Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Ozone

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: August 10, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 155)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42172-42185]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au01-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CT057-7216c: FRL-7030-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut;
Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the ground-level one-hour ozone
attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
(NY-NJ-CT) severe ozone nonattainment area, submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) on
September 16, 1998, as revised to include 2007 motor vehicle emissions
budgets and various commitments submitted by the CT DEP on February 8,
2000. EPA is also proposing to approve Connecticut's post-1999 rate-of-
progress (ROP) plan SIP and the associated 2002 and 2005 motor vehicle
emission budgets for the severe nonattainment area, and a modification
to one of the February 8, 2000 commitments, that were submitted for
approval via parallel processing on June 4, 2001. The modified
commitment is a commitment to perform a mid-course review of the
attainment status of the 1-hour ozone severe nonattainment area and the
Greater Connecticut serious area by December 31, 2004, instead of by
December 31, 2003 as previously committed to. We are also proposing
approval of a reasonably available control measure (RACM) analysis
submitted by the state. This RACM analysis was submitted for approval
via parallel processing on August 2, 2001.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be sent
to: David B. Conroy at the EPA Region I (New England) Office, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023.
Copies of the State submittals and EPA's Technical Support Document
(TSD) for this proposed rule, and other relevant materials are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 (New
England), One Congress St., 11th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts,
telephone (617) 918-1664, and at the Bureau of Air Management,
Department of Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm
Street, Hartford, CT 06106, telephone (860) 424-3027. Please telephone
in advance before visiting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart (617) 918-1664.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA.
This supplemental information section is organized in the following
order:

I. Background

A. Basis for Connecticut's Attainment Demonstration SIP.
1. What are the relevant Clean Air Act requirements?
2. What is the history of the state attainment demonstration
SIP?
3. What is the time frame for taking action on the attainment
demonstration SIP?
B. Background for the Connecticut Submittals and EPA Rulemaking.
C. What is the Status of Connecticut SIP Elements Not Fully Approved
at the Time of the December 1999 Proposed Rulemaking?
D. What is EPA Proposing For Approval In This Action?

II. The Connecticut One Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the NY-
NJ-CT Area

A. Motor vehicle emission budgets for both VOC and NO_X.

[[Page 42173]]

B. Enforceable Commitments to Adopt Additional Control Measures.
C. Mid-Course Review.

III. Connecticut's Post-1999 ROP Plan

A. What is a post-1999 ROP plan, and why was Connecticut required to
prepare one?
B. What action is EPA taking on this plan?
C. Were any changes made to Connecticut's base year inventory and
prior target levels?
D. How did Connecticut account for changes in emissions due to
growth?
E. What emission levels must Connecticut achieve by 2002, 2005, and
2007?
F. To what extent do Connecticut's plans reduce ozone precursor
emissions?
G. How will Connecticut achieve these emission reductions?
1. NO_X Budget Program
2. Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) Emission Limits
3. On-road Mobile Source Control Programs
4. Federal Non-road Control Programs
H. Will these emission reductions improve air quality in
Connecticut?
I. Has Connecticut met its contingency measure obligation?
J. Are transportation conformity budgets contained in these plans?
K. Will any modifications be made to Connecticut's plan?

IV. Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis

A. What are the requirements for RACM Technology?
B. What did Connecticut submit?
C. How does the state analysis address the RACM requirement?
1. Consideration and Implementation of Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs).
2. Stationary Source and Area Sources RACM Analysis
D. Does the Connecticut Attainment Demonstration Submittal meet the
RACM requirement?

V. Proposed Action

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. Basis for Connecticut's Attainment Demonstration SIP

1. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
The Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) requires EPA to establish National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for certain widespread pollutants
that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In 1979, EPA
promulgated the one-hour ground-level ozone standard of 0.12 parts per
million (ppm) (120 parts per billion [ppb]). 44 FR 8202 (February 8,
1979).
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (
NO_X) which are emitted by a wide variety of sources, react
in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NO_X
and VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.
An area exceeds the one-hour ozone standard each time an ambient
air quality monitor records a one-hour average ozone concentration
above 0.124 ppm in any given day (only the highest one-hour ozone
concentration at the monitor during any 24-hour day is considered when
determining the number of exceedance days.) An area violates the ozone
standard if, over a consecutive three-year period, more than three days
of exceedances occur at any monitor in the area or in its immediate
downwind environs.
The highest of the fourth-highest daily peak ozone concentrations
over the three-year period at any monitoring site in the area is called
the ozone design value for the area. Section 107(d)(4) of the Act, as
amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area
that was violating the one-hour ozone standard, generally based on air
quality monitoring data from the 1987 through 1989 period. Section
107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The Act further classified
these areas, based on the area's ozone design values, as marginal,
moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Marginal areas were suffering
the least significant ozone nonattainment problems, while the areas
classified as severe and extreme had the most significant ozone
nonattainment problems.
The control requirements and date by which attainment is to be
achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas were
subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the
earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993. Severe and extreme areas
are subject to more stringent planning requirements but are provided
more time to attain the standard. Serious areas were required to attain
the one-hour standard by November 15, 1999, and severe areas are
required to attain by November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007, depending
on the areas' ozone design values for 1987 through 1989. The New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) nonattainment area is
classified as severe and its attainment date is November 15, 2007. The
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area includes
the portions of northern New Jersey, the New York city metropolitan
area and Long Island, and a portion of southwestern Connecticut. The
attainment demonstration submitted by the Connecticut DEP addresses the
Connecticut portion of the nonattainment area.
An attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling analysis
component showing how the area will achieve the standard by its
attainment date and the control measures necessary to achieve those
reductions. Section 172(c)(6) of the Act requires SIPs to include
enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures,
means or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for compliance,
as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the applicable
attainment date. Section 172(c)(1) requires the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures (including Reasonably Available
Control Technology [RACT]) and requires the SIP to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. Section 182(b)(1)(A) requires the SIP to
provide for specific annual reductions in emissions of VOC and
NO_X as necessary to attain the ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date. Finally, section 182(j)(1)(B) requires the use of
photochemical grid modeling or other methods judged to be at least as
effective to demonstrate attainment of the ozone NAAQS in multi-state
ozone nonattainment areas. As part of today's proposal, EPA is
proposing action on the attainment demonstration SIP revisions
submitted by Connecticut for the Connecticut portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe ozone nonattainment area.
The attainment demonstration SIPs must also include motor vehicle
emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes. Transportation
conformity is a process for ensuring that states consider the effects
of emissions associated with federally-funded transportation activities
on attainment of the standard. Attainment demonstrations must include
the estimates of motor vehicle VOC and NO_X emissions that
are consistent with attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling
for the purpose of determining whether transportation plans, programs,
and projects conform to the attainment SIP.
2. What Is the History of the State Attainment Demonstration SIP?
Notwithstanding significant efforts by the states, in 1995 EPA
recognized that many states in the eastern half of the United states
could not meet the November 1994 time frame for submitting an
attainment demonstration SIP because emissions of NO_X and
VOC in upwind states (and the ozone formed by these emissions) affected
these nonattainment areas and the full impact

