Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57221 

provided they notify us before October 

8, 2010. The EPA will make every effort 

to accommodate all speakers that arrive 

and register. No lunch break is 

scheduled. Because this hearing is being 

held at U.S. government facilities, 

individuals planning to attend the 

hearing should be prepared to show 

valid picture identification to the 

security staff in order to gain access to 

the meeting room. In addition, you will 

need to obtain a property pass for any 

personal belongings you bring with you. 

Upon leaving the building, you will be 

required to return this property pass to 

the security desk. No large signs will be 

allowed in the building, cameras may 

only be used outside of the building, 

and demonstrations will not be allowed 

on federal property for security reasons. 

The EPA Web site for the rulemaking, 

which includes the proposal and 

information about the public hearing, 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/nsr. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you would like to present oral testimony 

at the public hearing, please contact Ms. 

Pamela Long, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Air Quality 

Planning Division, (C504–03), Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 

(919) 541–0641, fax number (919) 541– 

5509, e-mail address: long.pam@epa.gov 

(preferred method for registering), no 

later than 2 business days prior to the 

public hearing. The last day to register 

will be October 8, 2010. If using e-mail, 

please provide the following 

information: Time you wish to speak 

(morning, afternoon), name, affiliation, 

address, e-mail address, and telephone 

and fax numbers. 

Questions concerning the August 24, 

2010 (75 FR 51960), proposed rule 

should be addressed to Mr. David 

Painter, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, New Source 

Review Group, (C504–03), Research 

Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 

number (919) 541–5515, e-mail at 

painter.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

public hearing is to provide the public 

with an opportunity to present oral 

comments regarding EPA’s proposed 

action to clarify the obligation to retain 

1-hour nonattainment new source 

review (NSR) program requirements for 

certain areas designated nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The EPA has proposed to revise the rule 

for implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to address how NSR 

requirements that applied by virtue of 

the area’s 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

classification should apply under the 

anti-backsliding provisions of the 1997 

8-hour implementation rule. The 

proposed rule responds to the ruling by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit that the 1-hour 

major NSR program, as it applies to 

areas that were designated 1-hour 

nonattainment on the date of 

designation for the 1997 8-hour 

NAAQS, is a required control to prevent 

backsliding. 

Public hearing: The proposal for 

which EPA is holding the public 

hearing was published in the Federal 

Register on August 24, 2010 (75 FR 

51960), and is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/nsr and also available in 

the docket identified below. The public 

hearing will provide interested parties 

the opportunity to present data, views, 

or arguments concerning the proposal. 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations, but will 

not respond to comments or issues 

raised in the presentations at that time. 

Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as any oral 

comments and supporting information 

presented at the public hearing. Written 

comments on the proposed rule must be 

postmarked by October 1, 2010, which 

is the closing date for the comment 

period, as specified in the proposal for 

the rule. However, the record will 

remain open until November 13, 2010, 

to allow 30 days after the public hearing 

for submittal of additional information 

related to the hearing. 

The hearing schedule, including a list 

of speakers, will be posted on EPA’s 

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/nsr. 

Verbatim transcripts of the hearings and 

written statements will be included in 

the docket for the rulemaking. 

The EPA will make every effort to 

follow the schedule as closely as 

possible on the day of the hearings; 

however, please plan for the hearing to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

the ‘‘Proposed Rule to Implement the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard: New Source 

Review Anti-Backsliding Provisions for 

Former 1-Hour Ozone Standard’’ under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0462 (available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov). 

As stated previously, the proposed 

rule was published in the Federal 

Register on August 24, 2010, and is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/nsr and 

in the previously cited docket. 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

Mary Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23398 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0117; EPA–RO1– 

OAR–2008–0107; EPA–RO1–OAR–2008– 

0445; A–1–FRL–9203–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island; Reasonable Further 

Progress Plans and 2002 Base Year 

Emission Inventories 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan revisions 

submitted by the States of Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. These 

revisions establish 2002 base year 

emission inventories and reasonable 

further progress emission reduction 

plans for areas within these states 

designated as nonattainment of EPA’s 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

intended effect of this action is to 

propose approval of these states’ 2002 

base year inventories and reasonable 

further progress (RFP) emission 

reduction plans, and to propose 

approval of the 2008 motor vehicle 

transportation budgets and contingency 

measures associated with the RFP plans. 

EPA also proposes approval of three 

rules adopted by Connecticut that will 

reduce volatile organic compound 

emissions in the state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by one of the following 

Docket ID Numbers: EPA–R01–OAR– 

2008–0117 for comments pertaining to 

our proposed action for Connecticut, 

EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0107 for 

comments pertaining to our proposed 

action for Massachusetts, or EPA–RO1– 

OAR–2008–0445 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

Rhode Island, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57222 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1The 1997 8-hour ozone standard itself is 

codified at 40 CFR 50.10. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0117, 

EPA–RO1–OAR–2008–0107, or EPA– 

RO1–OAR–2008–0445, Anne Arnold, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code 

OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

one of the following Docket ID 

Numbers: EPA–R01–OAR–2008–0117 

for comments pertaining to our 

proposed action for Connecticut, EPA– 

RO1–OAR–2008–0107 for comments 

pertaining to our proposed action for 

Massachusetts, or EPA–RO1–OAR– 

2008–0445 for comments pertaining to 

our proposed action for Rhode Island. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

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 either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post 

Office Square, 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 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the state 

submittal and EPA’s technical support 

document are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the respective 

State Air Agency: The Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630; Division of Air Quality 

Control, Department of Environmental 

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, 

Boston, MA 02108; Office of Air 

Resources, Department of 

Environmental Management, 235 

Promenade Street, Providence, RI 

02908–5767. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. EPA Region 1—New England, 5 

Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, phone number: 617–918–1046; 

e-Mail: mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. The following outline is provided 

to aid in locating information in this 

preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

A. What is a base year inventory, and why 

are these states required to prepare one? 

1. Point Source Emissions 

2. Area Source Emissions 

3. On-Road Mobile Source Emissions 

4. Non-Road Mobile Source Emissions 

5. Biogenic Emission Sources 

B. Summary of 2002 Base Year Inventories 

C. What action is EPA taking on these 

inventories? 

III. Reasonable Further Progress Plans 

A. What is a Reasonable Further Progress 

plan, and why are these states required 

to prepare one? 

B. What action is EPA taking on these 

plans? 

C. What emission levels must Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island meet 

by 2008? 

D. To what extent do the RFP plans reduce 

ozone precursor emissions? 

E. Are banked emissions properly 

accounted for within these RFP plans? 

F. What are the pollution control programs 

that accomplish this change in 

emissions? 

G. Is EPA proposing approval of any state 

control measures in this action? 

