43096 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(h) Retention of records. Books and 

records of a Licensee and of the 

Collective relating to payments of and 

distributions of royalties shall be kept 

for a period of not less than the prior 3 

calendar years. 

§ 384.5 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 384.5 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), by removing 

‘‘part’’ and adding ‘‘section’’ in its place, 

and by removing ‘‘account, any 

information’’ and adding ‘‘account and 

any information’’ in its place; 

■ b. In paragraph (b), by removing ‘‘The 

Collective shall have’’ and adding ‘‘The 

party claiming the benefit of this 

provision shall have’’ in its place; 

■ c. In paragraph (c), by removing 

‘‘activities directly related thereto’’ and 

adding ‘‘activities related directly 

thereto’’ in its place; 

■ d. In paragraph (d)(1), by removing 

‘‘work, require access to the records’’ 

and adding ‘‘work require access to 

Confidential Information’’ in its place; 

■ e. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing 

‘‘Collective committees’’ and adding 

‘‘the Collective committees’’ in its place, 

and by removing ‘‘confidential 

information’’ and adding ‘‘Confidential 

Information’’ in its place each place it 

appears; 

■ f. In paragraph (d)(3), by removing 

‘‘respect to the verification of a 

Licensee’s royalty payments’’ and 

adding ‘‘respect to verification of a 

Licensee’s statement of account’’ in its 

place; 

■ g. In paragraph (d)(4), by removing 

‘‘Copyright owners whose works’’ and 

adding ‘‘Copyright Owners, including 

their designated agents, whose works’’ 

in its place, by removing ‘‘, or agents 

thereof’’, and by removing ‘‘confidential 

information’’ and adding ‘‘Confidential 

Information’’ in its place; and 

■ h. In paragraph (e), by removing ‘‘to 

safeguard all Confidential Information’’ 

and adding ‘‘to safeguard against 

unauthorized access to or dissemination 

of any Confidential Information’’ in its 

place, and by removing ‘‘belonging to 

such Collective’’ and adding ‘‘belonging 

to the Collective’’ in its place. 

■ 7. Section 384.6 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 384.6 Verification of royalty payments. 

* * * * * 

(d) Acquisition and retention of 

report. The Licensee shall use 

commercially reasonable efforts to 

obtain or to provide access to any 

relevant books and records maintained 

by third parties for the purpose of the 

audit. The Collective shall retain the 

report of the verification for a period of 

not less than 3 years. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 384.7 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), by removing 

‘‘Provided’’ and adding ‘‘provided’’ in 

its place; and 

■ b. By revising paragraph (d). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 384.7 Verification of royalty 

distributions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Acquisition and retention of 

record. The Collective shall use 

commercially reasonable efforts to 

obtain or to provide access to any 

relevant books and records maintained 

by third parties for the purpose of the 

audit. The Copyright Owner requesting 

the verification procedure shall retain 

the report of the verification for a period 

of not less than 3 years. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 384.8 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 384.8 Unclaimed funds. 

If the Collective is unable to identify 

or locate a Copyright Owner who is 

entitled to receive a royalty distribution 

under this part, the Collective shall 

retain the required payment in a 

segregated trust account for a period of 

3 years from the date of distribution. No 

claim to such distribution shall be valid 

after the expiration of the 3-year period. 

After expiration of this period, the 

Collective may apply the unclaimed 

funds to offset any costs deductible 

under 17 U.S.C. 114(g)(3). The foregoing 

shall apply notwithstanding the 

common law or statutes of any State. 

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

Suzanne M. Barnett, 

Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17243 Filed 7–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–72–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0020; FRL–9834–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Redesignation of 

Connecticut Portion of the New YorkNew Jersey-Connecticut 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment of 

the 1997 Annual and 2006 24-Hour 

Standards for Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State of Connecticut’s June 22, 2012 

request to redesignate the Connecticut 

portion of the New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT fine particle 

(PM2.5) area (i.e., New Haven and 

Fairfield Counties; herein called the 

‘‘Southwestern CT Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’) 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 annual National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS or 

standard), as well as for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As part of these 

proposed approvals, EPA proposes to 

approve (1) a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision containing a 10-year 

maintenance plan for the Area; (2) a 

2007 base-year emissions inventory for 

the Area; and (3) new motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the years 

2017 and 2025 that are contained in the 

10-year PM2.5 maintenance plan for the 

Area. 

In addition, in the course of proposing 

to approve Connecticut’s request to 

redesignate the Southwestern CT Area, 

EPA addresses a number of additional 

issues, including the effects of two 

decisions of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

(D.C. Circuit Court): (1) The Court’s 

August 21, 2012 decision to vacate and 

remand to EPA the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Control Rule (CSAPR), and (2) 

the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision to 

remand to EPA two final rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 

This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2013–0020 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0020,’’ 

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, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43097 

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 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2013– 

0020. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

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 www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Air Quality Planning 

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional 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 person 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109—3912, telephone 

number (617) 918–1684, fax number 

(617) 918–0684, email 

simcox.alison@epa.gov. 

In addition to the publicly available 

docket materials available for inspection 

electronically in the Federal Docket 

Management System at 

www.regulations.gov, and the hard copy 

available at the Regional Office, which 

are identified in the ADDRESSES section 

of this Federal Register, copies of the 

state submittal are also available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours, by appointment at the 

State Air Agency: Bureau of Air 

Management, Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for the proposal? 

A. General Background 

B. Effect of the August 21, 2012 D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding EPA’s CSAPR 

C. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

1. Background 

2. Proposal on This Issue 

a. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 

Evaluating the Redesignation Request 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Connecticut’s Redesignation Request 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

A. Has the Southwestern CT Area attained 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS? 

B. Has the Southwestern CT Area attained 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS? 

C. Has the State of Connecticut met all 

applicable requirements of Section 110 

and Part D and does the Southwestern 

CT Area have a fully approved SIP under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA for purposes 

of redesignation to attainment? 

1. Section 110 and General SIP 

Requirements 

2. Part D SIP Requirements 

3. Does the Southwestern CT Area have a 

fully approved applicable SIP under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA? 

D. Are the air quality improvements in the 

Southwestern CT Area due to permanent 

and enforceable reductions in emissions? 

1. Federal Measures Implemented 

2. SIP-Approved State Measures 

E. Does the Southwestern CT Area have a 

fully approved maintenance plan 

pursuant to Section 175a of the CAA? 

1. Maintenance Plan Requirements 

2. EPA’s Analysis of the Southwestern CT 

Area Maintenance Plan 

a. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

b. Maintenance Demonstration 

c. Monitoring Network 

d. Verification of Continued Attainment 

e. The Maintenance Plan’s Contingency 

Measures 

V. MVEBs 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what are 

the MVEBs for the Southwestern CT 

Area? 

2. What are safety margins? 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for the 

proposal? 

A. General Background 

On June 22, 2012, the Connecticut 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43098 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

submitted a request to EPA to 

redesignate the Connecticut portion of 

the New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-CT fine particle (PM2.5) 

area (the Southwestern CT Area 

comprising New Haven and Fairfield 

Counties) to attainment for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and for EPA approval of the state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

containing an emissions inventory and 

a maintenance plan for the area. 

Fine particulate pollution is emitted 

directly from a source (primary PM2.5) or 

is formed secondarily through chemical 

reactions in the atmosphere involving 

precursor pollutants (nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), sulfur dioxides (SO2), volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), and 

ammonia (NH3)) emitted from a variety 

of sources. For example, sulfates are 

formed from SO2 emissions from power 

plants and industrial facilities. Nitrates 

are formed from combustion emissions 

of NOX from power plants, mobile 

sources, and other combustion sources. 

The CAA establishes a process for airquality management through the 

NAAQS. The first air quality standards 

for PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 

1997 (62 FR 38652). EPA promulgated 

an annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) of 

ambient air, based on a three-year 

average of the annual mean PM2.5

concentrations at each monitoring site. 

In the same rulemaking, EPA 

promulgated a 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

of 65 mg/m3, based on a three-year 

average of the annual 98th percentile of 

24-hour concentrations at each 

monitoring site. 

On January 5, 2005 (70 FR 944), EPA 

designated the New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT area (also 

referred to as the New York 

Metropolitan Area), which includes the 

Southwestern CT Area, as 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See 70 FR 944 for a listing of 

all counties included in the tri-state 

nonattainment area. 

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), 

EPA issued the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

2006 NAAQS retained the annual PM2.5

standard at 15 mg/m3, but revised the 24- 

hour standard to 35 mg/m3, based on a 

three-year average of the annual 98th 

percentile of the 24-hour PM2.5

concentrations. However, petitioners 

challenged EPA’s decision to retain the 

annual standard (but did not challenge 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard). On 

February 24, 2009, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded 

the annual PM2.5 standard to the Agency 

for reconsideration. See American Farm 

Bureau Federation and National Pork 

Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 

F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

On November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), 

EPA published designations for the 24- 

hour standard established in 2006, 

designating the same New York 

Metropolitan Area (including the 

Southwestern CT Area) as 

nonattainment for this standard. In the 

November 2009 action, EPA clarified 

the designations for the NAAQS 

promulgated in 1997, stating that the 

New York Metropolitan Area remained 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, but was 

designated attainment for the 1997 24- 

hour NAAQS. Therefore, today’s action 

does not address attainment of the 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Today’s action also does not address 

attainment of the remanded 2006 annual 

standard. However, given that the 1997 

and 2006 annual standards are 

essentially identical, attainment of the 

1997 annual standard would also 

indicate attainment of the remanded 

2006 annual standard. Therefore, 

today’s action addresses attainment of 

the 1997 annual standard and the 2006 

24-hour standard. 

On November 15, 2010, EPA 

determined that the entire New York 

Metropolitan Area had attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard (75 FR 69589). 

This determination of attainment was 

based upon complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air-quality data for 

the 2007–2009 monitoring period. 

Subsequently, on December 31, 2012, 

EPA determined that the entire New 

York Metropolitan Area had also 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard (77 FR 76867). This 

determination of attainment was based 

upon complete, quality-assured and 

certified ambient air-quality data for the 

2007–2009, 2008–2010, and 2009–2011 

monitoring periods. In addition, PM2.5

monitoring data for 2012 indicate 

continued attainment of both standards. 

These determinations of attainment 

suspended the requirements for 

Connecticut to submit an attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures, reasonable 

further progress (RFP), contingency 

measures, and other planning SIPs 

related to attainment of the 1997 annual 

or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for as 

long as the Southwestern CT Area 

continues to attain these standards. 

The CT DEEP redesignation request 

includes a maintenance plan designed 

to ensure continued compliance with 

both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards through the year 2025. 

On December 14, 2012, EPA issued a 

new annual standard of 12 mg/m3. 

Today’s action does not address the 

2012 standard. 