[[Page 42174]]

of this effect had not yet been determined. This phenomenon is called
ozone transport.
On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's
Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by the states
but noting the remaining difficulties in making attainment
demonstration SIP submittals.\1\ Recognizing the problems created by
ozone transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a
collaborative process among the states in the eastern half of the
Country to evaluate and address transport of ozone and its precursors.
This memorandum led to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment
Group (OTAG) \2\ and provided for the states to submit the attainment
demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to
complete its evaluation of ozone transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' issued
March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum may be found on EPA's web
site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
\2\ Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council of States
(ECOS) Members, dated April 13, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations
regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded that transport
of ozone and the precursor NO_X is significant and should be
reduced regionally to enable states in the eastern half of the country
to attain the ozone NAAQS. Building on the OTAG recommendations and
technical analyses, in November 1997, EPA proposed action addressing
the ozone transport problem. In its proposal, the EPA found that
current SIPs in 22 states and the District of Columbia (23
jurisdictions) were insufficient to provide for attainment and
maintenance of the one-hour standard because they did not regulate
emissions that significantly contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318
(November 7, 1997). The EPA finalized that rule in September 1998,
calling on the 23 jurisdictions to revise their SIPs to require
NO_X emission reductions within each state to a level
consistent with a NO_X emissions budget identified in the
final rule. 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). This final rule is commonly
referred to as the SIP Call.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ EPA is also requiring regional NO_X emission
reductions under its authority in section 126 of the Act to assure
that reductions occur in upwind areas that have been shown to impact
attainment of the ozone standard in downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In recognition of the length of the OTAG process, in a December 29,
1997 memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's then Acting Administrator for
Air and Radiation, provided until April 1998 for states to submit the
following elements of their attainment demonstration SIPs for serious
and higher classified nonattainment areas: (1) Evidence that the
applicable control strategy measures in Title I, Part D, Subpart 2 of
the Act, were adopted and implemented or were on an expeditious course
to being adopted and implemented; (2) a list of measures needed to meet
the remaining ROP emissions reduction requirement and to reach
attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a commitment to adopt and
submit, by the end of 2000, target calculations for post-1999 ROP and
the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP plans through the
attainment year; (4) a commitment to implement the SIP control programs
in a timely manner and to meet ROP emissions reductions and attainment;
and (5) evidence of a public hearing on the state submittal.
Connecticut submitted the required elements on September 16, 1998.
EPA published a rulemaking on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70348), which
proposed approval of the September 1998 submittal conditioned on the
state submitting some additional material. We identified the following
items in the December 16, 1999 rulemaking as conditions upon which we
would base our final approval: (1) Motor vehicle emission budgets for
both VOC and NO_X; (2) control measures necessary to meet the
ROP requirement from 1999 to the attainment year of 2007, including
target calculations; (3) a commitment to submit additional control
measures to make up for the projected need for additional controls to
ensure attainment of the one-hour ozone standard by November 2007; and
(4) a commitment to perform a mid-course review.
3. What Is the Time Frame for Taking Action on the Attainment
Demonstration SIP?
As a result of a settlement agreement with the Natural Resources
Defense Council, for various severe one-hour ozone nonattainment area
attainment demonstrations that have not been fully approved by October
15, 2001, EPA must propose a full attainment demonstration Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) by that date. If the attainment demonstration
has not been fully approved by June 14, 2002, EPA must finalize the FIP
by that date. EPA is working with the state of Connecticut on issues
identified in this proposal. If those issues can be resolved
satisfactorily, EPA will proceed with finalizing a full approval of the
attainment demonstration submittal by October 15, 2001, thus
eliminating our obligation to propose or promulgate a FIP.

B. Background for the Connecticut Submittals and EPA Rulemaking

On September 16, 1998, the CT DEP submitted a one-hour ozone
attainment demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT
area to EPA as a revision to the State's SIP. We proposed conditional
approval of the plan in a notice published in the Federal Register on
December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70348). EPA's proposed conditional approval
was based on Connecticut's commitment to submit, by December 2000,
rate-of-progress (ROP) target calculations for ROP after 1999 and the
adopted measures to achieve post-1999 ROP. On June 4, 2001, the CT DEP
submitted its proposed post-1999 ROP for its severe nonattainment area.
CT DEP has asked that EPA approve the ROP plan via parallel processing,
which is a mechanism whereby we propose action on the SIP revisions
concurrent with the State's public hearing process. Connecticut held a
public hearing seeking comment on the post-1999 ROP plan on July 10,
2001.
In the December 16, 1999 proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed, in the
alternative, to disapprove the attainment demonstration if Connecticut
did not submit an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget and a
commitment to adopt and submit additional control measures to make up
for the projected need for additional controls to ensure attainment of
the one-hour ozone standard by November 2007. On February 8, 2000, the
CT-DEP submitted revisions to the NY-NJ-CT attainment demonstration
which contained 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and
NO_X. On June 16, 2000, we published a document in the
Federal Register announcing that these 2007 budgets are adequate for
use in transportation conformity determinations (65 FR 37778).
The February 8, 2000 revisions to the NY-NJ-CT attainment
demonstration also contained enforceable commitments for additional
control measures to make up for the projected need for additional
controls to ensure attainment of the one-hour ozone standard by
November 2007. Specifically, Connecticut committed to: (1) Adopt and
submit by December 31, 2000, additional NO_X limits
applicable to municipal waste combustors (MWCs); (2) adopt and submit
by October 31, 2001, additional necessary regional control measures to
offset the emission reduction shortfall in order to attain the

[[Page 42175]]

one-hour ozone standard by November 2007; (3) adopt and submit by
October 31, 2001, additional necessary intrastate control measures to
offset the emission reduction shortfall in order to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by November 2007; (4) submit revised 2007 emission
budgets using the MOBILE 6 model within one year of the final release
of that model; and (5) recalculate and submit revised motor vehicle
emission budgets if additional motor vehicle control measures are
adopted to address the shortfall in Connecticut.
With the submission of the SIP elements mentioned above,
Connecticut has now submitted for approval all of the elements that
were the basis of the proposed conditional approval of the attainment
demonstration SIP. We now have all of the SIP elements necessary to
justify a proposed full approval of the attainment demonstration. We
therefore, will not finalize the December 16, 1999 proposed conditional
approval, but rather propose full approval of it in this notice as
modified by the additional submittals from the CT DEP. However, the
State needs to complete its rulemaking process on the elements
submitted for parallel processing before we may take final action
approving the attainment demonstration. At the time we take final
action we will respond to comments received on the December 16, 1999
proposed rulemaking in conjunction with comments received on today's
proposed rulemaking.

C. What Is the Status of Connecticut SIP Elements Not Fully Approved at
the Time of the December 1999 Proposed Rulemaking?

At the time of the December 16, 1999 proposed conditional approval,
there were a number of SIP elements that Connecticut was relying on for
attainment purposes but that had not yet been fully approved by EPA. In
its December 1999 proposal, EPA said it intended to publish final rules
for a number of SIP elements either before or at the same time as
publication of final approval of the attainment demonstration. Table 1
below shows the measures Connecticut relied on in the attainment
demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment
area, including the shortfall measures, and their current approval
status.

Table 1.--Control Measures in the One-Hour Ozone Attainment Plans for
the Connecticut Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of control measure Type of measure Approval status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-board Refueling Vapor Federal rule........ Promulgated at 40
Recovery. CFR 86.
Federal Motor Vehicle Federal rule........ Promulgated at 40
Control program. CFR 86.
Federal Non-road Gasoline Federal rule........ Promulgate at 40 CFR
Engines. 90.
Federal Non-road Heavy Duty Federal rule........ Promulgated at 40
diesel engines. CFR 89.
AIM Surface Coatings........ Federal rule........ Promulgated at 40
CFR 59 subpart D.
Consumer & commercial Federal rule........ Promulgated at 40
products. CFR 59 subpart C.
Enhanced Inspection & CAA SIP Requirement. SIP approved (65 FR
Maintenance. 64357; 10/27/00).
NO_X RACT.................... CAA SIP Requirement. SIP approved (62 FR
52016; 10/6/97).
VOC RACT pursuant to CAA SIP Requirement. SIP approved (56 FR
sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 52205; 10/18/91 and
182(b)(2)(B) of Clean Air 64 FR 12019; 3/10/
Act. 99).
VOC RACT pursuant to CAA SIP Requirement. SIP approved (65 FR
sections 182(b)(2)(A) and 62620; 10/19/00).
(C) of Clean Air Act.
Stage II Vapor Recovery..... CAA SIP Requirement. SIP approved (58 FR
65930; 10/17/93).
Stage I Vapor Recovery...... CAA SIP Requirement. SIP approved (56 FR
52205; 10/18/91).
Reformulated Gasoline....... CAA requried program Promulgated
in NYC and Hartford statewide under 40
areas. Opt-in to CFR section 80.70.
federal program for also approved for
remainder of state.. opt-in portion of
state as part of
15% plan (64 FR
12015; 3/10/99).
National Low Emission State opt-in........ Federal program
Vehicle (NLEV). promulgated at 40
CFR 86 subpart R.
Opt-in SIP approved
(65 FR 12476; 3/9/
00).
Clean Fuel Fleets........... CAA SIP Requirement. RFG and I/M
reductions
substituted--SIP
approved (65 FR
12474; 3/9/00).
15% VOC Reduction Plan...... CAA SIP Requirement. SIP approved (64 FR
12015; 3/10/99).
Enhanced Rule Effectiveness. State measure....... SIP approved (64 FR
12015; 3/10/99.
9% rate of progress plans... CAA SIP Requirement. SIP approved for the
first phase from
1996-1999 (65 FR
62624; 10/19/00).
Approval pending
for the ROP plans
post 1999.\4\
OTC NO_X MOU Phase II........ State initiative.... SIP approved (64 FR
52233; 9/28/99).
EPA NO_X SIP call............ EPA requirement..... SIP approved (65 FR
81743; 12/27/00).
Municipal Waste Combustor State initiative.... Approval pending.
rule. \5\
Regional or Local Control State initiative.... Approval pending on
Measures. an enforceable
commitment to
submit additional
control measures.
\6\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In today's notice, EPA is proposing to approve Connecticut's post
1999 rate of progress plan for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long
Island severe ozone nonattainment area. EPA will take final action on
the post-1999 ROP plan before or at the same time as it takes final
action on the attainment demonstration.
\5\ Connecticut adopted a regulation effective October 26, 2000 that
reduces emissions of NO_X from MWCs below previously required levels.
On June 4, 2001, Connecticut DEP asked EPA to approve this regulation
via parallel processing. EPA will publish final rules for the MWC rule
before or at the same time as it publishes final rules on the
attainment demonstration.
\6\ Connecticut submitted commitments to adopt and submit by October 31,
2001, all additional intrastate or regional control measures to offset
the emission reduction shortfall in order to attain the one-hour ozone
standard by November 2007. In today's notice, EPA is proposing to
approve these commitments. EPA will take final action on these
commitments at the same time as it takes final action on the
attainment demonstration.

