Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 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: December 11, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 238)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63921-63938]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de01-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CT057-7216a; FRL-7114-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Ozone

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

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Connecticut. This action approves
Connecticut's one-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
(NY-NJ-CT) severe ozone nonattainment area. EPA is also approving a
variety of enforceable commitments associated with the attainment
demonstration, Connecticut's post-1999 rate-of-progress (ROP) plan SIP
and associated ROP contingency measures, and a reasonably available
control measure (RACM) analysis submitted by the state. The post-1999
ROP plan and attainment demonstration establish 2002, 2005 and 2007
volatile organic compound (VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NO_X)
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the area for use in transportation
conformity. EPA is also approving these budgets.
Along with approving the commitments for the Connecticut portion of
the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) severe ozone
nonattainment area, EPA is also approving a modification to the
previously approved enforceable commitment associated with the
attainment demonstration for the Greater Connecticut ozone
nonattainment area. That modification changes the date for submittal of
the mid-course review of the attainment status of the one-hour ozone
nonattainment area from December 31, 2003 to December 31, 2004.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes effective on January 10, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection by appointment weekdays from 9 a.m. to
4 p.m., at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA-New England, One Congress Street, 11th floor,
Boston, MA, and the Bureau of Air Management, Department of
Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street,
Hartford, CT 06106-1630.

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 supplementary information section is organized as follows:

I. What Connecticut SIP revisions are the topics of this action and
what previous action has EPA taken on these SIP revisions?
II. What are the requirements for approval of the attainment
demonstration?
III. What comments did EPA receive on the proposed approvals and how
have we responded?
IV. Final EPA Action
V. Administrative Requirements

I. What Connecticut SIP Revisions Are the Topics of This Action and
What Previous Action Has EPA Taken on These SIP Revisions?

A. Attainment Demonstration and Enforceable Commitments

EPA is approving an attainment demonstration SIP submitted on
September 16, 1998 by the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT one-hour
severe ozone nonattainment area, as modified on February 8, 2000 by an
addendum. Connecticut also submitted additional SIP elements for its
attainment demonstration on October 15, 2001. All three submittals are
discussed in this section.
EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State
of Connecticut's portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area's ozone attainment
demonstration on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70348). In that action, EPA
proposed to conditionally approve the ozone attainment demonstration
submitted by the state. We identified the following items in the
December 16, 1999 rulemaking as conditions upon which we would base our
final approval: (1) Submission of adequate motor vehicle emission
budgets for both VOC and NO_X; (2) submission of control
measures necessary to meet the ROP requirement from 1999 to the
attainment year of 2007, including ROP target level calculations for
2002, 2005 and 2007; (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. EPA also proposed, in
the alternative, to disapprove the attainment demonstration if
Connecticut did not submit these items. Also, on December 16, 1999, EPA
proposed to approve and/or conditionally approve or disapprove in the
alternative the attainment demonstration SIPs for nine other areas in
the eastern United States (64 FR 70317).
On February 22, 2000 (65 FR 8703), EPA published a notice of
availability announcing two guidance memoranda relating to the ten one-
hour ozone attainment demonstrations (including the Connecticut portion
of the NY-NJ-CT severe area) proposed for approval or conditional
approval on December 16, 1999. The guidance memoranda are entitled:
``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour Ozone
Attainment Demonstrations,'' dated November 3, 1999, and ``Guidance on
the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and
Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,''
dated November 30, 1999.
On July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), EPA published a notice of
supplemental proposed rulemaking relating to the ten one-hour ozone
attainment demonstrations (including the Connecticut portion of the NY-
NJ-CT severe area) proposed for approval or conditional approval on
December 16, 1999. In the supplemental notice, EPA clarified and
expanded on two issues relating to the motor vehicle emissions budgets
in the attainment demonstration SIPs. In addition, EPA reopened the
comment period to take comment on those two issues and to allow comment
on any additional materials that were placed in the dockets for the ten
proposed actions close to or after the initial comment period closed on
February 14, 2000.
EPA received comments in response to our December 16, 1999 proposal
and the supplemental notice. We address the comments relevant to the
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe attainment demonstration in
section IV below.
On February 8, 2000, Connecticut DEP submitted an addendum to the
ozone attainment demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the NY-
NJ-CT severe nonattainment area, which contains certain enforceable
commitments. The addendum was submitted in response to requirements for
full approval EPA articulated in our December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70348)
proposed rulemaking on the attainment demonstration SIP. On June 4,
2001, Connecticut DEP submitted a number of outstanding SIP elements
for approval via parallel processing. Included in this submittal were
proposed revisions to some of the enforceable commitments made on
February 8, 2000.

[[Page 63922]]

On August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42172), EPA proposed full approval of
Connecticut's one hour ozone attainment demonstration for the state's
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area and of various enforceable
commitments. EPA received no comments on its August 10, 2001 proposal
to approve the Connecticut one hour ozone attainment demonstration.
On October 15, 2001, Connecticut submitted final versions of the
SIP amendments sent to EPA on June 4, 2001.
In this action, EPA is approving the attainment demonstration, the
control measures and the final enforceable commitments made by the
state. Those enforceable commitments from the February 8, 2000 and
October 15, 2001 submittals include: (1) A commitment to perform a mid-
course review of the attainment status of the one-hour ozone
nonattainment area by December 31, 2004; (2) a commitment to adopt and
submit by October 31, 2001 additional necessary regional control
measures to offset the shortfall in emission reductions needed to
attain the one-hour ozone standard by November 2007; and (3) a
commitment to adopt and submit by October 31, 2001, additional
necessary intrastate control measures to offset the shortfall in
emission reductions needed to attain the one-hour ozone standard by
November 2007. With regard to the specific control measures that the
state will adopt to offset the shortfall in emission reductions, the
Connecticut DEP has committed to adopt and submit: (1) Additional
restrictions on VOC emissions from mobile equipment and repair
operations and (2) requirements to reduce VOC emissions from certain
consumer products.

B. Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress Emission Reduction Plan

The post-1999 ROP plan documents how Connecticut complied with the
provisions of section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act through 2007. This
section of the Act requires that states containing certain ozone
nonattainment areas develop strategies to reduce emissions of the
pollutants that react to form ground level ozone.
EPA is approving the post-1999 ROP emission reduction plan the
State of Connecticut submitted on October 15, 2001 for the state's
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment area as a revision
to Connecticut's SIP. For purposes of meeting the ROP requirements,
Connecticut, New York and New Jersey each submitted a plan to reduce
emissions within their own portion of the nonattainment area. EPA is
taking action today only on the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT
post-1999 plan. EPA will take action on the New York and New Jersey
post-99 plans separately. On August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42178), EPA
published a proposed rulemaking for the State of Connecticut's proposed
post-99 plan that the state submitted for approval via parallel
processing on June 4, 2001. EPA received no comments regarding its
proposal to approve the Connecticut post-1999 ROP plan.

C. Transportation Conformity Budgets

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or 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 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 they submit for
attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards.
In the December 16, 1999 proposed rulemaking on the Connecticut
attainment demonstration, EPA proposed, in the alternative, to
disapprove the attainment demonstration if Connecticut did not submit
adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets 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 Connecticut DEP
submitted revisions to the NY-NJ-CT attainment demonstration which
contained 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and
NO_X, as well as the necessary enforceable commitment.
A public comment period was held on these budgets when they were
posted at www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/currsips.htm. The public
comment period began on February 14, 2000, and closed on March 20,
2000. EPA sent a letter to Connecticut DEP on May 31, 2000 finding
these budgets adequate for use in transportation conformity
determinations. EPA received no public comments during that public
comment period.
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
Connecticut submitted on February 8, 2000 adequate for conformity
purposes. These budgets became effective on July 3, 2000 (65 FR
37779).When we originally proposed approval of the Connecticut portion
of the NY-NJ-CT severe area attainment demonstration on December 16,
1999, however, EPA did receive comments that opposed EPA determining
budgets adequate for transportation conformity purposes. EPA responded
to all of those comments before determining the 2007 budgets adequate.
A copy of our response to comments is available at http://www.epa.gov/
oms/transp/conform/resp_ct.pdf.
In this notice, EPA is approving into the SIP the 2007 budgets for
the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area. EPA is also
approving two enforceable commitments related to the conformity
budgets. Those are: (1) 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 our motor vehicle emissions model,
MOBILE6; and (2) a commitment to recalculate and submit revised motor
vehicle emissions budgets if any additional motor vehicle control
measures are adopted to address the shortfall.
We are only approving the 2007 budgets to be used for conformity
purposes until Connecticut submits revised 2007 motor vehicle emissions
budgets using MOBILE6 and/or revised 2007 budgets associated with
mobile source measures to fill the shortfall and we have found them
adequate. At that point, our approval of the 2007 budgets will
terminate and the new adequate 2007 budgets will apply for conformity
purposes. For more information, please see the proposal published on
August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42172).
On July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), EPA published a notice of
supplemental proposed rulemaking relating to ten one-hour ozone
attainment demonstrations (including the Connecticut portion of the NY-
NJ-CT severe area) proposed for approval or conditional approval on
December 16, 1999. In the supplemental notice, EPA clarified and
expanded on two issues relating to the motor vehicle emissions budgets
in the attainment demonstration SIPs. In addition, EPA reopened the
comment period to take comment on those two issues and to allow comment
on any additional materials that were placed in the dockets for the ten
proposed actions close to or after the initial comment period closed on
February 14, 2000.
On June 4, 2001, Connecticut DEP submitted for parallel processing
its proposed post-1999 ROP plan which contains 2002, 2005 and 2007
motor

[[Page 63923]]

vehicle emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides (NO_X) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the State's portion of the NY-NJ-
CT severe area. The 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in
the Connecticut post-1999 ROP plan match the conformity budgets
contained in the state's attainment demonstration submitted on February
15, 2000. The 2002 and 2005 motor vehicle emissions budgets are new
budgets established by the post-1999 ROP plan. The following table
contains these NO_X and VOC motor vehicle emissions budgets
in units of tons per summer day:

Table 1.--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Use in Conformity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2005 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC (tpsd)...................................... 15.20 11.42 9.69
NO_X (tpsd)...................................... 38.39 29.01 23.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA opened a 30-day public comment period for these budgets on its
conformity Web site on August 10, 2001 (see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
transp/conform/currsips.htm). The comment period closed on September
10, 2001, and EPA did not receive any comments on these conformity
budgets. On November 1, 2001, EPA issued a letter to Connecticut
determining that these budgets were adequate for use in transportation
conformity determinations. The 2002 and 2005 motor vehicle emissions
budgets become effective December 26, 2001.
On October 15, 2001, Connecticut DEP submitted its final post-1999
ROP plan which contains 2002, 2005 and 2007 motor vehicle emissions
budgets for nitrogen oxides (NO_X) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) in final form for the Connecticut portion of the NY-
NJ-CT severe area. These budgets are identical to those submitted for
parallel processing and posted for comment on EPA's Web site. In this
notice, in addition to approving the 2007 motor vehicle emissions
budgets, EPA is approving into the SIP the 2002 and 2005 motor vehicle
emissions budgets for VOC and NO_X from the post-1999 plan.

