[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42172-42185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20142]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT057-7216c: FRL-7030-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut; 
Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Background

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

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

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

[[Page 42173]]

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

III. Connecticut's Post-1999 ROP Plan

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

IV. Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis

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

V. Proposed Action

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. Basis for Connecticut's Attainment Demonstration SIP

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

[[Page 42174]]

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

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

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

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

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

B. Background for the Connecticut Submittals and EPA Rulemaking

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

[[Page 42175]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 42176]]

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

    We are proposing full approval of SIP revisions that relate to 
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard in the Connecticut portion of 
the NY-NJ-CT severe area. The SIP revisions are Connecticut's one hour 
ozone attainment demonstration for the State's portion of the NY-NJ-CT 
severe area, various enforceable commitments, and the post-1999 ROP 
plan. Connecticut's one hour ozone attainment demonstration includes 
submitted 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets, which are being 
proposed for approval. The enforceable commitments we are proposing to 
approve include: (1) A commitment to adopt and submit by October 31, 
2001, additional necessary regional control measures to offset the 
emission reduction shortfall in order to attain the one-hour ozone 
standard by November 2007; (2) a commitment to adopt and submit by 
October 31, 2001, additional necessary intrastate control measures to 
offset the emission reduction shortfall in order to attain the one-hour 
ozone standard by November 2007; (3) a commitment to revise the 
attainment-level 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets within one year 
of the date that EPA releases the final version of their motor vehicle 
emissions model, MOBILE6; (4) a commitment to recalculate and submit 
revised motor vehicle emissions budgets if any additional motor vehicle 
control measures are adopted to address the shortfall; and (5) a 
commitment to perform a mid-course review of the attainment status of 
the 1-hour ozone nonattainment area by December 31, 2004. Also, EPA is 
proposing to approve the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2002 and 
2005 contained in Connecticut's post-1999 ROP plan for transportation 
conformity purposes.

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

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

A. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Both VOC and NOX

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 42177]]

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

B. Enforceable Commitments To Adopt Additional Control Measures

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

C. Mid-Course Review

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

[[Page 42178]]

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

III. Connecticut's Post-1999 ROP Plan

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

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

B. What Action Is EPA Taking on This Plan?

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

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

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

[[Page 42179]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 42180]]

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

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

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

G. How Will Connecticut Achieve These Emission Reductions?

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 42181]]

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

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

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

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

I. Has Connecticut Met Its Contingency Measure Obligation?

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

J. Are Transportation Conformity Budgets Contained in These Plans?

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

[[Page 42182]]

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis

A. What Are the Requirements for RACM Technology?

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

[[Page 42183]]

B. What Did Connecticut Submit?

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

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

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

[[Page 42184]]

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

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

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

[[Page 42185]]

V. Proposed Action

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

VI. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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