[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63921-63938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30458]



[[Page 63921]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT057-7216a; FRL-7114-9]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA.
    This supplementary information section is organized as follows:

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

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

A. Attainment Demonstration and Enforceable Commitments

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

[[Page 63922]]

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

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

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

C. Transportation Conformity Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), and EPA's transportation conformity rule 
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to 
state air quality implementation plans. Conformity to a SIP means that 
transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, 
worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national 
ambient air quality standards. States are required to establish motor 
vehicle emissions budgets in any control strategy SIP they submit for 
attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality 
standards.
    In the December 16, 1999 proposed rulemaking on the Connecticut 
attainment demonstration, EPA proposed, in the alternative, to 
disapprove the attainment demonstration if Connecticut did not submit 
adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets and a commitment to adopt and 
submit additional control measures to make up for the projected need 
for additional controls to ensure attainment of the one-hour ozone 
standard by November 2007. On February 8, 2000, the Connecticut DEP 
submitted revisions to the NY-NJ-CT attainment demonstration which 
contained 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets for VOC and 
NOX, as well as the necessary enforceable commitment.
    A public comment period was held on these budgets when they were 
posted at www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/currsips.htm. The public 
comment period began on February 14, 2000, and closed on March 20, 
2000. EPA sent a letter to Connecticut DEP on May 31, 2000 finding 
these budgets adequate for use in transportation conformity 
determinations. EPA received no public comments during that public 
comment period.
    On June 16, 2000 (65 FR 37778), EPA notified the public that we had 
found the 2007 VOC and NOX motor vehicle emission budgets 
Connecticut submitted on February 8, 2000 adequate for conformity 
purposes. These budgets became effective on July 3, 2000 (65 FR 
37779).When we originally proposed approval of the Connecticut portion 
of the NY-NJ-CT severe area attainment demonstration on December 16, 
1999, however, EPA did receive comments that opposed EPA determining 
budgets adequate for transportation conformity purposes. EPA responded 
to all of those comments before determining the 2007 budgets adequate. 
A copy of our response to comments is available at http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/resp_ct.pdf.
    In this notice, EPA is approving into the SIP the 2007 budgets for 
the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area. EPA is also 
approving two enforceable commitments related to the conformity 
budgets. Those are: (1) a commitment to revise the attainment-level 
2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets within one year of the date that 
EPA releases the final version of our motor vehicle emissions model, 
MOBILE6; and (2) a commitment to recalculate and submit revised motor 
vehicle emissions budgets if any additional motor vehicle control 
measures are adopted to address the shortfall.
    We are only approving the 2007 budgets to be used for conformity 
purposes until Connecticut submits revised 2007 motor vehicle emissions 
budgets using MOBILE6 and/or revised 2007 budgets associated with 
mobile source measures to fill the shortfall and we have found them 
adequate. At that point, our approval of the 2007 budgets will 
terminate and the new adequate 2007 budgets will apply for conformity 
purposes. For more information, please see the proposal published on 
August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42172).
    On July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383), EPA published a notice of 
supplemental proposed rulemaking relating to ten one-hour ozone 
attainment demonstrations (including the Connecticut portion of the NY-
NJ-CT severe area) proposed for approval or conditional approval on 
December 16, 1999. In the supplemental notice, EPA clarified and 
expanded on two issues relating to the motor vehicle emissions budgets 
in the attainment demonstration SIPs. In addition, EPA reopened the 
comment period to take comment on those two issues and to allow comment 
on any additional materials that were placed in the dockets for the ten 
proposed actions close to or after the initial comment period closed on 
February 14, 2000.
    On June 4, 2001, Connecticut DEP submitted for parallel processing 
its proposed post-1999 ROP plan which contains 2002, 2005 and 2007 
motor

[[Page 63923]]

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

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

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

D. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)