H. Have these states met their contingency 

measure obligation? 

I. Are transportation conformity budgets 

contained in these plans? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On April 30, 2004, pursuant to the 

Federal Clean Air Act (the Act, or CAA), 

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., EPA designated 

portions of the country as being in 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) (69 FR 23858).1 All parts of 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island were designated as 

nonattainment for ozone, and all were 

classified as moderate. There were five 

nonattainment areas created that 

encompassed the entirety of these states, 

as shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS IN CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND RHODE ISLAND

State Area name Geographic area covered 

(counties) 

CT ..................... New York—N. New Jersey—Long Island, NY–NJ–CT (NY– 

NJ–CT area).

Fairfield, Middlesex, New Haven. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57223 

2 ‘‘2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP 

Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM 2.5, and Regional Haze 

Programs.’’ 

3The Phase 2 rule’s application of the CAA’s 

VOC percentage reduction requirements was 

challenged before the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

However, the court upheld EPA’s interpretation of 

these requirements. See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 

1245 (DC Cir. 2009). 

TABLE 1—8-HOUR OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREAS IN CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND RHODE ISLAND—Continued 

State Area name Geographic area covered 

(counties) 

CT ..................... Greater Connecticut area ......................................................... Hartford, Litchfield, New London, Tolland, Windham. 

MA ..................... Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) area ...................................................... Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Essex, Middlesex, Nantucket, 

Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, Worcester. 

MA ..................... Springfield (W. MA) area .......................................................... Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire. 

RI ....................... Providence area ....................................................................... Statewide. 

Sections 182(a)(1) and 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA compel the preparation and 

submittal of an emission inventory by 

states containing ozone nonattainment 

areas. On November 18, 2002, EPA 

issued guidance 2 indicating that 2002 

was the preferred year for states to use 

as their base year in development of 

state implementation plans (SIPs) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

On November 29, 2005, EPA 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register identifying, in part, the 

requirements that areas designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard must fulfill in order to 

meet their obligations under the Act. 

70 FR 71612, codified at 40 CFR part 51 

subpart X. This rule is commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘Phase 2’’ 

implementation rule. The Phase 2 rule 

provides that areas that had previously 

met the CAA section 182(b)(1) 

requirement for a 15% volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emission reduction 

pursuant to the one-hour ozone 

standard would be considered to have 

met this requirement for the 1997 

8-hour standard. According to the Phase 

2 rule, such areas must meet reasonable 

further progress (RFP) obligations under 

the provisions of subpart 1 of the Act, 

rather than the more stringent RFP 

obligations of subpart 2. 

The Phase 2 rule divides the areas 

subject to subpart 1 RFP requirements 

into two categories: Those with 

attainment dates within 5 years of 

designation, and those with attainment 

dates beyond 5 years from designation. 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island all fall into the latter category 

because their attainment dates were 6 

years from the date of designation. The 

Phase 2 rule further provides that areas 

with an attainment date beyond 5 years 

from the date of designation would be 

required to meet their RFP requirement 

by demonstrating a 15 percent emission 

reduction between 2002 and 2008 in 

VOC, nitrogen oxide (NOx) or a 

combination of both of these pollutants 

such that the total reduction in these 

ozone precursor emissions equaled 15 

percent.3

On February 1, 2008, Connecticut 

submitted its 2002 to 2008 RFP plan and 

2002 base year inventory to EPA as part 

of its attainment demonstration SIP 

submittal. Similar submittals were made 

by Massachusetts on January 31, 2008, 

and by Rhode Island on April 30, 2008. 

II. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

A. What is a base year inventory and 

why are these states required to prepare 

one? 

The Act contains a number of 

requirements for moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas. One requirement, 

found at section 182(a)(1) of the Act and 

made applicable to moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas through section 

182(b)(1), compels the preparation and 

submittal of a ‘‘comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources.’’ As mentioned above, 

EPA’s November 18, 2002 guidance 

memorandum identified 2002 as the 

preferred year for states to use as their 

base year in development of SIPs for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, and the 

Phase 2 rule affirms this selection of the 

2002 inventory as the baseline for the 

RFP requirement. 

In August, 2005, EPA published 

supplemental guidance for states to use 

in development of their base year 

inventories entitled, ‘‘Emission 

Inventory Guidance for Implementation 

of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulation’’ (EPA–454/R–05–001). This 

guidance describes for states the 

requirements for development of 

comprehensive emission estimates from 

stationary point and area sources, and 

from mobile on-road and non-road 

sources, such that complete emission 

inventories are available to support SIP 

development for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The guidance directs states to 

prepare their emission estimates on a 

‘‘typical summer day’’ basis to reflect 

emissions that occur during high ozone 

episodes, which occur predominantly 

during the warm summer months. 

As mentioned above, Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all 

contain ozone nonattainment areas 

designated as moderate for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. Therefore, they 

were required to develop 2002 base year 

emission inventories of VOC and NOx, 

as these compounds react in the 

presence of heat and sunlight to form 

ozone. 

1. Point Source Emissions 

The point source portion of the 

inventory consists of emission estimates 

for the major industrial facilities within 

the state. The emission estimates are 

prepared based on facility specific 

information collected during annual 

surveys conducted by each state’s air 

agency. Connecticut and Massachusetts 

survey all industrial sources that emit 

10 tons/year or more of VOC or NOx. 

Rhode Island surveys facilities that emit 

10 tons/year or more of VOC, and/or 25 

tons/year or more of NOx. The emission 

estimates are prepared for each process 

operation, fuel combustion process, or 

other air emitting activity, then summed 

together to obtain an overall emission 

estimate for the facility. The states 

submit these air emission estimates to 

EPA, and we incorporate them into our 

national emissions inventory (NEI) 

database. 

2. Area Source Emissions 

Area source emissions include 

emissions from small industrial 

facilities not included in the point 

source inventory, and from sources 

whose emissions are, in most 

circumstances, spread over a wide 

geographic area from a large number of 

small sources. Examples include 

gasoline service stations, small graphic 

arts facilities, landfills, and emissions 

from consumer and commercial 

products. Emission estimates are made 

for most area source categories by 

multiplying some indicator of activity 

level for the sector, such as gasoline 

consumption data for gasoline stations, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57224 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

by emission factors that relate air 

emissions to the activity level. The 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island area source inventories provide 

emission estimates for a large number of 

source categories, complementing the 

emission estimates made for individual 

point sources and completing the 

estimate of emissions from stationary 

sources in the state. 

