[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26179]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 24, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 85

[FRL-5095-2]

 

Notice of Data Availability Concerning Supplemental Rulemaking on 
Ozone Transport Commission; Emission Vehicle Program for the Northeast 
Ozone Transport Region

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Data Availability.

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

SUMMARY: On February 10, 1994, the Northeast Ozone Transport Commission 
(OTC) submitted a recommendation to EPA under section 184 of the Clean 
Air Act (the Act), for additional control measures to be applied 
throughout the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Specifically, 
the OTC recommended that EPA require all state members of the OTC to 
adopt an Ozone Transport Commission Low Emission Vehicle (OTC LEV or 
LEV) program.
    In today's notice of data availability, EPA is noticing additional 
information regarding 49-state alternatives which have been suggested 
during the course of the OTC/LEV petition process. This is the 
additional information EPA referenced in its Supplemental Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking which was published in the Federal Register on 
September 22, 1994.

DATES: Written comments on the specific issues discussed in this 
document will be accepted until November 1, 1994. Please note, however, 
that the public comment period for all other issues in this rulemaking 
closes on October 24, 1994. Please direct all correspondence to the 
address specified below.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if 
possible) to the Air Docket (see address below). Copies of information 
relevant to this matter are available for inspection in public docket 
A-94-11 at the Air Docket (LE-131) of the EPA, room M-1500, 401 M 
Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460, tel. (202) 260-7548, between the 
hours of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, on Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Shields, Office of Mobile 
Sources, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, tel. 
(202) 260-3450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Pursuant to section 184 of the Clean Air Act, the Northeast Ozone 
Transport Commission (OTC) recommended that EPA require all state 
members of the OTC to adopt an Ozone Transport Commission Low Emission 
Vehicle (OTC LEV) program. On September 22, 1994, EPA published a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposing to find 
that reduction of new motor vehicle emissions through OTC LEV or a LEV-
equivalent program1 is necessary to mitigate the effects of 
pollution transport and to bring nonattainment areas in the Northeast 
Ozone Transport Region (``OTR'') into attainment and to avoid 
interference with maintenance. 59 FR 48664. EPA had previously 
published a notice announcing receipt of the OTC's recommendation, 59 
FR 12914 (March 18, 1994), and a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
on the OTC recommendation, 59 FR 21720 (April 26, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\A ``LEV-equivalent program'' was defined as an alternative 
voluntary federal program that would achieve emission reductions 
from new motor vehicles in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region 
equivalent to or greater than would be achieved by the OTC LEV 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's notice and its appendices provide information that has been 
submitted to or developed by EPA after the SNPRM was signed. EPA 
determined that additional public notice to make the public aware of 
this additional information would be beneficial. EPA asks the public to 
focus their comments on the key areas discussed below. Comments filed 
after October 24, 1994, on topics addressed in previous notices (and 
not discussed below) will be treated as late comments to which EPA is 
not required to respond. The issues to be addressed are the following: 
(1) The alternative voluntary federal program proposed by the American 
Automobile Manufacturers Association; (2) the relevance of this 
proposal and other 49-state motor vehicle programs to EPA's final 
action on the OTC recommendation; (3) comparisons of the emission 
reductions from new motor vehicles in the OTR achieved under OTC LEV 
with those achieved under the automobile industry's proposal or under 
other 49-state motor vehicle programs; (4) the effects on emission 
reductions due to the migration of vehicles into the OTR from non-OTR 
states; and (5) the effect on OTR boundary conditions of a 49-state 
motor vehicle program. Commenters should be aware that before a 49-
state motor vehicle program could be adopted by EPA, EPA would be 
required to provide the public with additional opportunities for 
comment on the specifics of such a program.

II. Discussion

A. American Automobile Manufacturers Association's Proposal of a 49-
State Low Emission Vehicle Program

    The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) has 
recently submitted a description of its proposed 49-state low emission 
vehicle (``49SLEV'') program. AAMA believes that its proposed program 
meets the test for a ``LEV-equivalent'' program that EPA proposed in 
the SNPRM. AAMA's description of its program is republished as Appendix 
A to this notice. To support its claim, AAMA relies on information 
developed by its consultant, Thomas L. Darlington, Air Improvement 
Resources, Inc. This information was presented at the September 30, 
1994 meeting of the Subcommittee on Mobile Source Emissions and Air 
Quality in the Northeast States of the Clean Air Act Advisory 
Committee. The slides from that presentation are republished as 
Appendix B. Further information from Mr. Darlington is available in the 
docket for this rulemaking. EPA requests comments on AAMA's proposed 
program and its supporting analysis.

B. Additional EPA Modeling Information Regarding Emission Reductions 
From OTC LEV and Alternative Nationwide Program for New Motor Vehicles

    EPA has prepared a simple analysis comparing emission reductions 
from the OTC LEV program to those from a specified nationwide program. 
The analysis was presented to the Mobile source Subcommittee at its 
September 30, 1994 meeting. A draft staff report explaining EPA's 
analysis is republished in Appendix C. A discussion of a nationwide 
program's effect on the boundary conditions of the OTR states is in 
Appendix D. EPA requests comments on these analysis.

C. OTC Critique of Modeling Information Comparing OTC LEV and 
Alternative Nationwide Program for New Motor Vehicles

    The OTC has also prepared modeling information comparing OTC LEV 
and an alternative nationwide program for controlling new motor 
vehicles and has critiqued the modeling done by AAMA and by EPA. In 
Appendix E to this notice, EPA is republishing the slides from the 
presentation of this information at the September 30, 1994, meeting of 
the Subcommittee on Mobile Source Emissions and Air Quality in the 
Northeast States of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee.

    Dated: October 17, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

Appendix A

    A description of the American Automobile Manufacturer 
Association's (AAMA) 49-State Alternative Proposal with Related 
Background Information sent in a letter of October 11, 1994 to Carol 
M. Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency from 
Jerry Esper, Director, Vehicle Environment Department, AAMA, 
Washington D.C.

October 11, 1994.
Ms. Carol Browner,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room W1200, 
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20005.

    Dear Administrator Browner: Pursuant to the Environmental 
Protection Agency Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
Ozone Transport Commission: Emission Vehicle Program for the 
Northeast Ozone Transport Region (September 22, 1994 Federal 
Register, page 48662), attached is a detailed description of the 
American Automobile Manufacturers Association's 49-state alternative 
proposal with related background information. We request that this 
additional information be published in the Federal Register as part 
of the AAMA proposal as soon as possible. We are submitting this as 
a partial response to the SNPRM but are concerned that the October 
24, 1994 filing deadline will not give adequate time for EPA and the 
public to fully consider this information.

      Sincerely,
Jerry Esper,
Director, Vehicle Environment Department.

Technical Program Description 49-State Alternative to OTC LEV

    A supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published on Sept. 22, 
1994 indicated that EPA proposed to find that the low-emission vehicle 
(``LEV'') program recommended by the Northeast Regional Ozone Transport 
Commission (``OTC'') or an alternative ``LEV-equivalent program'' would 
be necessary to achieve the national ambient air quality standards 
(``NAAQSs'') for ozone, and for other purposes, in the Ozone Transport 
Commission region (``OTR''). The SNPRM defines ``a LEV-equivalent 
program'' as ``an alternative voluntary federal program that would 
achieve emissions reductions from new motor vehicles in the OTR 
equivalent to or greater than would be achieved by the OTC LEV 
program.'' See 59 FR 48,664, 48,667 n.2.
    This memorandum describes the 49-State low-emission vehicle 
(``49SLEV'') alternative program, which meets the test for a ``LEV-
equivalent'' program established in EPA's recent SNPRM. The 49SLEV 
program would provide reductions in ozone-forming emissions from the 
federal Tier 1 level that are equivalent to, or greater than, a 
combination of (1) the OTC-recommended program in the OTR jurisdictions 
and (2) the sale and use of zero-emission vehicles (``ZEVs'') in the 
OTR in the same volumes mandated in California.