B. Effect of the August 21, 2012 D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding EPA’s 

CSAPR 

On May 12, 2005, EPA published the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which 

requires significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric 

generating units (EGUs) to limit the 

interstate transport of these pollutants 

and the ozone and fine particulate 

matter they form in the atmosphere. See 

76 FR 70093. The D.C. Circuit Court 

initially vacated CAIR, North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), 

but ultimately remanded that rule to 

EPA without vacatur to preserve the 

environmental benefits provided by 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

The Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) included regulatory changes to 

sunset (i.e., discontinue) CAIR and the 

CAIR Federal Implementation Plans 

(FIPs) for control periods in 2012 and 

beyond. See 76 FR 48322. On December 

30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an 

order addressing the status of CSAPR 

and CAIR in response to motions filed 

by numerous parties seeking a stay of 

CSAPR pending judicial review. In that 

order, the Court stayed CSAPR pending 

resolution of the petitions for review of 

that rule in EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and 

consolidated cases). The Court also 

indicated that EPA was expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the 

interim until judicial review of CSAPR 

was completed. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 

which vacated and remanded CSAPR 

and ordered EPA to continue 

administering CAIR ‘‘pending . . . 

development of a valid replacement.’’ 

EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. Circuit 

denied all petitions for rehearing on 

January 24, 2013. On March 29, 2013, 

the U.S. Solicitor General petitioned the 

Supreme Court to review the D.C. 

Circuit Court’s decision on CSAPR. On 

June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court 

granted the petition to review the 

decision. The Supreme Court’s decision 

to review the case does not alter the 

current status of CAIR or CSAPR. 

Connecticut’s submittal and EPA 

modeling demonstrate that attainment 

of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards will be maintained with 

or without the implementation of CAIR 

or CSAPR. To the extent that attainment 

is due to emission reductions associated 

with CAIR, EPA is here determining that 

those reductions are sufficiently 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43099 

1Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

permanent and enforceable for purposes 

of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 

175A. 

As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR 

remains in place and enforceable until 

EPA promulgates a valid replacement 

rule to substitute for CAIR. 

Connecticut’s SIP revision lists CAIR as 

a control measure (Regulations of 

Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) 

section 22a–174–22c) that was adopted 

by the State in September 2007 with an 

effective date of May 1, 2009. CAIR was, 

thus, in place and achieving emission 

reductions when the New York 

Metropolitan Area began monitoring 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard during the 2007–2009 period, 

and of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards 

during the same period. The qualityassured, certified monitoring data 

continues to show the area in 

attainment with the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards through 2012. 

In addition, modeling conducted by 

EPA during the CSAPR rulemaking 

process also demonstrates that the 

Southwestern CT Area will have PM2.5

levels below the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standards in both 2012 

and 2014 without taking into account 

emissions reductions from CAIR or 

CSAPR. See ‘‘Air Quality Modeling 

Final Rule Technical Support 

Document’’, App. B, B–18, B–19. This 

modeling is available in the docket for 

this proposed redesignation action. 

In sum, neither the current status of 

CAIR nor the current status of CSAPR 

affects any of the criteria for proposed 

approval of this redesignation request 

for the Southwestern CT Area. 

C. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

1. Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that 

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather 

than the particulate-matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title 

I. Although the Court’s ruling did not 

directly address the 2006 PM2.5

standard, EPA is taking into account the 

Court’s position on subpart 4 and the 

1997 PM2.5 standard in evaluating 

redesignations for the 2006 standard. 

2. Proposal on This Issue 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

does not prevent EPA from 

redesignating the Southwestern CT Area 

to attainment. Even in light of the 

Court’s decision, redesignation for this 

area is appropriate under the CAA and 

EPA’s longstanding interpretations of 

the CAA’s provisions regarding 

redesignation. EPA first explains its 

longstanding interpretation that 

requirements that are imposed, or that 

become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA then shows that, even if 

EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements 

to Connecticut’s redesignation request 

and disregards the provisions of its 1997 

PM2.5 implementation rule recently 

remanded by the Court, the state’s 

request for redesignation of this area 

still qualifies for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling on the area’s 

maintenance plan, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

a. Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of Part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating Connecticut’s 

redesignation request for the 

Southwestern CT Area, to the extent 

that implementation under subpart 4 

would impose additional requirements 

for areas designated nonattainment, EPA 

believes that those requirements are not 

‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E), and, thus, EPA is 

not required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to this 

redesignation request. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) 

to mean, as a threshold matter, that the 

part D provisions which are 

‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).1 In this case, at the time 

that Connecticut submitted its 

redesignation request, requirements 

under subpart 4 were not due. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Southwestern CT Area 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

the State submitted the redesignation 

request is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 

subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision 

in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

In South Coast, the Court found that 

EPA was not permitted to implement 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely 

under subpart 1, and held that EPA was 

required under the statute to implement 

the standard under the ozone-specific 

requirements of subpart 2 as well. 

Subsequent to the South Coast decision, 

in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements,’’ for purposes 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that 

addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, 

where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give 

its regulations retroactive effect. National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 

145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 

958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 

(2011). 

3PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3). 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an 

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D.’’ 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the 

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the Act 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of this redesignation, 

the timing and nature of the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision in NRDC v. 

EPA compound the consequences of 

imposing requirements that come due 

after the redesignation request is 

submitted. The State submitted its 

redesignation request on June 22, 2012, 

but the Court did not issue its decision 

remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule concerning the 

applicability of the provisions of 

subpart 4 until January 2013. 

To require the State’s fully-completed 

and pending redesignation request for 

the 2006 PM2.5 standard to comply now 

with requirements of subpart 4 that the 

Court announced only in its January, 

2013 decision on the 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule, would be to give 

retroactive effect to such requirements 

when the State had no notice that it was 

required to meet them. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),2

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The Court rejected 

this view, stating that applying it 

‘‘would likely impose large costs on 

States, which would face fines and suits 

for not implementing air pollution 

prevention plans . . . even though they 

were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. at 

68. Similarly, it would be unreasonable 

to penalize the State of Connecticut by 

rejecting its redesignation request for an 

area that is already attaining the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 standards and that met 

all applicable requirements known to be 

in effect at the time of the request. For 

EPA now to reject the redesignation 

request solely because the state did not 

expressly address subpart 4 

requirements of which it had no notice, 

would inflict the same unfairness 

condemned by the Court in Sierra Club 

v. Whitman. 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and 

Connecticut’s Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

requires that, in the context of a pending 

redesignation for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

State submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Southwestern CT Area still qualifies 

for redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the 

Southwestern CT Area, though not 

expressed in terms of subpart 4 

requirements, substantively meets the 

requirements of that subpart for 

purposes of redesignating the area to 

attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Southwestern CT Area, EPA notes 

that subpart 4 incorporates components 

of subpart 1 of part D, which contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See Section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 3 nonattainment areas, and 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). The subpart 1 requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for attainment demonstrations, 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), reasonable further progress 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43101 

4The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation is discussed below. 

5 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, and contingency measures. 

6As EPA has explained above, we do not believe 

that the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision should be 

interpreted so as to impose these requirements on 

the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, 

supra. 

(RFP), emissions inventories, and 

contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the 

Southwestern CT Area to be a 

‘‘moderate’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

Under section 188 of the CAA, all areas 

designated nonattainment areas under 

subpart 4 would initially be classified 

by operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.4 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment new source review 

program is not considered an applicable 

requirement for redesignation, provided 

the area can maintain the standard with 

a prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program after redesignation. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,5 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has 

for many years interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable 

for areas attaining the standard. In the 

General Preamble, EPA stated that: 

The requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. Showing that the 

State will make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 

‘‘General Preamble for the 

Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 

13498, 13564, April 16, 1992). 

The General Preamble also explained 

that 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans * * * provides specific requirements 

for contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 6 and, thus, are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 standards, for the purpose of 

evaluating a pending request to 

redesignate the area to attainment. EPA 

has consistently enunciated this 

interpretation of applicable 

requirements under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

since the General Preamble was 

published more than twenty years ago. 

Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the standard. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In 

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

Elsewhere in this notice, EPA 

proposes to determine that the 

Southwestern CT Area has attained the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. Under 

its longstanding interpretation, EPA is 

proposing to determine here that the 

area meets the attainment-related plan 

requirements of subparts 1 and 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under section 172(c)(1) and section 

189(a)(1)(c), a RFP demonstration under 

189(c)(1), and contingency measure 

requirements under section 172(c)(9) are 

satisfied for purposes of evaluating the 

redesignation request. 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. EPA in this 

section addresses the Court’s opinion 

with respect to PM2.5 precursors. While 

past implementation of subpart 4 for 

PM10 has allowed for control of PM10

precursors such as NOX from major 

stationary, mobile, and area sources in 

order to attain the standard as 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

8The Southwestern CT area has reduced VOC 

emissions through the implementation of various 

control programs including VOC Reasonably 

Available Control Technology regulations and 

various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control 

programs. 

expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

[and ammonia] as . . . PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor[s] and to evaluate 

sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013 

decision made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51.1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. For a number of reasons, 

EPA believes that its proposed 

redesignation of the Southwestern CT 

Area is consistent with the Court’s 

decision on this aspect of subpart 4. 

First, while the Court, citing section 

189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

‘presumptively regulated,’ ’’ the Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors 

(and any similar provisions reflected in 

the guidance for the 2006 PM2.5

standard), the regulatory consequence 

would be to consider the need for 

regulation of all precursors from any 

sources in the area to demonstrate 

attainment and to apply the section 

189(e) provisions to major stationary 

sources of precursors. In the case of the 

Southwestern CT Area, EPA believes 

that doing so is consistent with 

proposing redesignation of the area for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. The 

Southwestern CT Area has attained the 

standard without any specific additional 

controls of VOC and ammonia 

emissions from any sources in the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.7

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus, 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the area for the 

1997 PM2.5 standard. As explained 

below, we do not believe that any 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC are required in the context of this 

redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOCs under other Act requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e). 57 FR 13542. In this 

proposal, EPA proposes to determine 

that the SIP has met the provisions of 

section 189(e) with respect to ammonia 

and VOCs as precursors. This proposed 

determination is based on our findings 

that (1) the Southwestern CT Area 

contains no major stationary sources of 

ammonia, and (2) existing major 

stationary sources of VOC are 

adequately controlled under other 

provisions of the CAA regulating the 

ozone NAAQS.8 In the alternative, EPA 

proposes to determine that, under the 

express exception provisions of section 

189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the area, which is 

attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards, at present ammonia and VOC 

precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards in the Southwestern CT 

Area. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

By contrast, redesignation to attainment 

primarily requires the area to have 

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia 

and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 

planning provisions of subpart 4, those 

provisions in and of themselves do not 

require additional controls of these 

precursors for an area that already 

qualifies for redesignation. Nor does 

EPA believe that requiring Connecticut 

to address precursors differently than 

they have already would result in a 

substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43103 

9See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

PM–10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 

10See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

purposes.9 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.10 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Southwestern 

CT Area has already attained the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with its current 

approach to regulation of PM2.5

precursors, EPA believes that it is 

reasonable to conclude in the context of 

this redesignation that there is no need 

to revisit the attainment control strategy 

with respect to the treatment of 

precursors. Even if the Court’s decision 

is construed to impose an obligation, in 

evaluating this redesignation request, to 

consider additional precursors under 

subpart 4, it would not affect EPA’s 

approval here of Connecticut’s request 

for redesignation of the Southwestern 

CT Area. In the context of a 

redesignation, the area has shown that 

it has attained the standard. Moreover, 

the state has shown and EPA is 

proposing to determine that attainment 

in this area is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions on all 

precursors necessary to provide for 

continued attainment. It follows 

logically that no further control of 

additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013 decision of the Court as 

precluding redesignation of the 

Southwestern CT Area to attainment for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if Connecticut were 

required to address precursors for the 

Southwestern CT Area under subpart 4 

rather than under subpart 1, as 

interpreted in EPA’s remanded PM2.5

implementation rule, EPA would still 

conclude that the area had met all 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). 

d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

Southwestern CT Area, in evaluating the 

effect of the Court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

EPA in this proposal is also considering 

the impact of the decision on the 

maintenance plan required under 

sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To 

begin with, EPA notes that the area has 

attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards and that the state 

has shown that attainment of those 

standards is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

State’s maintenance plan shows 

continued maintenance of the standards 

by tracking the levels of the precursors 

whose control brought about attainment 

of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards in 

the Southwestern CT Area. EPA, 

therefore, believes that the only 

additional consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by the 

State and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Southwestern CT Area need not 

include any additional emission 

reductions of VOC or ammonia in order 

to provide for continued maintenance of 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards. 

III. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The CAA sets forth the requirements 

for redesignating a nonattainment area 

to attainment. Specifically, section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for 

redesignation provided that: (1) EPA 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS; (2) EPA has fully 

approved the applicable state 

implementation plan for the area under 

CAA section 110(k); (3) air-quality 

improvements are due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions; and (4) 

EPA has fully approved a maintenance 

plan for the area meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 175A; and 

(5) the state containing such area has 

met all requirements applicable to the 

area under CAA section 110 and part D. 

EPA has provided guidance on 

redesignation in the General Preamble 

for the Implementation of Title I of the 

CAA Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 

1992, 57 FR 13498) (supplemented on 

April 28, 1992, 57 FR 18070) and has 

provided further guidance on processing 

redesignation requests in the following 

documents: 

1. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to 

Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’ 

Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division, September 

4, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Calcagni 

Memorandum’’); 

2. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air 

Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from 

John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, October 28, 1992; and 

3. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D 

NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment,’’ Memorandum 

from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 

14, 1994. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

request? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Southwestern CT Area has met all 

applicable redesignation criteria under 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The basis for 

EPA’s proposed approval of the 

redesignation request is discussed 

below. 

A. Has the Southwestern CT Area 

attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS? 

On November 15, 2010 (75 FR 69589), 

EPA determined that the New York 

Metropolitan Area, which includes the 

Southwestern CT Area, attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

determines that an area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality data. 

To attain the annual standard, the threeyear average of the annual mean PM2.5

concentrations for designated 

monitoring sites in an area must not 

exceed 15.0 mg/m3. The data must be 

collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in EPA’s Air Quality System 

(AQS). The monitors generally should 

have remained at the same location for 

the duration of the monitoring period 

required for demonstrating attainment. 

Specifically, on November 15, 2010 

(75 FR 69589), EPA determined that the 

New York Metropolitan Area attained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

complete, quality-assured monitoring 

data for 2007–2009, and that it had 

attained this standard as of April 5, 

2010, its applicable attainment date. 

Further discussion of pertinent air 

quality issues underlying this 

determination was provided in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking for EPA’s 

determination of attainment for this 

Area, published on August 2, 2010 (75 

FR 45076). 

In addition, as discussed below with 

respect to the maintenance plan, the CT 

DEEP has committed to continue to 

operate an EPA-approved monitoring 

network in the area as necessary to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Connecticut remains obligated 

to continue to ensure the quality of 

monitoring data in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58, and to enter all data into 

the AQS in accordance with Federal 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

guidelines. In summary, the area has 

attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

B. Has the Southwestern CT Area 

attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS? 

On December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76867), 

EPA determined that the New York 

Metropolitan Area, which includes the 

Southwestern CT Area, attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

determines that an area has attained the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality data. 

The 24-hour standard is met when the 

98th percentile 24-hour concentration, 

as determined in accordance with 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than 

or equal to 35.0 mg/m3. The data must 

be collected and quality-assured in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and 

recorded in EPA’s AQS. The monitors 

generally should have remained at the 

same location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. 

Specifically, on December 31, 2012 

(77 FR 76867), EPA determined that the 

New York Metropolitan Area attained 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based 

on complete, quality-assured monitoring 

data for 2007–2009, 2008–2010, and 

2009–2011, and that it had attained this 

standard ahead of December 14, 2014, 

its applicable attainment date. Further 

discussion of pertinent air quality issues 

underlying this determination was 

provided in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking for EPA’s determination of 

attainment for this Area, published on 

August 30, 2012 (77 FR 52626). 

In addition, as discussed below with 

respect to the maintenance plan, the CT 

DEEP has committed to continue to 

operate an EPA-approved monitoring 

network in the area as necessary to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 

NAAQS. Connecticut remains obligated 

to continue to ensure the quality of 

monitoring data in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58, and to enter all data into 

the AQS in accordance with Federal 

guidelines. In summary, the area has 

attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

C. Has the State of Connecticut met all 

applicable requirements of Section 110 

and Part D and does the Southwestern 

CT Area have a fully approved SIP 

under Section 110(k) of the CAA for 

purposes of redesignation to 

attainment? 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Southwestern CT Area has met all 

SIP requirements applicable for 

purposes of this redesignation under 

section 110 of the CAA (General SIP 

Requirements) and that, upon final 

approval of the 2007 base-year 

emissions inventory, as discussed below 

in this proposed rulemaking, it will 

have met all applicable SIP 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA, in accordance with CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). In addition, EPA 

is proposing to find that all applicable 

requirements of the Connecticut SIP for 

purposes of redesignation have been 

approved in accordance with CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these 

proposed determinations, EPA 

ascertained which SIP requirements are 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

of this Area, and concluded that the 

applicable portions of the SIP meeting 

these requirements are fully approved 

under section 110(k) of the CAA. 

1. Section 110 and General SIP 

Requirements 

Section 110(a)(2) of Title I of the CAA 

delineates the general requirements for 

a SIP, which include enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means, or techniques, 

provisions for the establishment and 

operation of appropriate devices 

necessary to collect data on ambient air 

quality, and programs to enforce the 

limitations. The general SIP elements 

and requirements set forth in CAA 

section 110(a)(2) include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

• Submittal of a SIP that has been 

adopted by the state after reasonable 

public notice and hearing; 

• Provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

• Implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of Part C requirements 

(Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD)); 

• Provisions for the implementation 

of Part D requirements for New Source 

Review (NSR) permit programs; 

• Provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and 

• Provisions for public and local 

agency participation in planning and 

emission control rule development. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA 

requires that SIPs contain certain 

measures to prevent sources in a state 

from significantly contributing to air 

quality problems in another state. To 

implement this provision, EPA has 

required certain states to establish 

programs to address the interstate 

transport of air pollutants in accordance 

with the NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998 

(63 FR 57356), amendments to the NOX

SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) 

and March 2, 2000 (65 FR 11222), and 

CAIR, May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). 

However, the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements for a state are not linked 

with a particular nonattainment area’s 

designation and classification in that 

state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and 

classifications are the relevant measures 

to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation 

request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, 

continue to apply to a state regardless of 

the designation of any one particular 

area in the state. Thus, EPA does not 

believe that these requirements are 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Further, we conclude the other 

section 110 elements described above 

that are not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked with an area’s attainment 

status are also not applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. A state remains subject to 

these requirements after an area is 

redesignated to attainment. We 

conclude that only the section 110 and 

part D requirements that are linked with 

a particular area’s designation are the 

relevant measures which we may 

consider in evaluating a redesignation 

request. This approach is consistent 

with EPA’s existing policy on 

applicability of conformity and 

oxygenated fuels requirements for 

redesignation purposes, as well as with 

section 184 ozone transport 

requirements. See Reading, 

Pennsylvania, proposed and final 

rulemakings (61 FR 53174, October 10, 

1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7, 1997); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio final 

rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); 

and Tampa, Florida final rulemaking (60 

FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also 

the discussion on this issue in the 

Cincinnati, Ohio redesignation (65 FR at 

37890, June 19, 2000) and in the 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania redesignation 

(66 FR at 53099, October 19, 2001). 

We have reviewed Connecticut’s SIP 

and have concluded that it meets the 

general SIP requirements under section 

110 of the CAA, to the extent they are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. EPA has previously 

approved provisions of the Connecticut 

SIP addressing section 110 requirements 

(including provisions addressing 

particulate matter). On September 4, 

2008 and September 18, 2009, 

Connecticut made submittals for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards, respectively, addressing 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ elements required 

by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. EPA 

approved or conditionally approved all 

elements of Connecticut’s submittals on 

October 16, 2012, at 77 FR 63228. The 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43105 

11Nevertheless, CT DEEP did submit a SIP on 

November 18, 2008, which included an attainment 

demonstration for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard 

for the Southwestern CT Area. In its June 22, 2012 

redesignation request, CT DEEP states that it will 

withdraw the attainment demonstration SIP, 

effective one day after EPA signs the final rule 

approving Connecticut’s redesignation request and 

maintenance plans. 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), 

however, are statewide requirements 

that are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of the 

Southwestern CT Area. Therefore, EPA 

believes that these SIP elements are not 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

review of the State’s PM2.5 redesignation 

request. 

EPA also has previously approved 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor control 

measures that are permanent and 

enforceable controls that will remain in 

place following redesignation (see Table 

1). 

TABLE 1—LIST OF CONNECTICUT CONTROL MEASURES FOR PM2.5 AND PM2.5 PRECURSORS

Name of control measure Type of measure Approval citation 

Tier 2 Vehicle Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Standards federal rule ......................... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86. 

Heavy-Duty Diesel and Gasoline Highway Vehicle 

Standards.

federal rule ......................... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86. 

Motorcycle Exhaust Standards ......................................... federal rule ......................... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 86. 

Large Non-road Diesel Engine Standards ....................... federal rule ......................... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 89. 

Non-road Spark-Ignition Engines and Recreational Engine Standards.federal rule ......................... Promulgated at 40 CFR part 90. 

NOX SIP Call .................................................................... federal rule ......................... 63 FR 57356 (10/27/1998). 

CAIR ................................................................................. federal rule ......................... 70 FR 25162 (5/12/2005). 

Control of Sulfur Compound Emissions 19–508–19 ........ SIP-approved state regulation.46 FR 56612 (11/18/1981). 

Control of SO2 emissions from power plants and other 

large stationary sources 22a–174–19a.

SIP-approved state regulation.Approval signed 4/26/2013, not yet published. See CT 

Regional Haze SIP docket (EPA–R01–OAR–2009– 

0919). 

Control of NOX Emissions 22a–174–22 ........................... SIP-approved state regulation.62 FR 52016 (10/06/1997). 

Post-2002 NOX Budget Program 22a–174–22b .............. SIP-approved state regulation.65 FR 81743 (12/27/2000); superseded by CAIR (22a– 

174–22c). 

CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program 22a–174– 

22c.

SIP-approved state regulation.73 FR 4105 (01/24/2008). 

Control of Particulate Emissions 19–508–18 ................... SIP-approved state regulation.47 FR 41958 (09/23/1982). 

Emission Standards and On-Board Diagnostic II Test 

Requirements for Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance 22a–174–27.

