[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38104-38109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16622]



[[Page 38104]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0168, FRL-9981-37--Region 1]


Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Plan Submittals for the 2008 
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by 
Connecticut which relate to the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP revisions are for the Greater 
Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New 
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT moderate ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is 
proposing to approve submittals which include 2011 base year emissions 
inventories, an emissions statement certification, reasonable further 
progress (RFP) demonstrations, reasonably available control measures 
(RACM) analyses, motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency 
measures. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air 
Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 4, 
2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0168. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed 
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
EPA Region 1 Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA 
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer, 
Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, 
Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046; 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Description of State's Submittals
III. Evaluation of State's Submittals
    A. Emissions Statement Certification
    B. 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory
    C. Reasonable Further Progress Plans
    D. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets/Transportation Conformity
    E. Contingency Measures
    F. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary 
NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual 
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged 
over three years) to provide increased protection of public health and 
the environment (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS 
retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS 
set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. Under the EPA's 
regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained 
when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or 
equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15.
    Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated as nonattainment any 
area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three 
most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data (77 FR 30088, May 
21, 2012). With that rulemaking, the Greater Connecticut area and the 
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT area were designated as 
marginal ozone nonattainment areas. The latter area is herein referred 
to as the NY-NJ-CT area. Areas that were designated as marginal 
nonattainment were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no 
later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. On May 
14, 2016 (81 FR 26697), the EPA published its determination that the 
Greater Connecticut area and the NY-NJ-CT area had failed to attain the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment deadline and the areas were 
reclassified to moderate ozone nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 81.306. 
Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no 
later than six years after the effective date of designations, or July 
20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.903.

II. Description of State's Submittals

    Clean Air Act (CAA) section 182 of subpart 2 outlines SIP 
requirements applicable to ozone nonattainment areas in each 
classification category. Moderate area designations trigger additional 
state requirements established under the provisions of the EPA's ozone 
implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR part 51, 
subpart AA). Examples of these requirements include submission of a 
modeling and attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress 
(RFP) plan, controls on stationary sources that represent reasonably 
available control technology (RACT), and a demonstration that all 
reasonably available control measures (RACM) have been adopted. The 
EPA's May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26699) rulemaking established a January 2, 
2017 moderate area SIP revision submission deadline.
    On March 9, 2016, Connecticut submitted a 2011 emissions inventory 
of ozone precursors for all areas of the State. On September 5, 2017, 
Connecticut submitted an emissions statement certification which also 
covered all areas of the State. On January 17, 2017, Connecticut 
submitted SIP revisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Greater 
Connecticut moderate nonattainment area that included an RFP plan, 
contingency measures for the RFP plan, motor vehicle emissions budgets 
as defined by the RFP plan, and a RACM demonstration. Connecticut made 
a similar submittal on August 8, 2017, for the state's portion of the 
NY-NJ-CT moderate nonattainment area. Although Connecticut's January 
17, 2017 and August 8, 2017 submittals also included attainment 
demonstrations for the 2008 ozone standard, we are not addressing those 
submittals in this proposed rulemaking.

III. Evaluation of State's Submittals

A. Emissions Statement Certification

    EPA's implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, herein referred 
to as the 2008 ozone rule, was published in the Federal Register on 
March 6, 2015. See 80 FR 12264. The 2008 ozone rule notes than many 
areas that were nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS had previously 
adopted an

[[Page 38105]]

emissions statement reporting program due to being nonattainment for a 
prior ozone NAAQS. For these areas, the 2008 ozone rule indicates that 
the state should review its existing rule to see whether it still meets 
the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, and if the state 
determines that it does, the state may submit a SIP revision 
certification to that effect to meet this obligation for purposes of 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    On September 5, 2017, Connecticut submitted an emissions statement 
certification which covered all areas of the State. The submittal notes 
that Connecticut had previously adopted an emissions statement program 
pursuant to obligations it had under the one-hour ozone standard, and 
that EPA approved that program into the Connecticut SIP on January 10, 
1995. See 60 FR 2524. Connecticut reviewed its current set of air 
pollution reporting requirements and confirmed that pursuant to its 
authority under the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) 
22a-174-33, 22a-174-4(d), and 22a-174-3a, all stationary sources of 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) that emit 25 tons or more a year of those pollutants 
are required to report their emissions, along with a certification as 
to the accuracy of the reported emissions, to the State. Emissions from 
smaller stationary sources that emit less than 25 tons per year of VOC 
and/or NOX are inventoried as area sources within 
Connecticut's emissions inventory, which is described in section III.B 
of this proposal. Given the above, we propose to approve Connecticut's 
emissions statement certification for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