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

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

A. Attainment Demonstration and Budgets

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

B. Enforceable Commitments to Adopt Additional Control Measures

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

[[Page 63924]]

severe nonattainment. In other words, our analysis predicted that the 
NY-NJ-CT area would remain 5 ppb over the NAAQS if Connecticut and its 
neighboring states do not achieve emission reductions beyond those 
included in the attainment demonstrations submitted by the states of 
Connecticut, New Jersey and New York. From this 5 ppb shortfall value 
we developed additional local emission reduction targets, and we 
recommended that, at a minimum, an additional 3.8% VOC and 0.3% 
NOX reduction from base year 1990 inventories would be 
necessary to approve the attainment demonstration for this area. These 
additional reductions were to be over and above the CAA measures 
required for this area and the measures already relied on in the 
demonstration of attainment. Additionally, since reductions from EPA's 
Tier 2 tailpipe and low sulfur-in-fuel standards were already included 
in the EPA analysis, the percent reduction figures were also over and 
above Tier 2/Sulfur reductions. EPA directed the three states within 
the nonattainment area to work together to achieve these reductions.
    In the February 8, 2000 addendum to the attainment demonstration 
for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment 
area, Connecticut included enforceable commitments to submit control 
measures for additional emission reductions to make-up for the 
shortfall outlined in EPA's December 16, 1999 proposed conditional 
approval. Specifically, Connecticut committed to: (1) Adopt and submit 
by December 31, 2000 additional NOX limits applicable to 
municipal waste combustors (MWCs); (2) adopt and submit by October 31, 
2001 additional necessary regional control measures to offset the 
shortfall in emission reductions necessary to attain the one-hour ozone 
standard by November 2007; and (3) adopt and submit by October 31, 
2001, additional necessary intrastate control measures to offset the 
emission reduction shortfall in order to attain the one-hour ozone 
standard by November 2007.
    The final approval of the Connecticut DEP regulation that reduces 
emissions of NOX from Municipal Waste Combustors (MWC) below 
previously required levels was granted by EPA Region I's Regional 
Administrator on November 9, 2001. The approved MWC rule will be 
promulgated at 40 CFR 52.370(c)(90). The additional NOX 
reductions that will be achieved by this regulation were not assumed in 
the attainment demonstration modeling submitted by the state and are 
thus eligible to fill the emission reduction shortfall necessary for 
attainment. Since we have already approved this rule, we will not take 
action on the February 8, 2000 commitment regarding the MWC rule.
    In our August 10, 2001 proposed full approval rulemaking notice on 
the attainment demonstration, we indicated that the shortfall in 
emission reductions for the Connecticut portion of the nonattainment 
area was 5.3 tpsd of VOC and 0.5 tpsd of NOX. Due to a 
correction we made to Connecticut's estimate of base year VOC emissions 
from architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, the VOC 
shortfall is now considered to be 5.4 tpsd. In its October 15, 2001 
submittal, Connecticut DEP outlines how the individual strategies it is 
committing to pursue will be sufficient to achieve reductions that will 
eliminate the shortfall.
    In its June 4, 2001 submittal to EPA, Connecticut articulated that 
it has narrowed the list of further possible control measures for 
filling the shortfall to those for which model rules were developed by 
the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). The OTC model rules include 
measures to reduce VOC from consumer products, portable fuel 
containers, AIM coatings, mobile equipment refinishing and repair 
operations, and solvent cleaning operations. The OTC model rules also 
include additional NOX controls for fuel combustion sources, 
including gas turbines, stationary reciprocating engines, and 
industrial boilers. These model rules would achieve reductions beyond 
those already assumed in Connecticut's SIP for some of these measures. 
At the public hearing Connecticut DEP held on July 10, 2001, the DEP 
solicited public comment on each of the model rules to determine those 
that may be most appropriate for adaptation into Connecticut's 
regulations to address the shortfalls EPA identified for attaining the 
one-hour ozone standard and to make progress toward attaining the 
eight-hour ozone standard.
    Subsequent to the public hearing, the Connecticut DEP has decided 
it would pursue adoption of: (1) additional restrictions on VOC 
emissions from mobile equipment refinishing and repair operations; and 
(2) requirements to reduce VOC emissions from certain consumer 
products. In its October 15, 2001 submittal, Connecticut is committing 
to pursue adoption of regulations for these two categories. Connecticut 
has proposed a rule on mobile equipment refinishing and repair 
operations and held a public hearing on it on September 15, 2001. The 
rule is scheduled to be adopted by the end of 2001. Connecticut DEP has 
begun the adoption process for the rule covering consumer products. 
Both of these rules will be adopted and implemented within a time 
period fully consistent with the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area attaining 
the standard by its 2007 attainment date. In today's action, EPA is 
approving the enforceable commitments Connecticut DEP submitted to 
adopt control measures to offset the shortfall in emission reductions 
necessary to attain the one-hour ozone standard by November 2007.