3. On-Road Mobile Source Emissions 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island all used a highway vehicle 

emission estimation model developed 

by EPA referred to as the MOBILE 6.2 

model to estimate emissions from onroad motor vehicles. Each state obtained 

estimates of vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) from their respective 

Departments of Transportation. The 

states also obtained the information 

necessary to run the MOBILE model 

accurately for their mix of vehicles, fuel 

types, and control programs and used 

this information to obtain VOC and NOX

emission estimates from the model. 

4. Non-Road Mobile Source Emissions 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island estimated emissions for 

the majority of equipment within the 

non-road sector using the EPA’s 

NONROAD 2005 model. The 

NONROAD model estimates emissions 

for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum 

gasoline, and compressed natural 

gas-fueled non-road equipment types. 

The non-road model does not estimate 

emissions from aircraft, locomotives, or 

commercial marine vessels, and so the 

states used other EPA recommended 

methods to estimate emissions from 

these sectors. 

5. Biogenic Emission Sources 

Biogenic (naturally occurring) 

emissions occur from plants, trees, 

grasses and crops. EPA developed a 

computer model, referred to as the 

Biogenic Emissions Inventory System 

(BEIS v. 3.12), to estimate VOC 

emissions from this source category, and 

calculates biogenic emissions for all 

counties in the country. EPA 

recommends that states use EPA’s 

biogenic emission estimates, and 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island all relied on EPA’s emission 

estimates for this sector. 

B. Summary of 2002 Base Year 

Inventories 

The 2002 VOC and NOX base year 

inventories prepared by Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are 

shown below in Tables 2a through 2e. 

EPA has concluded that these states 

have adequately derived and 

documented the 2002 base year VOC 

and NOX emissions for these areas. 

TABLE 2A—2002 BASE YEAR

INVENTORY FOR THE NY–NJ–CT AREA

Nonattainment 

area 

2002 VOC 

missions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

emissions 

(tons/day) 

NY–NJ–CT 

area: 

Point .............. 11.3 37.7 

Area ............... 84.1 7.2 

On-road ......... 48.1 102.7 

Non-road ....... 66.0 38.7 

Biogenics ....... 125.6 0.7 

Total ........... 335.3 187.0 

TABLE 2B—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE GREATER CONNECTICUT AREA

Nonattainment 

area 

2002 VOC 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Greater Connecticut area: 

Point .............. 4.6 19.0 

Area ............... 75.5 6.4 

On-road ......... 45.1 89.3 

Non-road ....... 56.2 30.8 

Biogenics ....... 268.9 1.3 

Total ........... 450.3 146.8 

TABLE 2C—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE BOS-LAW-WOR (E. 

MA) AREA

Nonattainment 

area 

2002 VOC 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Bos-Law-Wor 

(E. MA) area: 

Point .............. 13.6 116.6 

Area ............... 282.0 33.9 

On-road ......... 127.4 381.4 

Non-road ....... 196.2 122.1 

Biogenics ....... 535.7 4.4 

Total ........... 1,154.9 658.4 

TABLE 2D—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE SPRINGFIELD (W. 

MA) AREA

Nonattainment 

area 

2002 VOC 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Springfield (W. 

MA) area: 

Point .............. 2.4 13.0 

Area ............... 45.5 5.2 

On-road ......... 24.5 71.7 

Non-road ....... 27.7 22.4 

Biogenics ....... 254.6 1.1 

TABLE 2D—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE SPRINGFIELD (W. 

MA) AREA—Continued 

Nonattainment 

area 

2002 VOC 

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Total ........... 354.7 113.4 

TABLE 2E—2002 BASE YEAR INVENTORY FOR THE PROVIDENCE AREA

Nonattainment 

area 

2002 VOC 

emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOX

emissions 

(tons/day) 

Providence area: 

Point .............. 10.3 7.0 

Area ............... 47.9 3.4 

On-road ......... 32.3 42.4 

Non-road ....... 26.8 19.7 

Biogenics ....... 124.2 0.7 

Total ........... 241.5 73.2 

C. What action is EPA taking on these 

inventories? 

We are proposing approval of the 

2002 base year inventories listed in 

Tables 2a through 2e above. 

III. Reasonable Further Progress Plans 

A. What is a reasonable further progress 

plan, and why are these states required 

to prepare one? 

A reasonable further progress (RFP) 

plan illustrates how an ozone 

nonattainment area will make emission 

reductions of a set amount over a given 

time period. Section 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA required moderate and above 

ozone nonattainment areas to develop 

plans to reduce VOC emissions by 15 

percent over a six year time period 

beginning with the date of enactment of 

the 1990 amendments to the Act, which 

occurred on November 15, 1990. EPA’s 

Phase 2 rule interpreted how this 

requirement would apply to areas 

designated as moderate (or higher) 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and did so in a number of 

ways. See 40 CFR part 51 subpart X. Of 

relevance for Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island is 

what the Phase 2 rule required for areas 

with attainment dates greater than 5 

years from designation that previously 

accomplished a 15% reduction in VOC 

emissions pursuant to one-hour ozone 

nonattainment requirements, as all three 

of these states meet these criteria. For 

such areas, the Phase 2 rule indicates 

that RFP will be met if the area can 

demonstrate a 15% reduction in ozone 

precursor emissions (VOC and/or NOX) 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57225 

4 If the area wishes to use NOX reductions to meet 

part or all of this 15% requirement, the calculation 

is not done by measuring the overall percent of 

combined VOC and NOX reductions, but rather by 

separately calculating the percent of VOC 

reductions and the percent of NOX reductions, and 

adding those percentages together. 

will occur between 2002 and 2008.4 See 

40 CFR 51.910(b)(2)(ii)(A)–(B). If the 

area uses NOX reductions to meet part 

or all of this requirement, it must satisfy 

EPA guidance concerning the 

conditions under which NOX control 

may be substituted for, or combined 

with, VOC control in order to maximize 

the reduction in ozone pollution. The 

most current such guidance is EPA’s 

December 1993 ‘‘NOX Substitution 

Guidance.’’ Therefore, the RFP plans 

submitted by Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were 

evaluated against these criteria. These 

states prepared RFP plans for each of 

the nonattainment areas shown in Table 

1 above. We note that Connecticut’s 

plan for the NY–NJ–CT area only 

accounts for emission reductions from 

within the Connecticut portion of the 

area. 

As noted above, Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island 

submitted final, adopted RFP plans to 

EPA between January 31 and April 30, 

2008. Although the Phase 2 rule 

required that these plans be submitted 

by June 15, 2007, the states submitted 

draft plans to EPA shortly after the due 

date, and as discussed in this document 

the plans meet EPA’s approval 

requirements for RFP plans developed 

to help meet the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

Each of these state’s RFP plans rely to 

some degree on NOX emission 

reductions to achieve the overall 15 

percent reduction in ozone precursor 

emissions. Available modeling indicates 

that NOX emission reductions are 

clearly beneficial in Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and 

so as outlined in EPA’s NOX

Substitution Guidance, use of NOX

emission reductions to meet RFP 

requirements is appropriate. 