B. 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory

    CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a 
``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from 
all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] area. . . 
.'' By requiring an accounting of actual emissions from all sources of 
the relevant pollutants in the area, this section provides for the base 
year inventory to include all emissions that contribute to the 
formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. Additionally, for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS, EPA's March 6, 2015 ozone rule recommended 2011 as a 
baseline year from which emission reductions used to meet RFP 
requirements are creditable.
    On March 9, 2016, Connecticut submitted to EPA as a SIP revision 
request an emissions inventory of ozone precursors for 2011. The 
inventory was submitted to meet the CAA section 182(a)(3)(A) obligation 
to develop a base year inventory, and was also used as the baseline 
year in the State's RFP plans which are described elsewhere in this 
proposal. The State conducted a public comment process on the inventory 
which concluded on August 31, 2015. The inventories include emission 
estimates in tons per summer day, and represent emissions estimates 
from stationary and mobile source categories during a typical summer 
day when ozone formation is highest. The ozone emissions inventory 
catalogs NOX and VOC emissions because these pollutants are 
precursors to ozone formation. Connecticut's 2011 emissions inventory 
contains emission estimates at the county level, and also contains 
emission estimates summed to the geographic areas that correspond to 
the State's two moderate ozone nonattainment areas.
    Connecticut's 2011 emission inventory documents the procedures used 
to estimate emissions from individual stationary sources, referred to 
as point sources. The inventory describes the means by which the State 
identifies facilities that must report their air emissions to the 
State, and the techniques used to verify this information. These 
approaches include verification of information submitted by facilities 
by Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT 
DEEP) enforcement staff during compliance inspections. Connecticut 
transmits its point source air emissions data to EPA's National 
Emissions Inventory (NEI) database each year in accordance with the 
requirements found within 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
    Area source emission estimates are made for small, stationary 
sources of air pollution that do not emit much individually, but do 
have significant emissions collectively. Examples include gasoline 
stations, automobile refinishing shops, and architectural and 
industrial maintenance coatings. Connecticut's area source emissions 
inventory identifies the source categories for which the State relied 
upon EPA's estimates, provides information on any adjustments made to 
EPA estimates, and notes which categories' emission estimates were 
prepared by the State. The inventory also explains how double counting 
between emissions from facilities inventoried as individual point 
sources were excluded from the area source emission estimates.
    Connecticut used EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 
model to calculate emissions for on-road and most non-road mobile 
source sectors. The State provided the model with local activity inputs 
including vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and average speed data by county 
provided by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. Connecticut 
also provided inputs to the model which reflect that the State has more 
light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles than national averages 
would suggest, and provided inputs for meteorology and fuels 
information.
    We propose to find that the air emission estimates for these 
sources were adequately accounted for in Connecticut's 2011 emissions 
inventory. The methodology used to calculate emissions for each source 
category followed relevant EPA guidance, most notably the July 2017 
guidance entitled ``Emissions Inventory Guidanec for Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards and 
Regional Haze Regulations,'' used appropriate, documented emission 
factors, or relied on emission estimates prepared for EPA's National 
Emissions Inventory. Furthermore, the inventory submittal is 
sufficiently documented as to the techniques used to prepare the 
emission estimates.
    Table 1 shows the emissions by source category, in tons per summer 
day (tpsd), from the 2011 base year emission inventory for each of the 
State's two nonattainment areas.

                   Table 1--Emissions Inventory Summary for Connecticut's Nonattainment Areas
                                                [Tons/summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CT portion of NY-NJ-CT area           Greater CT area
                     Source                      ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        VOC             NOX             VOC             NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................             2.0            18.5             1.3            10.0
Area............................................            52.7             6.9            48.5             6.2
Nonroad.........................................            41.8            32.5            37.0            36.1

[[Page 38106]]

 
Onroad..........................................            33.4            64.6            30.3            55.8
Biogenic........................................           141.4             0.7           283.7             1.7
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................           271.3           123.3           400.7           109.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional details regarding Connecticut's emissions inventory are 
included in Connecticut's 2011 Periodic Emissions Inventory document, 
which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. The 
inventories are based on the most current and accurate information 
available to the State at the time it was being developed. 
Additionally, the inventories comprehensively address all source 
categories in Connecticut's nonattainment areas and were developed 
consistent with the relevant EPA inventory guidance. For these reasons, 
we are proposing to approve the 2011 baseline emissions inventories 
into the Connecticut SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
172(c)(3).