C. Mid-Course Review

    A mid-course review (MCR) for the NY-NJ-CT severe area is a 
reassessment of modeling analyses and more recent monitored data to 
determine if the prescribed control strategy is resulting in emission 
reductions and air quality improvements needed to attain the ambient 
air quality standard for ozone as expeditiously as practicable.
    EPA believes that a commitment to perform a MCR is a critical 
element of the weight of evidence (WOE) analysis for the attainment 
demonstration on which EPA proposed action in December 1999. To approve 
the attainment demonstration SIP for the Connecticut portion of the New 
York City area, EPA believes that the state must have an enforceable 
commitment to perform a MCR.
    Originally, the Connecticut DEP submitted an enforceable commitment 
with its attainment demonstration on September 16, 1998. The commitment 
made was to submit a MCR in the 2001/2002 time frame and an additional 
MCR in 2005. In our December 16, 1999 proposed conditional approval, 
EPA suggested that Connecticut revise its commitment to provide for the 
MCR immediately following the 2003 ozone season, so that the MCR would 
reflect regional 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 D.C. Circuit 
issued an order providing that EPA could not mandate that states 
require source compliance with rules adopted to meet the SIP call 
before May 2004. Thus, consistent with more recent advice from us, and 
with the original intent that the MCR reflect the SIP call reductions, 
Connecticut has revised the submittal date of the MCR from December 31, 
2003 to December 31, 2004. This new due date, and the logic behind its 
choice, also effects the Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area.

[[Page 63925]]

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

D. Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress Plan

    This section is organized as follows:
    1. What action is EPA taking today?
    2. What are Connecticut's target emission levels for VOC and 
NOX, and will the state's emissions be below these targets?
    3. What control strategy will Connecticut use to meet its emission 
target levels?
    4. How did Connecticut meet the contingency measure requirement?
1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
    EPA is approving the post-1999 rate-of-progress (ROP) emission 
reduction plan the State of Connecticut submitted for the state's 
portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment area as a revision 
to Connecticut's SIP. For purposes of meeting the ROP requirements, 
Connecticut, New York and New Jersey each submitted a plan to reduce 
emissions within their own portion of the nonattainment area. EPA is 
taking action today only on the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT 
post-1999 plan.
    The post-1999 ROP plan documents how Connecticut complied with the 
provisions of section 182 (c)(2)(B) of the Act through 2007. This 
section of the Act requires that states containing certain ozone 
nonattainment areas develop strategies to reduce emissions of the 
pollutants that react to form ground level ozone.
    On August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42178), EPA published a proposed 
rulemaking on the State of Connecticut's ROP demonstration for 2002, 
2005 and 2007. EPA received no comments regarding its proposal to 
approve the Connecticut post-1999 ROP plan.
2. What Are Connecticut's Target Emission Levels for VOC and 
NOX, and Will the State's Emissions Be Below These Targets?
    Connecticut's 2002, 2005, and 2007 target emission levels are shown 
in table 2, along with the state's projected, controlled emission 
levels. These target emission levels represent the maximum amount of 
emissions that Connecticut can emit in each year, given the state's 
post-1999 emission reduction requirements.

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

    The emission targets shown in Table 2 reflect a minor adjustment we 
made to Connecticut's 1990 emission estimate for AIM coatings, which we 
discuss in further detail below. This modification does not affect the 
state's ability to meet the statutory ROP requirement.
3. What Control Strategy Will Connecticut Use To Meet Its Emission 
Target Levels?
    EPA's August 10, 2001 proposed approval action outlined the control 
strategy that Connecticut used to meet its emission target levels. In 
summary, the state's control strategy consists of the emission 
reductions from the continued enforcement of measures EPA approved as 
part of the State's 15 percent and post-1996 (through 1999) emission 
reduction plans (64 FR 12015 (March 10, 1999) and 65 FR 62624 (October 
19, 2000), respectively), coupled with emission reductions from the 
following programs: Connecticut's NOX budget program 
affecting large point sources; municipal waste combustor (MWC) emission 
limits; federal non-road engine standards; phase II of the reformulated 
gasoline program; reductions from the final cut-points for the state's 
enhanced automobile inspection and maintenance program; reductions from 
the combined effect of tier II automobile standards and low sulfur in 
gasoline requirements; and phase I controls on heavy duty diesel 
engines. All these control measures are approved as part of 
Connecticut's SIP or are otherwise enforceable under the Act.
    We agree with Connecticut's determination of emission reductions 
from its NOX and VOC control strategy, with the minor 
exception of the architectural and industrial maintenance coatings 
(AIM) category that was part of the state's 15 percent plan. We agree 
with the 20 percent reduction Connecticut applied to its projected 
emissions for this source category due to a federal rule on these 
coatings. However, because Connecticut used different emission 
estimation methodologies to calculate its 1990 AIM emissions (used in 
development of the target levels) and its 1996 AIM emissions (used to 
project emissions), EPA concluded that an overstatement of reductions 
occurred due to these differing emission estimation techniques. To 
correct this discrepancy, we applied the more accurate 1996 AIM 
coatings emissions estimation methodology to Connecticut's 1990 base 
year estimate, and determined that Connecticut's base year emissions 
(the ``ROP'' inventory) for VOCs should be lowered from 144.0 tpsd to 
142.3 tpsd. Inserting the correct 1990 emission estimate into the 
State's ROP calculation yields the emission target levels shown above 
in Table 2. It is important to note that correcting this element of 
Connecticut's baseline inventory has no effect on the choices the state 
has made in designing its ROP plan and contingency measures. 
Connecticut has sufficient emission reductions beyond what is required 
for these SIP elements such that this adjustment simply reduces that 
surplus slightly.
4. How Did Connecticut Meet the Contingency Measure requirement?
    Connecticut has met its contingency measure obligation by using 
surplus emission reductions generated by the control measures in its 
post-1999 ROP plan. EPA policy allows use of surplus reductions that 
will occur in years after the ROP plan from already adopted measures to 
serve as contingency measures for ROP plans. We are approving 
Connecticut's demonstration that it meets the contingency measure 
provision of section 182(c)(9) of the Act, which requires contingency 
measures for serious and above milestone failures in ozone 
nonattainment areas classified serious and above.
    Connecticut still must meet the contingency measure provision of 
section 172(c)(9) of the Act, which pertains to failure to attain the 
ozone standard by the required date, but EPA

