continue to be
entitled to contest fines pursuant to GSD Rule 37.
2. Member Response to FICC Reports
    Prior to this rule change, GSD and MBSD members are required to
report promptly to FICC any information contained in a FICC report that
the member believes to be an error or discrepancy. However, GSD Rule
11, Section 12, and Rule 5, Section 5, place an additional requirement
for members using GSD's netting or comparison services to report the
discrepancy no later than 10 calendar days after receipt of the report.
A similar requirement is made with respect to MBSD members under MBSD
Article V, Rule 4, Section 3, which requires that the discrepancy be
reported no later than 10 calendar days. NSCC's rules require that
discrepancies be reported by NSCC members promptly but do not reference
a specific member of days. The proposed rule change conforms the GSD
and MBSD rules to those of NSCC by deleting the specific reference to a
10-day requirement in favor of the general requirement that the member
report the discrepancy promptly.
    In addition, FICC proposes to change the terminology regarding the
definitions of ``Foreign Affiliate,'' ``Foreign Affiliate Trade,''
``Foreign Netting Member,'' and ``Foreign Person'' in GSD Rule 1 to
incorporate the defined terms used in NSCC's and The Depository Trust
Company's (also a FICC-affliliate) rules, by refering to ``Non-U.S.''
or ``Non-domestic'' in place of ``Foreign.''
    FICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A of the Act \4\ and the rules promulgated thereunder because
it makes technical changes to clearing agency rules that conform with
the obligations required of a common member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    FICC has not solicited or received written comments relating to the
proposed rule change. FICC will notify the Commission of any comments
it receives.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) thereunder.\6\ At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Supra note 2.
    \6\ Supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-FICC-2009-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-FICC-2009-05. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C 552, will be available for inspection and copying
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
am and 3 pm. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at FICC's principal office and on FICC's Web
site at http://ficc.com/gov/gov.docs.jsp?NS-query=#rf. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submission should refer to File No. SR-FICC-2009-05 and should be
submitted on or before April 20, 2009.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-6963 Filed 3-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10813-10814]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04932]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0395; FRL-9975-40-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee: Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a portion of a revision to the Hamilton County portion of the
Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation from Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control
Bureau on June 25, 2008. The revision amends the definition of
``volatile organic compounds'' (VOC) to be consistent with state and
federal regulations. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0395 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOC and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere in the
presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone,
EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOC and NOX
that can be released into the atmosphere. VOC are those compounds of
carbon (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid,
metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) that form
ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Compounds of carbon
(or organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; they do not
react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent.
    Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that EPA has the authority to
define the meaning of ``VOC,'' and hence what compounds shall be
treated as VOC for regulatory purposes. It has been EPA's policy that
compounds of carbon with negligible reactivity need not be regulated to
reduce ozone and should be excluded from the regulatory definition of
VOC. See 42 FR 35314 (July 8, 1977), 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 2005).
EPA determines whether a given carbon compound has ``negligible''
reactivity by comparing the compound's reactivity to the reactivity of
ethane. EPA lists these compounds in its regulations at 40 CFR
51.100(s) and excludes them from the definition of VOC. The chemicals
on this list are often called ``negligibly reactive.'' EPA may
periodically revise the list of negligibly reactive compounds to add or
delete compounds.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is proposing action to approve Hamilton
County's SIP revision which amends the definition of ``Volatile Organic
Compounds'' in the Chattanooga Code, Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2.
This SIP revision also amends paragraph 3 and adds paragraphs 4 and 5
to the Chattanooga Code, Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2 definition
of VOC. Tennessee is updating the Hamilton County portion of its SIP to
be consistent with changes to federal and other similar SIP-approved
regulations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA approved similar revisions to the Tennessee SIP on April
23, 2006. See 71 FR 19124. EPA also approved a Knox County portion
of the Tennessee SIP on January 4, 2007. See 72 FR 265.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    On June 25, 2008, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision \2\ to EPA for
review and approval. The revision amends the definition of VOC found in
Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2, of the Chattanooga Code.