C. Reasonable Further Progress Plans

    Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and the EPA's 2008 Ozone 
Implementation Rule requires that State's submit a reasonable further 
progress (RFP) demonstration for each 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 
designated moderate and above, for review and approval into its SIP, 
that describes how the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of 
VOC and NOX from a baseline emissions inventory. Section 
182(b)(1) of the CAA requires RFP to demonstrate a 15% reduction in VOC 
emissions before the more general RFP requirements of section 172(c)(2) 
of the CAA apply, which permits a combination of VOC and NOX 
emission reductions to show RFP. Connecticut has previously submitted 
15% VOC-only RFP SIPs under section 182(b)(1), due to nonattainment 
obligations it had under the one-hour ozone standard. Therefore, for 
purposes of the 2008 ozone standard, Connecticut submitted RFP 
demonstrations for its two moderate nonattainment areas showing VOC and 
NOX emission reductions greater than 15% within six years 
after the 2011 base year inventory (between 2012-2017). Note that we 
are only proposing action on the RFP plan for Connecticut portion of 
the NY-NJ-CT area.
    Connecticut chose to demonstrate that RFP was achieved between the 
2011 baseline year and the 2017 target year by showing that 
NOX emissions would decline by at least 10%, and VOC 
emissions by at least 5%, within each of its nonattainment areas. 
Connecticut updated its 2011 emission estimates for use within the RFP 
baseline inventory by using the most recently available version of 
EPA's MOVES model, MOVES 2014a, for the calculation of on-road and non-
road mobile source emissions. Additionally, Connecticut accounted for 
emissions available for use as emissions offsets held within its 
emissions offset bank within the RFP analysis. Connecticut relied 
primarily on the emissions projection work it had developed and 
submitted to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association 
(MARAMA) for their effort to develop a 2017 modeling platform. The 
projection of emissions from electrical generating units (EGUs) was 
accomplished using a forecasting tool developed by the Eastern Regional 
Technical Advisory Group (ERTAC). We reviewed these projections during 
the public comment period that Connecticut held for its RFP plans and 
found that the ERTAC EGU emissions forecasts produced reasonable 
results for facilities in the State.
    Table 2 below contains a summary of the 2011 RFP baseline 
inventory, 2017 target levels incorporating the 5% VOC and 10% 
NOX emission reductions, and 2017 projected, controlled 
emissions for the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of 
the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment areas. Connecticut's RFP analysis for its 
two moderate nonattainment areas shows that projected, controlled VOC 
and NOX emissions in 2017 will be well below the emission 
target levels, thereby demonstrating that RFP has been met.

  Table 2--Summary of RFP Calculations for CT's Two Nonattainment Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   VOC  emissions    NOX emissions (tons/
          Description            (tons/summer day)       summer day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFP Baseline inventory:
    Gr. CT area...............                106.1                 91.9
    CT portion of NY-NJ-CT                    115.6                115.1
     area.....................
2017 target level of
 emissions:
    Gr. CT area...............                100.8                 82.7
    CT portion of NY-NJ-CT                    109.8                103.6
     area.....................
2017 projected, controlled
 emissions:
    Gr. CT area...............                 84.6                 56.4
    CT portion of NY-NJ-CT                     92.3                 71.3
     area.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RFP plans must include a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB), 
which provides the allowable on-road mobile emissions an area can 
produce and continue to demonstrate RFP. The State's RFP plans included 
MVEBs for both nonattainment areas for the year 2017. The MVEBs are 
discussed in detail in Section III.D of this document.

D. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets/Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA. 
Conformity to a SIP means conformity

[[Page 38107]]

to an implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the 
severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving 
expeditious attainment of the NAAQS, and that transportation activities 
will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing 
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(A) 
and (B)). The EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A 
requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to 
SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining 
whether or not they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity 
rule requires a demonstration that emissions from the Metropolitan 
Planning Organization's (MPO) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and 
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the 
motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in the control strategy 
SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). 
The MVEBs are defined in 40 CFR 93.101 as the level of mobile source 
emissions of a pollutant, of the total allowable emissions, defined in 
the SIP for a certain date, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment 
or maintenance of the NAAQS or for meeting reasonable further progress 
milestones.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Further information concerning EPA's interpretations 
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to EPA's November 24, 
1993, transportation conformity rule. See 58 FR 62193-62196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RFP plans submitted by Connecticut are control strategy SIPs, 
and they contain 2017 motor vehicle budgets for VOCs and NOX 
by nonattainment area. Table 3 contains these VOC and NOX 
transportation conformity budgets in units of tons per summer day.

        Table 3--Conformity Budgets in the Connecticut RFP Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          2017 Transportation conformity
                                                budgets [tons/day]
                Area name                -------------------------------
                                                VOC             NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater Connecticut.....................            15.9            22.2
CT portion of NY-NJ-CT area.............            17.6            24.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA issued a letter on March 20, 2017 to Connecticut in which we 
stated that the budgets for the Greater Connecticut area were adequate 
for use in transportation conformity determinations. Additionally, EPA 
published an announcement of this adequacy finding in the Federal 
Register on May 31, 2017. See 82 FR 24859. We did not make an adequacy 
finding for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area; however, this 
action serves to notify the public that EPA is reviewing for adequacy 
the MVEBs, contained in the RFP plan for the Connecticut portion of the 
NY-NJ-CT area, simultaneously with our proposed approval of the RFP 
plan as required by 40 CFR part 93.118(f)(2). In this action, we are 
proposing approval of the 2008 conformity budgets for VOC and 
NOX for the areas shown in Table 3 above.

E. Contingency Measures

    Pursuant to section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, nonattainment plan 
provisions must provide for the implementation of contingency measures. 
These are specific measures to be undertaken if a nonattainment area 
fails to make RFP, or to attain the national primary ambient air 
quality standard by the applicable attainment date. Such contingency 
measures shall take effect without further action by the state or the 
EPA. While the CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of 
emissions reductions required, the EPA has interpreted the CAA to mean 
that implementation of these contingency measures would provide 
additional emissions reductions of up to 3% (or a lesser percentage 
that will make up the identified shortfall) in the year following the 
RFP milestone year. Contingency measures could include federal measures 
and local measures already scheduled for implementation, as long as 
their emission reductions are beyond those needed for attainment or to 
meet RFP. The CAA does not preclude a state from implementing such 
measures before they are triggered by a failure to meet RFP. For more 
information on contingency measures, see the April 16, 1992 General 
Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the 2008 ozone rule (80 FR 12264, 
12285).
    Connecticut provided NOX emissions reductions in excess 
of those needed for RFP as contingency measures. Table 2 above 
illustrates the magnitude of the excess emission reductions achieved by 
Connecticut's RFP plans. For example, within the Greater Connecticut 
nonattainment area, the projected, controlled NOX emissions 
in 2017 of 56.4 tons/day are 32% below the area's NOX target 
of 82.7 tons/day. Given that Connecticut established the 2017 
NOX emissions target by factoring in a 10% reduction in 
emissions, the additional 32% reduction in NOX emissions is 
more than adequate to cover the 3% reduction in emissions needed to 
satisfy the area's contingency measure obligation. Similarly, for the 
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area, the projected, controlled 
NOX emissions in 2017 of 71.3 tons/day are 31% below the 
area's NOX target of 103.6 tons day, therby providing a 
sufficient surplus to cover that area's contingency measure obligation. 
Connecticut's contingency measure analysis notes that the State chose 
to use NOX emission reductions from federal non-road engine 
standards occurring between 2012 and 2017, which form a part of the 
large overall NOX emission reduction surplus, as contingency 
measures. Emission reductions realized as newer, lower emitting 
equipment replace older, higher emitting equipment carry forward into 
the future and will continue to reduce emissions after 2017.
    The purpose of the contingency measures is to provide for further 
emission reductions to make up the shortfall needed for RFP or for 
attainment, during the period in which the State and the EPA determine 
whether the nonattainment plan for the area needs further revision to 
achieve the NAAQS expeditiously.\2\ The appropriateness of relying on 
already-implemented reductions to meet the contingency measures 
requirement has been addressed in two federal circuit court decisions. 
See Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575, 
586 (5th Cir. 2004), Bahr v. United States EPA, 836

[[Page 38108]]