The manner in which states are to 

determine the required level of emission 

reductions is similar to the procedure 

explained in the guidance document 

entitled, ‘‘Guidance on the Adjusted 

Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 

1996 Target for the 15% Rate of Progress 

Plans’’ (EPA–452/R–92–005). 

Adjustments to this procedure 

pertaining to proper accounting of the 

non-creditable emission reductions from 

the pre-1990 Federal motor vehicle 

control program (FMVCP) are noted 

within Appendix A of the Phase 2 rule 

(70 FR 71696, as corrected by 71 FR 

58498). 

B. What action is EPA taking on these 

plans? 

We are proposing approval of the RFP 

plans submitted by Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for the 

moderate nonattainment areas shown in 

Table 1 above, as revisions to these 

states’ implementation plans. Note that 

regarding the NY–NJ–CT moderate area, 

we are proposing action today only on 

the Connecticut portion of the RFP plan. 

C. What emission levels must 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island achieve by 2008? 

Tables 3a–3e below contain a 

summary of the RFP calculations as 

performed by Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for 

their moderate ozone nonattainment 

areas. Some of the 2002 base year 

inventory values shown in Step 1 of 

Tables 3a–3e are slightly higher than 

those shown in Tables 2a–2e due to 

adjustments each state made to their 

RFP SIPs to account for emissions 

banking and trading programs. These 

adjustments are described elsewhere in 

this proposal. The emission target levels 

are shown in step 6 of Tables 3a–3e. The 

emission targets represent the maximum 

amount of emissions that can occur in 

2008 given the state’s selected mix of 

VOC and NOX percent reductions as 

noted in step 4 of the calculations. The 

RFP plans submitted by Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island 

indicate that the projected, controlled 

emissions for 2008 shown in Step 7 of 

Tables 3a–3e are below the 2008 

emission target levels shown in step 6, 

with the exception of Rhode Island’s 

VOC emissions. To remedy this small 

shortfall, Rhode Island allocated surplus 

NOX emissions reductions that were 

available as shown in Table 3e. 

TABLE 3a—2008 RFP CALCULATIONS FOR THE NY–NJ–CT AREA

Description VOC emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOX emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year inventory ................................................................................... 335.3 ......................... 189.1. 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract biogenics) ...................................................................... 209.7 ......................... 188.4. 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP5

reductions from RFP inventory.

¥4.5 = 205.2 ............ ¥11.7 = 176.7. 

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of VOC and NOX reductions must equal 15 percent) 10%; 20.5 tons .......... 5%; 8.8 tons. 

Step 5: Calculate total expected reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together) .......................................... 4.5 + 20.5 = 24.9 ...... 11.7 + 8.8 = 20.5. 

Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step 5 from step 2) ...................................................... 209.7¥24.9 = 184.6 186.3¥20.4 = 167.9. 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions ................................................................................. 167.6 ......................... 142.6. 

5FMVCP is the acronym for the federal motor vehicle control program. Pre-1990 FMVCP reductions are not creditable towards meeting the 

15% emission reduction. 

TABLE 3b—2008 RFP CALCULATIONS FOR THE GREATER CONNECTICUT AREA

Description VOC emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOX emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year inventory ................................................................................... 450.3 ......................... 147.3. 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract biogenics) ...................................................................... 181.4 ......................... 146.1. 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP 

reductions from RFP inventory.

¥4.3 = 177.1 ............ ¥9.3 = 136.8. 

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of VOC and NOX reductions must equal 15 percent) 10%; 17.7 tons .......... 5%; 6.8 tons. 

Step 5: Calculate total expected reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together) .......................................... 4.3 + 17.7 = 22.0 ...... 9.3 + 6.8 = 16.1. 

Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step 5 from step 2) ...................................................... 181.4¥22.0 = 159.4 145.5¥16.1 = 130.0. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57226 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3b—2008 RFP CALCULATIONS FOR THE GREATER CONNECTICUT AREA—Continued 

Description VOC emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOX emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions ................................................................................. 149.3 ......................... 107.1. 

TABLE 3c—2008 RFP CALCULATIONS FOR THE BOS-LAW-WOR AREA

Description VOC emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOX emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year inventory ................................................................................... 1,157.3 ...................... 689.0. 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract biogenics) ...................................................................... 621.6 ......................... 684.6. 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP 

reductions from RFP inventory.

¥15.3 = 606.3 .......... ¥45.2 = 639.4. 

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of VOC and NOX reductions must equal 15 percent) 3%; 18.2 tons ............ 12%; 76.7 tons. 

Step 5: Calculate total expected reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together) .......................................... 15.3 + 18.2 = 33.5 .... 45.2 + 76.7 = 121.9. 

Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step 5 from step 2) ...................................................... 621.6¥33.5 = 588.1 684.6 ¥ 121.9 = 

562.7. 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions ................................................................................. 525.7 ......................... 440.6. 

TABLE 3d—2008 RFP CALCULATIONS FOR THE SPRINGFIELD AREA

Description VOC emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOX emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year inventory ................................................................................... 354.8 ......................... 114.2. 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract biogenics) ...................................................................... 100.2 ......................... 113.1. 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP 

reductions from RFP inventory.

¥2.9 = 97.3 .............. ¥8.5 = 104.6. 

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of VOC and NOX reductions must equal 15 percent) 3%; 2.9 tons .............. 12%; 12.6 tons. 

Step 5: Calculate total expected reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together) .......................................... 2.9 + 2.9 = 5.8 .......... 8.5 + 12.6 = 21.1. 

Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step 5 from step 2) ...................................................... 2.9 + 2.9 = 5.8 .......... 8.5 + 12.6 = 21.1. 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions ................................................................................. 84.2 ........................... 66.9. 

TABLE 3e—2008 RFP CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROVIDENCE AREA

Description VOC Emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOX emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year inventory ................................................................................... 243.4 ......................... 73.2. 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract biogenics) ...................................................................... 119.2 ......................... 72.5. 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP 

reductions from RFP inventory.

¥5.5 = 113.7 ............ ¥3.2 = 69.3. 

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of VOC and NOX reductions must equal 15 percent) 0% ............................. 15%. 

Step 5: Calculate total expected reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together) .......................................... 5.5 + 0 = 5.5 ............. 3.2 + 10.4 = 13.6. 

Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step 5 from step 2; also, the Providence area NOX

target includes additional 1.1 ton reduction to cover VOC shortfall).

