COMMENTS
RECEIVED
ON
6/
2/
03
PROPOSED
RULE
THAT
FAVOR
AN
RFP
BASELINE
YEAR
OF
2004
American
Petroleum
Institute:
We
are
convinced
that
EPA
has
misread
the
statute
as
requiring
that
the
six­
year
time
period
for
achieving
a
15
percent
reduction
in
Moderate
areas
or
for
achieving
an
18
percent
reduction
in
Serious
areas
starts
with
the
baseline
year.
Instead,
we
believe
that
the
statute
requires
that
the
six­
year
time
period
begins
with
the
date
of
designation,
rather
than
the
date
of
the
most
recent
completed
VOC
inventory.
The
starting
point
for
the
six­
year
period
obviously
affects
the
ending
point,
and
under
EPA's
interpretation
there
would
not
be
a
meaningful
period
of
time
available
to
accomplish
the
reductions
the
reductions
required
in
Serious
areas.
Under
EPA's
interpretation,
the
18%
reduction
for
Serious
areas
would
have
to
be
achieved
by
2008,
which
is
6
years
after
the
baseyear.
Even
with
EPA's
supposed
acceleration
of
the
due
date
for
the
RFP
SIP
to
2
years
after
designation,
instead
of
the
3
years
provided
for
in
section
182(
b)(
1)(
A)
and
the
4
years
provided
for
in
section
182(
c)(
2),
the
2
years
that
would
remain
until
2008
would
be
totally
inadequate
to
achieve
either
the
15%
reduction
in
VOC's
(
if
EPA
decides
that
Option
2
is
not
available,
or
for
areas
that
have
not
previously
achieved
the
15%
reduction)
or
the
18%
reduction
in
VOC's
and/
or
NOx.

Dominion
Energy:
Dominion
urges
EPA
to
use
the
designation
year
as
the
baseline
year
from
which
to
determine
ROP
emissions
reduction
milestones
in
lieu
of
the
2002
baseline
currently
proposed
in
order
for
the
initial
6­
year
ROP
milestone
to
coincide
with
the
attainment
deadline
for
a
moderate
nonattainment
area
(
and
thereby
avoid
the
18­
month
gap
between
the
initial
ROP
requirement
and
the
attainment
deadline
for
which
EPA
expressed
concern
in
its
initial
proposal.

New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation:
However,
instead
of
referencing
the
ROP
submissions
dates
to
the
designation
date,
EPA
uses
the
baseline
year
as
the
reference
point.
EPA's
rationale
for
doing
this
is
based
on
the
fact
that
the
ROP
submissions
under
the
CAA
Amendments
of
1990
were
to
show
the
relevant
reductions
in
emissions
at
set
periods
after
the
1990
baseline
inventory
year.
This
is
an
incorrect
reference
point.
The
baseline
inventory
year
is
irrelevant
for
this
purpose.
The
year
of
designation
is
relevant.
The
point
EPA
is
missing
is
that
the
attainment
and
ROP
submissions
dates
established
in
Subpart
2
are
to
allow
States
a
sufficient
amount
of
time
to
achieve
the
mandated
goals.
In
the
following
passage,
EPA
recognizes
that
its
use
of
the
baseline
inventory
year
as
the
ROP
reference
point
shortchanges
the
States
on
the
ROP
development
periods
established
under
Subpart
2:
section
182(
b)(
1)
requires
that
moderate
and
higher
classified
areas
submit
their
15
percent
ROP
plans
within
3
years
after
1990.
For
the
attainment
dates
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
we
propose
interpreting
the
CAA's
language
referring
to
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
1990
CAA
Amendments
to
mean
the
date
of
designations
for
the
8­
hour
standard.
If
we
were
to
require
the
ROP
plans
to
be
submitted
within
3
years
after
their
nonattainment
designation
date
(
i.
e,,
in
2007
if
we
designate
in
2004).
The
plans
would
have
to
be
implemented
within
1
year
after
submission
to
ensure
the
15
percent
emissions
reductions
are
achieved
by
the
end
of
the
relevant
6­
year
period
(
i.
e.,
December
2008).
We
believe
this
would
likely
not
be
sufficient
time
to
ensure
that
the
reductions
would
occur
by
the
required
deadline.
Therefore,
we
propose
that
the
ROP
SIP
be
submitted
within
2
years
after
nonattainment
designation
­
by
2006.
This
would
provide
2
years
for
the
State
to
develop
and
submit
its
ROP
plan,
and
another
2
years
for
the
control
measures
to
be
implemented.

N.
C.
Department
of
Environmental
and
Natural
Resources:
Another
issue
with
the
ROP
timeline
is
the
proposal
to
use
2002
as
the
baseline,
and
have
the
first
six
years
of
the
ROP
plan
go
through
2008.
This
timeline
is
inconsistent
with
the
approach
taken
by
the
CAAA
of
1990
when
the
ROP
six­
year
window
corresponded
with
the
sixyear
attainment
timeline
for
moderate
areas.
By
shifting
the
timeline
to
2004,
it
will
require
an
additional
emission
inventory,
but
it
will
allow
States
to
consider
their
attainment
demonstration
in
developing
their
ROP
plans,
and
it
will
allow
the
full
three
years
contemplated
by
the
CAA
for
the
submittal
of
the
first
ROP
plan.