[[Page 42176]]

D. What Is EPA Proposing for Approval in This Action?

II. The Connecticut One Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the
NY-NJ-CT Area

This notice provides limited background information on the
attainment demonstration SIP submitted by the CT DEP for the NY-NJ-CT
severe ozone nonattainment area. More detail can be found in the
proposed conditional approval notice published in the Federal Register
on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70348). EPA will respond to comments
received on the December 16, 1999 proposed rulemaking in conjunction
with comments received on today's proposed rulemaking.
EPA proposed to conditionally approve Connecticut's commitment to
submit ROP target calculations for ROP after 1999 and the adopted
measures to achieve post-1999 ROP by December 2000. EPA also proposed,
in the alternative, to approve in part and disapprove in part the
attainment demonstration if the State did not submit an adequate motor
vehicle emissions budget consistent with attainment, and a commitment
to the additional measures required for attainment of the standard. In
the December 16, 1999 proposal, EPA suggested that Connecticut revise
its commitment to provide for the Mid Course Review (MCR) to 2003. (It
must be noted, that now, at our suggestion, Connecticut is committing
to submit its MCR by December 31, 2004). The following explains how
Connecticut has satisfied these requirements.

A. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Both VOC and NO_X

On February 8, 2000, Connecticut DEP submitted an addendum to the
ozone attainment demonstrations for both the Greater Connecticut
serious ozone nonattainment area \7\ and the Connecticut portion of the
NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment area. The addendum was submitted in
response to requirements EPA articulated as necessary for full approval
in its proposed conditional approval rulemaking on the attainment
demonstration SIP. A public hearing on the addendum was held by the
Connecticut DEP on January 6, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The attainment demonstration for Greater Connecticut serious
ozone nonattainment area, including the February 8, 2000 addendum as
it pertained to the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area, was
approved by EPA on January 3, 2001 (66 FR 633).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The February 8, 2000 submittal contained 2007 VOC and
NO_X motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Connecticut
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe nonattainment area. The motor vehicle
emissions budgets were calculated to be consistent with requirements
Connecticut is relying on in its attainment demonstration for the
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area. Connecticut also incorporated
credit for the Tier 2/sulfur program in calculating the emissions
budgets consistent with the issued November 8, 1999 memorandum entitled
``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking''
from Lydia Wegman, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and
Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile Sources. The motor vehicle emissions
budgets for 2007 for VOC and NO_X submitted by Connecticut
are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.--2007 Transportation Conformity Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area VOC (tons/day) NO_X (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut portion of the New York- 9.7 23.7
Northern New Jersey-Long Island
severe area..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA sent a letter to Connecticut DEP on May 31, 2000 finding these
budgets adequate for use in transportation conformity determinations.
Our adequacy determination was made subsequent to EPA offering an
opportunity for public comment on the Connecticut budgets and
addressing all relevant comments received. The public comment period
began on these budgets when they were posted on EPA's web site at
www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/currsips.htm. The public comment period
began on February 14, 2000, and closed on March 20, 2000, and no public
comments were received by EPA during this period. EPA did receive
comments that opposed EPA determining adequate the budgets submitted by
Connecticut for transportation conformity purposes during the original
comment period on the proposed approval of the attainment demonstration
for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area. EPA responded to all
of those comments before determining the 2007 budgets adequate. A copy
of the response to comments is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
transp/conform/reg1sips.htm.
On June 16, 2000 (65 FR 37778), EPA notified the public that we had
found the 2007 VOC and NO_X motor vehicle emission budgets
submitted by Connecticut on February 8, 2000 adequate for conformity
purposes. These budgets became effective on July 3, 2000, and satisfied
Connecticut's

[[Page 42177]]

need to submit adequate motor vehicle budgets consistent with
attainment.
In the February 8, 2000 addendum to the attainment demonstration
for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment
area, Connecticut also included, as required by EPA, two commitments
that pertain to the motor vehicle emission budgets. The first is a
commitment to revise the attainment-level 2007 motor vehicle emissions
budgets within one year of the date that EPA releases the final version
of their motor vehicle emissions model, MOBILE6. The second is a
commitment to recalculate and submit revised motor vehicle emissions
budgets if any additional motor vehicle control measures are adopted to
address the shortfall. These commitments are consistent with conditions
EPA articulated in its December 16, 1999 proposed conditional approval.

B. Enforceable Commitments To Adopt Additional Control Measures

In our December 16, 1999 proposed conditional approval ozone
attainment demonstration, EPA said it did not believe the attainment
analysis for NY-NJ-CT area proves attainment by the year 2007. An
analysis EPA did to further determine how much additional reduction is
needed in order for EPA to approve a revised and re-submitted
attainment demonstration for this area showed an ozone shortfall of 5
ppb for the NY-NJ-CT severe nonattainment. In other words, our analysis
predicts that the NY-NJ-CT area would remain 5 ppb over the NAAQS if
Connecticut and its neighbors do not achieve further emission
redactions. From this 5 ppb shortfall value we developed additional
local emission reduction targets, and we recommended that at a minimum
an additional 3.8% VOC and 0.3% NO_X reduction from base year
1990 inventories would be necessary to approve a revised and re-
submitted attainment demonstration for this area. These additional
reductions were to be over and above the CAA measures required for this
area and the measures already relied on in the demonstration of
attainment. Additionally, since reductions from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe
and low sulfur-in-fuel standards were already included in the EPA
analysis, the percent reduction figures were also over and above Tier
2/Sulfur reductions as well. EPA directed the three states within the
nonattainment area to work together to achieve these reductions.
In the February 8, 2000 addendum to the attainment demonstration
for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment
area, Connecticut included enforceable commitments to submit control
measures for additional emission reductions to make-up for the
shortfall outlined in EPA's December 16, 1999 proposed conditional
approval. Connecticut originally calculated the shortfall in emission
reductions that it was responsible for as 4.9 tons per summer day
(TPSD) of VOC and 0.4 TPSD of NO_X based on 1990 base year
inventories in the Connecticut portion of the nonattainment area. In
Connecticut's February 8, 2000 submittal, the CT DEP committed to adopt
additional control measures to achieve these amounts. Specifically,
Connecticut committed to: (1) Adopt and submit by December 31, 2000,
additional NO_X limits applicable to municipal waste
combustors (MWCs); (2) adopt and submit by October 31, 2001, additional
necessary regional control measures to offset the emission reduction
shortfall in order to attain the one-hour ozone standard by November
2007; and (3) adopt and submit by October 31, 2001, additional
necessary intrastate control measures to offset the emission reduction
shortfall in order to attain the one-hour ozone standard by November
2007.
In its June 4, 2001 submittal to EPA, Connecticut DEP asked EPA to
approve via parallel processing the regulation it adopted, effective
October 26, 2000, that reduces emissions of NO_X from
Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC) below previously required levels. In a
separate action, EPA will be proposing action on this rule. Because the
State has now submitted the MWC rule, we will not take action on the
February 8, 2000 commitment regarding the MWC rule; instead, we will
take final action on the MWC rule before or at the same time we take
final action on the attainment demonstration.
In its June 4, 2001 post-1999 rate of progress plan, Connecticut
recalculated the mobile source portions of its 1990 base year inventory
in order to use more accurate emission estimation methodologies that
have recently become available. For the on-road sector, Connecticut re-
calculated emissions using MOBILE 5b inputs consistent with those
documented in the State's February, 2000 amendment to its ozone
attainment demonstration SIP. This caused emissions to increase
primarily because of an adjustment that reflects a greater proportion
of VMT by light duty trucks (e.g., sport utility vehicles and pick up
trucks.) For off-road engines, Connecticut used EPA's Non-road model.
Although this new model has not yet been finalized, it provides a
better estimate of emissions from this sector than the previous
methodology. As a result of these recalculations, the shortfall in
emission reductions for the Connecticut portion of the nonattainment
area is now projected to be 5.3 tpsd of VOC and 0.5 tpsd of
NO_X. It is these revised emission levels that Connecticut is
committing to address through the adoption of additional control
measures. In today's action, EPA is proposing to approve the
enforceable commitments submitted by Connecticut DEP to address the
shortfall remaining after the reduction achieved by its MWC rule. The
MWC rule has been adopted by the CT DEP (see section G. 2 above). In a
June 4, 2001 submittal to EPA, Connecticut articulated that it has
narrowed its list of possible control measures for filling the
shortfall. Those measures include the model rules developed by the
Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). The model rules include measures to
reduce VOC from consumer products, portable fuel containers,
architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, mobile
equipment refinishing and repair operations, and solvent cleaning
operations. They also include additional NO_X controls for
fuel combustion sources, including gas turbines, stationary
reciprocating engines, and industrial boilers. Connecticut has
submitted a draft rule on mobile equipment refinishing and repair
operations. A hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2001.

C. Mid-Course Review

A mid-course review (MCR) is a reassessment of modeling analyses
and more recent monitored data to determine if a prescribed control
strategy is resulting in emission reductions and air quality
improvements needed to attain the ambient air quality standard for
ozone as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the statutory
dates.
EPA believes that a commitment to perform a MCR is a critical
element of the weight of evidence (WOE) analysis for the attainment
demonstration on which EPA proposed action in December 1999. In order
to approve the attainment demonstration SIP for the Connecticut portion
of the New York city area, EPA believes that the State must have an
enforceable commitment to perform a MCR.
Originally, the Connecticut DEP submitted an enforceable commitment
with its attainment demonstration on September 16, 1998. The commitment
made was to submit a MCR in the 2001/2002 time frame and an additional
MCR in 2005. In our December 16, 1999 proposed conditional approval,
EPA suggested that Connecticut revise its

[[Page 42178]]

commitment to provide for the MCR immediately following the 2003 ozone
season, so that the MCR would reflect regional NO_X
reductions that were scheduled to occur by May 1, 2003 under the
NO_X SIP call. Connecticut included this commitment in its
February 8, 2000 submittal. In the summer of 2000, the Court of Appeals
for the DC Circuit in effect extended the May 2003 compliance date for
the SIP call until May 2004. Thus, consistent with more recent advice
from us, and with the original intent that the MCR reflect the SIP call
reductions, Connecticut has proposed to revise the date of submittal of
the mid-course review from December 31, 2003 to December 31, 2004. In
its June 4, 2001 submittal, Connecticut asks EPA to parallel process
this revision to its commitment to do a mid-course review. This SIP
revision is for both the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe
nonattainment area and the Greater Connecticut area. This proposed date
is now in-line with the EPA recommendation for submittal of the mid-
course review on the attainment demonstration.

III. Connecticut's Post-1999 ROP Plan

A. What Is a Post-1999 ROP Plan, and Why Was Connecticut Required To
Prepare One?

A post-1999 ROP, or rate-of-progress plan, illustrates how an ozone
nonattainment area will make emission reductions of a set amount over a
given period of time. The CAA requires states containing the highest
classified ozone nonattainment areas--those classified as serious,
severe, or extreme, to submit SIPs providing for periodic reductions in
ozone precursors of a rate of 9% averaged over every three year period,
beginning after 1996 and ending with the area's attainment date. CAA
section 182(c)(2)(B). These SIP submissions are referred to as Rate-of-
Progress, or ROP, plans. There are two ozone nonattainment areas in
Connecticut, the Greater Hartford serious area and the Connecticut
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area. Connecticut was, therefore,
subject to the ROP plan requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(B).
EPA approved Connecticut's ROP plans that covered the 1996 to 1999
time period in a Federal Register notice dated October 19, 2000 (65 FR
62624). There are no further ROP requirements for the Greater Hartford
serious area because section 181(a) of the CAA established November 15,
1999 as the attainment date for serious areas. Section 181(a) of the
CAA established November 15, 2007 as the attainment date for severe
areas that had a 1988 ozone design value between 0.190 and 0.280 parts
per million. The NY-NJ-CT area was one such area, and therefore ROP
emission reductions must be demonstrated for this area until 2007.
Since Connecticut did not enter into a multi-state agreement with New
York and New Jersey to develop a region wide plan for this area,
Connecticut's post-1999 ROP plan only accounts for emission reductions
from within its portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area.
On March 2, 1995, EPA Assistant Administrator Mary D. Nichols sent
a memorandum to EPA Regional Administrators recognizing the efforts
made by states and the remaining difficulties in making the ROP and
Attainment Demonstration SIP submittals. As an administrative remedial
matter, the March 2, 1995 memorandum indicated that EPA would establish
new time frames for certain SIP submittals. One such SIP submittal for
which a new time frame was established was the post-1999 ROP plan. The
March 2, 1995 Memorandum stated that Post-1999 ROP plans, along with
other SIP elements, were to be submitted as part of a ``Phase II''
submittal by the end of 1999. Although Connecticut did not meet that
deadline, it did submit a draft version of the plan to EPA shortly
thereafter, and as discussed in this document the plan meets EPA's
approval requirements for post-1999 ROP plans.
Connecticut submitted a pre-hearing draft post-1999 ROP plan to EPA
on April 11, 2001. The State submitted its draft for public hearing to
EPA on June 4, 2001, and requested that EPA parallel process the
revision. The State held a public hearing on these ROP plans on July
10, 2001.
The reductions required by section 182 (c)(2)(C) must be calculated
from a 1990 baseline, and the plan must describe how any growth in
emissions over each applicable 3 year period will be offset. Under
section 182(c)(2)(C) of the CAA, NO_X reductions can also be
used to meet this emission reduction obligation. Available modeling
indicates that NO_X emission reductions are clearly
beneficial in Connecticut, and so, as outlined in EPA's December, 1993
NO_X substitution guidance, use of NO_X emission
reductions to meet post-1996 emission reduction obligations is
appropriate in the State.
The manner in which States are to determine the required level of
emission reductions is described in an EPA guidance document entitled,
``Guidance on the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan and the Attainment
Demonstration'' (EPA 452-93-015.) The calculation procedure is similar
to the one used to determine prior ROP obligations in Connecticut.

B. What Action Is EPA Taking on This Plan?

We are proposing approval of the post-1999 ROP emission reduction
plan submitted by the State of Connecticut for the State's portion of
the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment area, which is a multi-state
ozone nonattainment area, as a revision to Connecticut's SIP.
Connecticut did not enter into an agreement with New York and New
Jersey to do a multi-state ROP plan, and therefore submitted a plan to
reduce emissions only in the Connecticut portion of this area. EPA is
proposing action today only on the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT
post-1999 plan.
The post-1999 ROP plan documents how Connecticut complied with the
provisions of section 182 (c)(2) of the Act. These sections of the Act
require states containing certain ozone nonattainment areas develop
strategies to reduce emissions of the pollutants that react to form
ground level ozone.