119.2¥5.5 = 113.7 ... 72.5¥3.6¥1.1 = 

57.8. 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions ................................................................................. 115.4 ......................... 55.3. 

Note that in Tables 3a–3e above, all of 

the projected, controlled 2008 emission 

levels shown in step 7 are lower than 

the corresponding 2008 emission target 

levels shown in step 6, with the 

exception of the Providence area’s VOC 

emissions which are 1.5% higher than 

the 2008 VOC target. In light of this, 

Rhode Island allocated an additional 

1.5% NOX reduction (which translates 

to 1.1 tons) to cover this shortfall. Thus, 

Rhode Island has set its 2008 NOX target 

to 57.8 tons/day rather than 58.9 tons/ 

day. In essence, Rhode Island has 

selected a 16.6% reduction in NOX

emissions and a 1.5% increase in VOC 

emissions, resulting in a combined 

reduction of 15.1%. 

EPA’s guidance to states on the 

development of RFP plans does not 

directly address the situation found in 

Rhode Island’s RFP plan, where surplus 

reductions for one ozone precursor were 

used to cover an increase in emissions 

for the other precursor. For example, 

EPA’s Phase 2 implementation rule 

provides that moderate areas such as 

Rhode Island with attainment dates 

more than 5 years from the date of 

designation, ‘‘(A) Shall provide for a 15 

percent emission reduction from the 

baseline year within 6 years after the 

baseline year. (B) May use either NOX or 

VOC emissions reductions (or both) to 

achieve the 15 percent emission 

reduction requirement. Use of NOX

emissions reductions must meet the 

criteria in section 182(c)(2)(C) of the 

Act.’’ 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2)(ii). EPA’s NOX

Substitution Guidance, which EPA 

issued pursuant to section 182(c)(2)(C), 

does not specifically address offsetting 

an increase in one precursor with 

surplus reductions from another 

precursor. Thus, we reviewed the facts 

of this specific case and, as explained 

below, have determined that the 

submitted plan is consistent with the 

CAA requirements. 

First, EPA’s December 1993 NOX

substitution guidance provides the 

criteria that must be met in order for 

NOX emission reductions to be used in 

RFP plans as provided by section 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57227 

182(c)(2)(C) of the Act. The guidance 

directs states to ensure that such 

substitution is done only to the extent 

that the modeled attainment 

demonstration for the area indicates that 

this substitution is appropriate. For 

example, section 2 of the guidance 

provides that, ‘‘This linkage provides 

assurance that the RFP reductions are 

consistent with the SIP attainment 

demonstration. States are required to 

justify substitution by illustrating 

‘‘consistency’’ between the cumulative 

emission changes emerging from the 

RFP/substitution proposal and the 

emission reductions in the modeled 

attainment demonstration.’’ 

Rhode Island worked in conjunction 

with the other states within the ozone 

transport region (OTR) to perform the 

urban airshed modeling that the state 

included within its attainment 

demonstration, and on development of 

recommended control strategies to 

reduce VOC and NOX emissions in the 

Northeast such that the ozone NAAQS 

would be met by 2009. This modeling 

exercise showed that both VOC and 

NOX emission reductions would be 

needed to reach the area’s attainment 

goals. The resulting suite of federal and 

state control measures indicate that NOX

emission reductions figured 

prominently in the area’s attainment 

strategy. This is most clearly seen by the 

fact that NOX emissions were projected 

to decline by a greater extent than VOC 

emissions between the base year and 

attainment year across the OTR. This 

illustrates that Rhode Island’s use of 

NOX emission reductions within its RFP 

plan is appropriate. 

Second, the increase in VOC 

emissions between 2002 and 2008 is an 

artifact of EPA’s RFP calculation 

procedure; the state’s actual VOC 

emissions in 2008 were predicted to be 

lower than they were in 2002. In 

explanation, as shown in step 2 of Table 

3e above, Rhode Island’s 2002 

anthropogenic VOC emissions were 

119.2 tons per summer day (tpsd). 

However, EPA’s RFP calculation 

procedure requires that emission 

reductions from the pre-1990 federal 

motor vehicle control program (FMVCP) 

that will accrue between 2002 and 2008 

be subtracted from the 2002 

anthropogenic baseline because the Act, 

at section 182(b)(1)(D)(i), provides such 

reductions are not creditable for 

purposes of meeting RFP requirements. 

This subtraction is shown in step 3 of 

Table 3e above, and resulted in the 2002 

baseline being lowered by 5.5 tpsd to 

113.7 tpsd. Since no VOC reductions 

were planned for in the RFP plan, 113.7 

tpsd is also the state’s target level of 

emissions for VOCs. As shown in step 

7 of Table 3e, Rhode Island’s 2008 VOC 

emissions were estimated to be 115.4 

tpsd. This is higher than the VOC target 

emission level of 113.7 tpsd by 1.7 tpsd, 

but is lower than the state’s actual 2002 

anthropogenic baseline emissions of 

119.2 tpsd by 3.8 tpsd. The preceding 

comparison is not intended to diminish 

the significance of the Act’s prohibition 

against crediting reductions due to the 

pre-1990 FMVCP towards RFP. Rather, 

this analysis simply clarifies that this is 

not a situation where a state proposes to 

rely on a larger-than-15% decrease in 

NOX emissions to offset an actual 

increase in VOC emissions; rather, here 

Rhode Island has in fact reduced its 

VOC emissions from the baseline. 

Third, in 2009, Rhode Island adopted 

and implemented VOC control measures 

on consumer and commercial products 

and architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings. The effective date 

for these two rules was June 4, 2009, 

and since the RFP plan covers the time 

period between 2003 to 2008 Rhode 

Island did not factor reductions from 

these rules into their RFP analysis. 

However, these rules are now in effect 

and are currently acting to lower VOC 

emissions beyond that shown in the 

RFP analysis. Thus, while Rhode Island 

could not take credit for these emission 

reductions as part of the RFP plan for 

2003 to 2008, additional reductions in 

VOC emissions have occurred in the 

state since then. 

Last, but by no means of least 

importance, Rhode Island is currently in 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and EPA published a clean 

data determination for the area on June 

3, 2010 (75 FR 31288). In addition, on 

July 28, 2010 (75 FR 44179), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking indicating that this area 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

by its attainment date of June 15, 2010. 

Thus, our primary basis for approving 

the RFP plan is to approve the 2008 

motor vehicle emission budgets 

contained within the plan as the plan is 

not necessary to ensure that the state 

makes reasonable further progress 

towards the 1997 standard it has already 

attained. 

In light of these circumstances, EPA 

has determined that it is appropriate to 

propose approval of Rhode Island’s RFP 

plan. 

D. To what extent do the RFP plans 

reduce ozone precursor emissions? 

The Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island RFP plans indicate that 

ozone precursor emissions will be 

substantially reduced between 2002 and 

2008, allowing each state to exceed the 

15% ozone precursor emission 

reduction obligation over this time 

frame. Compared to 2002 emission 

levels, the RFP plans and associated 

modeling showed that VOC emissions 

were expected to decline by 19% in 

Connecticut, 16% in Massachusetts, and 

3% in Rhode Island by 2008. 

Additionally, NOX emissions were 

expected to decline by 25% in 

Connecticut, 37% in Massachusetts, and 

24% in Rhode Island over this 

timeframe. These percent reductions 

include reductions from the pre-1990 

FMVCP program shown in step 3 of 

Tables 3a–3e. 

E. Are banked emissions properly 

accounted for within these RFP plans? 

Although the initial RFP plan 

submittals made by Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island did 

not account for banked emissions, each 

state made subsequent amendments to 

their plans that incorporated banked 

emissions into the RFP analysis. 

Many states operate emissions 

banking and trading programs. These 

programs allow facilities that agree to 

permanently cease, or alternatively 

agree to permanently reduce their 

emissions to levels below allowable 

levels, to generate emission reduction 

credits (ERCs) that can be sold or traded 

to other facilities. ERCs are often 

purchased by facilities seeking emission 

offsets to meet the requirements of the 

new source review (NSR) program. State 

air agencies facilitate and monitor these 

transactions by creating and 

maintaining an emissions bank where 

ERCs are stored until they are 

purchased. Since ERCs represent 

emissions that may occur at some point 

in the future, and RFP plans contain 

both base year and future year emission 

estimates as well as maximum allowable 

(target level) emissions for the 

nonattainment area as a whole, banked 

emissions need to be accounted for in a 

state’s RFP analysis. 

On October 14, 2009, Connecticut 

submitted a revision to the RFP plan 

which it had originally submitted to 

EPA on February 1, 2008. The revision 

consisted of the incorporation of a small 

number of banked NOX ERCs into the 

state’s RFP analysis. The inclusion of 

the banked ERCs into the RFP analysis 

did not alter the state’s conclusion that 

it easily meets RFP requirements. The 

emission estimates within Tables 3a and 

3b above reflect the revised calculations 

contained within Connecticut’s October 

14, 2009 submittal to EPA. 

On October 23, 2009, Massachusetts 

submitted a revision to the RFP plan 

which it had originally submitted to 

EPA on January 31, 2008. The revision 

consisted of the incorporation of a small 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

6On August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45210), EPA proposed 

the Transport Rule to address the flaws in CAIR 

noted by the Court. 

amount of banked VOC, and a larger 

amount of banked NOX ERCs into the 

state’s RFP analysis. As with 

Connecticut, the inclusion of 

Massachusetts’ banked ERCs into the 

RFP analysis did not change the state’s 

conclusion that it readily meets RFP. 

Tables 3c and 3d above contains the 

revised RFP calculations contained 

within Massachusetts’ October 23, 2009 

submittal. 

On October 19, 2009, Rhode Island 

submitted a revision to the RFP plan 

which it had submitted to EPA on April 

30, 2008. The revision consisted of the 

incorporation of banked VOC ERCs into 

the state’s RFP analysis. As with the 

above mentioned submittals from 

Connecticut and Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island’s revised plan continues to show 

that the state meets its RFP emission 

reduction obligations, and these revised 

estimates are reflected in Table 3e 

above. 

F. What are the pollution control 

programs that accomplish this change 

in emissions? 

Many post-1990 Federal mobile 

source control programs which are 

creditable towards meeting RFP took 

effect between 2002 and 2008, and they 

are responsible for the bulk of the VOC 

and NOX emission reductions that 

occurred over this time frame in 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island. For example, within the on-road 

mobile sector the Federal Tier 2 motor 

vehicle control program and controls for 

heavy duty diesel vehicles and fuels 

were significant programs that helped to 

reduce emissions during this period of 

time. Within the non-road sector, 

Federal controls on diesel engines and 

the Phase 2 standards for gasoline 

powered handheld and non-handheld 

equipment began, which helped reduce 

emissions from that sector. 

In addition to Federal measures for 

mobile source emissions, state-adopted 

control measures also acted to reduce 

VOC and NOX emissions between 2002 

and 2008. In Connecticut, state-adopted 

rules limiting emissions from portable 

fuel containers, architectural and 

industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, 

pressure-vacuum (PV) valves at gasoline 

service stations, and requirements for 

solvent cleaning fluids were adopted 

between 2002 and 2008, and will help 

to reduce VOC emissions in the state. 

The portable fuel container and PV 

valves at gasoline station rules have 

been approved by EPA into the state’s 

SIP. (See 71 FR 51761). The AIM and 

solvent cleaning rules have not yet been 

approved by EPA into the State’s SIP, 

but we are proposing approval of them 

in other parts of this document and 

intend to approve them prior to, or in 

conjunction with, our final rulemaking 

action on Connecticut’s RFP plan. 

Additionally, in May of 2003, Phase 2 

of the state’s limits for emissions from 

municipal waste combustors began, and 

this program will reduce NOX emissions 

from that sector. This program has also 

been approved into the state’s SIP. (See 

66 FR 63311). 

Connecticut’s NOX budget program 

began in 2002 and so emission 

reductions from the program are 

reflected in the state’s 2002 base year 

inventory. Connecticut’s Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) rule has taken the 

place of its NOX budget program 

beginning in 2009. On July 11, 2008, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia issued an opinion 

vacating and remanding EPA’s CAIR 

rule. See North Carolina v EPA, 531 

F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). However, on 

December 23, 2008, the court granted 

rehearing in part and remanded the rule 

back to EPA for revision without 

vacatur. 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). 

Accordingly, CAIR is to be implemented 

as it was originally intended until EPA 

revises the rule to address the court’s 

remand.6 Therefore, the NOX reductions 

achieved by Connecticut’s NOX budget 

program continue as the state has 

transitioned to its CAIR program. 

Connecticut’s CAIR program was 

approved by EPA on January 24, 2008 

(73 FR 4105). 

For the on-road mobile sector, in 

2004, Connecticut adopted an enhanced 

motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I&M) program including 

on-board diagnostics (OBD–2) 

requirements. EPA approved 

Connecticut’s I&M program with OBD– 

2 requirements into the state’s SIP on 

December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74019). 

Massachusetts claimed emission 

reduction credit within its RFP plan for 

the NOX emission reductions achieved 

by the state’s NOX SIP Call Trading 

program, as that program’s 

implementation date was in 2003. 

Massachusetts submitted its ‘‘NOX

Allowance Trading Program’’ (also 

referred to as the NOX Budget or the 

NOX SIP Call trading program) to EPA 

as a SIP revision request, and EPA 

approved the rule into the 

Commonwealth’s SIP. Amendments to 

the rule were incorporated into the 

state’s SIP on December 3, 2007. (72 FR 

67854). EPA’s December 3, 2007 action 

also approved the Commonwealth’s 

CAIR, which replaced the state’s NOX

Budget program beginning in 2009. 

Therefore, NOX emissions from sources 

covered by the Commonwealth’s NOX

Allowance trading program will remain 

constrained after 2008 as the state 

implements its CAIR control program. 

Massachusetts expects to reduce onroad mobile source emissions by its 

state-run Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV) 

program. Massachusetts submitted the 

adopted LEV program to EPA, and EPA 

approved it into the state’s SIP on 

December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78179). 

At the time Rhode Island developed 

its RFP SIP, it was in the process of 

adopting a number of control measures 

for stationary sources of VOC emissions 

that were set to take effect in 2009, and 

so emission reductions from these 

measures were not incorporated into the 

state’s RFP plan because measures in 

such plans need to have an impact by 

2008. Rhode Island was not required to 

participate in EPA’s CAIR program. 

Accordingly, Rhode Island’s RFP plan 

shows that it meets the 15% emission 

reduction obligation by relying 

exclusively on emission reductions 

between 2002 and 2008 in the mobile 

source sector. Additionally, the state 

shows that it can meet its obligation by 

relying only upon NOX emission 

reductions. These emission reductions 

occur as a result of the post-1990 

Federal mobile source control measures, 

as mentioned above, the state’s adoption 

of a motor vehicle I&M Program, and the 

state-adopted Low Emissions Vehicle 

program. EPA has approved both of 

these programs into the Rhode Island 

SIP. (See 66 FR 9661, and 65 FR 12476, 

respectively.) 

G. Is EPA proposing approval of any 

state control measures in this action? 

We are proposing to approve three 

VOC control measures from 

Connecticut, two of which were 

included in the state’s February 1, 2008 

SIP submittal to EPA. These rules 

consist of a solvent metal cleaning rule, 

an architectural and industrial 

maintenance (AIM) coatings rule, and 

an asphalt paving rule submitted on 

January 8, 2009. The solvent metal 

cleaning and AIM coatings rules have 

compliance dates in May of 2008, and 

so achieve emission reductions that 

help Connecticut demonstrate 

compliance with its RFP obligation. The 

asphalt paving rule has a May 1, 2009 

compliance date and was submitted to 

help the state demonstrate that it meets 

the Clean Air Act section 182(b)(2) 

requirement that sources in the state use 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) to control air pollution. We are 

not proposing action on Connecticut’s 

overall RACM or RACT submittals at 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 57229 

7 ‘‘Clarification of Issues Regarding the 

Contingency Measures that are due November 15, 

1993 for Moderate and Above Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas.’’ 

this time. Additional information about 

each of these rules is provided below. 

Metal cleaning rule. Connecticut’s 

February 1, 2008 SIP submittal to EPA 

included an amendment to its existing 

SIP approved metal cleaning rule, 

located at section 22a–174–20 of the 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (‘‘Control of organic compound 

emissions, loading of gasoline and other 

volatile organic compounds’’), paragraph 

(l) (‘‘Metal cleaning’’). The amended rule 

adds a limit on the vapor pressure of 

solvents used in cold cleaning and other 

requirements to further limit emissions 

of VOCs from metal cleaning operations. 

These requirements are consistent with 

the Ozone Transport Commission’s 

(OTC’s) 2001 model rule for solvent 

cleaning. The compliance date for the 

rule was May 1, 2008. 

AIM coatings rule. Connecticut’s 

February 1, 2008 SIP submittal included 

a new rule, section 22a–174–41 

(‘‘Architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings’’), that limits VOC 

emissions from AIM coatings. The 

state’s rule establishes VOC content 

limits consistent with those developed 

in 2001 within a model rule created by 

the OTC. The limits in the state’s rule 

are as stringent as, or more stringent 

than, those contained in the Federal 

AIM rule adopted by EPA in December 

1998 (40 CFR part 59, subpart D). The 

compliance date for most of the 

regulated product categories was May 1, 

2008. EPA notes that we are relying on 

the federal enforceability of section 

(g)(3)(A)(iii) referenced in that section of 

the rule. 

Asphalt paving rule. On January 8, 

2009, Connecticut submitted an 

amendment to its existing SIP-approved 

section 22a–174–20 (‘‘Control of organic 

compound emissions, loading of 

gasoline and other volatile organic 

compounds’’), paragraph (k) 

(‘‘Restrictions on VOC emissions from 

cutback and emulsified asphalt’’). The 

amended regulation includes a seasonal 

ban on the use of cutback asphalt and 

a reduction in the acceptable VOC 

content of emulsified asphalt. The 

compliance date for the rule was May 1, 

2009. 

Connecticut held a public hearing on 

the first two rules mentioned above on 

June 27, 2006, and held a hearing on the 

asphalt paving rule on May 1, 2007. 

EPA reviewed draft versions of these 

rules and provided comments to 

Connecticut during the public hearing 

process, and Connecticut responded 

adequately to our comments. We are 

proposing approval of Connecticut’s 

revised solvent metal cleaning and 

asphalt paving rules, and its new AIM 

coatings rule, so that they may become 

part of the state’s federally enforceable 

SIP. 

H. Have these states met their 

contingency measure obligation? 

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires, 

in part, that nonattainment areas 

provide for contingency measures ‘‘to be 

undertaken if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress, or to attain 

the national primary ambient air quality 

standard by the attainment date 

applicable under this part.’’ EPA has 

long interpreted the Act to require that 

contingency measures must provide 

reductions of 3 percent of the emissions 

from the adjusted base year inventory 

(57 FR 13498, 13510–13511). States may 

choose to meet this requirement by 

consuming surplus emission reductions 

shown in their RFP target level 

calculations, if a surplus exists. 

However, pursuant to a guidance 

memorandum issued by EPA on 

November 8, 1993,7 any measures that 

are already required are not creditable 

as contingency measures. Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island each 

chose to meet the contingency 

obligation using surplus emission 

reductions as noted in the target level 

calculations. 

Connecticut and Massachusetts can 

both readily show that ample surplus 

emission reductions exist, and that they 

have implemented controls not 

otherwise required. In Connecticut’s 

case, 2008 VOC emissions are projected 

to be 5.7% lower than the target, and 

NOX emissions 16.5% lower than the 

target in the Greater Connecticut area. 

For the Connecticut portion of the NY– 

NJ–CT area, these surpluses are 8.3% for 

VOC, and 14.5% for NOX. Connecticut 

has adopted a number of rules that are 

not otherwise required by the CAA that 

it could count towards its contingency 

obligation, such as its AIM coatings, 

automobile refinishing, and solvent 

cleaning rules. For Massachusetts, 2008 

VOC emissions are projected to be 

10.6% lower than the target, and NOX

emissions 22.6% lower in the Eastern 

Massachusetts area. For the Western 

Massachusetts area, these surpluses are 

10.8% for VOC, and 27.6% for NOX. 

The state’s low emission vehicle 

program, which achieves both VOC and 

NOX emission reductions, is an example 

of a rule the state adopted that was not 

otherwise required by the CAA. 

Rhode Island projects that it will have 

a 3.6% NOX surplus that it claims can 

be devoted towards meeting the RFP 

contingency requirement. Given the 

state’s reliance on Federal measures to 

reduce emissions between 2002 and 

2008, the state has not demonstrated 

that it can meet the contingency 

requirement via reductions from 

already-adopted NOX rules not 

otherwise required by the CAA. 

However, Rhode Island could remedy 

this by relying on the additional VOC 

control programs for stationary sources 

that it adopted in 2009, which included 

rules establishing emission limits for 

consumer and commercial products, 

and on architectural and industrial 

maintenance coatings. A public hearing 

on these proposed rules was held on 

February 20, 2009, and they were 

promulgated as final state regulations 

May 15, 2009, with an effective date of 

June 4, 2009. Rhode Island submitted 

these regulations to EPA as SIP 

revisions, but EPA has not yet approved 

into the Rhode Island SIP. Section 8.3 

of Rhode Island’s attainment 

demonstration submittal alludes to the 

possibility of using reductions from 

these measures as an alternative means 

of meeting the RFP contingency 

obligation. We are therefore proposing 

to approve use of emission reductions 

from these stationary source measures 

(which, as noted above, have taken 

effect under state law but have not yet 

been approved into Rhode Island’s SIP) 

as meeting the state’s contingency plan 

requirement. Section 8.3 of Rhode 

Island’s attainment demonstration 

submittal stated that reductions from 

these regulations were expected to 

reduce VOC emissions by 2009 by 5.0 

tons/day. This would cover the 3% 

contingency obligation, as 3% of the 

state’s 2002 RFP inventory for VOCs, 

which is 119.2 tons/day, equals 3.6 

tons/day. EPA would need to approve 

these two rules into Rhode Island’s SIP 

prior to, or in conjunction with, our 

taking final action on the state’s RFP 

plan. 

I. Are transportation conformity budgets 

contained in these plans? 

Section 176(c) of the CAA, and EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR 

part 93 subpart A, require that 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to state air quality 

implementation plans. Conformity to a 

SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause or contribute to new air 

quality violations, worsen existing 

violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS. States are required to 

establish motor vehicle emission 

budgets in any control strategy SIP that 

is submitted for attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The RFP 

plans submitted by Connecticut, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
57230 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 181 / Monday, September 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are 

control strategy SIPs, and they contain 

2008 motor vehicle budgets for VOCs 

and NOX by nonattainment area. Table 

4 contains these VOC and NOX

transportation conformity budgets in 

units of tons per summer day: 

TABLE 4.—CONFORMITY BUDGETS IN

THE CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND RHODE ISLAND RFP 

PLANS

Area name 

2008 Transportation conformity 

budgets 

(tons/day) 

VOC NOX

NY–NJ–CT area (CT 

portion) ...................... 29 .7 60 .5 

Greater Connecticut ..... 28 .5 54 .3 

Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) 

area ........................... 68 .30 191 .30 

Springfield (W. MA) 

area ........................... 11 .80 31 .30 

Providence .................... 24 .64 28 .26 

EPA issued letters on June 2, 2008 to 

Connecticut, March 7, 2008 to 

Massachusetts, and June 16, 2008 to 

Rhode Island in which we stated these 

budgets were adequate for use in 

transportation conformity 

determinations. Additionally, EPA 

published announcements of these 

adequacy findings in the Federal 

Register on June 12, 2008 for 

Connecticut (73 FR 33428), March 18, 

2008 for Massachusetts (73 FR 14466), 

and June 30, 2008 for Rhode Island 

(36862). In today’s action, we are 

proposing approval of the 2008 

conformity budgets for VOC and NOX

for the areas shown in Table 4 above. 

Connecticut and Rhode Island 

increased their projected 2008 motor 

vehicle emission estimates slightly to 

provide a buffer to their transportation 

conformity budgets. Connecticut 

increased its 2008 motor vehicle 

emission estimates by 2 percent, and 

Rhode Island by 0.5 tons/day. Doing so 

made meeting the 2008 RFP emission 

target slightly more difficult to achieve. 

However, both of these states were able 

to meet their respective RFP targets even 

after increasing their projected 2008 

motor vehicle emission estimates. These 

increases are reflected in the budgets 

shown above in Table 4, and were also 

used in the projected, controlled 2008 

emission estimates shown in step 7 of 

Tables 3 a, b, and e. The Connecticut 

and Rhode Island 2008 motor vehicle 

conformity budgets are approvable 

because these states were able to show 

that they can meet their 2008 RFP 

emission target levels even after 

providing these buffers to their budgets. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA’s review indicates that the 2002 

base year emission inventories, RFP 

plans, transportation conformity 

budgets, and contingency plans 

submitted by Connecticut on February 

1, 2008, Massachusetts on January 31, 

2008, and Rhode Island on April 30, 

2008 to meet, in part, their obligations 

under EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard meet the requirements for 

these programs. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve these listed 

components of the state’s submittals as 

revisions to each state’s SIP. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing 

approval of three rules adopted by 

Connecticut that will reduce VOC 

emissions in the state. It should be 

noted that each states’ submittal also 

included other SIP elements, most 

notably attainment demonstrations for 

EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone standard, but 

EPA is not acting on those other 

components at this time. Additional 

details regarding the state’s submittals 

and EPA’s review of these submittals is 

contained in the technical support 

document (TSD) prepared for this 

action. The TSD is available in the 

docket for this action. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this proposal or on other 

relevant matters. These comments will 

be considered before taking final action. 

Interested parties may participate in the 

Federal rulemaking procedure by 

submitting written comments to the 

EPA New England Regional Office listed 

in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal 

Register. 

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. 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

Dated: September 9, 2010. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23402 Filed 9–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Chapter I 

340B Drug Pricing Program 

Manufacturer Civil Monetary Penalties 

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 

Administration, HHS. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: Section 602 of Public Law 

102–585, the ‘‘Veterans Health Care Act 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1