Statutory and Regulatory Background

    EPA promulgated its mandatory Tier 1 regulations for gasoline-
powered light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks in 1991. See 56 FR 
25,724 (June 5, 1991). Title II of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
precluded EPA from adopting or enforcing mandatory new motor vehicle 
exhaust emissions standards under section 202(a) of the Act that would 
be more stringent than the Tier 1 standards for gasoline-powered 
vehicles in those weight classes prior to MY 2004. See 42 U.S.C. 
7521(b)(1)(C), (i). The limitations contained in the 1990 Amendments 
therefore effectively require any eligible State that seeks light-duty 
vehicle or light-duty truck emissions reductions more stringent than 
those contained in Title II prior to MY 2004 to adopt the California 
State standards under section 177 of the Clean Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. 
7507.
    Two States (New York and Massachusetts) have already begun to 
enforce some of the California State standards under section 177. The 
primary proposal under consideration in this docket is a more 
comprehensive proposal to require all jurisdictions in the OTR to adopt 
and enforce the California State standards under section 177. See 59 FR 
21,720, 21,737-38 (Apr. 26, 1994). These efforts to adopt the 
California program are based on a belief among some of the States in 
the OTR that more stringent vehicle standards than the Tier 1 limits 
are necessary in the OTR. See 59 FR at 48,671-90.
    Data provided to EPA indicate that vehicles registered outside the 
OTR generate a substantial percentage of vehicle miles travelled 
(``VMT'') in the OTR during summer months. One portion of the VMT 
generated by non-LEV vehicles is caused by the ``migration'' of non-OTR 
vehicles into the OTR, as a result of permanent relocation of the 
owners of those vehicles from non-OTR States into OTR States. The 
balance of the non-OTC-controlled VMT within the OTR results from 
temporary business or personal travel by non-OTR vehicles inside the 
OTR. The analyses show that at least 6.5 percent of VMT in the OTR is 
generated by vehicles originally registered outside the OTR that 
permanently ``migrate'' into the OTR, and that an additional 4.1 
percent of the VMT in the OTR results from temporary operation of non-
OTC vehicles inside the OTR.
    Neither the individual States in the Northeast, nor EPA acting 
under its authority in section 184 of the Clean Air Act, has much 
practical ability to control the generation of VMT inside the OTR by 
vehicles registered outside the OTR. Thus, even if the OTR States and 
EPA take all the steps allowed under the Clean Air Act to introduce the 
LEV program into the Northeast, that program will still not provide the 
same level of emissions control benefits as the State of California can 
claim for the LEV program in California. In the absence of some 
regulatory breakthrough, the problem of non-OTR-controlled VMT will 
continue until at least 2023, which is 20 years after a Tier 2 
nationwide program might come into effect in MY 2004. (It is estimated 
that the in-use vehicle population in the Northeast would take about 20 
years to ``turn over,'' so that nearly all pre-MY 2004 vehicles would 
be off the road.) Whether this factor would actually be addressed 
beginning in MY 2004 depends upon whether EPA determines later in this 
decade to revisit the Tier 1 standards, and if so what new standards 
more stringent than the Tier 1 standards the Agency would adopt.

The 49-State LEV Alternative

    The 49SLEV program would modify emissions control requirements for 
vehicle manufacturers in two stages. Initially, the program would 
require each manufacturer to sell a combination of LEVs and other 
vehicles in the OTC jurisdictions that would achieve equivalent or 
greater emissions reductions than the mix of vehicles it would have 
sold under OTC LEV program (which would go into effect in MY 1999 in 
the OTR). This aspect of the program will require the sale of 
substantial numbers of vehicles certified to the LEV standards adopted 
by California and using California test procedures and fuels, which are 
summarized in Table 1 below, beginning in MY 1999.

     Table 1.--Exhaust Emissions Standards for 49-State LEV Program     
                            [Grams per mile]                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Durability basis                           
                                                NMOG      CO       NOX  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LDV and LDT 1..............  50,000 mi.......    0.075      3.4      0.2
                             100,000 mi......    0.090      4.2      0.3
LDT 2......................  50,000 mi.......    0.100      4.4      0.4
                             100,000 mi......    0.130      5.5      0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 49SLEV proposal, each manufacturer would be required to 
file annual reports with EPA demonstrating that the mix of vehicles it 
produced for sale in the OTR region in MY 1999 and 2000 met the 
equivalency test (which is described in the next section). Vehicles not 
certified to the LEV levels shown in Table 1 above would be required to 
meet the California ``Tier 1'', transitional low-emission vehicle 
(``TLEV''), ultra low-emission vehicle (``ULEV'') or ZEV levels, which 
are published in 13 CCR Sec. 1960.1(g)(1). Manufacturers that relied on 
the early introduction of TLEVs or other non-Tier 1 vehicles into the 
OTR before MY 1999 to meet the equivalency test would be required to 
file reports beginning the first year that credits would be earned 
towards the MY 1999 equivalence requirement.2 The vehicles sold in 
the OTR under the 49SLEV program would be tested in accord with the 
California vehicle test procedures (including test fuel 
specifications). See 13 CCR 1960.1(g)(1). The California State enhanced 
evaporative emissions standards and onboard diagnostics control 
regulations (which are currently subject to review at EPA under section 
209 of the Clean Air Act) would apply to these vehicles as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The reporting requirements would be based on those contained 
in the amendments to Part 86 in EPA's 1991 Tier 1 Final Rule. See, 
e.g., 40 CFR 86.094-8 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second stage of the 49SLEV program would take effect in MY 
2001, when all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold outside 
California would be required to meet the LEV standards summarized in 
Table 1. In that manner the 49SLEV program would provide for new motor 
vehicle emissions reductions beyond the Tier 1 level on a nationwide 
basis. It would do so before such a step would be possible under Title 
II of the Clean Air Act, and without the need for any State action 
under section 177. This would mean that all the MY 2001 and later 
model-year VMT within the OTR--generated by vehicles registered both 
inside and outside the OTR--would meet LEV levels. Such an approach 
would be beneficial not only in the OTR jurisdictions, but also any 
ozone nonattainment area outside California.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 49SLEV proposal would affect the boundary conditions 
required for standards attainment or maintenance modeling in some 
OTR domains. If all MY 2001 and later VMT in the regions adjacent to 
the OTR (such as the Virginia Tidewater and Piedmont and the Ohio 
Valley) were controlled to LEV (rather than Tier 1) levels, urban 
areas inside the OTR should consider whether their UAM modeling 
should use lower VOC or NOX boundary conditions under a 49SLEV 
scenario than under an OTC LEV scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assuring Equivalent Emissions Control