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)

EPA is approving as a revision to Connecticut's SIP the RACM
analysis plan the State of Connecticut finalized on October 15, 2001
for the State's portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment
area.
On August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42178), EPA published a proposed
rulemaking for Connecticut's proposed RACM plan that the state
submitted for approval via parallel processing on August 2, 2001. EPA
received no comments regarding its proposal to approve the Connecticut
RACM plan.

II. What Are the Requirements for Approval of the Attainment
Demonstration?

A. Attainment Demonstration and Budgets

On February 8, 2000, Connecticut DEP submitted an addendum to the
ozone attainment demonstrations for the Connecticut portion of the NY-
NJ-CT severe nonattainment area. Connecticut submitted the addendum in
response to EPA's requirements for full approval as explained in our
proposed rulemaking on the attainment demonstration SIP. Connecticut
DEP held a public hearing on the addendum on January 6, 2000.
The February 8, 2000 addendum contained 2007 VOC and NO_X
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Connecticut portion of the NY-
NJ-CT severe nonattainment area. Connecticut calculated the motor
vehicle emissions budgets to be consistent with requirements
Connecticut is relying on in its attainment demonstration for the
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area. Connecticut also
incorporated credit for the Tier 2/sulfur program in calculating the
emissions budgets consistent with the 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 1.
All States whose attainment demonstration includes the effects of
the Tier 2/sulfur program have committed to revise and resubmit their
motor vehicle emissions budgets after EPA releases the MOBILE6 model.
On February 8, 2000, Connecticut submitted a commitment to revise the
2007 motor vehicle budgets in the attainment demonstration within one
year of EPA's release of the MOBILE6 model. In this action, EPA is
approving this commitment to revise the 2007 motor vehicle budgets in
the attainment demonstration within one year of EPA's release of the
MOBILE6 model.
As we proposed in our July 28, 2000 SNPR (65 FR 46383), today's
final approval of the budgets contained in the 2007 attainment plan
will be effective for conformity purposes only until such time as
revised motor vehicle emissions budgets are submitted (pursuant to the
commitment to submit revised budgets using the MOBILE6 model within one
year of EPA's release of that model) and we have found those revised
budgets adequate. We are only approving the attainment demonstration
and its current budgets because Connecticut has provided an enforceable
commitment to revise the 2007 budgets using the MOBILE6 model within
one year of EPA's release of that model. Therefore, we are limiting the
duration of our approval of the current 2007 budgets only until such
time as the revised budgets are found adequate. Those revised 2007
budgets, once found adequate, will be more appropriate than the budgets
we are approving for conformity purposes for the time being.
Similarly, EPA is only approving the 2007 attainment demonstration
and its current 2007 budgets because Connecticut has provided an
enforceable commitment to submit new budgets as a revision to the
attainment SIP consistent with any new measures submitted to fill any
shortfall, if the additional control measures affect on-road motor
vehicle emissions. Therefore, we are limiting the duration of our
approval of the current 2007 budgets only until such time as any such
revised budgets are found adequate. Those revised 2007 budgets, once
found adequate, will similarly be more appropriate than the budgets we
are approving for conformity purposes for the time being.
The Addendum also includes Connecticut's analysis of the future air
quality design value for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe
nonattainment area, which is identical to the EPA analysis found in the
Technical Support Document to the notice of proposed rulemaking
published December 16, 1999. This analysis supports the contention
outlined in the notice of proposed rulemaking that additional emission
controls beyond the benefits of the Tier 2/Sulfur program are needed
for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area to demonstrate
attainment.

B. Enforceable Commitments to Adopt Additional Control Measures

In our December 16, 1999 proposed conditional approval of
Connecticut's ozone attainment demonstration, EPA said we did not
believe the attainment analysis submitted at that time for NY-NJ-CT
area demonstrates attainment by the year 2007. EPA's analysis to
determine how much additional emission reduction is needed before we
can approve Connecticut's attainment demonstration showed an ozone
shortfall of 5 ppb for the NY-NJ-CT

[[Page 63924]]

severe nonattainment. In other words, our analysis predicted that the
NY-NJ-CT area would remain 5 ppb over the NAAQS if Connecticut and its
neighboring states do not achieve emission reductions beyond those
included in the attainment demonstrations submitted by the states of
Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. 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 the 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. 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. 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
shortfall in emission reductions necessary 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.
The final approval of the Connecticut DEP regulation that reduces
emissions of NO_X from Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC) below
previously required levels was granted by EPA Region I's Regional
Administrator on November 9, 2001. The approved MWC rule will be
promulgated at 40 CFR 52.370(c)(90). The additional NO_X
reductions that will be achieved by this regulation were not assumed in
the attainment demonstration modeling submitted by the state and are
thus eligible to fill the emission reduction shortfall necessary for
attainment. Since we have already approved this rule, we will not take
action on the February 8, 2000 commitment regarding the MWC rule.
In our August 10, 2001 proposed full approval rulemaking notice on
the attainment demonstration, we indicated that the shortfall in
emission reductions for the Connecticut portion of the nonattainment
area was 5.3 tpsd of VOC and 0.5 tpsd of NO_X. Due to a
correction we made to Connecticut's estimate of base year VOC emissions
from architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, the VOC
shortfall is now considered to be 5.4 tpsd. In its October 15, 2001
submittal, Connecticut DEP outlines how the individual strategies it is
committing to pursue will be sufficient to achieve reductions that will
eliminate the shortfall.
In its June 4, 2001 submittal to EPA, Connecticut articulated that
it has narrowed the list of further possible control measures for
filling the shortfall to those for which model rules were developed by
the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). The OTC model rules include
measures to reduce VOC from consumer products, portable fuel
containers, AIM coatings, mobile equipment refinishing and repair
operations, and solvent cleaning operations. The OTC model rules also
include additional NO_X controls for fuel combustion sources,
including gas turbines, stationary reciprocating engines, and
industrial boilers. These model rules would achieve reductions beyond
those already assumed in Connecticut's SIP for some of these measures.
At the public hearing Connecticut DEP held on July 10, 2001, the DEP
solicited public comment on each of the model rules to determine those
that may be most appropriate for adaptation into Connecticut's
regulations to address the shortfalls EPA identified for attaining the
one-hour ozone standard and to make progress toward attaining the
eight-hour ozone standard.
Subsequent to the public hearing, the Connecticut DEP has decided
it would pursue adoption of: (1) additional restrictions on VOC
emissions from mobile equipment refinishing and repair operations; and
(2) requirements to reduce VOC emissions from certain consumer
products. In its October 15, 2001 submittal, Connecticut is committing
to pursue adoption of regulations for these two categories. Connecticut
has proposed a rule on mobile equipment refinishing and repair
operations and held a public hearing on it on September 15, 2001. The
rule is scheduled to be adopted by the end of 2001. Connecticut DEP has
begun the adoption process for the rule covering consumer products.
Both of these rules will be adopted and implemented within a time
period fully consistent with the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area attaining
the standard by its 2007 attainment date. In today's action, EPA is
approving the enforceable commitments Connecticut DEP submitted to
adopt control measures to offset the shortfall in emission reductions
necessary to attain the one-hour ozone standard by November 2007.

C. Mid-Course Review

A mid-course review (MCR) for the NY-NJ-CT severe area is a
reassessment of modeling analyses and more recent monitored data to
determine if the 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.
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. 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 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 D.C. Circuit
issued an order providing that EPA could not mandate that states
require source compliance with rules adopted to meet the SIP call
before 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 revised the submittal date of the MCR from December 31,
2003 to December 31, 2004. This new due date, and the logic behind its
choice, also effects the Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area.

[[Page 63925]]

We have reviewed the commitment and approve this SIP revision for both
the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe nonattainment area and
the Greater Connecticut area. This new date is consistent with the EPA
recommendation for submittal of the mid-course review on the attainment
demonstration and should provide the most robust assessment of whether
the state is on-track to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its
attainment date.

D. Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress Plan

This section is organized as follows:
1. What action is EPA taking today?
2. What are Connecticut's target emission levels for VOC and
NO_X, and will the state's emissions be below these targets?
3. What control strategy will Connecticut use to meet its emission
target levels?
4. How did Connecticut meet the contingency measure requirement?
1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
EPA is approving the post-1999 rate-of-progress (ROP) emission
reduction plan the State of Connecticut submitted for the state's
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment area as a revision
to Connecticut's SIP. For purposes of meeting the ROP requirements,
Connecticut, New York and New Jersey each submitted a plan to reduce
emissions within their own portion of the nonattainment area. EPA is
taking 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)(B) of the Act through 2007. This
section of the Act requires that states containing certain ozone
nonattainment areas develop strategies to reduce emissions of the
pollutants that react to form ground level ozone.
On August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42178), EPA published a proposed
rulemaking on the State of Connecticut's ROP demonstration for 2002,
2005 and 2007. EPA received no comments regarding its proposal to
approve the Connecticut post-1999 ROP plan.
2. What Are Connecticut's Target Emission Levels for VOC and
NO_X, and Will the State's Emissions Be Below These Targets?
Connecticut's 2002, 2005, and 2007 target emission levels are shown
in table 2, along with the state's projected, controlled emission
levels. These target emission levels represent the maximum amount of
emissions that Connecticut can emit in each year, given the state's
post-1999 emission reduction requirements.

Table 2.--Target Levels and Projected, Controlled Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 VOC 2002 NO_X 2005 VOC 2005 NO_X 2007 VOC 2007 NO_X
Description (tpsd) (tpsd) (tpsd) (tpsd) (tpsd) (tpsd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Level...................... 94.8 115.2 82.7 114.9 76.8 112.9
Projected Controlled Emissions.... 89.2 98.2 80.4 83.1 76.8 76.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The emission targets shown in Table 2 reflect a minor adjustment we
made to Connecticut's 1990 emission estimate for AIM coatings, which we
discuss in further detail below. This modification does not affect the
state's ability to meet the statutory ROP requirement.
3. What Control Strategy Will Connecticut Use To Meet Its Emission
Target Levels?
EPA's August 10, 2001 proposed approval action outlined the control
strategy that Connecticut used to meet its emission target levels. In
summary, the state's control strategy consists of the emission
reductions from the continued enforcement of measures EPA approved as
part of the State's 15 percent and post-1996 (through 1999) emission
reduction plans (64 FR 12015 (March 10, 1999) and 65 FR 62624 (October
19, 2000), respectively), coupled with emission reductions from the
following programs: Connecticut's NO_X budget program
affecting large point sources; municipal waste combustor (MWC) emission
limits; federal non-road engine standards; phase II of the reformulated
gasoline program; reductions from the final cut-points for the state's
enhanced automobile inspection and maintenance 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. All these control measures are approved as part of
Connecticut's SIP or are otherwise enforceable under the Act.
We agree with Connecticut's determination of emission reductions
from its NO_X and VOC control strategy, with the minor
exception of the architectural and industrial maintenance coatings
(AIM) category that was part of the state's 15 percent plan. We agree
with the 20 percent reduction Connecticut applied to its projected
emissions for this source category due to a federal rule on these
coatings. However, because Connecticut used different emission
estimation methodologies to calculate its 1990 AIM emissions (used in
development of the target levels) and its 1996 AIM emissions (used to
project emissions), EPA concluded that an overstatement of reductions
occurred due to these differing emission estimation techniques. To
correct this discrepancy, we applied the more accurate 1996 AIM
coatings emissions estimation methodology to Connecticut's 1990 base
year estimate, and determined that Connecticut's base year emissions
(the ``ROP'' inventory) for VOCs should be lowered from 144.0 tpsd to
142.3 tpsd. Inserting the correct 1990 emission estimate into the
State's ROP calculation yields the emission target levels shown above
in Table 2. It is important to note that correcting this element of
Connecticut's baseline inventory has no effect on the choices the state
has made in designing its ROP plan and contingency measures.
Connecticut has sufficient emission reductions beyond what is required
for these SIP elements such that this adjustment simply reduces that
surplus slightly.
4. How Did Connecticut Meet the Contingency Measure requirement?
Connecticut has met its contingency measure obligation by using
surplus emission reductions generated by the control measures in its
post-1999 ROP plan. EPA policy allows use of surplus reductions that
will occur in years after the ROP plan from already adopted measures to
serve as contingency measures for ROP plans. 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 in ozone
nonattainment areas classified serious and above.
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