F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 199 L. Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S. 
LEXIS 58 (January 8, 2018). The EPA believes that the language of 
section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) is ambiguous with respect to this 
issue, and that it is reasonable for the agency to interpret the 
statutory language to allow approval of already implemented measures as 
contingency measures, so long as they meet other parameters such as 
providing excess emissions reductions that the state has not relied 
upon to make RFP or for attainment in the nonattainment plan for the 
NAAQS at issue. Until the Bahr decision, under the EPA's longstanding 
interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), states could 
rely on control measures that were already implemented (so called 
early-triggered contingency measures) as a valid means to meet the 
Act's contingency measures requirement. The Ninth Circuit decision in 
Bahr leaves a split among the federal circuit courts, with the Fifth 
Circuit upholding the Agency's interpretation of section 172(c)(9) to 
allow early-triggered contingency measures and the Ninth Circuit 
rejecting that interpretation. The Second Circuit in which Connecticut 
is located has not addressed the issue, nor has the Supreme Court or 
any other circuit court other than the Fifth and Ninth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See General Preamble, section III.A.3.c (57 FR 13498 at 
13511).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because there is a split in the federal circuits on this issue, the 
EPA expects that states located in circuits other than the Ninth may 
elect to rely on EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 172(c)(9) 
allowing early-triggered measures to be approved as contingency 
measures, in appropriate circumstances. EPA's revised Regional 
Consistency regulations pertaining to SIP provisions authorize the 
Agency to follow this interpretation of section 172(c)(9) in Circuits 
other than the Ninth. See 40 CFR part 56. To ensure that early-
triggered contingency measures appropriately satisfy all other relevant 
CAA requirements, the EPA will carefully review each such measure, and 
intends to consult with states considering such measures early in the 
attainment plan development process.
    As shown in Table 2 above, the emissions reductions projected 
through 2017 are sufficient to meet the requirements for contingency 
measures, consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the CAA to allow 
approval of already implemented control measures as contingency 
measures in states outside the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, we propose 
approval of Connecticut's RFP contingency measures.

F. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis

    Connecticut submitted a demonstration that its two moderate 
nonattainment areas have adopted all RACM necessary to demonstrate 
attainment as expeditiously as practicable as required by CAA section 
172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d). The EPA interprets the CAA RACM 
provision to require a demonstration that: (1) The state has adopted 
all reasonable measures (including RACT) to meet RFP requirements and 
to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as possible, and (2) no 
additional measures that are reasonably available will advance the 
attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area. States should 
consider all available measures, including those being implemented in 
other areas, but must adopt measures for an area only if those measures 
are economically and technologically feasible and will advance the 
attainment date or are necessary for RFP.
    The EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM 
requirements of section 172(c)(1). See the ``General Preamble for 
Implementation of Title I of the CAA of 1990'' (General Preamble), 57 
FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992). In that preamble, the EPA stated that 
potentially available measures that would not advance the attainment 
date for an area would not be considered RACM. The EPA also indicated 
in the General Preamble 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, the General Preamble indicates that states 
should provide in the SIP submittals a discussion of whether the 
measures considered are reasonably available or not. If the measures 
are reasonably available, they must be adopted as RACM. Finally, the 
EPA indicated that states could reject potential RACM either because 
they would not advance the attainment date or would cause substantial 
widespread and long-term adverse impacts. States could also consider 
local conditions, such as economics or implementation concerns, in 
rejecting potential RACM. On November 30, 1999, John S. Seitz, 
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, issued a 
memorandum on this topic, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available 
Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration 
Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' which reiterated the CAA 
RACM requirements and elaborated on the General Preamble.
    To demonstrate that the area meets the RACM requirement, 
Connecticut described its current regulatory structure limiting ozone 
precursor emissions, which stems back to the 1980s, and evaluated the 
likelihood of additional measures being adopted that would advance the 
date of attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. Connecticut notes that 
stationary and mobile sources of VOC and NOX are well-
controlled in the State as a result of numerous state and federal 
measures that have or will soon be implemented to reduce in-state 
emissions of ozone precursors. Connecticut's submittal mentions that, 
with regard to major stationary sources, reasonable available control 
technology (RACT) is considered a subset of RACM. Stationary sources of 
VOC and NOX have been subject to RACT requirements for 
several decades in light of the State's nonattainment status for 
earlier ozone standards, and we recently approved Connecticut's RACT 
certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS along with several regulatory 
updates that strengthened requirements for sources of NOX. 
See 82 FR 35454; July 31, 2017. Connecticut concludes that its state 
regulations adopted to meet RACT, except for the most recent updates to 
NOX requirements approved in our July 31, 2017 approval 
which have an effective date that does not occur in time to advance the 
attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, represent RACM for major 
sources.
    Regarding other stationary sources of ozone precursor emissions, 
Connecticut notes that its participation in the Ozone Transport 
Commission (OTC) has, among other things, resulted in the state's 
adoption of a number of regulations limiting emissions from stationary, 
non-major sources of ozone precursor emissions. In particular, 
Connecticut notes that as part of its attainment planning process to 
meet the 1997 ozone standard, the state adopted regulations recommended 
by the OTC that included regulations limiting emissions from consumer 
and commercial products, architectural and industrial maintenance 
coatings, asphalt paving operations, pressure-vacuum vent valves at 
gasoline stations, and limits on VOC emissions used by solvent cleaning 
operations. Connecticut adopted these regulations jointly with other 
OTC states as a means of implementing effective controls at the 
regional level, but acknowledged that none of these measures, 
implemented by Connecticut alone, would be sufficient to advance 
attainment by one