SIP-approved state regulation.73 FR 74019 (12/05/2008). 

Low Emission Vehicles 22a–174–36b .............................. SIP-approved state regulation.64 FR 44411 (08/16/1999). 

Municipal Waste Combustors 22a–174–38 ...................... SIP-approved state regulation.66 FR 63311 (12/06/2001). 

Permit to Construct and Operate Stationary Sources 

22a–174–3a.

SIP-approved state regulation.76 FR 26933 (05/10/2011). 

2. Part D SIP Requirements 

EPA has determined that, upon 

approval of the base-year emissions 

inventories discussed below, the 

Connecticut SIP will meet the 

applicable SIP requirements for the 

Southwestern CT Area applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under part D 

of the CAA. Subpart 1 of part D, found 

in sections 172–176 of the CAA, sets 

forth the basic nonattainment 

requirements applicable to all 

nonattainment areas. 

Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements 

On November 15, 2010 (75 FR 69589) 

and December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76867), 

EPA made determinations that the New 

York Metropolitan Area, including the 

Southwestern CT Area, is attaining the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, respectively. These 

determinations of attainment were 

based on quality-assured and certified 

air-quality data for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period (1997 NAAQS) and 

for the 2007–2009, 2008–2010, and 

2009–2011 monitoring periods (2006 

NAAQS) showing that the Southwestern 

CT Area had attained the applicable 

NAAQS. Monitoring data for 2012 are 

also consistent with continued 

attainment of the standards. Under 

EPA’s Clean Data Policy and pursuant to 

40 CFR 51.1004(c), upon determination 

by EPA that an area designated 

nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS has 

attained the standard, the requirement 

for such an area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated 

reasonably achievable control 

technology (RACT)/RACM, RFP, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to the attainment 

of the PM2.5 NAAQS are suspended 

until EPA determines that the area has 

again violated the PM2.5 NAAQS, at 

which time such plans are required to 

be submitted.11 As a result of the 

determinations of attainment for the 

Southwestern CT Area, the only 

remaining requirement under CAA 

section 172 to be considered is the 

emissions inventory required under 

CAA section 172(c)(3). 

In this rulemaking action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Connecticut’s 

2007 base-year emissions inventory in 

accordance with section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. Final approval of the 2007 baseyear emissions inventory will satisfy the 

emissions inventory requirement under 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. 

The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I also discusses 

the evaluation of these requirements in 

the context of EPA’s consideration of a 

redesignation request. The General 

Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

evaluating redesignation requests when 

an area is attaining the standard. See 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43106 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

General Preamble for Implementation of 

Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). 

Because attainment of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards has been reached for the 

Southwestern CT Area, no additional 

measures are needed to provide for 

attainment, and CAA section 172(c)(1) 

requirements for an attainment 

demonstration and RACT/RACM are no 

longer considered to be applicable for 

purposes of redesignation as long as the 

area continues to attain the standards 

until redesignation. See 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). The RFP requirement under 

CAA section 172(c)(2) and contingency 

measures requirement under CAA 

section 172(c)(9) are similarly not 

relevant for purposes of redesignation. 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

submission and approval of a 

comprehensive, accurate and current 

inventory of actual emissions. The 

maintenance plan submitted by CT 

DEEP includes a 2007 base-year 

emissions inventory that meets this 

requirement. The 2007 base-year 

emissions inventory for the 

Southwestern CT Area, compiled jointly 

by CT DEEP and the Mid-Atlantic 

Regional Air Management Association 

(MARAMA), contains PM2.5 (including 

condensables), and PM2.5 precursors, 

SO2 and NOX. MARAMA emissions 

inventories also include the PM2.5

precursors ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). See 

Appendix C of Connecticut’s June 22, 

2012 redesignation request. The 

emissions inventories cover the general 

source categories of EGU point sources, 

non-EGU point sources (i.e., individual 

industrial, commercial, and institutional 

facilities), area sources (i.e., aggregated 

small, non-permitted sources such as 

small industrial/commercial facilities, 

residential heating furnaces, and road 

dust re-entrainment), on-road mobile 

sources (i.e., cars, trucks, buses, and 

other vehicles on public roadways), and 

nonroad mobile sources (e.g., marine 

vessels, airplanes, railroad locomotives, 

forklifts, lawn and garden equipment, 

portable generators (non-road MAR). 

However, there is one exception to the 

source category coverage mentioned 

above. MARAMA’s VOC and NH3

emission estimates did not include 

estimates for the on-road mobile sector, 

and so the emission values in Table 4 

below represent values taken from 

EPA’s regulatory impact analysis for the 

PM NAAQS. 

A summary of the inventory 

development process is given below 

under ‘‘EPA’s analysis of the 

Southwestern CT Area maintenance 

plan.’’ Connecticut provided detailed 

descriptions of the derivation of 

emission estimates in Appendices A–I 

of their June 22, 2012 submittal. 

Tables 2 and 3 show the 2007 baseyear emissions for PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors, SO2 and NOX, which are the 

principal PM2.5 precursors in the 

Southwestern CT Area. Table 4 shows 

the other PM2.5 precursors, ammonia 

and VOC, for the entire state of 

Connecticut. VOC emission levels in 

Connecticut, including the 

Southwestern CT Area, have historically 

been well-controlled under SIP 

requirements related to ozone and other 

pollutants. Total ammonia emissions 

throughout the state are very low, 

estimated for 2007 to be 5,765 tons per 

year. This amount of statewide 

ammonia emissions is small compared 

to the total amounts of SO2 and NOX,

and even direct PM2.5 emissions from 

sources within just the two-county 

Southwestern CT Area. Moreover, 

available information shows that no 

precursor, including VOC and ammonia, 

is expected to increase over the 

maintenance period so as to interfere 

with or undermine the State’s 

maintenance demonstration, as further 

discussed below under ‘‘EPA’s analysis 

of the Southwestern CT Area 

maintenance plan.’’ The proposed 

approval of the 2007 base-year 

emissions inventory in this rulemaking 

action will, when finalized, meet the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). 

TABLE 2—NEW HAVEN COUNTY, CT: PM2.5, SO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPY) FOR BASE-YEAR 2007 BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector SO2 NOX PM2.5

Point (EGU) ................................................................................................................................. 822.7 639.6 88.1 

Point (Non-EGU) .......................................................................................................................... 55.6 822.7 40.4 

Area ............................................................................................................................................. 3,707.7 2,936.1 1,900.3 

Marine Vessels, Airplanes, RR Locomotives (MAR) ................................................................... 727.4 3,945.9 168.5 

Nonroad (NMIM) .......................................................................................................................... 174.1 3,688.1 279.1 

Onroad (MOVES) ........................................................................................................................ 91.8 11,502.7 389.6 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 5,579.2 23,535.1 2,866.0 

Note: Primary PM2.5 includes filterables and condensables. 

TABLE 3—FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CT: PM2.5, SO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS (TPY) FOR BASE-YEAR 2007 BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector SO2 NOX PM2.5

Point (EGU) ................................................................................................................................. 3,311.2 2,268.5 283.5 

Point (Non-EGU) .......................................................................................................................... 154.8 1,875.4 44.7 

Area ............................................................................................................................................. 3,917.3 3,088.8 1,991.5 

Marine Vessels, Airplanes, RR Locomotives (MAR) ................................................................... 353.4 3,034.2 119.9 

Nonroad (NMIM) .......................................................................................................................... 215.8 4,648.1 403.0 

Onroad (MOVES) ........................................................................................................................ 84.3 11,888.9 404.4 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 8,036.7 26,804.0 3,247.0 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43107 

TABLE 4—CONNECTICUT: AMMONIA

AND VOC EMISSIONS (TPY) FOR

BASE-YEAR 2007 BY SOURCE SECTOR. 

Sector VOC Ammonia 

(NH3) 

Point (EGU) .............. 143 0 

Point (nonEGU) ........ 1,447 0 

Area .......................... 57,253 4,421 

Non-road mobile ....... 20,721 16 

Commercial Marine 

Vessels .................. 161 3 

Airports ..................... 509 0 

Railroad Locomotives 73 1 

On-road mobile ......... 28,967 1,324 

Total ................... 109,274 5,765 

Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires 

the identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and CAA section 172(c)(5) requires new 

source permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. EPA has 

determined that, since the PSD 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a nonattainment NSR program be 

approved prior to redesignation, 

provided that the area demonstrates 

maintenance of the NAAQS without 

part D NSR. A more detailed rationale 

for this view is described in a 

memorandum from Mary Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated October 14, 1994 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ 

Nevertheless, Connecticut currently has 

an approved NSR program, established 

in RCSA section 22a–174–2a with 

amendments in 22a–174–3a. See 68 FR 

9009 (February 27, 2003) and 76 FR 

26933 (May 10, 2011). However, 

Connecticut’s PSD program for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

will become effective in Southwestern 

CT Area (i.e., New Haven and Fairfield 

Counties) upon redesignation to 

attainment. 

Section 172(c)(6) of the CAA requires 

the SIP to contain control measures 

necessary to provide for attainment of 

the NAAQS. Because attainment has 

been reached for the Southwestern CT 

Area, no additional measures are 

needed to provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires 

the SIP to meet the applicable 

provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2). As 

noted previously, we believe the 

Connecticut SIP meets the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2) that are 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Subpart 1, Section 176 Conformity 

Requirements 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that federallysupported or funded activities, 

including highway projects, conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIPs. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs, and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under title 23 of the U.S. Code and the 

Federal Transit Act (transportation 

conformity) as well as to all other 

federally-supported or funded projects 

(general conformity). State conformity 

revisions must be consistent with 

federal conformity regulations relating 

to consultation, enforcement and 

enforceability, which EPA promulgated 

pursuant to CAA requirements. 

EPA interprets the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. First, the requirement to submit 

SIP revisions to comply with the 

conformity provisions of the CAA 

continues to apply to areas after 

redesignation to attainment, since such 

areas would be subject to a section 175A 

maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of federally-approved state 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment and, because 

they must implement conformity under 

federal rules if state rules are not yet 

approved, it is reasonable to view these 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating a redesignation 

request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 

(6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 

62749–62750 (December 7, 1995) 

(Tampa, Florida). 

Connecticut’s June 22, 2012 

redesignation request included new fine 

particle motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) as part of their 

maintenance plan. The SIP establishes 

annual direct PM2.5 and annual NOX

transportation conformity budgets for 

2017 and 2025 to ensure that future 

emissions from on-road mobile sources 

provide for continuing attainment of the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. Connecticut submitted on-road 

MVEBs for the Southwestern CT Area of 

575.8 tpy direct PM2.5 and 12,791.8 tpy 

NOX for 2017, and 516 tpy direct PM2.5

and 9,728.1 tpy NOX for 2025. 

EPA New England sent a letter to CT 

DEEP on January 8, 2013, stating that 

the 2017 and 2025 MOVES2010 MVEBs 

in the June 22, 2012 SIP submittal are 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes. On February 5, 2013, (78 FR 

8122) EPA notified the public through a 

Federal Register notice of adequacy that 

EPA has found that the 2017 and 2025 

MVEBs adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. These MVEBs 

became effective on February 20, 2013. 