Specifically, the revision adds the following compounds to the list of
negligibly reactive compounds to be consistent with federal and other
similar SIP-approved regulations: 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-
methoxy-butane (HFE-7100); methyl acetate; 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-
methoxy-propane (n-C3 F7OCH3, HFE-
7000); 3-ethoxy-1,1,1,2,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-dodecafluoro-2-
(trifluoromethyl) hexane (HFE-7500); 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
(HFC 227ea); and methyl formate (HCOOCH3). These compounds
are excluded from the VOC definition on the basis that each of these
compounds makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone
formation. EPA is proposing to approve this revision because it is
consistent with the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s). EPA is also
proposing to approve this revision because it is consistent with other
similar SIP-approved regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA will consider the other changes included in Tennessee's
June 25, 2008, SIP revision in a future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revision includes minor changes to paragraph 3 of Chattanooga
Code, Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2 definition of VOC to be
consistent with federal and other similar SIP-approved regulations. As
a precondition to excluding compounds as VOCs, paragraph 3 states that:
``As a precondition to excluding these compounds as VOC or at any time
thereafter, the Director shall require an owner or operator to provide
monitoring or testing methods and results demonstrating the amount of
negligibly-reactive compounds in the source's emissions.'' The SIP
revision changes the precondition for the director to require this
testing from ``shall'' to ``may'' and adds that any testing be ``to the
satisfaction of the Director'' of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air
Pollution Control Bureau. The SIP

revision also adds paragraph 4 which states: ``For purposes of
enforcement for a specific source, the test methods specified in these
regulations, in the approved SIP, or in a permit issued pursuant to
these regulations shall be used to be consistent with state
regulations.'' EPA is proposing to approve these revisions because they
are consistent with the definition of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s) and with
other similar SIP-approved regulations.
    Finally, the SIP revision adds paragraph 5 which states: ``The
following compound(s) are VOC for purposes of all recordkeeping,
emissions reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling and inventory
requirements which apply to VOC and shall be uniquely identified in
emission reports, but are not VOC for purposes of VOC emissions
limitations or VOC content requirements: t-butyl acetate.'' Through
this revision, Hamilton County is also adding t-butyl acetate to the
list of negligibly reactive compounds, but maintaining the requirements
of recordkeeping, emissions reporting, and inventory. EPA is proposing
to approve this revision because it is consistent with the definition
of VOC at 40 CFR 51.100(s).3 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In EPA's November 29, 2004, final rulemaking, the Agency
added tertiary butyl acetate to the list of excluded compounds from
the definition of VOCs. See 69 FR 69298.
    \4\ While EPA added t-butyl acetate to the list of negligibly
reactive compounds in the November 29, 2004, final rulemaking, t-
butyl acetate continued to be a VOC for purposes of all
recordkeeping, emissions reporting, and inventory requirements which
applied to VOC. See 69 FR 69298. Subsequently, on February 25, 2016
(81 FR 9339), EPA issued a final rule removing recordkeeping,
emissions reporting, and inventory requirements for t-Butyl acetate.
Although EPA no longer requires recordkeeping, emissions reporting,
and inventory requirements for t-butyl acetate, this SIP revision
includes this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(l), the Administrator shall not approve
a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. The State's addition of the County's exemptions
from the definition of VOC, addition of recordkeeping, emissions
reporting, photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory
requirements for t-butyl acetate, and other changes in paragraphs 3 and
4 to Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2, of the Chattanooga Code
``Definitions'' are approvable under section 110(l) because they
reflect changes to federal regulations based on findings that the
aforementioned compounds are negligibly reactive and make a negligible
contribution to troposphere ozone formation.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Chapter 4 of Part II, Section 4-2, ``Definitions'' effective
August 16, 1995, which revised the definition of VOC. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section of
this preamble for more information).

IV. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve the
aforementioned changes to Tennessee's SIP for Chapter 4 of Part II,
Section 4-2. EPA has evaluated the relevant portions of Tennessee's
June 25, 2008, SIP revision and has determined that it meets the
applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and is
consistent with EPA policy.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 20, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-04932 Filed 3-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 37277]
[DOCID:fr09jy07-116]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Form 10-D; OMB Control No. 3235-0604; SEC File No. 270-544.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
this request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Form 10-D (17 CFR 249.312) is used by asset-backed issuers to file
periodic distribution reports pursuant to Section 13 and 15(d) under
the Securities Exchange Act 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.) within 15 days after each required distribution date. The
information provided by Form 10-D is mandatory and all information is
made available to the public upon request. Form 10-D takes
approximately 30 hours per response to prepare and is filed by 9,500
respondents. We estimate that 75% of the 30 hours per response (22.5
hours) is prepared by the company for a total annual reporting burden
of 213,750 hours (22.5 hours per response x 9,500 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 28, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-13164 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P