    EPA's supplemental notice published on September 22 contemplated 
that any LEV-equivalent program would be accompanied by a simple means 
by which the States and EPA could assure that regionwide emissions 
reductions from the Tier 1 baseline would be at least as great, under 
the alternative program, as under the OTC LEV program. See 59 FR at 
48,667 n.2, quoted at p. 1 above. That general requirement in turn must 
be translated into a specific compliance protocol that a given 
manufacturer can implement in its own production plans.
    To meet that requirement, the 49SLEV proposal includes a specific 
new-vehicle phase-in schedule for light-duty vehicle and light-duty 
truck (under 3,750 lbs. GVWR) LEVs and TLEVs in the OTR that would meet 
or overachieve the requirement of equivalency. That phase-in schedule 
begins the introduction of TLEVs in MY 1997 in order to generate 
credits in time for the MY 1999 equivalence demonstration, and would 
result in a sales-weighted OTR fleet NMOG averages for LDVs and LDTs 
under 3,750 GVWR as follows: 0.20 g/mi. NMOG in MYs 1997-1998, 0.148 g/
mi. NMOG in MY 1999, and 0.095 g/mi. NMOG in MY 2000. The OTR fleet 
NMOG level achieved in MY 2001, the first year of the 100 percent LEV 
requirement, would be 0.075 g/mi. NMOG.4 Such a phase-in schedule 
for TLEVs and LEVs in the OTR would be ``LEV-equivalent'' within the 
meaning of the SNPRM published last month, when the migration benefits 
of the non-OTC LEV vehicle for 2001 and later model years are 
considered. This point is confirmed in EPA's emissions factor analysis 
published on September 30, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 49SLEV program would also permit the carryforward, 
carryback and trading of NMOG credits, but any NMOG deficit in the 
OTR would have to be retired by the end of MY 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuels-Related Considerations

    The 49SLEV program would not require the use of commercial 
gasolines different from those anticipated in the Northeast and other 
non-California jurisdictions under current law and regulations. Like 
any other vehicle equipped with LEV hardware, vehicles certified under 
the 49SLEV proposal would be expected to pass the standards applicable 
to LEVs when operated on their certification fuel, which in most cases 
is expected to be California ``Phase 2'' reformulated gasoline. That 
gasoline will have strictly controlled sulfur levels, and will be 
commercially available in California in 1996. Vehicle manufacturers are 
expected to rely on the clean performance characteristics of that 
gasoline, particularly as emissions standards become more stringent in 
California.
    The current California State regulations for onboard diagnostics 
controls (the ``ODB II regulations'') applicable to MY 1999 and later 
LEVs are currently under revision by the CARB staff, and those 
revisions are not expected to receive final approval under California 
law for several more months. Following final action in California, the 
revised OBD II regulations would also require EPA review under section 
209(b) of the Clean Air Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7543(b). California LEV 
vehicles designed to meet the revised version of the CARB ODB II 
regulations are at substantial risk of falsely illuminating their 
malfunction indicator lights (``MILs'') when routinely operated on non-
California gasolines with unknown sulfur levels. (A MIL illumination 
should be considered ``false'' when it results from gasoline 
composition rather than the failure of an emissions component.)
    In addition, data from recent test programs demonstrate that some 
LEVs routinely operated on gasolines with sulfur levels higher than 
those allowed in California will fail in-use compliance tests and, when 
operated on high-sulfur fuels, will not be able to meet so-called 
``maximum'' inspection/maintenance (``I/M'') cutpoints set at 1.5 times 
the LEV certification standards. For those reasons, vehicles produced 
for the 49SLEV program might require OBD II MIL illumination criteria 
and I/M test procedures cutpoints that would take account of non-
California fuel quality. In addition, vehicles produced for the 49SLEV 
program and registered outside California would receive additional in-
use test preconditioning and any special maintenance required to take 
account of the differences between California commercial fuels and 
those available elsewhere. The hardware used on the 49SLEV vehicles 
sold outside California would be identical with the hardware on 
California LEVs in the same model year.

Enforcement

    Participants in the OTC LEV rulemaking have met regularly with the 
States, the EPA staff and others to develop mechanisms to enforce the 
obligations involved in the 49SLEV proposal described above. Some 
proponents of the 49SLEV program have proposed to enforce its program 
through a consent decree that would include all vehicle manufacturers 
in the U.S. market. The EPA staff has also developed a plan to 
promulgate voluntary regulations based on the 49SLEV proposal on an 
expedited basis. There is general agreement that if the States and EPA 
want the 49SLEV program to go forward, a satisfactory enforcement 
mechanism can be developed, based on the work done to date.

Appendix B

    Republished slides from the presentation of this information by 
Thomas Darlington, Air Improvement Resources Inc., representing AAMA 
at the September 30, 1994, meeting of the Subcommittee on Mobile 
Source Emissions and Air Quality in the Northeast States of the 
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. 

                                                                        
                   COMPARISON OF 49-STATE ALTERNATIVE                   
                           TO OTC LEV PROGRAM                           
                                                                        
                             PRESENTATION TO                            
                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON MOBILE                         
                        SOURCE EMISSIONS AND AIR                        
                             QUALITY IN THE                             
                            NORTHEAST STATES                            
                                                                        
                           September 30, 1994                           
                            Washington, D.C.                            
                                                                        
                             Tom Darlington                             
                        Air Improvement Resource                        
                             (810-380-3140)                             
                                                                        
                                OVERVIEW                                
                                                                        
INDUSTRY 49-STATE ALTERNATIVE                                   
MIGRATION                                                       
    PERMANENT                                                           
    TOURISM                                                             
INVENTORY ANALYSIS                                              
    49-STATE                                                            
    OTC LEV (+ZEV)                                                      
                                                                        
                      INDUSTRY 49-STATE ALTERNATIVE                     
                                                                        
INTENDED TO:                                                            
  1. Match VOC and NOX benefits of OTC LEV (+ZEV) in OTR. (It does      
   this.)                                                               
  2. Provide significant mobile source benefits to rest of nation.      
  3. Do so in a cost effective manner.                                  
KEY ELEMENTS                                                            
  CA LEV Vehicle                                                        
  CA OBD2 hardware                                                      
  Phased-in 30/60/100 starting in 1999 in OTR                           
  Available 100% in rest of nation in 2001                              
  TLEV's prior to 1999 to match OTC LEV + ZEV, corrected for migration  
   effects                                                              
                                                                        
                                MIGRATION                               
                                                                        
Two Types of Migration                                                  
  Permanent                                                             
  Temporary (Vacation + Business): Tourism                              
Both affect 49-state and OTC LEV, but to varying degrees. Affects OTC   
 LEV more than 49-State Alternative                                     
                                                                        
                           PERMANENT MIGRATION                          
                                                                        
Bureau of Census Data 1985-90                                           
People are a surrogate for vehicle migration                            
Estimate of Permanent Migration                                         
  Fleet Fraction: 6.5%                                                  
  EPA: 7.25%                                                            
  Independent Data Sources                                              
  Different Techniques                                                  
  Same Answer                                                           
E.H. Pechan Review of 6.5%                                              
  Probably underestimates permanent migration due to moves less than 5  
   years                                                                
                                                                        
                           TEMPORARY MIGRATION                          
                                                                        
U.S. Travel Data Center                                                 
Summary of Trips from One Region to Another                             
Estimated VMT Fraction: 4.1%                                            
E.H. Pechan Review:                                                     
  Washington COG: 4% in 1990, 5% in 2010                                
  Delaware Regional Planning Commission: 5%                             
                                                                        
                              MODELING RUNS                             
                                                                        
Assumes enforceability of 49-State Alternative                  
CA OBD2 on 49-state vehicles with I/M program that meets EPA    
 April 8 criteria                                                       
    I/M 240                                                             
    Audit program                                                       
    Backstops                                                           
OTC LEV case includes benefits of ZEV's with and without power  
 plant effects                                                          
Other Assumptions                                               
    Fed Reform                                                          
    Stage II                                                            
    Onboard vapor recovery                                              
                                                                        
                           POWER PLANT EFFECTS                          
                                                                        
Based on Sierra Research Report                                 
Assumes Phase 2 controls                                        
    New England                                                         
    Mid Atlantic (except Pennsylvania)                                  
    Vehicle power=0.37 Kwh/mi                                           
Average emission rates                                          
    NOX=0.32 g/mi                                                       
    VOC=0.015 g/mi                                                      
Comparison with NESCAUM 1992 analysis                           
    NOX=0.12-0.15 g/mi                                                  
                                                                        