For the Southwestern CT Area, 

Connecticut must use the MVEBs in any 

future conformity determination on or 

after the effective date of the notice of 

adequacy. MVEBs are discussed further 

in section V. 

3. Does the Southwestern CT Area have 

a fully approved applicable SIP under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA? 

Upon final approval of the 2007 baseyear emissions inventory, EPA will have 

fully approved the Connecticut portion 

of the New York–N. New Jersey–Long 

Island, NY–NJ–CT Area under section 

110(k) of the CAA for all requirements 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

to attainment for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As noted 

above, in this rulemaking action, EPA is 

proposing to approve the Southwestern 

CT Area’s 2007 base-year emissions 

inventory (submitted as part of its 

maintenance plan) as meeting the 

requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, upon 

final approval of the 2007 base-year 

emissions inventory, Connecticut will 

have satisfied all applicable 

requirements under part D of Title I of 

the CAA for the Southwestern CT Area. 

D. Are the air quality improvements in 

the Southwestern CT Area due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions? 

EPA proposes to find that the state 

has demonstrated that the observed air 

quality improvement in the 

Southwestern CT Area is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions resulting from 

implementation of the SIP, federal 

measures, and other state-adopted 

measures, listed in Table 1 above. As 

shown in the state’s submittal and 

supported by EPA rulemaking (see 75 

FR 69589, November 15, 2010 and 77 

FR 76867, December 31, 2012), the Area 

came into attainment with the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard based on PM2.5

data for 2007–2009, and into attainment 

with the 2006 24-hour standard based 

on PM2.5 data for the 2007–2009, 2008– 

2010, and 2009–2011 monitoring 

periods. The Area has remained in 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43108 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

attainment and the air quality has 

improved in the area. Attainment is the 

direct result of permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions and not 

favorable meteorology or economic 

downturn. 

Connecticut’s redesignation request 

documents substantial emission 

reductions in PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors both in upwind states and 

within Connecticut. For example, the 

state’s request notes that due to federal 

programs including EPA’s acid rain 

program, Ozone Transport 

Commission’s NOX budget program, and 

EPA’s NOX SIP Call, emissions from 

EGUs from states impacting Connecticut 

declined by 66 percent for NOX and by 

48 percent for SO2 between 2002 and 

2009. 

1. Federal Measures Implemented 

Reductions in PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursor emissions (e.g., NOX and SO2) 

have occurred statewide and in upwind 

states as a result of federal measures 

with additional emission reductions 

expected to occur in the future. The 

maintenance plan for the Southwestern 

CT Area lists post-2002 federal 

measures (as well as state measures) that 

have reduced PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 

emissions from stationary and mobile 

sources. These measures include the 

following: 

(a) Tier 2 Emission Standards for 

Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards 

These emission control requirements, 

which were published on February 10, 

2000 (65 FR 6698), result in lower NOX, 

and SO2 emissions from new cars and 

light duty trucks, including sport utility 

vehicles. The Federal rules were phased 

in between 2004 and 2009. EPA has 

estimated that, after phasing in the new 

requirements, new vehicles emit less 

NOX in the following percentages: 

Passenger cars (light duty vehicles)—77 

percent; light duty trucks, minivans, 

and sports utility vehicles—86 percent; 

and larger sports utility vehicles, vans, 

and heavier trucks—69–95 percent. EPA 

expects fleet-wide average emissions to 

decline by similar percentages as new 

vehicles replace older vehicles. The Tier 

2 standards also reduced the sulfur 

content of gasoline to 30 parts per 

million (ppm) beginning in January 

2006, which reflects up to a 90 percent 

reduction in sulfur content. 

(b) Heavy-Duty Diesel Rule and 

Gasoline Highway Vehicle Standards 

EPA published the heavy-duty diesel 

rule on January 18, 2001 (66 FR 5002). 

This rule, designed to reduce NOX and 

VOC emissions from heavy-duty diesel 

and from gasoline highway vehicles, 

took effect in 2004 and 2005, 

respectively. A second phase, which 

took effect in 2007, reduced PM2.5

emissions from heavy-duty highway 

engines and further reduced the 

highway diesel fuel sulfur content to 15 

ppm. The program is estimated to 

achieve a 90-percent reduction in direct 

PM2.5 emissions and a 95-percent 

reduction in NOX emissions for these 

new engines using low-sulfur diesel fuel 

when compared to engines using higher 

sulfur diesel. The reduction in fuel 

sulfur content also yielded an 

immediate reduction in particulate 

sulfate emissions from all diesel 

vehicles. 

(c) Motorcycle Exhaust Standards 

In 2004, EPA published a final rule to 

implement improved exhaust emission 

standards on new highway motorcycles 

(69 FR 2398). These standards apply to 

model-year 1978 and newer gasolinefuels motorcycles, and to later modelyear motorcycles that use other fuel 

types (1990 model year for methanol; 

1997 model year for natural gas or 

liquefied petroleum gas). For 2006 and 

later model-year new motorcycles, the 

standards apply regardless of fuel. 

Starting with the 2006 model year, EPA 

re-defined Class I to include 

motorcycles with engines smaller than 

50 cubic centimeters. In addition, 

motorcycles with the largest engines are 

subject to more stringent NOX and 

hydrocarbon standards beginning with 

the 2010 model year. 

(d) Non-Road Diesel Rule 

In June 2004, EPA published a new 

rule for large nonroad diesel engines, 

such as those used in construction, 

agriculture, and mining, to be phased in 

from 2008 to 2014 (69 FR 38958). The 

rule also reduced the sulfur content in 

nonroad diesel fuel by over 99 percent. 

Prior to 2006, nonroad diesel fuel 

averaged approximately 3,400 ppm 

sulfur. This rule limited nonroad diesel 

sulfur content to 500 ppm by 2006, with 

a further reduction to 15 ppm by 2010. 

Because of the timing of the new 

requirements, most reductions will 

occur during the maintenance period for 

the Southwestern CT Area as the fleet of 

older non-road diesel engines is 

gradually replaced with newer, loweremitting engines. However, the required 

reduction in fuel sulfur content yielded 

an immediate reduction in sulfate 

particle emissions from all non-road 

diesel vehicles. 

(e) Non-Road Spark-Ignition Engines 

and Recreational Engine Standards 

On November 8, 2002, EPA 

promulgated emission standards for 

groups of previously unregulated nonroad engines (67 FR 68242). These 

emission standards for several groups of 

nonroad engines, including large sparkignition engines, such as those used in 

forklifts and airport ground-service 

equipment; recreational vehicles using 

spark-ignition engines, such as offhighway motorcycles, all-terrain 

vehicles, and snowmobiles; and 

recreational marine diesel engines. 

Emission standards from large sparkignition engines were implemented in 

two tiers, with Tier 1 starting in 2004 

and Tier 2 in 2007. Recreational-vehicle 

emission standards were phased in from 

2006 through 2012. Marine diesel 

engine standards were phased in from 

2006 through 2009. With full 

implementation of the entire non-road 

spark-ignition engine and recreational 

engine standards, an 80 percent 

reduction in NOX is expected by 2020, 

as affected fleets are gradually replaced. 

(f) NOX SIP Call 

In October 1998, EPA issued the NOX

SIP Call pursuant to the CAA. This 

required 22 states (including 

Connecticut) and the District of 

Columbia to reduce NOX emissions from 

EGUs (i.e., power plants) and non-EGUs, 

such as industrial boilers, internal 

combustion engines, and cement kilns. 

(63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998). The 

program was intended to reduce 

emissions in states determined to be 

significantly contributing to violations 

of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 

downwind states. Affected states were 

required to comply with Phase I of the 

SIP Call beginning in 2003/2004 and 

with Phase II beginning in 2007. EPA 

approved Connecticut’s NOX SIP Call 

rule (NOX Budget Program) on 

September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52233). This 

program was incorporated into 

Connecticut’s CAIR program (see below) 

in September 2007. Emission reductions 

resulting from regulations developed in 

response to the NOX SIP Call are 

permanent and enforceable. 

(g) CAIR and CSAPR 

EPA approved Connecticut’s CAIR 

rules in 2007 (73 FR 4105, September 4, 

2007) as a control measure for reducing 

NOX emissions from EGUs. As 

previously discussed, the Court’s 2008 

remand of CAIR left the rule in place to 

‘‘temporarily preserve the 

environmental values covered by CAIR’’ 

until EPA replaced it with a rule 

consistent with the Court’s opinion, and 

the Court’s August 2012 decision on 

CSAPR also left CAIR in effect until the 

legal challenges to CSAPR are resolved. 

As noted, EPA believes it is appropriate 

to allow states to rely on CAIR, and the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43109 

existing emissions reductions achieved 

by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable pending a valid replacement 

rule, for purposes such as redesignation. 

Furthermore, as previously discussed, 

the air quality modeling analysis 

conducted for CSAPR demonstrates that 

the Southwestern CT Area would be 

able to attain the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS even in the 

absence of either CAIR or CSAPR. EPA’s 

modeling projections show that all 

ambient monitors in the Southwestern 

CT Area are expected to continue to 

maintain compliance in the 2012 and 

2014 ‘‘no CAIR’’ base cases. Therefore, 

none of the ambient monitoring sites in 

the Southwestern CT Area are 

‘‘receptors’’ that EPA projects will have 

future nonattainment problems or 

difficulty maintaining the NAAQS. 

2. SIP-Approved State Measures 

In addition to the federal control 

measures described above, Connecticut 

is implementing several state programs 

that have contributed to significant 

reductions in ambient levels of direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors. These are 

listed on Table 1 and include, for 

example, regulations to reduce 

emissions of SO2 and NOx from major 

stationary sources, including power 

plants; low-sulfur fuel requirements; 

addition of a non-ozone season NOx 

limit to all sources subject to the NOX

Budget Program; the addition of PM 

standards to certain fuel-burning 

equipment and stationary reciprocating 

internal-combustion engines; updates to 

the state’s motor-vehicle emissions 

testing and Inspection and Maintenance 

(I/M) programs; adoption of Low 

Emission Vehicle (LEV) standards; and 

limits on NOx emissions from 

Municipal Waste Combustors. As noted 

in Table 1, all of the regulations have 

been approved by EPA into the CT SIP. 

Based on the information summarized 

above, Connecticut has adequately 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions. EPA 

concludes that significant reductions 

result from federal requirements and 

regulation of precursors under the NOx 

SIP Call and CAIR, which are expected 

to continue into the future. 

E. Does the Southwestern CT Area have 

a fully approved maintenance plan 

pursuant to Section 175a of the CAA? 

In conjunction with its request to 

redesignate the Southwestern CT Area 

to attainment status, Connecticut 

submitted a SIP revision to provide for 

the maintenance of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

Southwestern CT Area until 2025. 