C. Were Any Changes Made to Connecticut's Base Year Inventory and Prior
Target Levels?

Before deriving its post-1999 emission target levels, Connecticut
recalculated the mobile source portions of its 1990 base year inventory
in order to use more accurate emission estimation methodologies that
have recently become available. Connecticut chose to use new, more
accurate emission estimation methodologies for the on-road and off-road
source categories in the establishment of its post-1999 ROP emission
target levels. For the on-road sector, Connecticut re-calculated
emissions using MOBILE 5b inputs consistent with those documented in
the State's February, 2000 amendment to its ozone attainment
demonstration SIP. This caused emissions to increase primarily because
of an adjustment that reflects a greater proportion of VMT by light
duty trucks (e.g., sport utility vehicles and pick up trucks.) For off-
road engines, Connecticut used EPA's Non-road model. Although this new
model has not yet been finalized, it provides a better estimate of
emissions from this sector than the previous methodology. The new model
improves upon methodologies contained in EPA's original non-road
emissions estimates, which are contained in the document ``Non-road
Engine and Vehicle Emission Study Report'' (Publication nos. EPA-21A-
2001; EPA460/3-91-002). This report of emissions from non-road

[[Page 42179]]

engines is referred to as the 1991 ``NEVES'' study.
Since Connecticut desired to use these new emission estimation
methodologies in its post-1999 ROP calculations, it had to recalculate
its 1990 emission baseline for these source categories using these
improved methodologies to ensure that no emission reduction credits
were generated simply because of differences in emission estimation
procedures in the base year and projected emission inventories. As a
result of the change to the base year emission estimates, and because
the post-1999 ROP emission target levels are calculated from the prior
ROP emission target levels, Connecticut also re-calculated its 15
percent and post-1996 ROP emission target levels. This recalculation of
the 1996 and 1999 emission target levels does not alter the previously
approved emission targets for these years approved as part of the
State's 15 percent ROP plan (64 FR 12015) and post-1996 ROP plan (65 FR
62624), as it is not EPA policy to require that States revise
previously approved ROP plans due to changes in ever-evolving emission
estimation methodology.
Table 3 below shows the State's original data, and the new
estimates that are now being used due to the change to the emission
estimation methodology for on-road and off-road sources.

Table 3.--Original and Revised Emission Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original values (tons/ Revised values (tons/
day) day)
---------------------------------------------------
VOC NO_X VOC NO_X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Rate-of-progress Inventory................. 126.1 116.9 144.0 132.7
1996 Emission Target Level...................... 101.8 NA 116.5 NA
1999 Emission Target Level...................... 93.0 104.0 108.9 116.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. How Did Connecticut Account for Changes in Emissions Due to Growth?

Connecticut projected future year emissions based primarily on the
State's 1996 periodic emission inventory. The State revised the 1996
on-road and off-road emissions in the periodic inventory using the
updated methodologies previously discussed. Doing this ensures that no
emission reduction credit, or emission increases, are shown in the ROP
demonstration simply due to differences in emission estimation
methodology for these two source categories.
Connecticut obtained most industrial growth factors from statewide
employment projections obtained from the State's Department of Labor.
The State used VMT projections provided by the State's Department of
Transportation to project on-road mobile emissions, gasoline storage
and marketing emissions, and asphalt paving emissions. Connecticut
relied on the growth factors contained in the draft NON-ROAD model to
project emissions for that source category. Statewide projected
population data supplied by the U.S. Census Bureau was used to project
emissions for most of the area source categories. Connecticut did not
project NO_X emission increases for EGUs and large non-
utility EGU's due to the State's NO_X budget program; VOC
emission increases were projected for these sources.

E. What Emission Levels Must Connecticut Achieve By 2002, 2005, and
2007?

Table 4 below contains a summary of the 2002, 2005 and 2007 ROP
calculations as performed by Connecticut in its post-1999 plans. The
emission target levels are shown in step 6 of Table 4. The emission
targets represent the maximum amount of emissions that can be emitted
given the requirement of section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act that
reductions in ozone precursors occur at a rate of 9% averaged over
every three year period, beginning after 1996 and ending with the
area's attainment date. The post-1999 ROP plan submitted by Connecticut
indicates that the projected, controlled emissions shown in Step 7 of
Table 4 are well below the target levels calculated for each milestone
year.

Table 4.--Summary of the 2002, 2005 and 2007 ROP Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description 2002 VOC (tpsd) 2002 NO_X (tpsd) 2005 VOC (tpsd) 2005 NO_X (tpsd) 2007 VOC (tpsd) 2007 NO_X (tpsd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1--Calculate 1990 Base Year 271.0 133.3 271.0 133.3 271.0 133.3
Inventory.
Step 2--Develop Rate-of-Progress -127.0 = 144.0 -0.6 = 132.7 -127.0 = 144.0 -0.6 = 132.7 -127.0 = 144.0 -0.6 = 132.7
Inventory (by subtracting
biogenics and non-reactives).
Step 3--Develop Adjusted Base -9.5 = 134.5 -12.1 = 120.7 -9.75 = 134.3 -12.36 = 120.4 -9.79 = 134.2 -12.5 = 120.3
Year Inventory by subtracting
non-creditable FMVCP/RVP rdxns.
between 1990-1999.
Step 4--Calculate Required 9% 0% 9% 0% 5.26% 0.74%
Reductions (sum of percent ROP 12.10 12.08 7.06 0.89
rdxn. and FMVCP increment from
prior milestone year to current
milestone year.).
FMVCP FMVCP FMVCP FMVCP FMVCP FMVCP
0.73 1.15 0.23 0.30 0.04 0.10
Step 5--Calculate total expected 12.83 1.15 12.31 0.30 7.10 0.99
reduction.
Step 6--Set Target Levels for 108.88 - 12.83 = 116.33 - 115 = 96.05 - 12.31 = 115.18 - 0.30 = 83.74 - 7.10 = 114.88 - 0.99 =
2002, 2005, and 2007.

[[Page 42180]]

Target level = previous milestone 96.05 115.18 83.74 114.88 76.63 113.89
target minus required
reductions. The 1999 targets are
108.88 for VOC, and 116.33 for
NO_X.
Step 7--Projected, Controlled 89 98.2 80.2 83.1 76.6 76.8
Emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. To What Extent do Connecticut's Plans Reduce Ozone Precursor
Emissions?

Connecticut's post-1999 ROP plan indicates that ozone precursor
emissions will be substantially reduced by 2007. Compared to 1996
emission levels, VOC emissions are expected to decline by 40.7 tpsd,
which represents a 35% decrease. NO_X emissions are expected
to decline by 39.1 tpsd, representing a 34% decrease in emissions from
1996.

G. How Will Connecticut Achieve These Emission Reductions?

The control strategy used to achieve the emission levels shown in
step 7 of Table 4 couples the control strategy used in the State's 15
percent and post-1996 ROP plans with reductions from the measures
described below.
1. NO_X Budget Program
In September of 1999, Connecticut submitted a NO_X
emission control regulation to EPA that affects electric generating
units and other large combustion sources. The citation for the
regulation is 22a-174-22b; Post-2002 NO_X Budget Program, and
it is codified in the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. The
rule was adopted in response to the Ozone Transport Committee's phase
III NO_X Memorandum of Understanding and the EPA's
NO_X SIP call, which was published in the Federal Register on
October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356.) The State's rule establishes a
Statewide NO_X budget, and establishes an allowance trading
system. The NO_X emissions cap established by the rule begins
in the 2003 ozone season, which runs from the beginning of May to the
end of June. The State's submittal was approved by EPA as a SIP
strengthening measure on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81743).
The State's NO_X budget program establishes a Statewide
budget cap of 4477 tons per ozone season beginning in 2003. This cap
represents a 60% emission reduction from 1990 emission levels. In the
State's portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area, emissions from sources
subject to the rule will be limited to 1720 tons per ozone season in
emissions by 2003, compared to 5211 tons in 1990. On a typical summer
day basis, the NO_X cap in the State's portion of the NY-NJ-
CT area equals 11.2 tons per summer day (tpsd). In total, the State's
NO_X emissions control program for large point sources, which
consists of NO_X RACT, the OTC NO_X MOU, and the
Post-2002 NO_X Budget Program, will reduce NO_X
emissions from subject sources by 22. 8 tpsd by 2003 relative to 1990
levels in the State's portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area. EPA proposes
to approve the State's determination of emission reduction credits from
its NO_X emission control program.
2. Municipal Waste Combustor (MWC) Emission Limits
MWCs in Connecticut are subject to the requirements of Section 22a-
174-38 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. This
regulation was recently revised, effective October 26, 2000, with,
among other things, more stringent NO_X limits which MWC's
must meet by May 1, 2003. Connecticut's post-1999 ROP SIP calculates
that emissions from the one source subject to this rule located in the
State's portion of the NY-NJ-CT area will realize a 0.76 tpsd emission
reduction by 2003 relative to 1996 emission levels.\8\ Connecticut
requested that EPA parallel process section 22a-174-38 in a submittal
to EPA on June 4, 2001. In a separate action, EPA will be proposing to
approve this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Connecticut's MWC rule allows for emissions trading across
the state to meet these NO_X limits. Connecticut will be
submitting an explanation of the statewide NO_X reductions
its MWC rule will achieve and how those reductions are consistent
with its ROP plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. On-Road Mobile Source Control Programs
Connecticut used the MOBILE5b model and VMT estimates supplied by
the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT-DOT) to estimate
emission reductions from a variety of on-road mobile source programs.
In addition to the on-road controls EPA approved in the state's 15
percent ROP and post-1996 ROP plans, (reformulated gasoline, tier 1,
enhanced I/M, and CT-LEV), the State calculated emission reductions
from phase II of the reformulated gasoline program, reductions from the
final cut-points for the States enhanced I/M program, reductions from
the combined effect of tier II automobile standards and low-sulfur in
gasoline requirements, and phase I controls on heavy duty diesel
engines. These programs are discussed further below. Connecticut
projects that on-road mobile emissions will decline as shown in Table 5
due to these emission control measures.

Table 5.--On Road Mobile Emissions Trend (TPSD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2002 2005 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC (tpsd)................................................. 30.5 15.2 11.4 9.7
NO_X (tpsd)................................................. 55.3 38.4 29 23.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. FMVCP Standards. Connecticut's projected, controlled on-road
emission estimates include reductions from the federal ``tier 2''
emission standard program. EPA promulgated the final rule for this
program on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698). The tier 2 standards affect
sport utility vehicles (SUVs), minivans, and pick-up trucks, in

[[Page 42181]]

addition to regular passenger vehicles. The requirements are phased in
during 2004 to 2009. The success of the tier 2 program in achieving
emission reductions is dependent on requirements that the petroleum
industry lower the sulfur content of gasoline. Between 2004 to 2006,
the sulfur content of gasoline must be reduced from approximately 300
ppm to 30 ppm. These lowered sulfur levels will allow proper
functioning of the emission control systems implemented to meet the
tier 2 standards.
b. Heavy Duty Engine Standards. On October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59895)
EPA promulgated a final rule requiring emission reductions from on-road
heavy duty engines. The rule's requirements include provisions that
will reduce VOC and NO_X emissions from gasoline and diesel
fueled vehicles beginning in the 2004 to 2005 time-frame.
c. Reformulated Gasoline Program. Section 211 of the CAA requires
sale of reformulated gasoline in the NY-NJ-CT severe area and other
areas. Connecticut claimed emission reduction credit from phase I of
the program, which began in 1995, in its 15 percent ROP plan. Phase II
of the reformulated gasoline program began in 2000, and reduces both
NO_X and VOC emissions from on-road vehicles.
d. Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program. Section 182(c)(3)
of the Act required Connecticut to adopt an enhanced vehicle emission
inspection and maintenance (I&M) program. Connecticut began state-wide
testing of motor vehicles at centralized facilities in January, 1998
using the ASM2525 procedure, which uses a treadmill to simulate travel
at 25 mph at a 25% load. EPA approved the State's program in a final
rule published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2000 (65 FR
64357.)
4. Federal Non-Road Control Programs
EPA has established emission standards for a variety of non-road
engine categories that will reduce ozone precursor emissions over the
time period covered by the Connecticut post-1999 ROP plans. These
standards affect heavy duty compression ignition (diesel) engines,
small non-road spark-ignition (gasoline) engines, large non-road
gasoline engines, gasoline powered outboard and personal water-craft
engines, commercial diesel marine engines, recreational stern-drive and
inboard engines, and locomotives. Detailed information regarding each
of these emission control programs is available on EPA's web-site at:
www.epa.gov/otaq.
EPA has also created a non-road air emissions estimation model that
can be used to calculate emissions from all non-road engines, except
those used to power aircraft, locomotives, and large commercial marine
vessels, for the present year and for past or future years. Although
this model is not a final model, Connecticut DEP believes, and EPA
agrees, that it provides a more accurate evaluation of air pollution
emissions from non-road engines than the alternative emission
estimation procedure available to the State, which consists of the
aforementioned November 1991 NEVES study.
Table 6 illustrates the decline in non-road emissions Connecticut
predicts will occur due to implementation of the various federal non-
road engine controls. The estimates were derived from the draft non-
road model, combined with individual emission estimates calculated for
aircraft, commercial marine vessels (CMVs), and locomotives.

Table 6.--Non-Road Emissions Trend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 2002 2005 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC (tpsd).................................................. 40.4 29.6 24.0 21.7
NO_X (tpsd).................................................. 33.0 33.7 32.5 31.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Will These Emission Reductions Improve Air Quality in Connecticut?

Ozone levels declined in Connecticut during the 1990's due in part
to emission reductions achieved by the State's prior ROP plans. Ozone
levels should continue to decline in the future in light of the
substantial emission reductions documented in the State's post-1999 ROP
plan, commitments to adopt additional measures for attainment as
discussed elsewhere in this document, and pollution control measures
implemented by States upwind of Connecticut.

I. Has Connecticut Met Its Contingency Measure Obligation?

Connecticut has met its contingency measure obligation by using
surplus emission reductions generated by the control measures in its
post-1999 ROP plan. Connecticut's contingency obligation was calculated
as 3 percent of its adjusted 1990 NO_X base year inventory,
which equals 3.6 tpsd. From Table 4, a comparison of the projected,
controlled emission shown in step 7 with the emission targets shown in
step 6 reveals that substantial surplus (beyond ROP) emission
reductions exist for each milestone year that easily exceed the 3.6
tpsd contingency obligation. We are approving Connecticut's
demonstration that it meets the contingency measure provision of
section 182(c)(9) of the Act, which requires contingency measures for
serious and above milestone failures.
Connecticut still must meet the contingency measure provision of
section 172(c)(9) of the Act, which pertains to failure to attain the
ozone standard by the required date, but EPA is not obligated to
approve such measures prior to approving the attainment demonstration
for the following reason. The EPA believes the contingency measure
requirement of section 172(c)(9) is an independent requirement from the
attainment demonstration requirements under sections 172(c)(1) and
182(c)(2)(A). The section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement
addresses the event that an area fails to attain the ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date established in the SIP and has no bearing on whether a
state has submitted a SIP that projects attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
The attainment SIP provides a demonstration that attainment ought to be
reached, but the contingency measure SIP requirement of section
179(c)(9) concerns what is to happen only if attainment is not actually
achieved. The EPA acknowledges that contingency measures are an
independently required SIP revision, but does not believe that
submission of contingency measures is necessary before EPA may approve
an attainment SIP.

J. Are Transportation Conformity Budgets Contained in These Plans?

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act, and EPA's transportation conformity rule requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air
quality implementation plans. Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not

[[Page 42182]]

produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
States are required to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets in any
control strategy SIP that is submitted for attainment and maintenance
of the national ambient air quality standards.
The June 4, 2001 post-1999 ROP plan submitted by Connecticut
contained 2002, 2005 and 2007 budgets for nitrogen oxides (
NO_X) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the State's
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area. Table 7 contains these
NO_X and VOC transportation conformity budgets in units of
tons per summer day:

Table 7.--Conformity Budgets in the Post-1999 ROP Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2005 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC (tpsd)....................... 15.20 11.42 9.69
NO_X (tpsd)....................... 38.39 29.01 23.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 2007 budgets contained in the Connecticut post-1999 ROP plan
match the budgets in the State's attainment demonstration for this area
that were submitted on February 15, 2000. EPA issued a letter on May
31, 2000, finding these budgets adequate for use in transportation
conformity determinations and published an announcement in the Federal
Register on June 16, 2000, (65 FR 37778). These budgets became
effective on July 3, 2000.
The 2002 and 2005 budgets, on the other hand, are new budgets
established by the post-1999 ROP plan. The criteria by which we
determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets are adequate
for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). New
budgets must go though EPA's process for determining the adequacy of
SIP motor vehicle emission budgets as delineated in the EPA's May 14,
1999 memo titled ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2,
1999 Conformity Court Decision.''
In today's notice EPA is proposing to find the 2002 and 2005
budgets for VOC and NO_X submitted on June 4, 2001 in
Connecticut's post 1999 rate of progress plan adequate for use in
transportation conformity determinations. However, before making an
affirmative adequacy finding, EPA must open a 30 day public comment
period for all new mobile source vehicle emission budgets. Today's
action opens the required 30 day comment period on the adequacy of
these budgets, and the comment period will close September 10, 2001.
During this comment period, the public can comment on the adequacy of
the budgets and any other aspect of the SIP, by submitting comments to
EPA as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this proposal. After
examining any comments received on the adequacy of the budgets, EPA
will proceed to respond to those comments and will make a final
decision on the adequacy of the budgets. EPA will publish a notice of
adequacy within a reasonable time frame after the 30 day comment period
closes.
As we proposed on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), the attainment
budgets that we are proposing to approve today would be effective for
conformity purposes only until revised MOBILE6 attainment motor vehicle
emissions budgets are submitted and we have found them adequate. The
revised MOBILE6 attainment budgets will apply for conformity purposes
as soon as we find them adequate.
We are limiting the duration of our approval in this manner because
we are only approving the attainment demonstrations and their budgets
because the States have committed to revise them with MOBILE6.
Therefore, once we have confirmed that the revised MOBILE6 budgets are
adequate, they will be more appropriate than the budgets we are
proposing to approve for conformity purposes now.
EPA is also proposing approval of the 2002, 2005 and 2007 budgets
for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds for the State's
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area.

K. Will Any Modifications Be Made to Connecticut's Plan?

It is possible that modifications will be made to the Connecticut
post-1999 ROP plan pursuant to comments made during the public hearing
for these SIP revisions, which was held July 10, 2001. Additionally,
during the course of reviewing the State's draft plan we noted several
minor adjustments that the State should make to the plan, and have been
notified by the State that our requested revisions will be made to the
final document submitted to EPA. The adjustments we are recommending
will not cause the State's projected, controlled emissions to exceed
any of the ROP milestones. Additionally, given the substantial amount
of surplus emission reductions achieved by the State's post-1999 ROP
plan we find it unlikely that any revisions made pursuant to the public
hearing process would jeopardize Connecticut's demonstration that it
can meet its 2002, 2005 and 2007 emission target levels. Our suggested
changes to the Post-1999 ROP plan are contained in a July 10, 2001
letter to the CT DEP.

IV. Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis

A. What Are the Requirements for RACM Technology?

Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to contain RACM as
necessary to provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirements
of section 172(c)(1). See 57 FR 13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA
stated that potentially available measures that would not advance the
attainment date for an area would not be considered RACM. EPA also
indicated in the guidance that states should consider all potentially
available measures to determine whether they were reasonably available
for implementation in the area, and whether they would advance the
attainment date. Further, states should indicate in the SIP submittals
whether the measures considered are reasonably available or not, and if
the measures are reasonably available, they must be adopted as RACM.
Finally, EPA indicated that states could reject potential RACM either
because they would not advance the attainment date or would cause
substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts. States could also
consider local conditions, such as economics or implementation
concerns, in rejecting potential RACM. The EPA also issued a recent
memorandum on this topic, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration
Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' John S. Seitz, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 30, 1999.

[[Page 42183]]

B. What Did Connecticut Submit?

On August 2, 2001, the CT-DEP submitted the draft document,
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis for the
Connecticut Portion of the NY-NJ-CT Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area,
and requested that EPA parallel process it as a revision to the State's
SIP. The document is in draft form, and comments on its content can be
made directly to the CT-DEP using the address located in the Addresses
portion of this document, as well as to EPA in comments on this
proposal.

C. How Does the State Analysis Address the RACM Requirement?

The Connecticut RACM analysis discusses the reasonableness and
effectiveness of both additional transportation control measures and
additional stationary source control measures. As explained below, the
state concludes that there are no control measures, above and beyond
what the state is already implementing, that would advance the Act's
specified attainment date of 2007. Furthermore, the reductions from any
potential additional RACM measures are very small compared to the ROP
reductions that will be reached by 2007.
1. Consideration and Implementation of Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs)
This section describes the analysis the state submitted to evaluate
and implement available transportation control measures (TCMs) in the
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area. In Connecticut, the
identification, evaluation, selection, and implementation of TCM's
takes place as a regular component of the statewide transportation
planning process. The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT-
DOT), in collaboration with the various urban and rural Regional
Planning Organizations (RPO's) and other interested parties, produces
annual updates to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), documenting projects to be funded under federal transportation
programs for a three-year period. The STIP includes investments in
various modes, such as transit, highways, and bicycle facilities. The
most recent STIP, produced in July 2001, allocates about one-third of
total funding for fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003 ($790 million out of
$2,455 million) to expand and maintain numerous rail, bus, rideshare,
and other transit-related programs and projects.
One source of funding for TCM's contained in the STIP is the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program, as delineated in
the federal Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
The CMAQ Program was established to address traffic congestion and
vehicle emissions contributing to air quality nonattainment problems.
CT-DOT works cooperatively with the RPO's, transit agencies, and State
and local air quality agencies to identify and select appropriate
projects for CMAQ funding. In 1999, state legislation was passed
mandating that at least 70% of CMAQ funding received under TEA-21 be
spent in the Southwest Connecticut severe ozone nonattainment area.
Section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act lists 16 potential types of
TCM's. Connecticut's STIP includes measures from most of the Section
108(f) categories. For purposes of analyzing whether any additional
TCMs exist in Connecticut that could be considered RACM, CT-DEP
performed an analysis of the most significant existing TCMs in the STIP
to quantify the magnitude of emission reductions they achieve. These
TCMs included addition of 1,000 new parking spaces at a New Haven rail-
stop, ride-share projects, incident management projects, the employee
commute option program, and coordinated signal systems. The State
determined that these measures would reduce VOC and NO_X
emissions combined by approximately 0.44 tpsd, which is less than 1% of
the total amount of emission reductions needed in the State's portion
of the NY-NJ-CT severe area to reach attainment.
CT-DEP then analyzed the potential emission reductions that could
be achieved from the following set of aggressive, hypothetical TCMs: a
12% reduction in the number of drive alone work trips, a 6.3% increase
in the work at home rate, and a 4.5% increase in commuter rail use. The
State determined that these aggressive measures would only achieve
approximately 1.6 tpsd in emission reductions, which again is far less
than the reductions needed for the area to reach attainment, which will
be supplied by all of the measures in the submitted SIP, to be fully
implemented in time to reach attainment by 2007. Therefore, CT-DEP
concludes that even if these aggressive TCMs could be implemented,
doing so would not allow the State to achieve the NAAQS sooner than
2007, when all other SIP measures will be in place, and therefore these
measures are not considered RACM.
2. Stationary Source and Area Sources RACM Analysis
EPA provided the CT-DEP with an analysis of numerous potential
stationary source RACM measures that could conceivably be considered
RACM. For this analysis, EPA assumed that stationary source categories
that have already been controlled nationally, regionally or locally in
the SIP would not be effective candidates for additional controls that
could be considered RACM, since these categories have only recently
installed their level of control or are about to shortly. Source
categories and their emissions were identified that would not be
subject to control in 2007 after the other national, regional and SIP
controls were accounted for. These source categories were then ranked
on the basis of emissions by category. Based on this analysis, the CT
DEP concluded, as described below, that these measures would either (a)
likely require an intensive and costly effort for numerous small area
sources, or (b) not advance the attainment date in the area. This
conclusion is reached primarily because the reductions expected to be
achieved by the potential RACM measures are relatively small, and are
far less than the emissions reductions needed within the nonattainment
areas to reach attainment.
a. Stationary Source NO_X RACM Analysis. From the
analysis provided by EPA, CT-DEP observed that total emissions from the
top 80% of the NO_X stationary source categories that will
not be controlled in Connecticut in 2007 amount to only 8.2 tpsd. The
kinds of source categories with the most emissions available for
control (e.g., residential distillate oil and gas combustion;
commercial/institutional gas combustion) generally affect area sources,
which are smaller and numerous. Requiring NO_X control on
these sources would therefore likely require an intensive, costly
effort. All of the remaining uncontrolled source categories in 2007
have less than 1 tpsd in NO_X emissions, and thus would not
provide sufficient emission reduction to advance the attainment date.
As a result, controls on these categories are not considered reasonably
available.
b. Stationary Source VOC RACM Analysis. Connecticut DEP's review of
the analysis provided by EPA found that the State, via its long history
of implementation of VOC control regulations, has already adopted rules
that cover all of the VOC source categories with significant emissions.
A review of the State's stationary source VOC inventory did not reveal
any

[[Page 42184]]

source categories that could, through regulation, yield substantial
emission reductions, with the possible exception of the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) measures listed below.
The OTC has developed model rules for the following VOC source
categories: architectural and industrial maintenance coatings, consumer
products, portable fuel containers, mobile equipment repair and
refinishing, and solvent cleaning. CT-DEP announced in its July 2001
draft SIP revision that it is evaluating the model rules to determine
those that may be most appropriate for adaptation into Connecticut
regulations. To assist with this effort, CT-DEP is soliciting public
comment on each of the model rules. Comments are requested regarding
the technical feasibility, cost, and air quality benefits of each rule.
CT-DEP will provide additional opportunity for public comment on
specific regulatory language that may be proposed in the future to
implement any of these OTC model rules.
It is estimated that if all of the OTC's VOC model rules are
adopted, VOC emissions could be reduced by approximately 10 tpsd in
Fairfield county, which forms the majority of the Connecticut portion
of the NY-NJ-CT severe area. CT-DEP already intends to adopt at least
some of these rules to cover its VOC attainment demonstration shortfall
addressed elsewhere in this document. The remaining available VOC
reductions from these potential OTC rules, after Connecticut meets its
shortfall commitment, would be far less than the reductions from
existing SIP measures to be implemented by 2007 to reduce ozone levels
in Connecticut to a level consistent with attainment, as illustrated in
the zero-out modeling discussion below. Thus, Connecticut concluded
that the implementation of additional OTC rules beyond those needed to
fill the shortfall would not serve to advance attainment.
During the development of the attainment demonstration for
Connecticut's portion of the NY-NJ-CT area, a modeling run was done
where the 1999 projected emissions in Connecticut were zeroed out,
while all other emissions and modeling inputs remained the same. This
zero out run represented a reduction in Connecticut emissions of 493.9
tons per day of VOC, and 372.6 tons per day of NO_X. The
affect of zeroing out Connecticut's anthropogenic emissions shows that
this would have very little effect on both the magnitude and the
geographical extent of maximum ozone concentrations within Connecticut.
Approximately 95% of the state would experience reductions in peak
ozone levels of less than 1 part per billion (ppb), on a scale where
the air quality standard is 125 ppb, even with this substantial
emission reduction. Therefore, CT-DEP concludes that the relatively
small emission reductions available from the OTC's VOC model rules
beyond those that Connecticut will be adopting to fill its shortfall
are not RACM because they would not advance the area's attainment date.
Nonetheless, Connecticut is considering adoption of the OTC measures
into its SIP.
Within the Connecticut post-1999 rate-of-progress analysis, the
State shows that between 2000 and 2007 VOC emissions will be reduced by
32.3 tpsd, and NO_X emissions by 39.5 tpsd. A significant
portion of the substantial emission reductions documented in
Connecticut's post-1999 ROP plan are due to the gradual vehicle and
off-road equipment fleet turnover to newer technology between 2000 and
2007, and to the NO_X controls associated with the
NO_X SIP Call, the requirements for which will be effective
by 2003. Given the magnitude of the reductions from these programs
expected between now and the State's 2007 attainment date, the state
concludes that no further stationary or mobile source control measures
beyond those considered in the attainment demonstration and those to be
submitted to fill the shortfall could accelerate the state's attainment
date to a time-frame earlier than 2007.
Connecticut's attainment demonstration documents the need for a
reduction in emissions in upwind areas in order for the State to attain
the one hour ozone standard by 2007. Although a large part of those
reductions will occur in the 2003 to 2004 time-frame due to
implementation of the NO_X SIP Call, additional upwind
reductions will occur in the 2005 to 2007 time-frame as the above
mentioned on-road and off-road mobile source fleet turnover reductions
occur and local upwind controls are implemented. For example, in the
New York and New Jersey portions of the NY-NJ-CT area, 13.5 tpsd of VOC
emission reductions and 23.6 tpsd of NO_X reductions are
projected to occur between 2005 and 2007. These and other upwind
reductions will have a greater impact on improving air quality in
Connecticut than the marginal amount of emission reductions the State
could achieve by implementing additional potential RACM controls.
Additionally, the photochemical modeling accompanying the state
submittal shows that ozone concentrations in Connecticut stem from both
local and regional emissions. NO_X and VOC emissions in the
Connecticut portion of the modeling domain represent a small portion of
regional emissions and since the state has already implemented all
emission control programs as required by the Act for severe areas,
Connecticut believes based on the above analysis that there are no
reasonable control measures available to the state that will accelerate
attainment of the standard. This conclusion is supported by the zero
out modeling run discussed above.

D. Does the Connecticut Attainment Demonstration Submittal Meet the
RACM Requirement?

The EPA has reviewed the submitted attainment demonstration
documentation, the process used by the control agencies to review and
select TCMs, other possible reduction measures for point and area
sources, and the emissions inventory for the Connecticut severe area.
Although EPA encourages areas to implement available RACM measures as
potentially cost effective methods to achieve emissions reductions in
the short term, EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires
implementation of potential RACM measures that either require costly
implementation efforts or produce relatively small emissions reductions
that will not be sufficient to allow the area to achieve attainment in
advance of full implementation of all other required measures. This
conclusion concerning further TCM's addresses only EPA's finding that
they would not advance the ozone attainment date. There are many other
reasons that an area might find it appropriate to implement TCMs, such
as congestion mitigation or sprawl management.
The attainment demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the NY-
NJ-CT severe nonattainment areas indicates that the ozone benefit
expected from regional NO_X reductions is substantial. In
addition, many of the measures designed to achieve emissions reductions
from within the nonattainment area will not be fully implemented prior
to the 2007 nonattainment date. Therefore, EPA concludes, based on the
available documentation, that since the reductions from potential RACM
measures do not nearly equate to the reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment, none of the measures could advance the attainment date
prior to full implementation of the SIP call and full implementation of
the ROP measures, and thus there are no additional potential local
measures that can be considered RACM for this area.

[[Page 42185]]

V. Proposed Action

We are proposing full approval of SIP revisions that relate to
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard in the Connecticut portion of
the NY-NJ-CT severe area. The SIP revisions are Connecticut's one hour
ozone attainment demonstration for the State's portion of the NY-NJ-CT
severe area, including various enforceable commitments and the post-
1999 ROP plan. Connecticut's one hour ozone attainment demonstration
includes 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets, which are being proposed
for approval. The enforceable commitments we are proposing to approve
include: (1) A commitment to adopt and submit by October 31, 2001,
additional necessary regional control measures to offset the emission
reduction shortfall in order to attain the one-hour ozone standard by
November, 2007; (2) a commitment to adopt and submit by October 31,
2001, additional necessary intrastate control measures to offset the
emission reduction shortfall in order to attain the one-hour ozone
standard by November, 2007; (3) a commitment to revise the attainment-
level 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets within one year of the date
that EPA releases the final version of their motor vehicle emissions
model, MOBILE6; (4) a commitment to recalculate and submit revised
motor vehicle emissions budgets if any additional motor vehicle control
measures are adopted to address the shortfall; and (5) a commitment to
perform a mid-course review of the attainment status of the 1-hour
ozone severe nonattainment area and the Greater Connecticut serious
area by December 31, 2004. Also, EPA is proposing to approve the motor
vehicle emissions budgets for 2002 and 2005 contained in Connecticut's
post-1999 ROP plan for transportation conformity purposes.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice. All comments will be considered before taking final action on
the attainment demonstration, including ROP, for the Connecticut
portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA-New England office listed in the ADDRESSES section
of this notice.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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). This rule also does not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: August 3, 2001.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA-New England.
[FR Doc. 01-20142 Filed 8-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Ozone

Related Material

Local Navigation