[[Page 63926]]

is not obligated to approve such measures prior to approving the
attainment demonstration. The EPA believes the contingency measure
requirement of section 172(c)(9) is independent 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.
Connecticut's post-1999 ROP plan states that its large
NO_X surplus is sufficient to meet both contingency measure
provisions of the Act. However, the State's surplus NO_X
reductions can not be used to meet the 179(c)(9) contingency measure
requirement because that requirement pertains to a failure to meet the
one hour ozone standard by the area's 2007 attainment date, and
therefore must consist of measures that are surplus to the measures
needed for attainment. The surplus NO_X reductions in
Connecticut's ROP plan are not surplus to the measures needed for
attainment.
In the event that attainment is not achieved by 2007, there are a
number of EPA measures that will achieve significant emission
reductions between 2007 and 2009. These include continuing reductions
from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe standards and EPA's standards for a variety
of non-road sources. We have analyzed the Connecticut SIP and
determined that the contingency obligation would be covered for this
area by these measures. More details on EPA's contingency measure
analysis are included in the docket for the rulemaking action. While
there is not an approved SIP contingency measure that would apply if
the state failed to attain, EPA believes that existing federally
enforceable measures would provide the necessary substantive relief.
Other specific requirements of post-1999 ROP plans and the
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will
not be restated here. See 66 FR 42178 (August 10, 2001).

E. SIP Elements EPA Approved Between December 16, 1999 and Today

In the NPR for the Connecticut attainment demonstration SIP
published on December 16, 1999, EPA stated that it intended to publish,
either before or at the same time as publication of final approval of
the attainment demonstration, a final approval of Connecticut's VOC
RACT rules pursuant to sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (C) of the Clean Air
Act, the 9% rate of progress plan through 1999, the post-99 ROP plan,
the state opt-in to the National Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program,
and the NO_X SIP call SIP for the Connecticut portion of the
NY-NJ-CT severe area. These measures are needed to fully approve the
attainment demonstration.
EPA approved the Connecticut VOC RACT rules pursuant to sections
182(b)(2)(A) and (C) of Clean Air Act on October 19, 2000 (65 FR
62620). EPA approved the Connecticut area's 9% rate of progress plan on
October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62624). EPA approved Connecticut's opt-in to
the NLEV program on March 9, 2000 (65 FR 12476). EPA approved
Connecticut's NO_X SIP call SIP on December 27, 2000 (65 FR
81743). This action approves the post-99 plan for the Connecticut
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe nonattainment area.
Additionally, subsequent to the December 16, 1999 proposal, EPA
granted full approval to two other SIP elements in Connecticut. On
March 9, 2000 (65 FR 12474), EPA approved Connecticut's Clean Fuel
Fleets Substitute Plan as meeting the requirements of Section 182(c)(4)
of the Clean Air Act. On October 27, 2000 (65 FR 64357), EPA approved
the Connecticut Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance program SIP,
converting it from a limited approval under the Clean Air Act to a full
approval.
With the submission and approval of the SIP elements mentioned
above, Connecticut has in place all of the required elements of the
attainment demonstration SIP. As discussed elsewhere in this notice,
Connecticut has met all of the requirements for full approval of its
attainment demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT
severe area, and EPA is approving it today. The New York and New Jersey
portions of the area will be the topic of different rulemaking actions.

III. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the Proposed Approvals and
How Have We Responded?

As stated above, EPA did not receive comments on its August 10,
2001 proposal for the attainment demonstration, the post-99 plan, the
motor vehicle emissions budgets or the RACM analysis. EPA did receive
comments from the public on the NPR published on December 16, 1999 (64
FR 70332) for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area's
ozone attainment demonstration. EPA received comments from Robert E.
Yuhnke (Attorney for Environmental Defense and Natural Resources
Defense Council), the Midwest Ozone Group, and ELM Packaging Company.
EPA also received comments from the public on the supplemental proposed
rulemaking published on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), in which EPA
clarified and expanded on two issues relating to the motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the attainment demonstration SIPs. Environmental
Defense commented on that supplemental proposal.
Additionally, on November 15, 2001, Environmental Defense submitted
comments to EPA concerning several proposals to approve the attainment
demonstrations for the New York and New Jersey portions of the NY-NJ-CT
severe nonattainment area. These comments were not directed at the
Connecticut attainment demonstration and generally discussed only the
New York and New Jersey demonstrations in any detail. There was one
comment in the letter that specifically focused on the adequacy of
Connecticut's commitment to submit enforceable measures to address the
emissions reduction shortfall. See Letter from Janea A. Scott and Val
Washington to Raymond Werner (November 15, 2001) at section I.d. In
section III.D., below, EPA is responding to this comment along with
other comments concerning the shortfall measures.
The following discussion summarizes and responds to all of these
comments. For convenience, the comments we received on previous NPRs
have been grouped into categories.

A. Attainment Demonstrations--Weight of Evidence

Comment: The weight of evidence approach does not demonstrate
attainment or meet CAA requirements for a modeled attainment
demonstration. Commenters added several criticisms of various technical
aspects of the weight of evidence approach, including certain specific
applications of the approach to particular attainment demonstrations.
These comments are discussed in the following response.
Response: Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the CAA, serious and
severe ozone nonattainment areas were required to

[[Page 63927]]

submit by November 15, 1994, demonstrations of how they would attain
the 1-hour standard. Section 182(c)(2)(A) provides that ``[t]his
attainment demonstration must be based on photochemical grid modeling
or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator, in the
Administrator's discretion, to be at least as effective.'' As described
in more detail below, the EPA allows states to supplement their
photochemical modeling results, with additional evidence designed to
account for uncertainties in the photochemical modeling, to demonstrate
attainment. This approach is consistent with the requirement of section
182(c)(2)(A) that the attainment demonstration ``be based on
photochemical grid modeling,'' because the modeling results constitute
the principal component of EPA's analysis, with supplemental
information designed to account for uncertainties in the model. This
interpretation and application of the photochemical modeling
requirement of section 182(c)(2)(A) finds further justification in the
broad deference Congress granted EPA to develop appropriate methods for
determining attainment, as indicated in the last phrase of section
182(c)(2)(A).
The flexibility granted to EPA under section 182(c)(2)(A) is
reflected in the regulations EPA promulgated for modeled attainment
demonstrations. These regulations provide, ``The adequacy of a control
strategy shall be demonstrated by means of applicable air quality
models, data bases, and other requirements specified in [40 CFR part
51, appendix W]
(Guideline on Air Quality Models).''\1\ 40 CFR
51.112(a)(1). However, the regulations further provide, ``Where an air
quality model specified in appendix W * * * is inappropriate, the model
may be modified or another model substituted [with approval by EPA, and
after]
notice and opportunity for public comment * * * '' Appendix W,
in turn, provides that, ``The Urban Airshed Model (UAM) is recommended
for photochemical or reactive pollutant modeling applications involving
entire urban areas,'' but further refers to EPA's modeling guidance for
data requirements and procedures for operating the model. 40 CFR part
51, appendix W, section 6.2.1.a. The modeling guidance discusses the
data requirements and operating procedures, as well as interpretation
of model results as they relate to the attainment demonstration. This
provision references guidance published in 1991, but EPA envisioned the
guidance would change as we gained experience with model applications,
which is why the guidance is referenced, but does not appear, in
appendix W. With updates in 1996 and 1999, the evolution of EPA's
guidance has led us to use both the photochemical grid model, and
additional analytical methods approved by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The August 12, 1996 version of ``appendix W to part 51--
Guideline on Air Quality Models'' was the rule in efect for these
attainment demonstrations. EPA is proposing updates to this rule,
that will not take effect until the rulemaking process for them is
complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The modeled attainment test compares model predicted 1-hour daily
maximum ozone concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year
to the level of the NAAQS. The results may be interpreted through
either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests: the deterministic
test or the statistical test. Under the deterministic test, a predicted
concentration above 0.124 parts per million (ppm) ozone indicates that
the area is expected to exceed the standard in the attainment year and
a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that the area is expected
to not exceed the standard. Under the statistical test, attainment is
demonstrated when all predicted (i.e., modeled) 1-hour ozone
concentrations inside the modeling domain are at, or below, an
acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain
conditions (depending on the severity of the episode modeled).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Guidance on the Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate
Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS. EPA-454/B-95-007, June 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1996, EPA issued guidance \3\ to update the 1991 guidance
referenced in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, to make the modeled
attainment test more closely reflect the form of the NAAQS (i.e., the
statistical test described above), to consider the area's ozone design
value and the meteorological conditions accompanying observed
exceedances, and to allow consideration of other evidence to address
uncertainties in the modeling databases and application. When the
modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment, EPA has
concluded that additional analyses may be presented to help determine
whether the area will attain the standard. As with other predictive
tools, there are inherent uncertainties associated with air quality
modeling and its results. The inherent imprecision of the model means
that it may be inappropriate to view the specific numerical result of
the model as the only determinant of whether the SIP controls are
likely to lead to attainment. The EPA's guidance recognizes these
limitations, and provides a means for considering other evidence to
help assess whether attainment of the NAAQS is likely to be achieved.
The process by which this is done is called a weight of evidence (WOE)
determination. Under a WOE determination, the state can rely on, and
EPA will consider in addition to the results of the modeled attainment
test, other factors such as other modeled output (e.g., changes in the
predicted frequency and pervasiveness of 1-hour ozone NAAQS
exceedances, and predicted change in the ozone design value); actual
observed air quality trends (i.e. analyses of monitored air quality
data); estimated emissions trends; and the responsiveness of the model
predictions to further controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1999, EPA issued additional guidance \4\ that makes further use
of model results for base case and future emission estimates to predict
a future design value. This guidance describes the use of an additional
component of the WOE determination, which requires, under certain
circumstances, additional emission reductions that are or will be
approved into the SIP, but that were not included in the modeling
analysis, that will further reduce the modeled design value. An area is
considered to monitor attainment if each monitor site has air quality
observed ozone design values (4th highest daily maximum ozone using the
three most recent consecutive years of data) at or below the level of
the standard. Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA, when making a
determination that a control strategy will provide for attainment, to
determine whether or not the model predicted future design value is
expected to be at or below the level of the standard. Since the form of
the 1-hour NAAQS allows exceedances, it did not seem appropriate for
EPA to require the test for attainment to be ``no exceedances'' in the
future model predictions. The method outlined in EPA's 1999 guidance
uses the highest measured design value across all sites in the
nonattainment area for each of three years. These three ``design
values'' represent the air quality observed during the time period used
to predict ozone for the base emissions. This is appropriate because
the model is predicting the change in ozone from the base period to the
future attainment date. The three yearly design values

[[Page 63928]]

(highest across the area) are averaged to account for annual
fluctuations in meteorology. The result is an estimate of an area's
base year design value. The base year design value is multiplied by a
ratio of the peak model predicted ozone concentrations in the
attainment year (i.e., average of daily maximum concentrations from all
days modeled) to the peak model predicted ozone concentrations in the
base year (i.e., average of daily maximum concentrations from all days
modeled). The result is an attainment year design value based on the
relative change in peak model predicted ozone concentrations from the
base year to the attainment year. Modeling results also show that
emission control strategies designed to reduce areas of peak ozone
concentrations generally result in similar ozone reductions in all core
areas of the modeling domain, thereby providing some assurance of
attainment at all monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through
Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.''
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Emissions Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air
Quality Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, November
1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the event that the attainment year design value is above the
standard, the 1999 guidance provides a method for identifying
additional emission reductions, not modeled, which at a minimum provide
an estimated attainment year design value at the level of the standard.
This step uses a locally derived factor which assumes a linear
relationship between ozone and the precursors.
A commenter criticized the 1999 guidance as flawed on grounds that
it allows the averaging of the three highest air quality sites across a
region, whereas EPA's 1991 and 1996 modeling guidance requires that
attainment be demonstrated at each site. This has the effect of
allowing lower air quality concentrations to be averaged against higher
concentrations thus reducing the total emission reduction needed to
attain at the higher site. The commenter does not appear to have
described the guidance accurately. The guidance does not recommend
averaging across a region or spatial averaging of observed data. The
guidance does recommend determination of the highest site in the region
for each of the three-year periods, determined by the base year
modeled. For example, if the base year is 1990, it is the amount of
emissions in 1990 that must be adjusted or evaluated (by accounting for
growth and controls) to determine whether attainment results. These
1990 emissions contributed to three design value periods (1988-90,
1989-91 and 1990-92). Under the approach of the guidance document, EPA
determined the design value for each of those three-year periods, and
then averaged those three design values, to determine the base design
value. This approach is appropriate because, as just noted, the 1990
emissions contributed to each of those periods, and there is no reason
to believe the 1990 (episodic) emissions resulted in the highest or
lowest of the three design values. Averaging the three years is
beneficial for another reason: It allows consideration of a broader
range of meteorological conditions--those that occurred throughout the
1988-1992 period, rather than the meteorology that occurs in one
particular year or even one particular ozone episode within that year.
Furthermore, EPA relied on three-year averaging only for purposes of
determining one component, i.e.--the small amount of additional
emission reductions not modeled--of the WOE determination. The WOE
determination, in turn, is intended to be part of a qualitative
assessment of whether additional factors (including the additional
emissions reductions not modeled), taken as a whole, indicate that the
area is more likely than not to attain.
A commenter criticized the component of this WOE factor that
estimates ambient improvement because it does not incorporate complete
modeling of the additional emissions reductions. However, the
regulations do not mandate, nor does EPA guidance suggest, that states
must model all control measures being implemented. Moreover, a
component of this technique--the estimation of future design value--
should be considered a model-predicted estimate. Therefore, results
from this technique are an extension of ``photochemical grid'' modeling
and are consistent with section 182(c)(2)(A). Also, a commenter
believes that EPA has not provided sufficient opportunity to evaluate
the calculations used to estimate additional emission reductions. EPA
provided a full 60-day period for comment on all aspects of the
proposed rule. EPA has received several comments on the technical
aspects of the approach and the results of its application, as
discussed above and in the responses to the individual SIPs.
A commenter states that application of the method of attainment
analysis used for the December 16, 1999 NPRs will yield a lower control
estimate than if we relied entirely on reducing maximum predictions in
every grid cell to less than or equal to 124 ppb on every modeled day.
However, the commenter's approach may overestimate needed controls
because the form of the standard allows up to 3 exceedances in 3 years
in every grid cell. If the model over predicts observed concentrations,
predicted controls may be further overestimated. EPA has considered
other evidence, as described above, through the weight of evidence
determination.
When reviewing a SIP, the EPA must make a determination that the
control measures adopted are reasonably likely to lead to attainment.
Reliance on the WOE factors allows EPA to make this determination based
on a greater body of information presented by the states and available
to EPA. This information includes model results for the majority of the
control measures. Although not all measures were modeled, EPA reviewed
the model's response to changes in emissions as well as observed air
quality changes to evaluate the impact of a few additional measures,
not modeled. EPA's decision was further strengthened by each state's
commitment to check progress towards attainment in a mid-course review
and to adopt additional measures, if the anticipated progress is not
being made.
A commenter further criticized EPA's technique for estimating the
ambient impact of additional emissions reductions not modeled on
grounds that EPA employed a rollback modeling technique that, according
to the commenter, is precluded under EPA regulations. The commenter
explained that 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, section 6.2.1.e. provides,
``Proportional (rollback/forward) modeling is not an acceptable
procedure for evaluating ozone control strategies.'' Section 14.0 of
appendix W defines ``rollback'' as ``a simple model that assumes that
if emissions from each source affecting a given receptor are decreased
by the same percentage, ambient air quality concentrations decrease
proportionately.'' Under this approach if 20% improvement in ozone is
needed for the area to reach attainment, it is assumed a 20% reduction
in VOC would be required. There was no approach for identifying
NO_X reductions.
The ``proportional rollback'' approach is based on a purely
empirically/ mathematically derived relationship. EPA did not rely on
this approach in its evaluation of the attainment demonstrations. The
prohibition in Appendix W applies to the use of a rollback method which
is empirically/mathematically derived and independent of model
estimates or observed air quality and emissions changes as the sole
method for evaluating control strategies. For the demonstrations under
proposal, EPA used a locally derived (as determined by the model and/or
observed changes in air quality) ratio of change in emissions to change
in ozone to estimate

[[Page 63929]]

additional emission reductions to achieve an additional increment of
ambient improvement in ozone.
For example, if monitoring or modeling results indicate that ozone
was reduced by 25 ppb during a particular period, and that VOC and
NO_X emissions fell by 20 tons per day and 10 tons per day
respectively during that period, EPA developed a ratio of ozone
improvement related to reductions in VOC and NO_X. This
formula assumes a linear relationship between the precursors and ozone
for a small amount of ozone improvement, but it is not a ``proportional
rollback'' technique. Further, EPA uses these locally derived
adjustment factors as a component to estimate the extent to which
additional emissions reductions--not the core control strategies--would
reduce ozone levels and thereby strengthen the weight of evidence test.
EPA uses the UAM to evaluate the core control strategies.
This limited use of adjustment factors is more technically sound
than the unacceptable use of proportional rollback to determine the
ambient impact of the entire set of emissions reductions required under
the attainment SIP. The limited use of adjustment factors is acceptable
for practical reasons: it obviates the need to expend more time and
resources to perform additional modeling. In addition, the adjustment
factor is a locally derived relationship between ozone and its
precursors based on air quality observations and/or modeling which is
more consistent with recommendations referenced in Appendix W and does
not assume a direct proportional relationship between ozone and its
precursors. Lastly, the requirement that areas perform a mid-course
review (a check of progress toward attainment) provides a margin of
safety.
A commenter expressed concerns that EPA used a modeling technique
(proportional rollback) that was expressly prohibited by 40 CFR part 51
Appendix W, without expressly proposing to do so in a notice of
proposed rulemaking. However, the commenter is mistaken. As explained
above, EPA did not use or rely upon a proportional rollback technique
in this rulemaking, but used UAM to evaluate the core control
strategies and then applied its WOE guidance. Therefore, because EPA
did not use an ``alternative model'' to UAM, it did not trigger an
obligation to modify Appendix W. Furthermore, EPA did propose the use
the November 1999 guidance, ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence
Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not
Modeled,'' in the December 16, 1999 NPR and has responded to all
comments received on that guidance elsewhere in this document.
A commenter also expressed concern that EPA applied unacceptably
broad discretion in fashioning and applying the WOE determinations. For
all of the attainment submittals proposed for approval in December 1999
concerning serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas, EPA first
reviewed the UAM results. In all cases, the UAM results did not pass
the deterministic test. In two cases--Milwaukee and Chicago--the UAM
results passed the statistical test; in the rest of the cases, the UAM
results failed the statistical test. The UAM has inherent limitations
that, in EPA's view, were manifest in all these cases. These
limitations include: (1) Only selected time periods were modeled, not
the entire three-year period used as the definitive means for
determining an area's attainment status; (2) inherent uncertainties in
the model formulation and model inputs such as hourly emission
estimates, emissions growth projections, biogenic emission estimates,
and derived wind speeds and directions. As a result, for all areas,
even Milwaukee and Chicago, EPA examined additional analyses to
indicate whether additional SIP controls would yield meaningful
reductions in ozone values. These analyses did not point to the need
for additional emission reductions for Springfield, Greater
Connecticut, Metropolitan Washington, DC, Chicago and Milwaukee, but
did point to the need for additional reductions, in varying amounts, in
the other areas. As a result, the other areas submitted control
requirements to provide the indicated level of emissions reductions.
EPA applied the same methodology in these areas, but because of
differences in the application of the model to the circumstances of
each individual area, the results differed on a case-by-case basis.
As another WOE factor, for areas within the NO_X SIP call
domain, results from the EPA regional modeling for NO_X
controls as well as the Tier2/Low Sulfur program were considered. Also,
for all of the areas, EPA considered recent changes in air quality and
emissions. For some areas, this was helpful because there were emission
reductions in the most recent years that could be related to observed
changes in air quality, while for other areas there appeared to be
little change in either air quality or emissions. For areas in which
air quality trends, associated with changes in emissions levels, could
be discerned, these observed changes were used to help decide whether
or not the emission controls in the plan would provide progress towards
attainment. For Connecticut, between 1990 and 1999 VOC emissions were
lowered by 26 percent and NO_X emissions were lowered by 19
percent. These precursor emissions will continue to be reduced within
the state, which will help lower ozone both within and downwind of
Connecticut. In addition the reduction of precursor emissions in the
large metropolitan areas upwind of Connecticut, along with power plant
emissions reductions, throughout the eastern USA, will result in
attainment of the one-hour NAAQS by 2007 in Connecticut. Air quality
trend data for the past 21 years, since 1980, show vast improvement in
ozone levels in Connecticut. Over the past twelve to fourteen years,
the maximum design value for the ozone monitors in the severe portion
of Connecticut has dropped from 201 ppb, in the 1987-1989 time frame
(the value used to classify this area in 1991), to 143 ppb based on
ozone data from 1999, 2000 and preliminary ozone data from 2001. This
is a drop of 58 ppb or 29 percent.
The commenter also complained that EPA has applied the WOE
determinations to adjust modeling results only when those results
indicate nonattainment, and not when they indicate attainment. First,
we disagree with the premise of this comment: EPA does not apply the
WOE factors to adjust model results. EPA applies the WOE factors as
additional analysis to compensate for uncertainty in the air quality
modeling. Second, EPA has applied WOE determinations to all of the
attainment demonstrations proposed for approval in December 1999.
Although for most of them, the air quality modeling results by
themselves indicated nonattainment, for two metropolitan areas--Chicago
and Milwaukee, including parts of the States of Illinois, Indiana, and
Wisconsin, the air quality modeling did indicate attainment on the
basis of the statistical test.
The commenter further criticized EPA's application of the WOE
determination on grounds that EPA ignores evidence indicating that
continued nonattainment is likely, such as, according to the commenter,
monitoring data indicating that ozone levels in many cities during 1999
continue to exceed the NAAQS by margins as wide or wider than those
predicted by the UAM. EPA has reviewed the evidence provided by the
commenter. The 1999 monitor values do not constitute substantial
evidence indicating that the SIPs will not provide

[[Page 63930]]

for attainment. These values do not reflect either the local or
regional control programs which are scheduled for implementation in the
next several years. Once implemented, these controls are expected to
lower emissions and thereby lower ozone values. Moreover, there is
little evidence to support the statement that ozone levels in many
cities during 1999 continue to exceed the NAAQS by margins as wide or
wider than those predicted by the UAM. Since areas did not model 1999
ozone levels using 1999 meteorology and 1999 emissions which reflect
reductions anticipated by control measures, that are or will be
approved into the SIP, there is no way to determine how the UAM
predictions for 1999 compare to the 1999 air quality. Therefore, we can
not determine whether or not the monitor values exceed the NAAQS by a
wider margin than the UAM predictions for 1999. In summary, there is
little evidence to support the conclusion that high exceedances in 1999
will continue to occur after adopted control measures are implemented.
In addition, the commenter argued that in applying the WOE
determinations, EPA ignored factors showing that the SIPs under-predict
future emissions, and the commenter included as examples certain mobile
source emissions sub-inventories. EPA did not ignore possible under-
prediction in mobile emissions. EPA is presently evaluating mobile
source emissions data as part of an effort to update the computer model
for estimating mobile source emissions. EPA is considering various
changes to the model, and is not prepared to conclude at this time that
the net effect of all these various changes would be to increase or
decrease emissions estimates. For attainment demonstration SIPs that
rely on the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment or otherwise (i.e.,
reflect these programs in their motor vehicle emissions budgets),
States have committed to revise their motor vehicle emissions budgets
after the MOBILE6 model is released. EPA will work with States on a
case-by-case basis if the new emission estimates raise issues about the
sufficiency of the attainment demonstration. If analysis indicates
additional measures are needed, EPA will take the appropriate action.

B. Reliance on NO_X SIP Call and Tier 2

Comment: Several commenters stated that given the uncertainty
surrounding the NO_X SIP Call at the time of EPA's proposals
on the attainment demonstrations, there is no basis for the conclusion
reached by EPA that states should assume implementation of the
NO_X SIP Call, or rely on it as a part of their
demonstrations. One commenter claims that there were errors in the
emissions inventories used for the NO_X SIP Call Supplemental
Notice (SNPR) and that these inaccuracies were carried over to the
modeling analyses, estimates of air quality based on that modeling, and
estimates of EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe emissions reduction program not
modeled in the demonstrations. Thus, because of the inaccuracies in the
inventories used for the SIP Call, the attainment demonstration
modeling is also flawed. Finally, one commenter suggests that modeling
data demonstrates that the benefits of imposing NO_X SIP Call
controls are limited to areas near the sources controlled.
Response: These comments were submitted prior to several court
decisions largely upholding EPA's NO_X SIP Call. Michigan v.
EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 1225, 149
L.Ed. 135 (2001); Appalachian Power v. EPA, 251 F.3d 1026 (D.C. Cir.
2001) . Although a few issues were vacated or remanded to EPA for
further consideration, these issues do not concern the accuracy of the
emission inventories relied on for purposes of the SIP Call. Moreover,
contrary to the commenter's suggestion, the SIP Call modeling data
bases were not used to develop estimates of reductions from the Tier 2
program for the severe-area one-hour attainment demonstrations.
Accordingly, the commenter's concerns that inaccurate inventories for
the SIP Call modeling lead to inaccurate results for the severe-area
one-hour attainment demonstrations are inapposite.
The remanded issues do affect the ability of EPA and the States to
achieve the full level of the SIP Call reductions by May 2003. First,
the court vacated the rule as it applied to two states--Missouri and
Georgia--and also remanded the definition of a co-generator and the
assumed emission limit for internal combustion engines. EPA has
informed the states that until EPA addresses the remanded issues, EPA
will accept SIPs that do not include those small portions of the
emission budget. However, EPA is planning to propose a rule shortly to
address the remanded issues and ensure that emission reductions from
these states and the emission reductions represented by the two source
categories are addressed in time to benefit the severe nonattainment
areas. Also, although the court in the Michigan case subsequently
issued an order delaying the implementation date to no later than May
31, 2004, and the Appalachian Power case remanded an issue concerning
computation of the EGU growth factor, it is EPA's view that states
should assume that the SIP Call reductions will occur in time to ensure
attainment in the severe nonattainment areas. In fact many states have
adopted rules that achieve the full SIP call level reductions by May 1,
2003. Both EPA and the states are moving forward to implement the SIP
Call.
Finally, contrary to the commenter's conclusions, EPA's modeling to
determine the region-wide impacts of the NO_X SIP call
clearly shows that regional transport of ozone and its precursors is
impacting nonattainment areas several states away. This analysis was
upheld by the court in Michigan.

C. RACM (Including Transportation Control Measures)

Comment: Several commenters stated that there is no evidence in
several states that they have adopted reasonably available control
measures (RACM) or that the SIPs have provided for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable. Specifically, the lack of Transportation
Control Measures (TCMs) was cited in several comments, but commenters
also raised concerns about potential stationary source controls.
One commenter stated that mobile source emission budgets in the
plans are by definition inadequate because the SIPs do not demonstrate
timely attainment or contain the emissions reductions required for all
RACM. That commenter claims that EPA may not find adequate a motor
vehicle emission budget (MVEB) that is derived from a SIP that is
inadequate for the purpose for which it is submitted. The commenter
alleges that none of the MVEBs submitted by the states that EPA is
considering for adequacy is consistent with the level of emissions
achieved by implementation of all RACM, nor are they derived from SIPs
that provide for attainment. Some commenters stated that for measures
that are not adopted into the SIP, the state must provide a
justification for why they were determined to not be RACM.
Response: After receipt of this comment on the December 16, 1999
proposal, EPA reviewed the initial SIP submittals for the Connecticut
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area, as well as the other areas for
which EPA proposed approval in December 1999, and determined that they
did not include sufficient documentation concerning available RACM
measures. For all of the severe areas for which EPA proposed approval
in December 1999, EPA

[[Page 63931]]

consequently issued a guidance memorandum providing that these states
should address the RACM requirement through an additional SIP
submittal. (Memorandum of December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, re:
``Additional Submission on RACM from States with Severe 1-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area SIPs.'')
The State of Connecticut provided EPA with a draft RACM analysis on
August 2, 2001, and finalized that document on October 15, 2001. EPA
proposed to approve this SIP as meeting the RACM requirements via
parallel processing on August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42172). In the proposal,
EPA set forth its interpretation of the RACM requirement. See 66 FR
42182. Based on our review of the RACM submission, EPA proposed that CT
had adopted all RACM. EPA received no comments on that proposal. Today,
EPA approves the Connecticut RACM analysis as meeting the requirement
for adopting RACM for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe
area.
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to contain RACM and
provides for areas to attain as expeditiously as practicable. EPA has
previously provided guidance interpreting the requirements of
172(c)(1). See 57 FR 13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA indicated its
interpretation that potentially available measures that would not
advance the attainment date for an area would not be considered RACM.
EPA also indicated in that 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
their SIP submittals whether measures considered were reasonably
available or not, and if measures are reasonably available they must be
adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA indicated that states could reject
measures as not being RACM because they would not advance the
attainment date, would cause substantial widespread and long-term
adverse impacts, would be economically or technologically infeasible,
or would be unavailable based on local considerations, including costs.
The EPA also issued a recent memorandum re-confirming the principles in
the earlier guidance, entitled, ``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. Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. EPA has consistently
interpreted the Clean Air Act as requiring only such RACM as will
provide for expeditious attainment, since we first addressed the issue
in guidance issued in 1979. 44 FR 20372, 20375 (April 4, 1979).
Although EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires
implementation of additional measures for Connecticut portion of the
NY-NJ-CT severe area, this conclusion is not necessarily valid for
other areas. Thus, a determination of RACM is necessary on a case-by-
case basis and will depend on the circumstances for the individual
area. In addition, if in the future EPA moves forward to implement
another ozone standard, this RACM analysis would not control what is
RACM for these or any other areas for that other ozone standard.
Also, EPA has long advocated that states consider the kinds of
control measures that the commenters have suggested, and EPA has indeed
provided guidance on those measures. See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/
otaq/transp.htm. In order to demonstrate that they will attain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, some areas may need
to consider and adopt a number of measures-including the kind that the
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area itself evaluated in its
RACM analysis--that even collectively do not result in many emission
reductions. Furthermore, EPA encourages areas to implement technically
available and economically feasible measures to achieve emissions
reductions in the short term--even if such measures do not advance the
attainment date--since such measures will likely improve air quality.
Also, over time, emission control measures that may not be RACM now for
an area may ultimately become feasible for the same area due to
advances in control technology or more cost-effective implementation
techniques. Thus, areas should continue to assess the state of control
technology as they make progress toward attainment and consider new
control technologies that may in fact result in more expeditious
improvement in air quality.
Because EPA is finding that the SIP meets the Clean Air Act's
requirement for RACM and that there are no additional reasonably
available control measures that can advance the attainment date, EPA
concludes that the attainment date being approved is as expeditious as
practicable.
EPA previously responded to comments concerning the adequacy of
MVEBs when EPA took final action determining the budgets adequate and
does not address those issues again here. The responses are found at:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/pastsips.htm.