1. Maintenance Plan Requirements 

Section 175 of the CAA sets forth the 

elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. Under 

CAA section 175A, the plan must 

demonstrate continued attainment of 

the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 

years after EPA approves an area’s 

redesignation. Eight years after the 

redesignation, Connecticut must submit 

a revised maintenance plan 

demonstrating that attainment will 

continue to be maintained for the 10 

years following the initial 10-year 

period. To address the possibility of 

future NAAQS violations, the 

maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures, with a schedule 

for implementation, as EPA deems 

necessary, to assure prompt correction 

of any violations of the 1997 annual or 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS that occur 

after redesignation of the Area to 

attainment. The Calcagni Memorandum 

dated September 4, 1992, provides 

additional guidance on the content of a 

maintenance plan. This memorandum 

states that a PM2.5 maintenance plan 

should include the following: (1) An 

emissions inventory sufficient to ensure 

attainment; (2) a demonstration that the 

plan ensures maintenance of the 

NAAQS for 10 years following approval 

of the redesignation request; (3) a 

commitment to maintain an appropriate 

monitoring network; (4) a method to 

verify continued attainment; and (5) a 

contingency plan to be implemented if 

NAAQS violations occur during the 

maintenance period. 

2. EPA’s Analysis of the Southwestern 

CT Area Maintenance Plan 

a. Attainment Emissions Inventory 

An attainment emissions inventory is 

a comprehensive inventory of the actual 

emissions from sources within a 

nonattainment area for a time period 

used to show that the area has come into 

attainment with the NAAQS. 

Inventories used for Connecticut’s PM2.5

redesignation request were developed as 

an extension to regional efforts in the 

Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE–VU) area to create inventories 

for use in photochemical modeling for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and Regional 

Haze SIPs. For PM2.5 redesignation 

efforts, MARAMA took the lead in 

coordinating with several states 

(including Connecticut) to develop an 

inventory for 2025 to supplement those 

already under development (2007, 2017 

and 2020 inventories), as well as to 

modify the 2007 inventory for PM2.5

redesignation. A summary of the 

inventory development process is given 

below. For more information about how 

the inventories were developed, as well 

as quality-assurance procedures, see 

Appendices in Connecticut’s PM2.5

Redesignation Request at http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Docket number 

EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0020. 

In the Southwestern CT Area, 

compliance with the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS was achieved in 2001 and 

compliance with the 24-hour NAAQS 

was achieved in 2008. Therefore, 

Connecticut chose 2007 as the initial 

year for the attainment inventory. The 

end of the maintenance period was 

established as 2025, with an interim 

year of 2017, which is consistent with 

the CAA section 175A(a) requirement 

that the maintenance plan provide for 

maintenance of the NAAQS for at least 

10 years after EPA approval of the 

redesignation request. 

Emission estimates were developed 

for EGU point sources, non-EGU point 

sources, area sources, non-road mobile 

sources, and on-road mobile sources. 

The MANE–VU PM2.5 redesignation 

inventories were prepared only for the 

area classified as nonattainment for the 

annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., 

in Connecticut, Fairfield County and 

New Haven Counties). The inventories 

were developed at the county level for 

the area-source and mobile-source 

categories and at the process level for 

point-source categories, then summed to 

the county level. EPA concurs with 

Connecticut that the use of annual 

inventories was also appropriate for 

demonstrating continued compliance 

with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during 

the maintenance period as analysis of 

monitoring data for the Southwestern 

CT Area showed that elevated 24-hour 

PM2.5 levels occur in multiple seasons 

(primarily summer and winter). 

Point source emissions—For the 2007 

point-source inventory, CT DEEP 

provided MARAMA with actual 2007 

emissions for all EGU and non-EGU 

point sources. EGU sources were 

considered to be only those sources that 

report hourly emissions to EPA’s Clean 

Air Markets Division (CAMD) database. 

All other point sources (including nonEGUs in CAMD, small non-CAMD EGUs 

and all other non-EGUs) were grouped 

as non-EGU point sources. The 2007 

inventory also included banked 

continuous emission reduction credits 

(CERCs) for potential use as offsets in 

new source review permits. MARAMA 

calculated components of PM emissions 

(i.e., PM-primary, PM-filterable, and 

PM-condensable) that were missing 

from the point-source inventory 

provided by Connecticut. For EGUs, 

MARAMA used updated condensable 

emission factors; for non-EGUs, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43110 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

MARAMA used a similar process to that 

used in developing the 2002 MANE–VU 

Version 3 inventory. For information on 

PM2.5 augmentation processes, see 

Appendix A of Connecticut’s PM2.5

Redesignation Request at http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Docket number 

EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0020. 

To estimate EGU emissions for future 

years, MARAMA extrapolated the 2007 

EGU emissions based on Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) electricity generation 

projections. The appropriate AEO 2011 

growth factor was applied to the 2007 

emissions to calculate a ‘‘growth only’’ 

emission value for 2017 and 2025. 

MARAMA developed non-EGU pointsource growth factors for Connecticut 

using employment or fuel consumption 

projections, depending on the source 

category. MARAMA extrapolated 2006– 

2016 employment forecasts from the 

Connecticut Department of Labor 

through 2025 to develop emission 

estimates for non-fuel burning sources 

such as manufacturing operations. AEO 

fuel-use projections published in 2010 

by the U.S. Energy Information 

Administration were used to develop 

growth factors for fuel-consuming 

sources. 

MARAMA examined adopted federal 

and regional control strategies to 

determine those that would result in 

post-2007 emission reductions of PM2.5

or PM2.5 precursors from non-EGU point 

sources. They determined that the 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standards for 

reciprocating internal combustion 

engines (RICE) and for industrial/ 

commercial/institutional (ICI) boilers 

and process heaters will provide NOX or 

PM2.5 emission reductions from several 

non-EGU source categories during the 

maintenance period. 

Area source emissions—CT DEEP 

initially instructed MARAMA to use 

EPA’s 2008 National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI) emission values for all 

area-source categories for the attainment 

year inventory. However, during the 

quality-assurance effort, a number of 

categories were discovered to be either 

missing from the 2008 NEI or to have 

used incorrect emission-factor 

assumptions for Connecticut. Therefore, 

substitutions were made from the 2005 

NEI or from CT DEEP’s draft 2005 

periodic emission inventory (PEI). For 

residential wood combustion (RWC), 

MARAMA’s contractor used EPA’s RWC 

tool with updated 2007 data to produce 

emission estimates. 

MARAMA applied growth factors to 

the 2007 MANE–VU area-source 

inventory to account for anticipated 

changes in fuel use, population and 

economic activity during the 

maintenance period. For Connecticut, 

growth factors were developed using the 

following sets of data: (1) AEO New 

England region fuel consumption 

forecasts; (2) county-level population 

projections; (3) state-level employment 

projections; (4) county-level vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) projections; and 

(5) EPA projections for RWC. 

On-road mobile sources—EPA’s 

MOVES2010 (MOtor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator) is now the official model for 

estimating air-pollution emissions from 

on-road mobile sources including buses, 

cars, trucks and motorcycles for SIP 

purposes. This model replaces 

MOBILE6.2, EPA’s previous mobile 

source model. To assist in the transition 

to the new model, EPA developed 

software tools to convert certain 

MOBILE6.2 inputs for MOVES. 

CT DEEP assembled updated MOVES 

data sets and performed MOVES runs 

with updated data for 2009, 2017 and 

2025. Instead of developing updated 

2007 emission estimates, Connecticut 

used 2009 MOVES on-road emission 

estimates in the PM2.5 attainment year 

inventory because (1) EPA had 

previously approved 2009 

transportation conformity MVEBs for 

Connecticut that were determined using 

MOBILE6.2, and (2) the use of the lower 

2009 on-road emission estimates for 

2007 ensured that the total attainment 

year inventory across all source sectors 

will be more conservative (i.e., lower) 

than if 2007 on-road emissions were 

used. Since emissions through the end 

of the maintenance period must be no 

higher than the attainment-year 

inventory, this approach provides 

additional assurance that NAAQS 

compliance will continue through the 

maintenance period. 

Nonroad mobile emissions—Non-road 

sources include internal combustion 

engines used to propel marine vessels, 

airplanes, and locomotives, or to operate 

equipment such as forklifts, lawn and 

garden equipment, portable generators, 

etc. For activities other than marine 

vessels, airplanes, and railroad 

locomotives (MAR), the inventory was 

developed using the most current 

version of EPA’s NONROAD model as 

embedded in the National Mobile 

Inventory Model (NMIM). Because the 

NONROAD model does not include 

emissions from MAR sources, these 

emissions were estimated based on data 

and methodologies used in recent EPA 

regulatory impact analyses. 

The emission inventories for 

Connecticut show that between 2002 

(one of the years for which the Area’s 

nonattainment designation was based) 

and 2009, an attainment year, in-state 

emissions were reduced by 679 tons per 

year (4%) for direct PM2.5, 36,166 tons 

per year (30%) for NOX, and 9,233 tons 

per year (29%) for SO2. 

The emission inventories show that 

emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

are projected to decrease by 1,371 tpy, 

5,832 tpy, and 26,147 tpy, respectively, 

within the 2-county Southwestern CT 

Area from the 2007 base year to the end 

of the maintenance period in 2025. See 

Tables 5 and 6 below. In addition, 

emissions inventories developed by 

MARAMA for addressing the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS show that VOC emissions are 

projected to decrease by about 32,695 

tpy and ammonia emissions are 

projected to decrease by 637 tpy 

statewide between 2007 and 2020. See 

Table 7 below. While the MARAMA 

emissions inventories for VOC and 

ammonia are only projected out to 2020, 

there is no reason to believe that this 

downward trend will not continue 

through 2025. Given that the 

Southwestern CT Area is already 

attaining the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards with the current 

level of source emissions, the 

downward trend in the emissions 

inventories is consistent with continued 

attainment. Indeed, projected emissions 

reductions for the precursors that the 

state is addressing for purposes of the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS indicate 

that the area should continue to attain 

both the annual and 24-hour NAAQS 

following the control strategies that the 

state has already elected to pursue. Even 

if VOC and ammonia emissions were to 

increase unexpectedly between 2020 

and 2025, the overall emissions 

reductions projected in direct PM2.5,

SO2, and NOX would be sufficient to 

offset any increases. For these reasons, 

EPA believes that local emissions of all 

of the potential PM2.5 precursors will 

not increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 1997 annual or 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards during the maintenance 

period. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43111 

12These emissions estimates are from the 

emissions inventories developed by MARAMA for 

use in part in addressing NAAQS requirements for 

the 2012 PM2.5 standards. See Appendix C of 

Connecticut’s June 22, 2012 redesignation request, 

which is available in the docket for today’s 

rulemaking action. 

13MARAMA’s VOC and NH3 emission estimates 

did not include estimates for the EGU and on-road 

mobile sectors. Emission values in this table 

represent values taken from EPA’s regulatory 

impact analysis for the PM NAAQS. 