[[Page 38109]]

year or more. Connecticut considers its analysis of RACM for the 1997 
ozone NAAQS to largely suffice for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but did 
perform an additional review to explore whether RACM for non-major 
stationary sources exist. This review found that ancillary 
NOX emission reductions that are being achieved by a 
regional haze measure, a reduction of the level of sulfur allowed in 
distillate and residual fuel oil, qualify as a RACM measure. 
Connecticut will implement this regulation in two phases, with Phase 1 
having become effective on July 1, 2014. The Phase 2 portion of the 
regulation does not become effective until July 1, 2018, are therefore 
is not considered RACM.
    Regarding mobile source emission reductions, Connecticut evaluated 
the impact of a number of mobile source initiatives, including 
transportation control measures, to evaluate their effectiveness at 
reducing ozone precursor emissions. Specifically, Connecticut's RACM 
analysis included a summary of the emission reductions achieved by the 
Federal Highway Administration's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
(CMAQ) program, as funds from this program are used, in part, to 
improve traffic congestion, which in turn reduces emissions from on-
road vehicles. For example, Table 6.2 of Connecticut's attainment 
demonstration submittal for the Greater Connecticut area shows the 
anticipated VOC and NOX emission reductions from specific 
transportation projects. The measures in Table 6.2 are expected to 
reduce ozone precursor emissions in Connecticut by less than 1%, and 
are therefore not considered to be RACM because they are not large 
enough to advance the attainment date by at least one year. Other 
mobile source measures, such as the Lawn Equipment Exchange Fund, 
reductions from the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act funding, Smartway, 
and EVConnecticut, were all found to provide meaningful reductions, but 
none were determined to advance the attainment date and therefore are 
not considered to be RACM.
    The RACM analysis presented by CT DEEP did not identify any new 
measures that would have substantially advanced the area's achievement 
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the State notes that atmospheric transport 
from upwind areas on most high ozone days overwhelms the ability of CT 
DEEP to significantly advance Connecticut's attainment date solely with 
in-state control strategies. In addition, Connecticut notes that EPA's 
recently finalized bump-up process provided little time to adopt and 
implement additional RACM candidate measures prior to the 2016 ozone 
season, which would need to occur to advance the attainment date by one 
year.
    Connecticut evaluated all source categories that could contribute 
meaningful emission reductions and identified and evaluated an 
extensive list of potential control measures. The State considered the 
time needed to develop and adopt regulations and the time it would take 
to see the benefit from these measures to determine their 
reasonableness and availability. We agree that Connecticut has adopted 
all RACM for it's two moderate nonattainment areas. Therefore, we are 
proposing to approve Connecticut's RACM SIPs prepared for the State's 
two moderate nonattainment areas.

IV. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve SIP submittals from the State of 
Connecticut for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Greater Connecticut 
moderate nonattainment area, and for the Connecticut portion of the New 
York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT moderate nonattainment area. 
Specifically, we are proposing to approve the following:
     An emission statement certification;
     2011 base year emission inventories;
     RFP demonstrations;
     Motor vehicle emissions budgets;
     Contingency measures; and
     Demonstration of RACM implementation.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 
regulatory action because this action is not significant under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 31, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-16622 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P