[[Page 63926]]

is not obligated to approve such measures prior to approving the 
attainment demonstration. The EPA believes the contingency measure 
requirement of section 172(c)(9) is independent from the attainment 
demonstration requirements under sections 172(c)(1) and 182(c)(2)(A). 
The section 172(c)(9) contingency measure requirement addresses the 
event that an area fails to attain the ozone NAAQS by the attainment 
date established in the SIP and has no bearing on whether a state has 
submitted a SIP that projects attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The 
attainment SIP provides a demonstration that attainment ought to be 
reached, but the contingency measure SIP requirement of section 
179(c)(9) concerns what is to happen only if attainment is not actually 
achieved. The EPA acknowledges that contingency measures are an 
independently required SIP revision, but does not believe that 
submission of contingency measures is necessary before EPA may approve 
an attainment SIP.
    Connecticut's post-1999 ROP plan states that its large 
NOX surplus is sufficient to meet both contingency measure 
provisions of the Act. However, the State's surplus NOX 
reductions can not be used to meet the 179(c)(9) contingency measure 
requirement because that requirement pertains to a failure to meet the 
one hour ozone standard by the area's 2007 attainment date, and 
therefore must consist of measures that are surplus to the measures 
needed for attainment. The surplus NOX reductions in 
Connecticut's ROP plan are not surplus to the measures needed for 
attainment.
    In the event that attainment is not achieved by 2007, there are a 
number of EPA measures that will achieve significant emission 
reductions between 2007 and 2009. These include continuing reductions 
from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe standards and EPA's standards for a variety 
of non-road sources. We have analyzed the Connecticut SIP and 
determined that the contingency obligation would be covered for this 
area by these measures. More details on EPA's contingency measure 
analysis are included in the docket for the rulemaking action. While 
there is not an approved SIP contingency measure that would apply if 
the state failed to attain, EPA believes that existing federally 
enforceable measures would provide the necessary substantive relief.
    Other specific requirements of post-1999 ROP plans and the 
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will 
not be restated here. See 66 FR 42178 (August 10, 2001).

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

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

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

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

A. Attainment Demonstrations--Weight of Evidence

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

[[Page 63927]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63928]]

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

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

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

[[Page 63929]]

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

[[Page 63930]]

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

B. Reliance on NOX SIP Call and Tier 2

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

C. RACM (Including Transportation Control Measures)

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

[[Page 63931]]

consequently issued a guidance memorandum providing that these states 
should address the RACM requirement through an additional SIP 
submittal. (Memorandum of December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, re: 
``Additional Submission on RACM from States with Severe 1-hour Ozone 
Nonattainment Area SIPs.'')
    The State of Connecticut provided EPA with a draft RACM analysis on 
August 2, 2001, and finalized that document on October 15, 2001. EPA 
proposed to approve this SIP as meeting the RACM requirements via 
parallel processing on August 10, 2001 (66 FR 42172). In the proposal, 
EPA set forth its interpretation of the RACM requirement. See 66 FR 
42182. Based on our review of the RACM submission, EPA proposed that CT 
had adopted all RACM. EPA received no comments on that proposal. Today, 
EPA approves the Connecticut RACM analysis as meeting the requirement 
for adopting RACM for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe 
area.
    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to contain RACM and 
provides for areas to attain as expeditiously as practicable. EPA has 
previously provided guidance interpreting the requirements of 
172(c)(1). See 57 FR 13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA indicated its 
interpretation that potentially available measures that would not 
advance the attainment date for an area would not be considered RACM. 
EPA also indicated in that guidance that states should consider all 
potentially available measures to determine whether they were 
reasonably available for implementation in the area, and whether they 
would advance the attainment date. Further, states should indicate in 
their SIP submittals whether measures considered were reasonably 
available or not, and if measures are reasonably available they must be 
adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA indicated that states could reject 
measures as not being RACM because they would not advance the 
attainment date, would cause substantial widespread and long-term 
adverse impacts, would be economically or technologically infeasible, 
or would be unavailable based on local considerations, including costs. 
The EPA also issued a recent memorandum re-confirming the principles in 
the earlier guidance, entitled, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available 
Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration 
Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.'' John S. Seitz, Director, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web 
site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. EPA has consistently 
interpreted the Clean Air Act as requiring only such RACM as will 
provide for expeditious attainment, since we first addressed the issue 
in guidance issued in 1979. 44 FR 20372, 20375 (April 4, 1979).
    Although EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires 
implementation of additional measures for Connecticut portion of the 
NY-NJ-CT severe area, this conclusion is not necessarily valid for 
other areas. Thus, a determination of RACM is necessary on a case-by-
case basis and will depend on the circumstances for the individual 
area. In addition, if in the future EPA moves forward to implement 
another ozone standard, this RACM analysis would not control what is 
RACM for these or any other areas for that other ozone standard.
    Also, EPA has long advocated that states consider the kinds of 
control measures that the commenters have suggested, and EPA has indeed 
provided guidance on those measures. See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm. In order to demonstrate that they will attain the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, some areas may need 
to consider and adopt a number of measures-including the kind that the 
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area itself evaluated in its 
RACM analysis--that even collectively do not result in many emission 
reductions. Furthermore, EPA encourages areas to implement technically 
available and economically feasible measures to achieve emissions 
reductions in the short term--even if such measures do not advance the 
attainment date--since such measures will likely improve air quality. 
Also, over time, emission control measures that may not be RACM now for 
an area may ultimately become feasible for the same area due to 
advances in control technology or more cost-effective implementation 
techniques. Thus, areas should continue to assess the state of control 
technology as they make progress toward attainment and consider new 
control technologies that may in fact result in more expeditious 
improvement in air quality.
    Because EPA is finding that the SIP meets the Clean Air Act's 
requirement for RACM and that there are no additional reasonably 
available control measures that can advance the attainment date, EPA 
concludes that the attainment date being approved is as expeditious as 
practicable.
    EPA previously responded to comments concerning the adequacy of 
MVEBs when EPA took final action determining the budgets adequate and 
does not address those issues again here. The responses are found at:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/pastsips.htm.

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

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

[[Page 63932]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 63933]]

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

E. Adequacy of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

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

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

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

G. VOC Emission Reductions

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

[[Page 63934]]

achieve the additional VOC reductions it needs. In evaluating the use 
of HFC-152a, states may want to consider claims that products made with 
this blowing agent are comparable in quality to products made with 
other blowing agents. Also the question of the over-all long term 
environmental effect of encouraging emissions of fluorine compounds 
would be relevant to consider. This is a technology which states may 
want to consider, but ultimately, the decision of whether to require 
this particular technology to achieve the necessary VOC emissions 
reductions must be made by each affected state. Finally, EPA notes that 
under the significant new alternatives policy (SNAP) program, created 
under CAA section 612, EPA has identified acceptable foam blowing 
agents many of which are not VOCs (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/).

H. Credit for Measures Not Fully Implemented

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Enforcement of Control Programs

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

[[Page 63935]]

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

J. Contingency Measures

    Comment: The SIP for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe 
ozone nonattainment area does not provide contingency measures to make 
up for any emission reduction shortfall, either in achievement of ROP 
milestones or for failure to attain, as required by sections 172(c)(9) 
and 182(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act.
    Response: The Connecticut SIP does provide contingency measures for 
ROP as required by section 182(c)(9), but does not provide contingency 
measures for failure to attain as required by section 172(c)(9). The 
state's ROP contingency plan is discussed in detail in our August 10, 
2001 document (66 FR 42172). We are approving Connecticut's 
demonstration that it meets the contingency measure provision of 
section 182(c)(9) of the Act, which requires contingency measures for 
serious and above milestone failures.
    Connecticut still must meet the contingency measure provision of 
section 172(c)(9) of the Act, which pertains to failure to attain the 
ozone standard by the required date. But EPA is not obligated to 
approve such measures prior to approving the attainment demonstration, 
because the contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) is 
independent from the attainment demonstration requirements under 
sections 172(c)(1) and 182(c)(2)(A). The section 172(c)(9) contingency 
measure requirement addresses the event that an area fails to attain 
the ozone NAAQS by the attainment date established in the SIP and has 
no bearing on whether a state has submitted a SIP that projects 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The attainment SIP provides a 
demonstration that attainment ought to be reached, but the contingency 
measure SIP requirement of section 179(c)(9) concerns what is to happen 
only if attainment is not actually achieved. The EPA acknowledges that 
contingency measures are an independently required SIP revision, but 
does not believe that submission of contingency measures is necessary 
before EPA may approve an attainment SIP.
    Additionally, in the event that attainment is not achieved by 2007 
there are a number of EPA measures that will achieve significant 
emission reductions that the SIP does not rely on or take credit for. 
These include continuing reductions from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe 
standards and EPA's standards for a variety of non-road sources. The 
EPA has analyzed the Connecticut SIP and has estimated that the 
contingency obligation would be approximately 3.8 tons per summer day 
(tpsd) in ozone precursor emission reductions. Reductions from the 
federal non-road and the Tier 2 tailpipe standards during the time 
frame contingency measures would need to be implemented for failure to 
attain (i.e., by May 2009) \10\ are estimated to be at least 5.5 tpsd, 
which would cover the contingency obligation for this area. More 
details on EPA's contingency measure analysis are included in the 
docket for the rulemaking action. While there is not an approved SIP 
contingency measure that would apply if the state failed to attain, EPA 
believes that existing federally enforceable measures would provide the 
necessary substantive relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

K. MOBILE6 and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

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

[[Page 63936]]

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

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

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

M. Attainment and Post `99 Rate of Progress Demonstrations

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

[[Page 63937]]

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

IV. Final Action

    As described above, EPA does not believe any of the comments we 
received on the proposals published for the attainment demonstration 
for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area should affect 
EPA's determination that the SIP is fully approvable. Thus, EPA is 
approving several SIP revisions that relate to attainment of the one-
hour ozone standard in the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe 
area. The SIP revisions include Connecticut's one-hour ozone attainment 
demonstration for the state's portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe area, 
various enforceable commitments, a RACM analysis, and the post-1999 ROP 
plan. Connecticut's one-hour ozone attainment demonstration includes 
2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets, which EPA is approving until new 
budgets using MOBILE 6 or in conjunction with new mobile source 
measures to fill the shortfall are submitted and found adequate. Also, 
EPA is approving the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2002 and 2005 
contained in Connecticut's post-1999 ROP plan for transportation 
conformity purposes.
    The enforceable commitments we are approving include: (1) A 
commitment to adopt and submit by October 31, 2001 additional necessary 
regional control measures to offset the shortfall in emission 
reductions necessary to attain the one-hour ozone standard by November 
2007; (2) a commitment to adopt and submit by October 31, 2001 
additional necessary intrastate control measures to offset the 
shortfall in emission reductions necessary to attain the one-hour ozone 
standard by November 2007; (3) a commitment to adopt and submit 
additional restrictions on VOC emissions from mobile equipment and 
repair operations; (4) a commitment to adopt and submit additional 
requirements to reduce VOC emissions from certain consumer products; 
(5) a commitment to revise the attainment-level 2007 motor vehicle 
emissions budgets within one year of the date that EPA releases the 
final version of their motor vehicle emissions model, MOBILE6; (6) a 
commitment to recalculate and submit revised motor vehicle emissions 
budgets if any additional motor vehicle control measures are adopted to 
address the shortfall; and () a commitment to perform a mid-course 
review of the attainment status of the one-hour ozone nonattainment 
area by December 31, 2004. The mid-course review commitment relates to 
the Greater Connecticut one-hour ozone nonattainment area as well.

V. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.)
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 11, 2002. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

[[Page 63938]]

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

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

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

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


Sec. 52.377  Control strategy: Ozone

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

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