TABLE 5—NEW HAVEN COUNTY, CT, CHANGE IN EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2007 AND 2025 IN TONS PER YEAR (TPY) 

Sector SO2

2007–2025 

NOX

2007–2025 

PM2.5

2007–2025 

Point (EGU) ................................................................................................................................. ¥424.3 ¥255. ¥4.2 

Point (Non-EGU) .......................................................................................................................... 3.9 128.9 6.2 

Area ............................................................................................................................................. ¥1,030.6 ¥328.0 ¥153.9 

Marine Vessels, Airplanes, RR Locomotives (MAR) ................................................................... ¥691.6 ¥2,209.7 ¥117.0 

Nonroad (NMIM) .......................................................................................................................... ¥166.5 ¥2,084.3 ¥142.3 

Onroad (MOVES) ........................................................................................................................ ¥17.2 ¥7,962.6 ¥203.4 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ¥2,326.3 ¥12,710.7 ¥614.7 

TABLE 6—FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CT, CHANGE IN EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2007 AND 2025 IN TONS PER YEAR (TPY) 

Sector SO2

2007–2025 

NOX

2007–2025 

PM2.5

2007–2025 

Point (EGU) ................................................................................................................................. ¥1,889.9 ¥1,160.3 ¥152.0 

Point (Non-EGU) .......................................................................................................................... 25.2 668.1 4.9 

Area ............................................................................................................................................. ¥1,082.1 ¥348.7 ¥163.9 

Marine Vessels, Airplanes, RR Locomotives (MAR) ................................................................... ¥334.9 ¥1,688.8 ¥74.8 

Nonroad (NMIM) .......................................................................................................................... ¥206.4 ¥2,590.8 ¥158.9 

Onroad (MOVES) ........................................................................................................................ ¥17.9 ¥8,315.7 ¥211.7 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... ¥3,505.9 ¥13,436.2 ¥756.5 

TABLE 7—CONNECTICUT, CHANGE IN

EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2007 AND

2020 IN TONS PER YEAR (TPY) 12

Sector 

VOC 

2007– 

2020 

Ammonia 

(NH3) 

2007– 

2020 

Point (nonEGU) ........ 127 0 

Point (EGU) 13 .......... ¥58 ¥39 

Area .......................... ¥2,396 55 

Non-road mobile ....... ¥9,736 5 

Commercial Marine 

Vessels .................. 1 0 

Airports ..................... ¥40 0 

Railroad Locomotives 9 0 

On-road mobile 13 ..... ¥20,602 ¥658 

Total ...................... ¥32,695 ¥637 

EPA concludes that Connecticut has 

adequately derived and documented the 

2007 attainment year and 2017 and 2025 

projected-year emissions of PM2.5 and 

PM2.5 precursors, including PM2.5, SO2, 

NOX, VOC, and ammonia for the 

Southwestern CT Area. 

b. Maintenance Demonstration 

As mentioned above, as required by 

section 175A of the CAA, Connecticut’s 

June 22, 2012 redesignation request 

included a 10-year maintenance plan for 

the Southwestern CT Area. This plan 

demonstrates maintenance by showing 

that future emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursors remain at or below 

attainment-year emission levels for both 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. A maintenance demonstration 

need not be based on modeling. See 

Wall v. EPA, supra; Sierra Club v. EPA, 

supra. See also 66 FR at 53099–53100; 

68 FR at 25430–32. 

Connecticut used 2007 as the base 

year, 2017 as the interim year, and 2025 

as the last year of the maintenance plan. 

(In addition, per 40 CFR Part 93, a 

MVEB must be established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. MVEBs 

are discussed in Section V below.) Table 

8 shows the emissions inventories for 

2007, 2017, and 2025 from 

Connecticut’s June 22, 2012 submittal 

for the Southwestern CT Area for direct 

PM2.5 and the Area’s principal PM2.5

precursors, SO2, and NOX. The 

emissions inventory shows a downward 

trend in PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor 

emissions from 2007 through 2017, and 

continuing on until 2025. Between 2007 

and 2025, emissions are expected to 

decrease by 43 percent for SO2, 55 

percent for NOX, and 22 percent for 

PM2.5. As discussed above in the section 

on ‘‘attainment emissions inventory,’’ 

MARAMA’s emissions inventories show 

that VOC emissions are projected to 

decrease by about 32,695 tpy and 

ammonia emissions are projected to 

decrease by 637 tpy statewide between 

2007 and 2020. See Table 7 above. 

While the MARAMA emissions 

inventories for VOC and ammonia are 

only projected out to 2020, there is no 

reason to believe that this downward 

trend will not continue through 2025. 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 SO2, NOX, AND DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE

SOUTHWESTERN CT AREA

[in tpy] 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

2007 (attainment) ......................................................................................................................... 13,615.9 50,339.1 6,113.0 

2017 (interim) ............................................................................................................................... 7,909.0 29,501.3 5,029.1 

2025 (maintenance) ..................................................................................................................... 7,783.7 24,192.2 4,741.7 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43112 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

14The ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter’’ is 

available in the docket for today’s rulemaking 

action. 

TABLE 8—COMPARISON OF 2007, 2017, AND 2025 SO2, NOX, AND DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS FOR THE

SOUTHWESTERN CT AREA—Continued 

[in tpy] 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

2007 to 2025 (change) ................................................................................................................ ¥5,832.2 

(¥43%) 

¥26,146.9 

(¥55%) 

¥1,371.2 

(¥22%) 

In addition, current air-quality design 

values (DVs) and air-quality modeling 

show continued maintenance of both 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards during the maintenance 

period. As shown in Table 9 below, the 

most recent DVs for the Southwestern 

CT Area are well below the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3 and the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. 

TABLE 9—AIR-QUALITY (PM2.5) DESIGN VALUES (μg/m3) FOR FAIRFIELD AND NEW HAVEN COUNTIES

County 

1997 annual 

NAAQS 

2007–2009 

1997 annual 

NAAQS 

2008–2010 

1997 annual 

NAAQS 

2009–2011 

2006 24-hr 

NAAQS 

2007–2009 

2006 24-hr 

NAAQS 

2008–2010 

2006 24-hr 

NAAQS 

2009–2011 

Fairfield .................................................... 11.3 10.0 9.4 31 28 26 

New Haven .............................................. 11.4 10.3 9.6 31 29 28 

The modeling analysis conducted for 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 14 indicates that 

DVs for the Southwestern CT Area are 

expected to continue to decline through 

2020. In the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS, the highest annual DV 

projected for 2020 is 8.79 mg/m3 for 

Fairfield County and 8.62 mg/m3 for 

New Haven County. The highest 24- 

hour DV projected for 2020 is 22.27 

mg/m3 for Fairfield County and 21.78 mg/ 

m3 for New Haven County. Given that 

precursor emissions are projected to 

decrease through 2025, it is reasonable 

to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels 

in this area will also continue to 

decrease through 2025. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Southwestern CT Area should be 

redesignated, even taking into 

consideration the emissions of other 

precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. 

After consideration of the DC Circuit’s 

January 4, 2013 decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA 

proposes to approve the State’s 

maintenance plan and its request to 

redesignate the Southwestern CT Area 

to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard and for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. 

c. Monitoring Network 

Connecticut currently operates seven 

PM2.5 monitors in the Connecticut 

portion of the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5

nonattainment area. Three are located in 

New Haven County, and four are in 

Fairfield County. In its June 22, 2012 

SIP submittal, Connecticut committed to 

continue to operate all seven of its 

monitors in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 58 and to enter all data into the 

AQS in accordance with federal 

guidelines. Connecticut has, therefore, 

addressed the requirement for 

continued PM2.5 monitoring in the 

Southwestern CT Area. 

d. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The state has the legal authority to 

enforce and implement the 

requirements of the PM2.5 maintenance 

plan. This includes the authority to 

adopt, implement, and enforce any 

subsequent emission-control 

contingency measures determined to be 

necessary to correct future PM2.5

attainment problems. To implement the 

PM2.5 maintenance plan, the state will 

continue to monitor PM2.5 levels in the 

Southwestern CT Area. Connecticut has 

also committed to track the progress of 

the maintenance demonstration by 

periodically updating its emission 

inventory. The update will be based, in 

part, on the annual update of the 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and 

will indicate new source growth and 

other changes from the attainment 

inventory, including any changes in 

vehicle miles traveled or in traffic 

patterns. 

e. The Maintenance Plan’s Contingency 

Measures 

The contingency plan provisions for 

maintenance plans are designed to 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

Section 175A of the CAA requires that 

a maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to ensure that a state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. 

The maintenance plan should identify 

the events that would ‘‘trigger’’ the 

adoption and implementation of a 

contingency measure(s), the 

contingency measure(s) that would be 

adopted and implemented, and the 

schedule indicating the time frame by 

which the state would adopt and 

implement the measure(s). 

As required by section 175A of the 

CAA, Connecticut’s maintenance plan 

outlines the procedures for the adoption 

and implementation of contingency 

measures to further reduce emissions 

should a violation occur. Connecticut’s 

contingency measures include a 

Warning Level Response and an Action 

Level Response. For a Warning Level 

Response, CT DEEP will track airquality monitoring data and emission 

inventories to identify when the Area is 

at risk of violating either the 1997 

annual or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The Warning Level Response will be 

triggered if either a single year’s 98th 

percentile daily value exceeds 35 mg/m3

or a single year’s annual average 

exceeds 15 mg/m3 at any CT DEEP site 

in the maintenance area and is verified. 

CT DEEP will examine available 

information to identify contributing 

factors such as atypical meteorological 

conditions, exceptional events, local 

changes in source activity, or source 

malfunctions or noncompliance. 

An Action Level Response will be 

triggered if a verified violation of either 

PM2.5 NAAQS occurs. If an Action Level 

Response is triggered, as required by 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43113 

CAA 175A(d), CT DEEP commits to 

implementing all measures that were 

contained in the SIP before the 

Southwestern CT Area was redesignated 

to attainment. CT DEEP also commits to 

pursuing adoption (and submittal to 

EPA) and implementation of any 

appropriate regulatory revisions within 

18 to 24 months after the verified 

violation. See letter to EPA dated June 

6, 2013, available in the docket for 

today’s action. 

CT DEEP will select contingency 

measures based on cost effectiveness, 

emission reduction potential, economic 

and social considerations, or other 

appropriate factors. Stakeholder input 

will be solicited before final selection of 

any contingency measures. 

Connecticut’s candidate contingency 

measures include, but are not limited to, 

the following: 

• Control measures already adopted, 

but designed to produce additional 

reductions after the verified violation 

occurred (e.g., mobile source measures 

that involve fleet turnover); 

• New control measures that may be 

adopted for other purposes (e.g., Tier 3 

or CALEV3); 

• Alternative fuel and/or diesel 

retrofit programs for fleet vehicle 

operations; 

• New or more stringent PM2.5, NOX

or SO2 controls on stationary sources; 

• Wood stove change out program; 

• ‘‘No burn’’ days during cold 

weather inversion events; 

• Enhanced idle restrictions; and 

• Transportation control measures, 

selected in consultation with 

Connecticut Department of 

Transportation (CT DOT) and affected 

local metropolitan planning 

organizations (e.g., traffic flow 

improvements, transit improvements, 

trip reduction programs, other new or 

innovative transportation measures). 

In addition, NOX reductions from fleet 

turnover are happening each year 

automatically, without any additional 

rulemaking. 

It is unlikely, however, that 

Connecticut will violate either PM2.5

standard. As shown in Table 9 above, 

the design values in both Fairfield and 

New Haven Counties are decreasing. 

The design values for these counties are 

9.4 and 9.6 mg/m3, respectively, 

compared to an annual standard of 15.0 

mg/m3; they are 26 and 28 mg/m3, 

respectively, compared to a 24-hour 

standard of 35.0 mg/m3. If either county 

were to violate one of the PM2.5

standards, we would negotiate a 

timeline and schedule through our 

regular annual grant negotiations for 

which we develop priority and 

commitment (P&C) lists each year. 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

believes that the Southwestern CT Area 

maintenance plan adequately addresses 

the five basic components of a 

maintenance plan: Attainment 

inventory; maintenance demonstration; 

monitoring network; verification of 

continued attainment; and a 

contingency plan. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve the maintenance 

plan SIP revision submitted by 

Connecticut for the Southwestern CT 

Area as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 175A. 