D. Attainment and Rate of Progress Demonstrations--Approval of
Demonstrations That Rely on State Commitments or State Rules for
Emission Limitations to Lower Emissions in the Future Not Yet Adopted
by a State and/or Approved by EPA

Comment: Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposal to
approve states' attainment and rate of progress demonstrations because:
(a) Not all of the emissions reductions assumed in the demonstrations
have actually taken place, (b) those emission reductions are reflected
in rules yet to be adopted and approved by a state and approved by EPA
as part of the SIP, (c) those emission reductions are credited
illegally as part of a demonstration because they are not approved by
EPA as part of the SIP, or (d) the commenter maintains that EPA does
not have authority to accept enforceable state commitments to adopt
measures in the future in lieu of current adopted measures to fill a
near-term shortfall of reductions.
Response: EPA disagrees with the comments, and believes--consistent
with past practice--that the CAA allows approval of enforceable
commitments that are limited in scope where circumstances exist that
warrant the use of such commitments in place of adopted measures.\5\
Once EPA determines that circumstances warrant consideration of an
enforceable commitment, EPA believes that three factors should be
considered in determining whether to approve the enforceable
commitment: (1) Whether the commitment addresses a limited portion of
the statutorily-required program; (2) whether the state is capable of
fulfilling its commitment; and (3)

[[Page 63932]]

whether the commitment is for a reasonable and appropriate period of
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ These commitments are enforceable by the EPA and citizens
under, respectively, sections 113 and 304 of the CAA. In the past,
EPA has approved enforceable commitments and courts have enforced
these actions against states that failed to comply with those
commitments. See, e.g., American Lung Ass'n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F.
Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 1987), aff'd, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC,
Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Cons., 668 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y.
1987); Citizens for a Better Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp.
1448, recon. granted in part, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990);
Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality Mgt. Dist., No.
CV 97-6916-HLH, (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 1999). Further, if a state fails
to meet its commitments. EPA could make a finding of failure to
implement the SIP under section 179(a) of the Act, which starts an
18-month period for the State to begin implementation before
mandatory sanctions are imposted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an initial matter, EPA believes that present circumstances for
the New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore nonattainment areas warrant
the consideration of enforceable commitments. The Northeast states that
make up the New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia nonattainment areas
submitted SIPs that they reasonably believed demonstrated attainment
with fully adopted measures. After EPA's initial review of the plans,
EPA recommended to these areas that additional controls would be
necessary to ensure attainment. Because these areas had already
submitted plans with many fully adopted rules and the adoption of
additional rules would take some time, EPA believed it was appropriate
to allow these areas to supplement their plans with enforceable
commitments to adopt and submit control measures to achieve the
additional necessary reductions. For these areas, EPA has determined
that the submission of enforceable commitments in place of adopted
control measures for these limited sets of reductions will not
interfere with each area's ability to meet its rate-of-progress and
attainment obligations.
EPA's approach here of considering enforceable commitments that are
limited in scope is not new. EPA has historically recognized that under
certain circumstances, issuing full approval may be appropriate for a
submission that consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. See
e.g., 62 FR 1150, 1187 (Jan. 8, 1997) (ozone attainment demonstration
for the South Coast Air Basin); 65 FR 18903 (Apr. 10, 2000) (revisions
to attainment demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin); 63 FR 41326
(Aug. 3, 1998) (federal implementation plan for PM-10 for Phoenix); 48
FR 51472 (state implementation plan for New Jersey). Nothing in the Act
speaks directly to the approvability of enforceable commitments.\6\
However, EPA believes that its interpretation is consistent with
provisions of the CAA. For example, section 110(a)(2)(A) provides that
each SIP ``shall include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques * * * as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet
the applicable requirement of the Act.'' Section 172(c)(6) of the Act
requires, as a rule generally applicable to nonattainment SIPs, that
the SIP ``include enforceable emission limitations and such other
control measures, means or techniques * * * as may be necessary or
appropriate to provide for attainment * * * by the applicable
attainment date * * *'' (Emphasis added.) The emphasized terms mean
that at the time of approval of the plan, the adopted enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures do not necessarily need
to generate reductions in the full amount needed to attain. Rather, the
emissions limitations and other control measures may be supplemented
with other SIP rules--for example, the enforceable commitments EPA is
approving today--as long as the entire package of measures and rules
provides for attainment by the attainment date and do not interfere
with other requirements such as ROP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Section 110(k)(4) provides for ``conditional approval'' of
commitments that need not be enforceable. Under that section, a
State may commit to ``adopt specific enforceable measures'' within
one-year of the conditional approval. Rather than enforcing such
commitments against the State, the Act provides that the conditional
approval will convert to a disapproval if ``the State fails to
comply with such commitment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As provided above, after concluding that the circumstances warrant
consideration of an enforceable commitment--as they do for a
nonattainment area such as the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT
severe area--EPA would consider three factors in determining whether to
approve the submitted commitments. First, EPA believes that the
commitments must be limited in scope. In 1994, in considering EPA's
authority under section 110(k)(4) to conditionally approve
unenforceable commitments, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit struck down an EPA policy that would allow States to
submit (under limited circumstances) commitments for entire programs.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir.
1994). While EPA does not believe that case is directly applicable
here, EPA agrees with the Court that other provisions in the Act
contemplate that a SIP submission will consist of more than a mere
commitment. See NRDC, 22. F.3d at 1134.
For the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area, the
remaining commitment addresses only a small portion of the emission
reductions necessary to attain the standard. Connecticut has adopted
all other CAA mandated control programs. Details of these programs are
found in section D.3 above. These already adopted programs are
achieving the vast majority of the precursor emission reductions
necessary for attainment.
As to the second factor, whether the State is capable of fulfilling
the commitment, EPA considered the current or potential availability of
measures capable of achieving the additional level of reductions
represented by the commitment. For the New York, Philadelphia and
Baltimore nonattainment areas, EPA believes that there are sufficient
untapped sources of emission reductions that could achieve the minimal
levels of additional reductions that the areas need. This conclusion is
supported by the recent recommendation of the Ozone Transport
Commission (``OTC'') regarding specific controls that could be adopted
to achieve the level of reductions needed for each of these three
nonattainment areas. Thus, EPA believes that the states will be able to
find sources of reductions to meet the shortfall. The states that
comprise the New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore nonattainment areas
are making significant progress toward adopting the measures to fill
the shortfall. The OTC has met and on March 29, 2001 recommended a set
of control measures. Currently, the states are working through their
adoption processes with respect to those, and in some cases other,
control measures. For example Connecticut recently adopted and EPA
approved the MWC rule mentioned above, and Connecticut has identified
specific measures that should completely address any remaining
shortfall.
The third factor, EPA has considered in determining to approve
limited commitments for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe
area attainment demonstration is whether the commitment is for a
reasonable and appropriate period. EPA recognizes that both the Act and
EPA have historically emphasized the need for submission of adopted
control measures in order to ensure expeditious implementation and
achievement of required emissions reductions. Thus, to the extent that
other factors--such as the need to consider innovative control
strategies--support the consideration of an enforceable commitment in
place of adopted control measures, the commitment should provide for
the adoption of the necessary control measures on an expeditious, yet
practicable, schedule.
As provided above, for New York, Baltimore and Philadelphia, EPA
proposed that these areas have time to work within the framework of the
OTC to develop, if appropriate, a regional control strategy to achieve
the necessary reductions and then to adopt the controls on a state-by-
state basis. In the

[[Page 63933]]

proposed approval of the attainment demonstrations, EPA proposed that
these areas would have approximately 22 months to complete the OTC and
state-adoption processes--a fairly ambitious schedule--i.e., until
October 31, 2001. As a starting point in suggesting this time frame for
submission of the adopted controls, EPA first considered the CAA ``SIP
Call'' provision of the CAA--section 110(k)(5)--which provides states
with up to 18 months to submit a SIP after EPA requests a SIP revision.
While EPA may have ended its inquiry there, and provided for the states
to submit the measures within 18 months of its proposed approval of the
attainment demonstrations, EPA further considered that these areas were
all located with the Northeast Ozone Transport Region and determined
that it was appropriate to provide these areas with additional time to
work through the OTR process to determine if regional controls would be
appropriate for addressing the shortfall. See e.g., 64 FR 70348. EPA
believed that allowing these states until 2001 to adopt these
additional measures would not undercut their attainment dates of
November 2005 or 2007 or the ability of these areas to meet their ROP
requirement.
Connecticut did not make the October 31, 2001 submission deadline
for all the control measures to make up the shortfall. Connecticut did
submit the MWC rule (see section II.B), and Connecticut has started on
the SIP process for the remaining measures. These measures will include
mobile equipment repair and refinishing regulations and regulations on
consumer products. EPA believes that Connecticut is making sufficient
progress to support approval of the commitment, because Connecticut
will adopt and implement the remaining measures within a time period
fully consistent with the NY-NJ-CT severe area attaining the standard
by November 15, 2007. Details on Connecticut's progress in addressing
the shortfall in emission reductions can be found in the memorandum
``Status of Connecticut's Adoption of Additional Measures to Close the
Shortfall Identified in the One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for
the Connecticut Portion of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Severe
Area'' dated November 29, 2001 located in the docket for this action.
The enforceable commitments submitted for the Connecticut portion
of the NY-NJ-CT severe nonattainment area, in conjunction with the
other SIP measures and other sources of emissions reductions,
constitute the required demonstration of attainment and the commitments
will not interfere with the area's ability to make reasonable progress
under section 182(c)(2)(B) and (d). EPA believes that the delay in
submittal of the final rules is permissible under section 110(k)(3)
because the state has obligated itself to submit the rules, and that
obligation is enforceable by EPA and the public. Moreover, as discussed
in the December 16, 1999 proposal, and Section D.3 of this document,
the SIP submittal approved today contains major substantive components
submitted as adopted regulations and enforceable orders.
EPA believes that the Connecticut SIP meets the NRDC consent decree
definition of a ``full attainment demonstration.'' The consent decree
defines a ``full attainment demonstration'' as a demonstration
according to CAA section 182(c)(2). As a whole, the attainment
demonstration--consisting of photochemical grid modeling, adopted
control measures, an enforceable commitment with respect to a limited
portion of the reductions necessary to attain, and other analyses and
documentation--is approvable since it ``provides for attainment of the
ozone [NAAQS]
by the applicable attainment date.'' See section
182(c)(2)(A).

E. Adequacy of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Comment: We received a number of comments about the process and
substance of EPA's review of the adequacy of motor vehicle emissions
budgets for transportation conformity purposes.
Response: EPA's adequacy process for these SIPs has been completed,
and we have found the motor vehicle emissions budgets in all of these
SIPs to be adequate. We have already responded to any comments related
to adequacy when we issued our adequacy findings, and therefore we are
not listing the individual comments or responding to them here. Our
findings of adequacy and responses to comments can be accessed at
www.epa.gov/otaq/traq (once there, click on the ``conformity'' button).
At the Web site, EPA regional contacts are identified.

F. Attainment Demonstration and Rate of Progress Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inventories

Comment: Several commenters stated that the motor vehicle emissions
inventory is not current, particularly with respect to the fleet mix.
Commenters stated that the fleet mix does not accurately reflect the
growing proportion of sport utility vehicles and gasoline trucks, which
pollute more than conventional cars. Also, a commenter stated that EPA
and states have not followed a consistent practice in updating SIP
modeling to account for changes in vehicle fleets. For these reasons,
commenters recommend disapproving the SIPs.
Response: The Connecticut SIP we are taking final action on is
based on the most recent vehicle registration data from 1996, which is
the most recent data that was available at the time the SIP was
submitted in 2001. The SIP also contains vehicle fleet characteristics
that are in the most recent periodic inventory update, which was
submitted on March 13, 2000. EPA requires the most recently available
data to be used, but we do not require it to be updated on a specific
schedule. Therefore, different SIPs base their fleet mix on different
years of data. Our guidance does not suggest that SIPs should be
disapproved on this basis. Nevertheless, we do expect that revisions to
these SIPs that are submitted using MOBILE6 (as required in those cases
where the SIP is relying on emissions reductions from the Tier 2
standards) will use updated vehicle registration data appropriate for
use with MOBILE6, whether it is updated local data or the updated
national default data that will be part of MOBILE6.

G. VOC Emission Reductions

Comment: For States that need additional VOC reductions, one
commenter recommends a process to achieve these VOC emission
reductions, which involves the use of HFC-152a (1,1 difluoroethane) as
the blowing agent in manufacturing of polystyrene foam products such as
food trays and egg cartons. The commenter states that HFC-152a could be
used instead of hydrocarbons, a known pollutant, as a blowing agent.
Use of HFC-152a, which is classified as VOC exempt, would eliminate
nationwide the entire 25,000 tons/year of VOC emissions from this
industry.
Response: EPA has met with the commenter and has discussed the
technology described by the company to reduce VOC emissions from
polystyrene foam blowing through the use of HFC-152a (1,1
difluoroethane), which is a VOC exempt compound, as a blowing agent.
Since the HFC-152a is VOC exempt, its use would give a VOC reduction
compared to the use of VOCs such a pentane or butane as a blowing
agent. However, EPA has not studied this technology exhaustively. It is
each state's prerogative to specify which measures it will adopt in
order to

[[Page 63934]]

achieve the additional VOC reductions it needs. In evaluating the use
of HFC-152a, states may want to consider claims that products made with
this blowing agent are comparable in quality to products made with
other blowing agents. Also the question of the over-all long term
environmental effect of encouraging emissions of fluorine compounds
would be relevant to consider. This is a technology which states may
want to consider, but ultimately, the decision of whether to require
this particular technology to achieve the necessary VOC emissions
reductions must be made by each affected state. Finally, EPA notes that
under the significant new alternatives policy (SNAP) program, created
under CAA section 612, EPA has identified acceptable foam blowing
agents many of which are not VOCs (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/
snap/index.html).

H. Credit for Measures Not Fully Implemented

Comment: States should not be given credit for measures that are
not fully implemented. For example, the states are being given full
credit for federal coating, refinishing and consumer product rules that
have been delayed or weakened.
Response: Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings:
On March 22, 1995 EPA issued a memorandum \7\ that provided that states
could claim a 20% reduction in VOC emissions from the AIM coatings
category in ROP and attainment plans based on the anticipated
promulgation of a national AIM coatings rule. In developing the
attainment and ROP SIPs for their nonattainment areas, states relied on
this memorandum to estimate emission reductions from the anticipated
national AIM rule. EPA promulgated the final AIM rule in September
1998, codified at 40 CFR part 59, subpart D. In the preamble to EPA's
final AIM coatings regulation, EPA estimated that the regulation will
result in 20% reduction of nationwide VOC emissions from AIM coatings
categories (63 FR 48855). The estimated VOC reductions from the final
AIM rule resulted in the same level as those estimated in the March
1995 EPA policy memorandum. In accordance with EPA's final regulation,
states have assumed a 20% reduction from AIM coatings source categories
in their attainment and ROP plans. AIM coatings manufacturers were
required to be in compliance with the final regulation within one year
of promulgation, except for certain pesticide formulations which were
given an additional year to comply. Thus all manufacturers were
required to comply, at the latest, by September 2000. Industry
confirmed in comments on the proposed AIM rule that 12 months between
the issuance of the final rule and the compliance deadline would be
sufficient to ``use up existing label stock'' and ``adjust
inventories'' to conform to the rule. 63 FR 48848 (September 11, 1998).
In addition, EPA determined that, after the compliance date, the volume
of nonconforming products would be very low (less than one percent) and
would be withdrawn from retail shelves anyway. Therefore, EPA believes
that compliant coatings were in use by the Fall of 1999 with full
reductions to be achieved by September 2000 and that it was appropriate
for the states to take credit for a 20% emission reductions in their
SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ ``Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM)
Coating Rules,'' March 22, 1995, from John S. Seitz, Director,
Office of air Quality Planning and Standards for Air Division
Directors, Regions I-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Autobody Refinish Coatings Rule: Consistent with a November 27,
1994 EPA policy,\8\ many states claimed a 37% reduction from this
source category based on a proposed rule. However, EPA's final rule,
``National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Automobile
Refinish Coatings,'' published on September 11, 1998 (63 FR 48806), did
not regulate lacquer topcoats and will result in a smaller emission
reduction of around 33% overall nationwide. The 37% emission reduction
from EPA's proposed rule was an estimate of the total nationwide
emission reduction. Since this number is an overall national average,
the actual reduction achieved in any particular area could vary
depending on the level of control which already existed in the area.
For example, in California the reduction from the national rule is zero
because California's rules are more stringent than the national rule.
In the proposed rule, the estimated percentage reduction for areas that
were unregulated before the national rule was about 40%. However as a
result of the lacquer topcoat exemption added between proposal and
final rule, the reduction is now estimated to be 36% for previously
unregulated areas. Although Connecticut's post-1999 ROP SIP claims a 37
percent reduction from this rule, the large surplus NO_X
reductions achieved by Connecticut's ROP plan easily cover the
shortfall caused by the minor overestimation of credit from the federal
automobile refinishing rule. Additionally, this minor overestimation is
not likely to adversely impact Connecticut's attainment demonstration
SIP. By taking a 37% reduction instead of a 36% reduction,
Connecticut's SIP overstates VOC emission reductions in its severe area
by 0.06 tpsd which is not significant when compared to total VOC
emissions and VOC emission reductions for the area. EPA's best estimate
of the reduction potential of the final rule was spelled out in a
September 19, 1996 memorandum entitled ``Emissions Calculations for the
Automobile Refinish Coatings Final Rule'' from Mark Morris to Docket
No. A-95-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ ``Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM)
Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing Rule,'' November 27, 1994,
John S. Seitz, Director OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-
X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer Products Rule: Consistent with a June 22, 1995 EPA
guidance,\9\ states claimed a 20% reduction from this source category
based on EPA's proposed rule. The final rule, ``National Volatile
Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products,'' (63 FR
48819), published on September 11, 1998, has resulted in a 20%
reduction after the December 10, 1998 compliance date. Moreover, these
reductions largely occurred by the Fall of 1999. In the consumer
products rule, EPA determined, and the consumer products industry
concurred, that a significant proportion of subject products have been
reformulated in response to state regulations and in anticipation of
the final rule. 63 FR 48819. Thus, while Connecticut did not adopt such
regulations, it benefitted from the sale of reformulated products due
to the actions of other states to regulate consumer products. In
essence, industry reformulated the products covered by the federal
consumer products rule in advance of the final rule. Therefore, EPA
believes that complying products in accordance with the rule were in
use by the Fall of 1999. It was appropriate for the states to take
credit for a 20% emission reduction for the consumer products rule in
their SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ ``Regulatory Schedule for Consumer and Commercial Products
under section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act,'' June 22, 1995, John S.
Seitz, Director of OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Enforcement of Control Programs

Comment: The attainment demonstrations do not clearly set out
programs for enforcement of the various control strategies relied on
for emission reduction credit.
Response: In general, state enforcement, personnel and funding
program elements are contained in SIP revisions previously approved by
EPA

[[Page 63935]]

under obligations set forth in section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air
Act. Once approved by the EPA, there is no need for states to readopt
and resubmit these programs with each and every SIP revision required
by other sections of the Act. In addition, emission control regulations
will also contain specific enforcement mechanisms, such as record
keeping and reporting requirements, and may also provide for periodic
state inspections and reviews of the affected sources. EPA's review of
these regulations includes review of the enforceability of the
regulations. Rules that are not enforceable are generally not approved
by the EPA. To the extent that the ozone attainment demonstration and
ROP plan depend on specific state emission control regulations these
individual regulations have undergone review by the EPA in past
approval actions or, to the extent they are being approved through this
action, have undergone review in the current rulemaking.

J. Contingency Measures

Comment: The SIP for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe
ozone nonattainment area does not provide contingency measures to make
up for any emission reduction shortfall, either in achievement of ROP
milestones or for failure to attain, as required by sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act.
Response: The Connecticut SIP does provide contingency measures for
ROP as required by section 182(c)(9), but does not provide contingency
measures for failure to attain as required by section 172(c)(9). The
state's ROP contingency plan is discussed in detail in our August 10,
2001 document (66 FR 42172). 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,
because the contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) is
independent 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.
Additionally, in the event that attainment is not achieved by 2007
there are a number of EPA measures that will achieve significant
emission reductions that the SIP does not rely on or take credit for.
These include continuing reductions from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe
standards and EPA's standards for a variety of non-road sources. The
EPA has analyzed the Connecticut SIP and has estimated that the
contingency obligation would be approximately 3.8 tons per summer day
(tpsd) in ozone precursor emission reductions. Reductions from the
federal non-road and the Tier 2 tailpipe standards during the time
frame contingency measures would need to be implemented for failure to
attain (i.e., by May 2009) \10\ are estimated to be at least 5.5 tpsd,
which would cover the contingency obligation for this area. More
details on EPA's contingency measure analysis are included in the
docket for the rulemaking action. While there is not an approved SIP
contingency measure that would apply if the state failed to attain, EPA
believes that existing federally enforceable measures would provide the
necessary substantive relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ EPA policy provides that contingency measures should
achieve a 3 percent reduction in emissions in the year following an
EPA determination of a failure to attain or to meet a progress
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. MOBILE6 and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Comment 1: One commenter generally supports a policy of requiring
motor vehicle emissions budgets to be recalculated when revised MOBILE
models are released.
Response 1: The Connecticut attainment demonstration, which relies
on Tier 2 emission reduction credit, contains a commitment to revise
the 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets within 1 year after MOBILE6 is
released.
Comment 2: The revised budgets calculated using MOBILE6 will likely
be submitted after the MOBILE5 budgets have already been approved.
EPA's policy is that submitted SIPs may not replace approved SIPs.
Response 2: EPA proposed to change its policy in the July 28, 2000
SNPRM (65 FR 46383) to provide that the approval of the MOBILE5 budgets
for conformity purposes would last only until MOBILE6 budgets had been
submitted and found adequate. EPA is taking final action adopting this
revised interpretation in this notice. In this way, the MOBILE6 budgets
can apply for conformity purposes as soon as they are found adequate.
Comment 3: If a State submits additional control measures that
affect the motor vehicle emissions budget but does not submit a revised
motor vehicle emissions budget, EPA should not approve the attainment
demonstration.
Response 3: EPA agrees. The motor vehicle emissions budgets in the
Connecticut attainment demonstration reflect the motor vehicle control
measures in the attainment demonstration. In addition, Connecticut has
committed to submit new budgets as a revision to the attainment SIP
consistent with any new measures submitted to fill any shortfall, if
the additional control measures affect on-road motor vehicle emissions.
Comment 4: EPA should make it clear that the motor vehicle
emissions budgets to be used for conformity purposes will be determined
from the total motor vehicle emissions reductions required in the SIP,
even if the SIP does not explicitly quantify a revised motor vehicle
emissions budget.
Response 4: EPA will not approve SIPs without motor vehicle
emissions budgets that are explicitly quantified for conformity
purposes. The Connecticut attainment demonstration contains explicitly
quantified motor vehicle emissions budgets which EPA has found adequate
(65 FR 37778).
Comment 5: If a state fails to follow through on its commitment to
submit the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets using MOBILE6, EPA
could make a finding of failure to submit a portion of a SIP, which
would trigger a sanctions clock under section 179.
Response 5: EPA agrees that if a state fails to meet its
commitment, EPA could make a finding of failure to implement the SIP,
which would start a sanctions clock under section 179 of the Clean Air
Act.
Comment 6: If the budgets recalculated using MOBILE6 are larger
than the MOBILE5 budgets, then attainment should be demonstrated again.
Response 6: As EPA proposed in its December 16, 1999 notices, we
will work with states on a case-by-case basis if the new emissions
estimates raise

[[Page 63936]]

issues about the sufficiency of the attainment demonstration.
Comment 7: If the MOBILE6 budgets are smaller than the MOBILE5
budgets, the difference between the budgets should not be available for
reallocation to other sources unless air quality data show that the
area is attaining, and a revised attainment demonstration is submitted
that demonstrates that the increased emissions are consistent with
attainment and maintenance. Similarly, the MOBILE5 budgets should not
be retained (while MOBILE6 is being used for conformity demonstrations)
unless the above conditions are met.
Response 7: EPA agrees that if recalculation using MOBILE6 shows
lower motor vehicle emissions than MOBILE5, then these motor vehicle
emission reductions cannot be reallocated to other sources or assigned
to the motor vehicle emissions budget as a safety margin unless the
area reassesses the analysis in its attainment demonstration and shows
that it will still attain. In other words, the area must assess how its
original attainment demonstration is impacted by using MOBILE6 vs.
MOBILE5 before it reallocates any apparent motor vehicle emission
reductions resulting from the use of MOBILE6. In addition, Connecticut
has committed to submit new budgets based on MOBILE6, so the MOBILE5
budgets will not be retained in the SIP indefinitely.
Comment 8: We received a comment on whether the grace period before
MOBILE6 is required in conformity determinations will be consistent
with the schedules for revising SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets
within 1 or 2 years of MOBILE6's release.
Response 8: This comment is not germane to this rulemaking, since
the MOBILE6 grace period for conformity determinations is not
explicitly tied to EPA's SIP policy and approvals. However, EPA
understands that a longer grace period would allow some areas to better
transition to new MOBILE6 budgets. EPA is considering the maximum 2-
year grace period allowed by the conformity rule, and EPA will address
this in the future when the final MOBILE6 emissions model and policy
guidance is released.
Comment 9: One commenter asked EPA to clarify in the final rule
whether MOBILE6 will be required for conformity determinations once new
MOBILE6 budgets are submitted and found adequate.
Response 9: This comment is not germane to this rulemaking.
However, it is important to note that EPA intends to clarify its policy
for implementing MOBILE6 in conformity determinations when the final
MOBILE6 model is released. EPA believes that MOBILE6 should be used in
conformity determinations once new MOBILE6 budgets are found adequate.
Comment 10: One commenter did not prefer the additional option for
a second year before the state has to revise the conformity budgets
with MOBILE6, since new conformity determinations and new
transportation projects could be delayed in the second year.
Response 10: EPA proposed the additional option to provide further
flexibility in managing MOBILE6 budget revisions. The supplemental
proposal did not change the original option to revise budgets within
one year of MOBILE6's release. State and local governments can continue
to use the 1-year option, if desired, or submit a new commitment
consistent with the alternative 2-year option. EPA expects that state
and local agencies have consulted on which option is appropriate and
have considered the impact on future conformity determinations.
Connecticut has committed to revise its budgets within 1 year of
MOBILE6's release.

L. Measures for the 1-Hour NAAQS and for Progress Toward 8-Hour NAAQS

Comment: One commenter notes that EPA has been working toward
promulgation of a revised 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) because the Administrator deemed attaining the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS is not adequate to protect public health. Therefore, EPA
must ensure that measures be implemented now that will be sufficient to
meet the 1-hour standard and that make as much progress toward
implementing the 8-hour ozone standard as the requirements of the CAA
and implementing regulations allow.
Response: The 1-hour standard remains in effect for all of these
areas, and the SIPs that have been submitted are for the purpose of
achieving that NAAQS. Congress has provided the states with the
authority to choose the measures necessary to attain the NAAQS and EPA
cannot second guess the states' choice if it determines that the SIP
meets the requirements of the CAA. EPA believes that the SIPs for the
severe areas meet the requirements for attainment demonstrations for
the 1-hour standard and thus, could not disapprove them even if EPA
believed other control requirements might be more effective for
attaining the 8-hour standard. However, EPA generally believes that
emission controls implemented to attain the 1-hour ozone standard will
be beneficial towards attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard as well.
This is particularly true regarding the implementation of
NO_X emission controls resulting from EPA's NO_X
SIP Call.
Finally, EPA notes that although the 8-hour ozone standard has been
adopted by the EPA, implementation of this standard has been delayed
while certain aspects of the standard remain before the United States
Circuit Court of Appeals. The states and the EPA have yet to define the
8-hour ozone nonattainment areas and the EPA has yet to issue guidance
and requirements for the implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard.

M. Attainment and Post `99 Rate of Progress Demonstrations

Comment: One commenter claims that the plans fail to demonstrate
emission reductions of 3% per year over each 3-year period between
November 1999 and November 2002; and November 2002 and November 2005;
and the 2-year period between November 2005 and November 2007, as
required by 42 U.S.C. 7511a(c)(2)(B). The states have not even
attempted to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, and EPA
has not proposed to find that they have not been met.
The EPA has absolutely no authority to waive the statutory mandate
for 3% annual reductions. The statute does not allow EPA to use the
NO_X SIP call or 126 orders as an excuse for waiving rate-of-
progress (ROP) deadlines. The statutory ROP requirement is for emission
reductions--not ambient reductions. Emission reductions in upwind
states do not waive the statutory requirement for 3% annual emission
reductions within the downwind nonattainment area.
Response: These comments center on the concern that for many areas,
EPA did not propose approval of the post-99 ROP demonstrations at the
same time as EPA proposed action on the area's attainment
demonstration. For those areas EPA has since proposed approval of the
post-99 ROP SIPs. Under no condition is EPA waiving the statutory
requirement for an average of 3% annual emission reductions over each
3-year ROP period. In this action EPA is approving the Post-99 plan for
the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area, as achieving 3%
average annual reductions over each 3-year period (or 2-year period for
2005-2007) until the area's attainment date. Moreover, EPA has not
provided that areas may rely on upwind reductions for purposes of
meeting the ROP requirements. Rather, states are relying

[[Page 63937]]

on in-state NO_X and VOC measures for meeting the ROP
requirement.

IV. Final Action

As described above, EPA does not believe any of the comments we
received on the proposals published for the attainment demonstration
for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area should affect
EPA's determination that the SIP is fully approvable. Thus, EPA is
approving several 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 include Connecticut's one-hour ozone attainment
demonstration for the state's portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area,
various enforceable commitments, a RACM analysis, and the post-1999 ROP
plan. Connecticut's one-hour ozone attainment demonstration includes
2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets, which EPA is approving until new
budgets using MOBILE 6 or in conjunction with new mobile source
measures to fill the shortfall are submitted and found adequate. Also,
EPA is approving the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2002 and 2005
contained in Connecticut's post-1999 ROP plan for transportation
conformity purposes.
The enforceable commitments we are approving include: (1) A
commitment to adopt and submit by October 31, 2001 additional necessary
regional control measures to offset the shortfall in emission
reductions necessary 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
shortfall in emission reductions necessary to attain the one-hour ozone
standard by November 2007; (3) a commitment to adopt and submit
additional restrictions on VOC emissions from mobile equipment and
repair operations; (4) a commitment to adopt and submit additional
requirements to reduce VOC emissions from certain consumer products;
(5) 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; (6) 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 () a commitment to perform a mid-course
review of the attainment status of the one-hour ozone nonattainment
area by December 31, 2004. The mid-course review commitment relates to
the Greater Connecticut one-hour ozone nonattainment area as well.

V. 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 (Pub. L. 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.)
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 11, 2002. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

[[Page 63938]]

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 30, 2001.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA--New England.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

2. Section 52.377 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding
paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone

* * * * * *
(b) Approval--Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on September
16, 1998 and February 8, 2000. The revisions are for the purpose of
satisfying the attainment demonstration requirements of section
182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act for the Greater Connecticut serious
ozone nonattainment area. The revision establishes an attainment date
of November 15, 2007 for the Greater Connecticut serious ozone
nonattainment area. This revision establishes motor vehicle emissions
budgets for 2007 of 30.0 tons per day of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and 79.6 tons per day of nitrogen oxides (NO_X) to be
used in transportation conformity in the Greater Connecticut serious
ozone nonattainment area, until revised budgets pursuant to MOBILE6 are
submitted and found adequate. In the revision, Connecticut commits to
revise their VOC and NO_X motor vehicle emissions budgets
within one year of the release of MOBILE6. Connecticut also commits to
conduct a mid-course review to assess modeling and monitoring progress
achieved towards the goal of attainment by 2007, and submit the results
to EPA by December 31, 2004.
(c) Approval--Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on October
15, 2001. These revisions are for the purpose of satisfying the rate of
progress requirement of section 182 (c)(2)(B) through 2007, and the
contingency measure requirements of section 182 (c)(9) of the Clean Air
Act, for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone
nonattainment area. These revisions also establish motor vehicle
emissions budgets for 2002 of 15.20 tons per day of VOC and 38.39 tons
per day of NO_X, and for 2005 of 11.42 tons per day of VOC
and 29.01 tons per day of NO_X to be used in transportation
conformity in the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone
nonattainment area.
(d) Approval--Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on September
16, 1998, February 8, 2000 and October 15, 2001. The revisions are for
the purpose of satisfying the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act for the Connecticut portion
of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment area. These revisions also
establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2007 of 9.69 tons per day
of VOC and 23.68 tons per day of NO_X to be used in
transportation conformity in the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT
severe ozone nonattainment area, until revised budgets are submitted
and found adequate pursuant to MOBILE6, or in conjunction with the
additional mobile source measures, if any, to fulfill the shortfall.
Connecticut commits to revise their 2007 VOC and NO_X
transportation conformity budgets within one year of the release of
MOBILE6, for both 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas. Connecticut commits
to recalculate and submit revised motor vehicle emissions budgets, if
any additional motor vehicle control measures are adopted to address
the shortfall. Connecticut commits 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. Connecticut commits 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. Connecticut commits to adopt and
submit: (1) additional restrictions on VOC emissions from mobile
equipment and repair operations; and (2) requirements to reduce VOC
emissions from certain consumer products. Connecticut also commits to
conduct a mid-course review to assess modeling and monitoring progress
achieved towards the goal of attainment by 2007, and submit the results
to EPA by December 31, 2004.

[FR Doc. 01-30458 Filed 12-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-50-P

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

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Ozone

Related Material

Local Navigation