                      EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON                     
                                                                        
Difference in Emissions, OTC LEV minus 49 State                         
  Permanent Migration 6.5%                                              
  Tourism 4.1%                                                          
  Includes power plant emissions                                        
                                                                        


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           VOC                NOX       
                CYR                 ------------------------------------
                                       TPD       %       TPD        %   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996...............................     -0.3     0       -0.08       0  
1999...............................      4.1    <1       -3.0       <1  
2002...............................      8.5    <1       -5.0       <1  
2005...............................      7.0    <1       11.6        1.0
2007...............................     10.8     1.5     34.6        3.5
2010...............................     10.6     1.9     50.1        6.4
2015...............................     11.7     2.5     82.4       13.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                        
Positive values indicate 49-State Alternative lower.                    
                                                                        
            SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS WITHOUT POWER PLANT EFFECTS            
                                                                        
Difference in Emissions, OTC LEV minus 49 State                         
                                                                        


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             VOC               NOX      
                 CYR                  ----------------------------------
                                         TPD       %       TPD       %  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................     -0.3    <1         0       0  
1999.................................      4.0    <1        -3.9    <1  
2002.................................      8.3    <1        -9.9    <1  
2005.................................      6.2    <1        -3.9    <1  
2007.................................      9.7     1.3      11.7     1.2
2010.................................      9.1     1.6      18.3     2.3
2015.................................      9.7     2.1      41.2     6.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------


BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

TP24OC94.000


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C


                 Comparision With EPA and State Analyses                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Item              Air                 EPA               State     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Enhanced I/M   100%...........  85%.................  100%           
 in OTR.                                                                
2. I/M of         Blend of         No I/M..............  Blend of       
 Tourism           Enhanced,                              Enhanced,     
 Vehicles.         Basic, None.                           Basic, None.  
3. Power plant    Both ways......  No..................  No.            
 effects.                                                               
4. OBD of 49-     CA OBD2........  CA OBD2.............  Fed OBD.       
 State.                                                                 
5. Migration                                                            
 Rates                                                                  
    Permanent...  6.5%...........  7.25%...............  7.25%*         
    Tourism.....  4.1%...........  4.1%................  4.1%*          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Still evaluating against vehicle registration data.                    


                                                                        
                               CONCLUSIONS                              
                                                                        
1. 49-State Alternative results in equivalent VOC and NOX emission      
 reductions to OTC LEV program with ZEV benefits in Northeast when      
 migration taken into account.                                          
2. 49-State proposal results in significant nationwide benefits of VOC  
 and NOX.                                                               
                                                                        

Appendix C

    Draft EPA staff report comparing the emissions benefits of the 
OTC LEV program to those from a 49-State motor vehicle program.

Memorandum

    Subject: Update of Emissions Estimates for OTC/LEV and National 
LEV Programs in the Ozone Transport Region.
    From: Office of Mobile Sources.
    To: Subcommittee and Work Group Members on Mobile Source 
Emissions and Air Quality in the Northeast States.
    On July 12, 1994 the EPA Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) released 
a memorandum providing emission estimates for the Ozone Transport 
Commission OTC LEV Program and several scenarios related to an 
alternative program of national standards. Since then, these 
alternative standard proposals have changed and OMS has worked to 
refine the original analysis to incorporate some of the issues 
raised in response to its release.
    The process of refining the analysis is not necessarily 
complete, and further analysis will be needed if there are changes 
in the proposed alternatives to the OTC LEV program. However, the 
attached tables give EPA's current best estimates of the emissions 
benefits of the various programs given the specific assumptions 
detailed in the attachment. This analysis is an approximation of the 
emissions under the various scenarios in order to illustrate their 
relative impacts. It is not meant to replace the more complete 
analyses needed for inventory creation, air quality modeling, or for 
any SIP submission.
    Two major issues concerning the national standards alternative 
remain unresolved. These are: The mechanism for enforcing the 
program prior to the 2004 model year, and the circumstances under 
which these vehicles would have California OBD (or its equivalent). 
If these issues are not resolved, the benefits of the national 
alternative will be substantially smaller than what is shown in this 
analysis. In presenting these emission estimates. EPA is 
highlighting the importance of resolving these issues related to the 
current proposals.
    This memorandum will be followed by a more detailed memorandum 
on the methodology used for the assessment of migration and tourism 
impacts.

Attachments

Analysis of OTC LEV and National Alternative Scenario

    EPA has prepared a simple analysis comparing the emission 
benefits of the OTC LEV program to the National Alternative Scenario 
(described below). This analysis is an approximation of the 
emissions under the various scenarios for illustration of the 
relative impacts of each scenario. It is not meant to replace any 
more complete analyses needed for inventory creation for air quality 
modeling or for any SIP submission. The mass emissions calculated in 
this analysis do not necessarily agree with mass emissions given in 
the previous Supplemental Notice due to differences in methodology 
(as described below).

Basic Methods and Assumptions Common to All Scenarios

    This analysis was done using MOBILE5a-AAMA PROPOSAL, the special 
version of MOBILE5a created Nov. 15, 1993 to analyze the FedLEV 
proposal. The only difference between MOBILE5a and MOBILE5a-AAMA 
PROPOSAL is that the latter model includes some features which 
simplify the modeling of variations of the California LEV program.
    MOBILE runs using three different vehicle speeds were used to 
model the OTR. Emission factors for light duty gas vehicles (LDGV--
passenger cars) and light duty gas truck 1's (LDGT1--light trucks 
under 6,000 lbs.) for each speed were multiplied by the proportion 
of VMT at that speed5 to get overall, speed-weighted emission 
factors for LDGVs and LDGT1s. The LDGV and LDGT1 emission factors 
were then multiplied by the proportion of VMT associated with each 
vehicle class (taken from the default VMT mix output of MOBILE5) to 
get composite LDGV/LDGT1 emission factors. These composite emission 
factors were then multiplied by estimated VMT for these vehicle 
classes in the entire OTR to get mass emissions results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\5 Speeds and VMT weights are from ``Adopting the California 
Low Emissions Vehicle Program in the Northeast States--An 
Evaluation'', September 1991, prepared for NESCAUM by E.H. Pechan & 
Associates and Energy and Environmental Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All runs used a temperature range of 66-95 degrees, assumed 
Stage II evaporative refueling controls were in place and 80% 
efficient, and assumed Federal Reformulated Gasoline was in place 
region-wide. VMT in 1990 for OTR states was taken from Federal 
Highways Administration data. The passenger car and light truck 
portion of the VMT was calculated using MOBILE5a default national 
VMT fractions. A linear growth rate of 2% was used to project future 
VMT.
    Two I/M cases were run for each scenario: 85% of the OTR fleet 
was assumed to be subject to an enhanced I/M program and 15% of the 
OTR fleet was assumed to be subject to no I/M program. In all cases, 
enhanced I/M programs were assumed to meet EPA's SIP requirements 
for full credit for LEV type programs.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\These requirements are specified in ``Emission Reduction 
Credits for California Low Emission Vehicles (LEVs)'', memorandum 
from Phil Lorang to Regional Air Division Directors, April 8, 1994. 
This memo specified enhanced I/M performance standard cutpoints of 
0.6 g/mi THC, 10 g/mi CO, and 1.2 g/mi NOX for vehicles with 
emissions standards beyond Tier 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of using a single set of MOBILE runs (and region-
wide rather than local VMT), this analysis does not take into 
account differences in local temperatures, fleet mix, base year RVP, 
growth in VMT, etc. These factors should have little effect on the 
relative benefits of the various scenarios, but would have an effect 
on the absolute emission factors or mass emissions in different 
parts of the OTR.

Scenario-Specific Methods and Assumptions

    New York and Massachusetts have both passed legislation 
mandating the LEV program, which could remain in place regardless of 
EPA action on the OTC LEV petition. The Tier 1, OTC LEV + ZEV, and 
OTC LEV cases all assume that New York and Massachusetts will have 
LEVs beginning with the 1996 model year. We ran MOBILE5 using an 
identical input file to the OTC LEV + ZEV case except that the LEV 
program start year was set to 1996. We weighted the output from 
these runs with the output from the Tier 1, OTC LEV + ZEV, and OTC 
LEV cases by the proportion of OTR VMT in New York and Massachusetts 
to determine emission factors and mass emissions with the LEV 
program in place in those states. The National Alternative Scenario 
assumes no separate LEV program in New York or Massachusetts.
    Two LEV scenarios were analyzed. The OTC LEV + ZEV scenario 
assumes that the LEV program starts with the 1999 model year and 
includes a ZEV sales mandate identical to the LEV program in 
California. The OTC LEV case assumes that there is no ZEV sales 
mandate in the OTR (other than in New York and Massachusetts as a 
result of those states separate programs) but that each model year 
beginning in 1999 meets the fleet average NMOG exhaust standards 
required in California for that model year.
    The National Alternative Scenario assumes 40% of the fleet in 
the OTR will meet TLEV standards beginning with the 1997 model year. 
Beginning with the 1999 model year, 30% of the fleet will meet LEV 
standards, increasing to 60% in the 2000 model year, and 100% in the 
2001 model year.
    Two major issues concerning the National Alternative Scenario 
remain unresolved. These are: the mechanism for enforcing the 
program prior to the 2004 model year, and the circumstances under 
which these vehicles would have California OBD (or its equivalent). 
If these issues are not resolved, the benefits of the national 
alternative will be substantially smaller than what is shown in this 
analysis. In presenting these emission estimates, EPA is 
highlighting the importance of resolving these issues related to the 
current proposals.
    The emission impacts of these scenarios (without the impacts of 
migration or tourism) are shown in Table 1 below. 

 Table 1.--Emission Estimates for Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks (< 6000 lbs.) in the OTR, Not Accounting 
               for Permanent Migration and Temporary Visitation by Vehicles From Outside the OTR.               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  VOC emissions (g/mi)                          NOX emissions (g/mi)            
                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Year                                             National                                      National 
                        Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative    Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative
                                    ZEV                  scenario                 ZEV                  scenario 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................       4.33       4.33       4.33        4.33        1.88       1.88       1.88        1.88 
1996................       1.56       1.56       1.56        1.56        1.56       1.56       1.56        1.56 
1999................       1.26       1.26       1.26        1.25        1.34       1.33       1.33        1.33 
2002................       0.92       0.88       0.88        0.88        1.17       1.11       1.11        1.12 
2005................       0.78       0.69       0.69        0.69        1.05       0.89       0.89        0.91 
2007................       0.71       0.59       0.60        0.60        0.99       0.77       0.77        0.78 
2010................       0.64       0.47       0.48        0.49        0.91       0.60       0.61        0.63 
2015................       0.60       0.39       0.40        0.41        0.86       0.47       0.48       0.50  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                VOC emissions (tons/day)                      NOX emissions (tons/day)          
                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Year                                             National                                      National 
                        Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative    Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative
                                    ZEV                  scenario                 ZEV                  scenario 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................      4,527      4,527      4,527       4,527       1,966      1,966      1,966       1,966 
1996................      1,809      1,809      1,809       1,810       1,809      1,809      1,809       1,809 
1999................      1,536      1,530      1,530       1,526       1,626      1,618      1,618       1,621 
2002................      1,165      1,117      1,119       1,115       1,490      1,407      1,409       1,424 
2005................      1,027        909        910         914       1,394      1,175      1,179       1,201 
2007................        971        807        812         817       1,346      1,041      1,052       1,062 
2010................        907        672        679         694       1,292        854        865         887 
2015................        897        585        596         623       1,297        706        724        747  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Permanent Migration and Temporary Visitation Impacts on Emissions

    Because the OTC LEV program will apply only to vehicles sold 
within the OTR, and because the National Alternative Scenario has a 
later start date outside the OTR, some increase in emissions will be 
associated with the permanent migration and temporary visitation of 
non-LEVs from other states into the OTR. The amount of excess 
emissions associated with migrating and visiting vehicles is 
dependent on two factor: the difference in emissions per vehicle 
between the fleet entering the OTR and the ``native'' fleet within 
the OTR, and the number of vehicles entering the OTR from outside.
    The difference in emissions per vehicle between the fleet 
entering the OTR and the native fleet within the OTR is dependent on 
several factors, including the vehicle standard they are each 
certified to and the I/M program each is subject to. The difference 
in emissions due to differences in standards is larger in the OTC 
LEV case, where immigrant vehicles are assumed to be Federal Tier 1 
vehicles, than in the National Alternative Scenario, where the only 
difference is that the start year of the program is delayed outside 
the OTR.
    Vehicles that permanently migrate into the OTR will be subject 
to the same I/M program as vehicles originally sold in the OTR. 
However, vehicles that are temporarily visiting the OTR are subject 
to the I/M program in their home state. As a result, the emission 
factors associated with the fleet of vehicles that permanently 
migrates into the OTR will be different than the emission factors 
associated with the fleet of vehicles temporarily visiting the OTR, 
and the effects of permanent migration and temporary visitation must 
be calculated separately.

Methodology for Estimating the Amount of Permanent Migration of 
Motor Vehicles Into the OTR

    There is no readily available source of information that allows 
direct estimates to be made of the vehicle population in the OTR 
that was originally sold outside the OTR. The ideal source of 
information would be a state-by-state vehicle registration database 
that includes the state of original sale for every motor vehicle. 
Such a database would allow direct estimation of the number of non-
LEV vehicles in the OTR in future years. However, this kind of 
database does not currently exist for the OTR.
    The next alternative source of information would be a state-by-
state registration database that shows the percentage of newly 
registered vehicles in the OTR that entered the OTR from states 
outside the OTR in a one-year period. This kind of database would 
allow estimation of the annual migration rate of vehicles into the 
OTR. The individual states within the OTR may well have this 
information, however, EPA was unable to obtain such information in 
time for this analysis. We understand that the states are attempting 
to develop such a database. However, as discussed below, an annual 
migration rate is not enough by itself to estimate the number of 
non-LEV vehicles in the OTR in future years; to calculate the 
overall effect of migration on the fleet further analyses of the 
type described below would be needed.
    In the absence of a comprehensive source of data on vehicle 
migration, we chose to use human population migration as a 
surrogate. There are two sources for state-to-state population 
migration data: the U.S. Bureau of the Census,7 which includes 
questions about change in residency in the decennial census; and the 
U.S. Internal Revenue Service8 (IRS), which maintains a 
database of changes in filing addresses for personal income tax 
returns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\1990 Selected Place of Birth and Migration Statistics for 
States, U.S. Bureau of Census.
    \8\Statistics of Income Program, U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The migration data collected by the Bureau of Census have one 
major drawback. The data are based on a census form question which 
asks respondents what state they lived in five years ago. Since 
multiple moves are not recognized by this kind of question, the 
census data tend to underestimate the actual rate of migration. For 
this analysis, that kind of underestimation can be a problem. For 
example, a resident of Ohio could move to New York for several 
years, then return to Ohio, and not be recognized as ever having 
lived in New York in the census database. However, if the Ohio 
resident brought a non-LEV vehicle with her when she moved to New 
York, that vehicle would contribute excess emissions to the New York 
inventory while it was there.
    The migration data collected by the IRS allow the estimation of 
a true annual human migration rate from state-to-state. The IRS 
records the current year address and previous year address for all 
filers of individual income tax forms. Summaries of this database 
showing annual state-to-state (and even county-to-county) migration 
are available. The database shows both the number of individual tax 
returns and the number of exemptions claimed on those returns. 
Although this database does not include the portion of the 
population that does not file tax returns, the data on exemptions do 
give the best available estimates of annual state-to-state migration 
of human population.
    The IRS state-to-state migration data for 1991 to 1992 indicate 
a human migration rate of 1.03% of the OTR population into the OTR 
from non-OTR states other than California (i.e., in 1992, 1.03% of 
the OTR population lived in a non-OTR state, other than California, 
in the previous year). The same database also gives a 1.98% rate of 
out-migration for the same period.
    For this analysis, we have assumed that the vehicle migration 
rate was equal to the human migration rate (i.e., that all people 
who move take their vehicles with them). Thus, this approach is 
likely to somewhat overestimate the vehicle migration rate since 
some people will probably choose to sell their vehicles before 
moving. On the other hand, if there is a significant difference in 
the cost of vehicles within the OTR, people moving into the OTR may 
be encouraged to keep their vehicles. Neither of these effects is 
quantifiable with the available information.
    The number of non-LEV vehicles in the OTR in future years will 
depend not only on the annual rate of immigration of these vehicles 
into the OTR, but also on the rate at which these vehicles are 
scrapped and the rate at which they migrate back out of the OTR. To 
account for these factors, we constructed a simple model which 
estimates the percentage of immigrant vehicles for each model year 
in the fleet in any calendar year. The model uses the motor vehicle 
age distribution in MOBILE5a, which accounts for motor vehicle 
scrappage, as the basis for this calculation. The MOBILE5a motor 
vehicle age distribution is simply a table which indicates what 
percentage of vehicles in the fleet in a given calendar year are the 
current model year, one year old, two years old, etc. up to 25 years 
old. Motor vehicle scrappage is reflected in the table by the fact 
that the percentage of vehicles in the fleet decreases with age.
    The model for determining the percentage of non-LEV vehicles in 
the OTR fleet works as follows:
    1. The MOBILE5a age distribution is used to determine the number 
of vehicles of each of the past 25 model years in the fleet in any 
calendar year.
    2. The annual migration rate (1.03%) is used to determine how 
many of those vehicles in each model year migrated in to the OTR in 
the past year. This number is subtracted from the total number of 
vehicles in each model year to determine how many vehicles in each 
model year did not migrate in the past year.
    3. The annual migration rate (1.03%) is then applied to the 
number of vehicles that did not migrate in the past year to 
determine how many of those vehicles migrated in between one and two 
years ago. However, these vehicles have also had a year in which 
they could have migrated back out of the OTR, so the number of 
vehicles migrating in is adjusted by the out migration rate (i.e., 
1.98% of the vehicles that migrated in between one and two years ago 
are assumed to have migrated back out of the OTR).
    4. This process is repeated to estimate the vehicles that 
migrated in between two and three years ago, between three and four 
years ago, etc., all the way to the number of vehicles that migrated 
in between 24 and 25 years ago for each applicable model year. Since 
the out migration rate is an annual rate, the number of vehicles 
that migrated in any one year period is adjusted to reflect the 
number of years these vehicles could have migrated back out since 
that year (i.e., of the vehicles that migrated in between two and 
three years ago, 1.98% would have migrated back out between one and 
two years ago and another 1.98% would have migrated back out in the 
past year). Because this process incorporates the in migration rate, 
the out migration rate, and scrappage (as reflected in the age 
distribution of the fleet), the result is a table that estimates the 
number of vehicles remaining in the OTR fleet (after out migration 
and scrappage) that migrated in each year over a 25 year period.
    5. The numbers of immigrant vehicles that migrated in each year 
over a 25 year period and still remain in the fleet can then be 
summed to estimate the total number of immigrant vehicles remaining 
in the fleet. Using the MOBILE5a age distribution, and the in and 
out migration rates calculated from the IRS data, we estimate that, 
in one calendar year, the number of vehicles in the OTR that were 
originally sold outside the OTR represents 7.25% of the OTR fleet.
    This analysis does not reflect the likelihood that annual 
migration rates into and out of the OTR will change over time, nor 
does it reflect the potential for changes in the vehicle age 
distribution over time. Increases in immigration rates (and/or 
decreases in out migration rates) will tend to increase the number 
of immigrant vehicles in the OTR. The effect of changes in vehicle 
age distribution are less obvious. In the absence of more 
information, we have chosen to assume that these factors stay 
constant over time.

Calculation of the Emission Effects of Permanent Migration

    The emission effects due to the permanent migration of vehicles 
from outside the OTR were calculated by combining the emission 
factors of the immigrant and native fleets assuming that the 
immigrant vehicles make up 7.25% of the total fleet. For the OTC LEV 
cases, the immigrant fleet emission factors were calculated assuming 
Tier 1 standards (85% with enhanced I/M, 15% with no I/M) while the 
native fleet emission factors were calculated assuming the OTC LEV 
programs as described above, including the separate programs in New 
York and Massachusetts (again assuming 85% with enhanced I/M, 15% 
with no I/M). For the National Alternative Scenario case, the 
immigrant fleet emission factors were calculated assuming full 
implementation of the LEV standard beginning in 2001 (with no phase-
in or TLEV standards prior to that model year), while the native 
fleet emission factors were calculated assuming the TLEV standards 
starting in 1997, and LEV standards phasing in beginning in 1999, as 
described above. Both the immigrant and native fleets were assumed 
to be subjected to a mix of 85% enhanced I/M and 15% no I/M.
    The results of the analysis of the permanent migration effects 
are given in Table 2 below. Permanent migration has a smaller effect 
on the National Alternative Scenario than it does on the OTC LEV 
cases, which results in a closing of the gap between these two 
programs. For VOC emissions, differences between the proposals with 
migration factored in are probably not significant. For NOX 
emissions, the OTC LEV cases have lower emissions in the early years 
and higher emissions in later years, it is difficult to conclude 
whether the differences are significant given the number and types 
of assumptions made in this analysis.

 Table 2.--Emission Estimates for Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks (< 6000 lbs.) in the OTR, Accounting for 
                              Permanent Migration by Vehicles From Outside the OTR                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  VOC emissions (g/mi)                          NOX emissions (g/mi)            
                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Year                                             National                                      National 
                        Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative    Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative
                                    ZEV                  scenario                 ZEV                  scenario 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................       4.33       4.33       4.33        4.33        1.88       1.88       1.88        1.88 
1996................       1.56       1.56       1.56        1.56        1.56       1.56       1.56        1.56 
1999................       1.26       1.26       1.26        1.25        1.34       1.33       1.33        1.33 
2002................       0.92       0.88       0.88        0.88        1.17       1.11       1.12        1.12 
2005................       0.78       0.70       0.70        0.69        1.05       0.91       0.91        0.91 
2007................       0.72       0.61       0.61        0.60        0.99       0.79       0.80        0.79 
2010................       0.65       0.49       0.50        0.49        0.92       0.64       0.65        0.63 
2015................       0.60       0.41       0.42        0.41        0.87       0.51       0.52        0.50 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                VOC emissions (tons/day)                      NOX emissions (tons/day)          
                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Year                                             National                                      National 
                        Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative    Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative
                                    ZEV                  scenario                 ZEV                  scenario 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................      4,527      4,527      4,527       4,527       1,966      1,966      1,966       1,966 
1996................      1,809      1,809      1,809       1,810       1,809      1,809      1,809       1,809 
1999................      1,536      1,531      1,531       1,527       1,627      1,619      1,619       1,623 
2002................      1,168      1,123      1,125       1,119       1,491      1,417      1,419       1,430 
2005................      1,033        923        925         920       1,396      1,200      1,203       1,210 
2007................        978        827        831         822       1,349      1,075      1,085       1,070 
2010................        918        699        706         699       1,296        904        914         896 
2015................        911        621        631         624       1,302        773        789         750 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Methodology for Estimating the Amount of Temporary Travel by Motor 
Vehicles From Outside the OTR

    As in the case of permanent migration, there is no single 
comprehensive database that allows the direct calculation of the 
amount of VMT in the OTR associated with temporary visits (tourism 
and business travel) by vehicles from outside the OTR. For this 
analysis, we have adopted a method for estimating the amount of 
temporary travel in the OTR developed by Thomas L. Darlington.\9\ 
This analysis relies on data from surveys conducted by the U.S. 
Travel Data Center, a private organization in Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\Impact of Migration and Power Plant Emissions on the Benefits 
of the OTC LEV Program Relative to the 49-State Alternative'', AAMA, 
Thomas L. Darlington, Air Improvement Resource , Inc., October 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In brief summary, Darlington's analysis takes the number of 
person-trips to the three east coast census regions from other 
census regions estimated from the travel surveys and apportions it 
to the OTR based on population. The number of person-trips into the 
OTR is then converted to vehicle trips, then to automobile and light 
truck trips, and then to summer-time automobile and light truck 
trips, all using information from the travel surveys. Trips are then 
converted to miles using an estimate of average mileage per trip 
from the survey data. Finally, Darlington assumes that half of that 
mileage occurs within the OTR, and uses that estimate to calculate 
the total numbers of miles per day in the OTR associated with 
tourism and business travel from outside the OTR. As a result of 
this analysis, Darlington estimates that 4.1% of VMT in the OTR is 
due to vehicles traveling within the OTR from outside the OTR.
    Some of the individual states within the OTR may have better 
estimates of the amount of VMT associated with visitors, but the 
U.S. Travel Data Center surveys seem to be the best available source 
of this information for the whole region. The main weaknesses with 
this approach are in the calculation of the number of person-trips 
in the OTR and in the estimate of the mileage per trip in the OTR. 
Because the survey data are broken down by census regions, which do 
not correspond with OTR boundaries, some assumptions must be made to 
calculate the number of person-trips in the OTR. Darlington's 
approach was to apportion the number of person-trips in the South 
Atlantic Census Region by the proportion of the Census Region's 
population in the OTR. This approach is not unreasonable, but other 
approaches may be possible. Similarly, for converting person trips 
to miles, Darlington takes the average mileage per trip from the 
survey data and assumes that half of that mileage occurs with the 
OTR. Once again, this is not an unreasonable assumption, but other 
assumptions may be equally valid. Until further information on this 
kind of travel is obtained, we will rely on this approach to 
estimate the temporary visitation rate.

Calculation of the Emission Effects of Temporary Visitation

    The emission effects due to the temporary visitation of vehicles 
from outside the OTR were calculated by combining the emission 
factors of the tourist and native fleets assuming that the tourist 
vehicles make up 4.1% of the total VMT. In all cases, the native 
fleet emission factors include the effects of permanent migration, 
as described above. For the OTC LEV cases, the tourist fleet 
emission factors were calculated assuming Tier 1 standards, with no 
I/M, while the native fleet emission factors were those calculated 
assuming the OTC LEV programs as described above, including the 
separate programs in New York and Massachusetts (again assuming 85% 
with enhanced I/M, 15% with no I/M) and including the effects of 
permanent migration. For the National Alternative Scenario case, the 
tourist fleet emission factors were calculated assuming full 
implementation of the LEV standard beginning in 2001 (with no phase-
in or TLEV standards prior to that model year), but with no I/M, 
while the native fleet emission factors were calculated assuming the 
TLEV standards starting in 1997, and LEV standards phasing in 
beginning in 1999, as described above, but with a mix of 85% 
enhanced I/M and 15% no I/M (and including the effects of permanent 
migration).
    The results of the analysis of the temporary visitation effects 
(along with the permanent migration effects) are given in Table 3 
below. Incorporating these effects results in substantial increases 
in the emissions under all scenarios, but most of that increase is 
due to the effect of differences in I/M programs between the native 
and tourist fleets. In the absence of an enhanced I/M program (and 
the emission credits associated with the combination of the enhanced 
I/M program and California OBD), the differences between the tourist 
fleet in the OTC LEV cases and the tourist fleet in the National 
Alternative Scenario are much smaller, which results in a smaller 
difference in the impact of tourism in these two cases. This 
difference will be larger (i.e., the emissions increase due to 
tourism in the OTC LEV cases will increase relative to the National 
Alternative Scenario case) if some of the tourist vehicles are 
assumed to be subject to an enhanced I/M program. However, the 
percentage of vehicles subject to enhanced I/M outside the OTR is 
small, and should have little impact on these results. Therefore, 
conclusions about the relative benefits of these programs remain 
unchanged from the discussion of the effects of permanent migration. 
For VOC emissions, differences between the proposals with migration 
factored in are probably not significant. For NOX emissions, 
the OTC LEV cases have lower emissions in the early years and higher 
emissions in later years, it is difficult to conclude whether the 
differences are significant given the number and types of 
assumptions made in this analysis.

 Table 3.--Emission Estimates for Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks (< 6000 lbs.) in the OTR, Accounting for 
                  Permanent Migration and Temporary Visitation by Vehicles From Outside the OTR                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  VOC emissions (g/mi)                          NOX emissions (g/mi)            
                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Year                                             National                                      National 
                        Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative    Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative
                                    ZEV                  scenario                 ZEV                  scenario 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................       4.34       4.34       4.34        4.34        1.88       1.88       1.88        1.88 
1996................       1.57       1.57       1.57        1.58        1.57       1.57       1.57        1.57 
1999................       1.28       1.28       1.28        1.27        1.35       1.34       1.34        1.34 
2002................       0.94       0.90       0.90        0.90        1.19       1.13       1.13        1.14 
2005................       0.80       0.72       0.72        0.72        1.07       0.93       0.93        0.93 
2007................       0.74       0.63       0.64        0.63        1.01       0.82       0.82        0.81 
2010................       0.67       0.52       0.53        0.52        0.94       0.67       0.68        0.66 
2015................       0.63       0.44       0.45        0.44        0.89       0.55       0.56       0.53  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                VOC emissions (tons/day)                      NOX emissions (tons/day)          
                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Year                                             National                                      National 
                        Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative    Tier 1   OTC LEV +   OTC LEV   alternative
                                    ZEV                 scenarios                 ZEV                 scenarios 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990................      4,536      4,536      4,536       4,536       1,967      1,967      1,967       1,967 
1996................      1,826      1,826      1,826       1,827       1,816      1,816      1,816       1,816 
1999................      1,559      1,554      1,554       1,550       1,639      1,632      1,632       1,635 
2002................      1,151      1,148      1,150       1,143       1,508      1,436      1,438       1,448 
2005................      1,059        954        955         949       1,418      1,229      1,233       1,235 
2007................      1,007        861        866         854       1,373      1,110      1,120       1,101 
2010................        949        739        746         736       1,324        948        958         936 
2015................        945        667        677         666       1,335        827        842        798  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix D

    Draft EPA staff report on a 49-State vehicle program's effect on 
the Northeast Ozone Transport Region's boundary conditions.

Transport Benefits Associated With a 49-State Vehicle Program

    EPA does not have a quantitative analysis that measures the 
transport benefits to the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) from emission 
reductions outside the OTR provided by a 49-State motor vehicle 
program. At the request of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), EPA 
has recently completed an analysis using the Regional Oxidant Model 
(ROM) to determine the ozone effects associated with control 
programs outside of the OTR. EPA modelled the impact by the year 
2005 of including certain control strategies, including a .15 lbs/
mmBtu emission rate for large stationary sources of NOX 
emissions and the adoption of the LEV program, throughout the 
Eastern United States.
    The results showed that the transport benefits to the OTR from 
adopting these control strategies outside the OTR can be 
significant. However, the analysis did not separate the LEV program 
from the .15 lbs/mmBtu NOX stationary source program. From the 
sheer magnitude of the tons of pollution taken out of the air by the 
two programs, as well as the location of the large number of 
NOX stationary sources in the Ohio River valley, it seems clear 
that the vast majority of transport benefits seen in the ROM 
analysis are the result of the .15 NOX stationary source 
program. The transport benefits to the OTR associated with the LEV 
program are likely to be comparatively small.
    According to analyses conducted by EPA's Office of Mobile 
Sources, the emission reductions associated with a LEV program are 
relatively small outside of those areas where an enhanced vehicle 
inspection and maintenance program is in place. Outside of the OTR, 
enhanced vehicle I/M programs will be in place in Chicago/Milwaukee/
northern Indiana area, as well as areas like Houston, Texas, and 
Atlanta, Georgia. These programs will likely not be in place in 
Ohio, West Virginia, and other areas bordering the OTR. As a result, 
the benefits of the LEV program tend to be more localized to those 
areas with enhanced vehicle I/M, several hundred miles away from the 
OTR.
    Since the ROM analysis modelled the effects of the various 
control strategies only through the year 2005, it seems likely that 
whatever transport benefits there are to the OTR from a nationwide 
LEV program will grow over time as the fleet turns over. However, in 
the near term, the transport benefits to the OTR from a nationwide 
LEV program will likely remain comparatively small.

Appendix E

    Republished slides from the presentation of this information by 
John Elston, Administrator, New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection, representing the Ozone Transport Commission at the 
September 30, 1994, meeting of the Subcommittee on Mobile Source 
Emissions and Air Quality in the Northeast States of the Clean Air 
Act Advisory Committee.

Review of Assumptions in OTC's Analysis of Latest Manufacturers' 
Proposal

    1. Enforcement of alternative voluntary national standards--
Enforcement remains a key issue in analysis of any proposal from the 
auto manufacturers. A clear enforcement mechanism for the auto 
manufacturers' proposal (which starts in 1997) has not been defined, 
but the Clean Air Act does allow alternative standards to be 
enforced in 2004. Two cases (1997 and 2004) have therefore been run 
to show emissions under both enforcement scenarios.
    2. On-Board Diagnostics--The OTC LEV program ensures that 
vehicles will be equipped with the OBD-2 system available on 
California LEV vehicles. The OBD-2 system is a critical and integral 
component of the LEV program that provides early detection and 
correction of excess and deteriorating emissions as well as 
synergistic emissions reductions when coupled with other vehicle 
emissions control programs such as inspection and maintenance 
programs. The auto manufacturers' proposal as prepared in August 
1994 included California OBD contingent on an adjustment in sulfur 
levels in the nation's gasoline supply, an action that cannot be 
assumed.
    Very recently, representatives of the auto manufacturers have 
suggested that perhaps there could be other approaches besides a 
nationwide fuel supply modification. There have been suggestions 
that OBD and I/M cutpoints could be raised, actions which can be 
anticipated to raise emissions of motor vehicles. Thus, because the 
auto manufacturers have not indicated how California OBD would 
operate in their proposal to attain the full emission reductions 
attainable, this analysis assumes Federal OBD.
    3. Migration--The auto manufacturers have used a migration rate 
into the OTR of roughly 12 percent (permanent--7%, temporary/
visitation--5%). These numbers have been generated primarily on the 
basis of movement of people into the OTR, as opposed to vehicles. 
Preliminary State data indicates that these numbers are probably 
high, based on limited vehicle data collected by States. Ultimately 
vehicle-based data is preferable to resident-based data, but it is 
not readily available. Therefore, while the OTC States do not 
necessarily accept the 7% and 5% estimates pending further 
development of State vehicle-based data, these estimates were used 
for the purpose of this analysis.
    4. Power Plant Emissions--Because of the development of 
stationary source NOX controls within the OTR, and the need to 
come up with attainment demonstrations, the OTC acted on a plan on 
September 27, 1994, which commits to a NOX budget for large 
boilers, including those for utilities. Therefore, it is not 
reasonable to assume that there will be increased NOX emissions 
as a result of the additional electric generation resulting from 
charging of electric vehicles. If there is increased electric 
generation, emissions will still be controlled by virtue of the 
overall budget.
    5. Fuel distribution and refinery emissions--For each electric 
vehicle on the road, it can be assumed that there is a gasoline-
fueled vehicle that is not, thereby eliminating the VOC emissions 
related to gasoline handling at bulk terminals and gasoline 
stations, and any VOC and NOX emissions related to refinery 
operation within the OTR. These emissions are not included in this 
analysis, thereby making the numbers reported here conservative with 
respect to VOC and NOX.
    6. Advanced technology--The OTC LEV program allows States to 
eventually benefit from the advancement of technology for ULEVs and 
ZEVs. While it is difficult to predict exactly what advances are 
possible, it is clear that ULEV technology is now being developed to 
respond to the LEV program. Under the OTC LEV program, the fleetwide 
average is based on an assumption that in 2003, the fleet mix will 
be primarily LEVs, with 10% ZEVs and the balance ULEVs. Given the 
advances in ULEV technology, then an appropriate scenario to test 
possible additional benefits in the future would be a switch from 
LEV to ULEV technology (i.e. 90% ULEV and 10% ZEV). 2005 has been 
chosen for the start of this scenario.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

TP24OC94.001


TP24OC94.002


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

                  OTC Comparison of Emissions From OTC LEV and Automakers' Proposal (49 State)                  
                                             [Tons per day in OTR]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       VOC                                      
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                                49 State--2004  49 State--1997                   Enhanced OTC 
                                      Tier 1       enforcement     enforcement       OTC LEV            LEV     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................            1450            1450            1439            1436            1436
2005............................            1003             987             948             808             798
2007............................             964             934             906             692             679
2010............................             929             853             853             548             506
2015............................             961             867             864             455             387
2020............................            1005             905             901             440             349
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       NOX                                      
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                                49 State--2004  49 State--1997                   Enhanced OTC 
                                      Tier 1       enforcement     enforcement       OTC LEV            LEV     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................            1568            1568            1566            1543            1543
2005............................            1478            1448            1391            1116            1116
2007............................            1479            1417            1366             980             970
2010............................            1510            1393            1366             782             752
2015............................            1599            1442            1427             632             577
2020............................            1705            1519            1519             618             548
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The automakers proposal indicates that fuel sulfur effects on California OBD operation are unresolved; Federal  
  OBD is therefore assumed.                                                                                     
All scenarios assume permanent migration of roughly 7% and visitation of roughly 5%; State vehicle data under   
  development indicates that these figures are probably overestimates.                                          
Enhanced OTC LEV assumes 90% ULEVs and 10% ZEVs to reflect potential additional benefit in the future as a      
  result of advanced technology.                                                                                
OTC LEV includes ZEV benefits.                                                                                  
1997 enforcement of 49 State proposal assumes that an enforcement mechanism is developed.                       

[FR Doc. 94-26179 Filed 10-19-94; 12:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P