V. MVEBs 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what 

are the MVEBs for the Southwestern CT 

Area? 

As part of its June 22, 2012 

redesignation request, CT DEEP 

requested withdrawal of the SIPapproved 2009 motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) prepared using 

MOBILE6.2 and approval of 2017 and 

2025 MVEBs prepared using 

MOVES2010. Under the CAA, states are 

required to submit, at various times, 

control strategy SIP revisions and 

maintenance plans for nonattainment 

areas and for areas seeking 

redesignation to attainment for a given 

NAAQS. These emission-controlstrategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions) 

and maintenance plans create MVEBs 

based on on-road mobile source 

emissions for the relevant criteria 

pollutants and/or their precursors, 

where appropriate, to address pollution 

from on-road transportation sources. 

The MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

on-road vehicle use that, together with 

emissions from all other sources in the 

area, will provide for attainment, RFP, 

or maintenance, as applicable. The 

budget serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB 

for an area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. See the 

September 27, 2011 notice of direct final 

approval for a more complete discussion 

of MVEBs (76 FR 59512). 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining the adequacy of MVEBs are 

set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

Additionally, to approve a MVEB, EPA 

must complete a thorough review of the 

SIP, in this case the PM2.5 maintenance 

plan, and conclude that with the 

projected level of motor vehicle and all 

other emissions, the SIP will achieve its 

overall purpose, in this case providing 

for maintenance of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and, (3) EPA taking 

action on the MVEB. The process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP MVEBs is codified at 40 CFR 93.118. 

The availability of the SIP submission 

with these 2017 and 2025 MVEBs was 

announced for public comment on 

EPA’s adequacy Web page on November 

27, 2012 at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. 

The EPA public comment period on 

adequacy of the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs 

for the Southwestern CT Area closed on 

December 27, 2012. EPA did not receive 

any comments. EPA sent a letter to CT 

DEEP on January 8, 2013, stating that 

the 2017 and 2025 MOVES2010 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets in the June 

22, 2012 SIP are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. On 

February 5, 2013 (78 FR 8122), EPA 

notified the public through a Federal 

Register notice of adequacy that EPA 

has found that the 2017 and 2025 

MVEBs adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. These MVEBs 

became effective on February 20, 2013. 

For the Southwestern CT Area, 

Connecticut must use the MVEBs in any 

future conformity determination on or 

after the effective date of the notice of 

adequacy. 

TABLE 10—TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR THE SOUTHWESTERN CT AREA IN TONS PER

YEAR (TPY) 

Year Direct PM2.5 NOX

2017 .......... 575.8 12,791.8 

2025 .......... 516 9,728.1 

As shown in Table 10, CT DEEP has 

determined the 2017 MVEBs for the 

Southwestern CT Area to be 575.8 tpy 

for direct PM2.5 and 12,791.8 tpy for 

NOX. CT DEEP has determined the 2025 

MVEBs for the Southwestern CT Area to 

be 516 tpy for direct PM2.5 and 9,728.1 

tpy for NOX. CT DEEP did not provide 

emission budgets for SO2, VOC, and 

ammonia because it concluded, 

consistent with the presumptions 

regarding these precursors in the 

conformity rule at 40 CFR 

93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated and was 

not disturbed by the litigation on the 

PM2.5 implementation rule, that 

emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
43114 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

15The 2004 rulemaking addressed most of the 

transportation conformity requirements that apply 

in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. The 

2005 conformity rule included provisions 

addressing treatment of PM2.5 precursors in MVEBs. 

See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2). While none of these 

provisions were challenged in the NRDC case, EPA 

also notes that the Court declined to address 

challenges to EPA’s presumptions regarding PM2.5

precursors in the PM2.5 implementation rule. NRDC 

v. EPA, at 27, n. 10. 

EPA issued conformity regulations to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, 

July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 

2005, respectively). Those actions were 

not part of the final rule recently 

remanded to EPA by the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia in 

NRDC v. EPA, No. 08–1250 (Jan. 4, 

2013), in which the Court remanded to 

EPA the implementation rule for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that 

EPA must implement that NAAQS 

pursuant to the PM-specific 

implementation provisions of subpart 4 

of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather 

than solely under the general provisions 

of subpart 1. That decision does not 

affect EPA’s proposed approval of the 

Southwestern CT Area MVEBs. 

First, as noted above, EPA’s 

conformity rule implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS was a separate action 

from the overall PM2.5 implementation 

rule addressed by the Court and was not 

considered or disturbed by the decision. 

Therefore, the conformity regulations 

were not at issue in NRDC v. EPA.15 In 

addition, as discussed in section IV.A. 

the New York Metropolitan Area is 

attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

with a 2007–2009 design value of 14.0 

mg/m3. As shown on Table 9, for the 

Connecticut portion of this area (i.e., the 

Southwestern CT Area), the 2007–2009 

and 2009–11 design values (DVs) for 

Fairfield County were 11.3 mg/m3 and 

9.4 mg/m3, respectively. For New Haven 

County, these values were 11.4 mg/m3

and 9.6 mg/m3 (see Table 9). All these 

DVs are well below the annual PM2.5

NAAQS of 15 mg/m3. The modeling 

analysis conducted for the RIA for the 

2012 PM NAAQS indicates that the DVs 

for the Southwestern CT Area are 

expected to continue to decline through 

2020. Further, the State’s maintenance 

plan shows continued maintenance 

through 2025 by demonstrating that 

NOX, SO2, and direct PM2.5 emissions 

continue to decrease through the 

maintenance period. For VOC and 

ammonia, RIA inventories for 2007 and 

2020 show that both on-road and total 

emissions for these pollutants are 

expected to decrease, supporting the 

state’s conclusion, consistent with the 

presumptions regarding these 

precursors in the conformity rule, that 

emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the Area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem and the MVEBs for 

these precursors are unnecessary. With 

regard to SO2, the 2005 final conformity 

rule (70 FR 24280) based its 

presumption concerning on-road SO2

motor vehicle emissions budgets on 

emissions inventories that show that 

SO2 emissions from on-road sources 

constitute a ‘‘de minimis’’ portion of 

total SO2 emissions. 

2. What are safety margins? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. The 

on-road MVEBs for direct PM2.5

emissions given in Table 10 above do 

not include either re-entrained road 

dust or construction dust from 

transportation projects. The on-road 

mobile source emissions when added to 

emissions from all other inventory 

sources (stationary, other mobile (e.g., 

non-road, marine vessels, airplanes, 

locomotives) and area sources) result in 

annual emissions inventories lower than 

the year 2007 attainment emissions 

inventory. Hence both the 2017 and 

2025 projected emission levels provide 

a ‘‘safety margin’’ relative to total 

emissions in the 2007 attainment year. 

CT DEEP has allocated a small portion 

(i.e., 10%) of the safety margin to both 

the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs. Even if 

emissions reached the full level of the 

safety margin, the area would still 

demonstrate maintenance since 

emission levels would equal those in 

the attainment year. 

The transportation conformity rule 

allows areas to allocate all or a portion 

of a ‘‘safety margin’’ to the area’s MVEBs 

(40 CFR 92.124(a)). The MVEBs 

requested by CT DEEP contain NOX and 

direct PM2.5 safety margins for mobile 

sources in 2017 and 2025 smaller than 

the allowable safety margins reflected in 

the total emissions inventory for the 

Southwestern CT Area. See Table 11. 

TABLE 11—TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR THE SOUTHWESTERN CT AREA

Year PM2.5

(tpy) 

NOX

(tpy) 

2017: 

On-Road Inventory ................. 467.4 10,708.0 

Safety Margin vs. 

2007 ............... 1083.9 20,837.8 

10% of Safety 

Margin ............ 108.4 2,083.8 

TABLE 11—TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR THE SOUTHWESTERN CT AREA—Continued 

Year PM2.5

(tpy) 

NOX

(tpy) 

2017 Conformity 

Budget ............ 575.8 12,791.8 

2025: 

On-Road Inventory ................. 378.9 7,113.4 

Safety Margin vs. 

2007 ............... 1371.3 26,146.9 

10% of Safety 

Margin ............ 137.1 2,614.7 

2025 Conformity 

Budget ............ 516.0 9,728.1 

Thus, the State is not requesting 

allocation to the MVEBs of the entire 

available safety margins reflected in the 

demonstration of maintenance. 

Therefore, even though the State has 

submitted MVEBs that exceed the 

projected on-road mobile source 

emissions for 2017 and 2025 contained 

in the demonstration of maintenance, 

the differences between the MVEBs and 

the projected on-road mobile source 

emissions are well within the safety 

margins of the PM2.5 maintenance 

demonstration. Further, once allocated 

to mobile sources, these safety margins 

will not be available for use by other 

sources. 

EPA has reviewed the submitted 

budgets for 2017 and 2025, including 

the added safety margins using the 

conformity rule’s adequacy criteria 

found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and the 

conformity rule’s requirements for 

safety margins found at 40 CFR 

93.124(a). EPA has determined that the 

area can maintain attainment of the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards for the relevant maintenance 

period with on-road mobile source 

emissions at the levels of the MVEBs 

since total emissions will still remain 

under attainment year emission levels. 

EPA is, therefore, proposing to approve 

the MOVES-based MVEBs submitted by 

Connecticut for use in determining 

transportation conformity in the 

Southwestern CT Area. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

After fully considering the D.C. 

Circuit’s decisions in EME Homer City 

on EPA’s CSAPR rule, and NRDC v. EPA 

on EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

rule, EPA is proposing to approve 

Connecticut’s June 22, 2012 request to 

redesignate the Connecticut portion of 

the New York-N. New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY–NJ–CT Area (i.e., the 

Southwestern CT Area) from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 139 / Friday, July 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 43115 

NAAQS and of the associated 

maintenance plan, including the 2017 

and 2025 MVEBs. EPA is proposing to 

withdraw the SIP-approved 2009 

MVEBs prepared using MOBILE6.2. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

base-year emissions inventory for the 

Southwestern CT Area included in 

Connecticut’s June 22, 2012 submittal as 

meeting the comprehensive emissions 

inventory requirements of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law and the CAA. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• are 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.); 

• do 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); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are 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 CAA; and 

• do 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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because a 

determination of attainment is an action 

that affects the status of a geographical 

area and does not impose any new 

regulatory requirements on tribes, 

impact any existing sources of air 

pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the 

maintenance of ozone national ambient 

air quality standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: July 9, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17430 Filed 7–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0023; FRL–9392–9] 

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions 

Filed for Residues of Pesticide 

Chemicals in or on Various 

Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of several initial filings 

of pesticide petitions requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the pesticide petition 

number (PP) of interest as shown in the 

body of this document, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

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

dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A 

contact person, with telephone number 

and email address, is listed at the end 

of each pesticide petition summary. You 

may also reach each contact person by 

mail at Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511P) or 

Registration Division (RD) (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS