ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-ROI-OAR-2008-0117; EPA-ROI-OAR-2008-0107; EPA-ROl-OAR-2008-0445; A-1-

FRL- ] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island ; Reasonable Further Progress Plans and 2002 Base Year Emission Inventories 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . 

ACTION: Proposed rule . 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan revisions submitted by 

the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island . These revisions establish 2002 base 

year emission inventories and reasonable further progress emission reduction plans for areas 

within these states designated as nonattainment of EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

intended effect of this action is to propose approval of these states' 2002 base year inventories 

and reasonable further progress (RFP) emission reduction plans, and to propose approval of the 

2008 motor vehicle transportation budgets and contingency measures associated with the RFP 

plans. EPA also proposes approval of three rules adopted by Connecticut that will reduce 

volatile organic compound emissions in the state. 

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [Insert date 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register] . 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by one of the following Docket ID Numbers: 

EPA-ROI-OAR-2008-0117 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Connecticut, 
EPA-ROI-OAR-2008-0107 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Massachusetts, 

or EPA-ROI-OAR-2008-0445 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Rhode Island, 

by one of the following methods: 

1 . www.regulations .gov : Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

2 . E-mail : arnold .annegepa.gov 

3 . Fax: (617) 918-0047. 

4. Mail : "Docket Identification Number EPA-ROI-OAR-2008-0117, EPA-ROI-OAR2008-0107, or EPA-ROI-OAR-2008-0445, Anne Arnold, U.S . Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code 

OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to : Anne Arnold, Manager, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S . Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code 

OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912 . Such deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 8 :30 to 4 :30, excluding legal holidays . 

Instructions : Direct your comments to one of the following Docket ID Numbers: EPA-RO1-

OAR-2008-0117 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Connecticut, EPA-ROIOAR-2008-0107 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Massachusetts, or EPAROl-OAR-2008-0445 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Rhode Island . EPA's 

policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 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 e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected. The www.regulations .gov website is an "anonymous access" system, which means 

EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through 

www.regulations .gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 

the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit . If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses . 

Docket: All documents in-the electronic docket are listed in the www.re ug lations.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 the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S . Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8 :30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays . , 

In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical support document are also 

available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the respective 

State Air Agency: the Bureau of Air Management, Department, of Environmental Protection, 

State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630; Division of Air Quality Control, 

Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108; 

Office of Air Resources, Department of Environmental Management, 235 Promenade Street, 

Providence, RI 02908-5767. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S . EPA Region 1 - New England, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912, phone 

number: 617-918-1046; e-Mail : mcconnell .robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever "we," "us," or "our" is used, we mean EPA. The 

following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble. 

1. Background and Purpose. 

II . 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

A. What is a base year inventory, and why are these states required to prepare one? 

1 . Point source emissions 
2. Area source emissions 

3 . On-road mobile source emissions 

4 . Non-road mobile source emissions 

5 . Biogenic emission sources 

B. Summary of 2002 Base Year Inventories 

C. What action is EPA taking on these inventories? 

III . Reasonable Further Progress Plans 

A. What is a Reasonable Further Progress plan, and why are these states required to 

prepare one? 

B. What action is EPA taking on these plans? 

C. What emission levels must Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island meet by 

2008? 

D. To what extent do the RFP plans reduce ozone precursor emissions? 

E. Are banked emissions properly accounted for within these RFP plans? 

F. What are the pollution control programs that accomplish this change in emissions? 

G. Is EPA proposing approval of any state control measures in this action? 

H. Have these states met their contingency measure obligation? 

I . Are transportation conformity budgets contained in these plans? 

IV . Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose. 
On April 30, 2004, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act, or CAA), 42 U.S .C . 

7401 et se ., EPA designated portions of the country as being in nonattainment of the 1997 8-

hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (69 FR 23858).1 All parts of 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were designated as nonattainment for ozone, and 

all were classified as moderate. There were five nonattainment areas created that encompassed 

the entirety of these states, as shown in Table 1 . 

Table 1 : 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island 

State Area name Geographic area covered counties 

CT New York - N. New Jersey 

- Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 

Y-NJ-CT area 

Fairfield, Middlesex, New Haven 

, 

_ 

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

Windham 

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

Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth, Suffolk, Worcester 

MA Springfield (W. MA area Berkshire, Franklin, Ham den, Hampshire 

RI 

_ 

Providence area ~ Statewide I 

Sections 182(a)(1) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA compel the preparation and submittal of an 

emission inventory by states containing ozone nonattainment areas. On November 18, 2002, 

EPA issued guidance 2 indicating that 2002 was the preferred year for states to use as their base 

year in development of state implementation plans (SIPs) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard . 

On November 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register identifying, in 

part, the requirements that areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

must fulfill in order to meet their obligations under the Act. 70 FR 71612, codified at 40 CFR 

I The 1997 8-hour ozone standard itself is codified at 40 CFR 50.10. 
part 51 subpart X. This rule is commonly referred to as the "Phase 2" implementation rule . The 

Phase 2 rule provides that areas that had previously met the CAA section 182(b)(1) requirement 

for a 15% volatile organic compound (VOC) emission reduction pursuant to the one-hour ozone 

standard would be considered to have met this requirement for the 1997 8-hour standard . 

According to the Phase 2 rule, such areas must meet reasonable further progress (RFP) 

obligations under the provisions of subpart 1 of the Act, rather than the more stringent RFP 

obligations of subpart 2 . 

The Phase 2 rule divides the areas subject to subpart I RFP requirements into two 

categories: those with attainment dates within 5 years of designation, and those with attainment 

dates beyond 5 years from designation. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all fall 

into the latter category because their attainment dates were 6 years from the date of designation. 

The Phase 2 rule further provides that areas with an attainment date beyond 5 years from the date 

of designation would be required to meet their RFP requirement by demonstrating a 15 percent 

emission reduction between 2002 and 2008 in VOC, nitrogen oxide (NOx) or a combination of 

both of these pollutants such that the total reduction in these ozone precursor emissions equaled 

15 percent.3 

On February 1, 2008, Connecticut submitted its 2002 to 2008 RFP plan and 2002 base 

year inventory to EPA as part of its attainment demonstration SIP submittal. Similar submittals 

were made by Massachusetts on January 31, 2008, and by Rhode Island on April 30, 2008. 

II . 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

2 "2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM 2.5, and Regional Haze Programs ." 
A. What is abase year inventory and why are these states required to prepare one? 

The Act contains a number of requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas. 

One requirement, found at section 182(a)(1) of the Act and made applicable to moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas through section 182(b)(1), compels the preparation and submittal of a 

"comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources." As 

mentioned above, EPA's November 18, 2002 guidance memorandum identified 2002 as the 

preferred year for states to use as their base year in development of SIPs for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, and the Phase 2 rule affirms this selection of the 2002 inventory as the baseline 

for the RFP requirement. 

In August, 2005, EPA published supplemental guidance for states to use in development 

of their base year inventories entitled, "Emission Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 

Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional 

Haze Regulation" (EPA-454/R-05-001) . This guidance describes for states the requirements for 

development of comprehensive emission estimates from stationary point and area sources, and 

from mobile on-road and non-road sources, such that complete emission inventories are available 

to support SIP development for the 8-hour ozone standard. The guidance directs states to prepare 

their emission estimates on a "typical summer day" basis to reflect emissions that occur during 

high ozone episodes, which occur predominantly during the warm summer months. 

As mentioned above, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all contain ozone 

nonattainment areas designated as moderate for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard . Therefore, they 

3 The Phase 2 rule's application of the CAA's VOC percentage reduction requirements was challenged before the 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. However, the court upheld EPA's interpretation 

of these requirements . See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C . Cir. 2009) . 
were required to develop 2002 base year emission inventories of VOC and NOx, as these 

compounds react in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone. 

1. Point source emissions 

The point source portion of the inventory consists of emission estimates for the major 

industrial facilities within the state. The emission estimates are prepared based on facility 

specific information collected during annual surveys conducted by each state's air agency. 

Connecticut and Massachusetts survey all industrial sources that emit 10 tons/year or more of 

VOC or NOx. Rhode Island surveys facilities that emit 10 tons/year or more of VOC, and/or 25 

tons/year or more of NOx. The emission estimates are prepared for each process operation, fuel 

combustion process, or other air emitting activity, then summed together to obtain an overall 

emission estimate for the facility. The states submit these air emission estimates to EPA, and we 

incorporate them into our national emissions inventory (NEI) database. 

2. Area source emissions 

Area source emissions include emissions from small industrial facilities not included in 

the point source inventory, and from sources whose emissions are, in most circumstances, spread 

over a wide geographic area from a large number of small sources. Examples include gasoline 

service stations, small graphic arts facilities, landfills, and emissions from consumer and 

commercial products. Emission estimates are made for most area source categories by 

multiplying some indicator of activity level for the sector, such as gasoline consumption data for 

gasoline stations, by emission factors that relate air emissions to the activity level . The 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island area source inventories provide emission 
estimates for a large number of source categories, complementing the emission estimates made 

for individual point sources and completing the estimate of emissions from stationary sources in 

the state. 

3. On-road mobile source emissions 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all used a highway vehicle emission 

estimation model developed by EPA referred to as the MOBILE 6.2 model to estimate emissions 

from on-road motor vehicles . Each state obtained estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

from their respective Departments of Transportation . The states also obtained the information 

necessary to run the MOBILE model accurately for their mix of vehicles, fuel types, and control 

programs and used this information to obtain VOC and NOx emission estimates from the model. 

4. Non-road mobile source emissions 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island estimated emissions for the majority of 

equipment within the non-road sector using the EPA's NONROAD 2005 model. The 

NONROAD model estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and 

compressed natural gas-fueled non-road equipment types. The non-road model does not estimate 

emissions from aircraft, locomotives, or commercial marine vessels, and so the states used other 

EPA recommended methods to estimate emissions from these sectors. 

5. Biogenic emission sources 

Biogenic (naturally occurring) emissions occur from plants, trees, grasses and crops . 

EPA developed a computer model, referred to as the Biogenic Emissions Inventory System 

10 
(BEIS v. 3 .12), to estimate VOC emissions from this source category, and calculates biogenic 

emissions for all counties in the country. EPA recommends that states use EPA's biogenic 

emission estimates, and Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all relied on EPA's 

emission estimates for this sector. 

B. Summary of 2002 base year inventories 

The 2002 VOC and NOx base year inventories prepared by Connecticut, Massachusetts, 

and Rhode Island are shown below in Tables 2a through 2e . EPA has concluded that these states 

have adequately derived and documented the 2002 base year VOC and NOx emissions for these 

areas. 

Table 2a - 2002 base year inventory for the NY-NJ-CT area 

Nonattainment area 2002 VOC Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOx Emissions , 

(tons/day) 

NY-NJ-CT area i 

Point 11 .3 37.7 

Area 84.1 7 .2 

On-road 48 .1 102 .7 

Non-road 66.0 ~ 38.7 

Biogenics 125 .6 0 .7 

Total 335 .3 187 .0 

Table 2b - 2002 base year inventory for the Greater Connecticut area 

Nonattainment area 2002 VOC Emissions 

(tons/day) 

~ 2002 NOx Emissions ' 

(tons/day) 

Greater Connecticut area i 

Point 4 .6 19.0 

Area 75.5 6.4 

11 
On-road 45.1 89 .3 

Non-road 56.2 30 .8 

Biogenics 268.9 1 .3 

Total 450.3 146 .8 

Table 2c - 2002 base year inventory for the Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) area 

Nonattainment area 2002 VOC Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOx Emissions 

(tons/day) 

r 

Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) area 

Point 13 .6 116.6 

Area 282 .0 33 .9 

On-road 127.4 381 .4 

Non-road 196 .2 122.1 

Biogenics 535 .7 I 4.4 

Total 1,154.9 - 658 .4 

Table 2d - 2002 base year inventory for the Springfield (W. MA) area 

Nonattainment area 2002 VOC Emissions I 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOx Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Springfield (W. MA) area 

Point 2.4 13 .0 

Area 45.5 5 .2 

On-road 24.5 71 .7 

Non-road 27.7 22 .4 

Biogenics 254.6 1 .1 

Total 354.7 113 .4 

Table 2e - 2002 base year inventory for the Providence area 

Nonattainment area 2002 VOC Emissions 

(tons/day) 

2002 NOx Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Providence area 

12 
Point 

Area 

On-road 

Non-road 

Biogenics 

Total 

10.3 

47.9 

32.3 

26.8 

124.2 

7 .0 

3 .4 

42.4 

19.7 

0 .7 

241 .5 I 73.2 

C. What action is EPA taking on these inventories? 

We are proposing approval of the 2002 base year inventories listed in Tables 2a through 

2e above. 

III. Reasonable Further Progress plans 

A. What is a Reasonable Further Progress plan, and why are these states required to prepare 

one? 

A reasonable further progress (RFP) plan illustrates how an ozone nonattainment area 

will make emission reductions of a set amount over a given time period . Section 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA required moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to develop plans to reduce VOC 

emissions by 15 percent over a six year time period beginning with the date of enactment of the 

1990 amendments to the Act, which occurred on November 15, 1990. EPA's Phase 2 rule 

interpreted how this requirement would apply to areas designated as moderate (or higher) 

nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and did so in a number of ways . See 40 CFR 

part 51 subpart X. Of relevance for Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island is what the 

Phase 2 rule required for areas with attainment dates greater than 5 years from designation that 

previously accomplished a 15% reduction in VOC emissions pursuant to one-hour ozone 

nonattainment requirements, as all three of these states meet these criteria. For such areas, the 

13 
Phase 2 rule indicates that RFP will be met if the area can demonstrate a 15% reduction in ozone 

precursor emissions (VOC and/or NOx) will occur between 2002 and 2008 .4 See 40 CFR 

51 .910(b)(2)(ii)(A)-(B) . If the area uses NOx reductions to meet part or all of this requirement, it 

must satisfy EPA guidance concerning the conditions under which NOx control may be 

substituted for, or combined with, VOC control in order to maximize the reduction in ozone 

pollution. The most current such guidance is EPA's December 1993 "NOx Substitution 

Guidance." Therefore, the RFP plans submitted by Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island were evaluated against these criteria. These states prepared RFP plans for each of the 

nonattainment areas shown in Table 1 above . We note that Connecticut's plan for the NY-NJCT area only accounts for emission reductions from within the Connecticut portion of the area. 

As noted above, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island submitted final, adopted 

RFP plans to EPA between January 31 and April 30, 2008. Although the Phase 2 rule required 

that these plans be submitted by June 15, 2007, the states submitted draft plans to EPA shortly 

after the due date, and as discussed in this document the plans meet EPA's approval requirements 

for RFP plans developed to help meet the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Each of these state's RFP plans rely to some degree on NOx emission reductions to 

achieve the overall 15 percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions. Available modeling 

indicates that NOx emission reductions are clearly beneficial in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 

Rhode Island, and so as outlined in EPA's NOx Substitution Guidance, use of NOx emission 

reductions to meet RFP requirements is appropriate . 

4 If the area wishes to use NOx reductions to meet part or all of this 15% requirement, the calculation is not done by 

measuring the overall percent of combined VOC and NOx reductions, but rather by separately calculating the 

percent of VOC reductions and the percent of NOx reductions, and adding those percentages together . 

14 
The manner in which states are to determine the required level of emission reductions is 

similar to the procedure explained in the guidance document entitled, "Guidance on the Adjusted 

Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for the 15% Rate of Progress Plans" (EPA452/R-92-005) . Adjustments to this procedure pertaining to proper accounting of the noncreditable emission reductions from the pre-1990 Federal motor vehicle control program 

(FMVCP) are noted within Appendix A of the Phase 2 rule (70 FR 71696, as corrected by 71 FR 

58498). 

B. What action is EPA taking on these plans? 

We are proposing approval of the RFP plans submitted by Connecticut, Massachusetts, 

and Rhode Island for the moderate nonattainment areas shown in Table 1 above, as revisions to 

these states' implementation plans . Note that regarding the NY-NJ-CT moderate area, we are 

proposing action today only on the Connecticut portion of the RFP plan. 

C. What emission levels must Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island achieve by 2008? 

Tables 3a - 3e below contain a summary of the RFP calculations as performed by 

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for their moderate ozone nonattainment areas. 

Some of the 2002 base year inventory values shown in Step 1 of Tables 3a-3e are slightly higher 

than those shown in Tables 2a-2e due to adjustments each state made to their RFP SIPs to 

account for emissions banking and trading programs. These adjustments are described elsewhere 

in this proposal . The emission target levels are shown in step 6 of Tables 3a-3e. The emission 

targets represent the maximum amount of emissions that can occur in 2008 given the state's 

selected mix of VOC and NOx percent reductions as noted in step 4 of the calculations . The 

15 
RFP plans submitted by Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island indicate that the 

projected, controlled emissions for 2008 shown in Step 7 of Tables 3a - 3e are below the 2008 

emission target levels shown in step 6, with the exception of Rhode Island's VOC emissions. To 

remedy this small shortfall, Rhode Island allocated surplus NOx emissions reductions that were 

available as shown in Table 3e. 

Table 3a. 2008 RFP calculations for the NY-NJ-CT area 

Description VOC Emissions 

(tons/da 

NOx Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year inventory. 335 .3 189.1 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract 209.7 188.4 

biogenics). 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by -4.5 = 205 .2 -11 .7 = 176.7 

subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCPS 

reductions from RFP inventory. 

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of 10%; 20.5 tons 5% ; 8 .8 tons 

VOC and NOx reductions must equal 15 percent) . 

Step S: Calculate total expected reduction (add 4.5 + 20.5 = 24.9 11 .7 + 8 .8 = 20.5 

steps 3 & 4 together). 

Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step 5 209.7 - 24.9 = 184.6 186.3 - 20.4 = 167 .9 , 

from step 2) . 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions 167.6 142 .6 

Table 3b - 2008 RFP calculations for the Greater Connecticut area 

Description VOC Emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOx Emissions ' 

(tons/da 

Step 1 : Calculate 2002 base year inventory. 450.3 147.3 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract 181 .4 146.1 

biogenics). 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by -4.3 = 177.1 -9.3 = 136 .8 

subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP 

reductions from RFP inventory. 

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

creditable towards meeting the 15% emission reduction. 

16 
Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of 

VOC and NOx reductions must equal 15 percent) . 

Step 5: Calculate total expected reduction (add 

steps 3 & 4 together). 

Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step 5 

from step 2). 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions 

10%; 17.7 tons 

4.3 + 17 .7 = 22.0 

181 .4-22.0= 159.4 

, 149 .3 

Table 3c - 2008 RFP calculations for the Bos-Law-Wor area 

5%; 6.8 tons 

9 .3 + 6 .8 = 16.1 

145 .5-16.1=130.0 

107 .1 

Description VOC Emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOx Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year inventory. 1,157 .3 689.0 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract 621 .6 684.6 

biogenics). 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by -15 .3 = 606.3 -45 .2 = 639.4 

subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP 

reductions from RFP inventory. 

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of 3%; 18 .2 tons 12%; 76.7 tons 

VOC and NOx reductions must equal 15 

percent). Step 5: Calculate total expected reduction (add 15 .3 + 18.2 = 33 .5 45 .2 + 76 .7 = 121 .9 

steps 3 & 4 together). 

Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step 5 621 .6 - 33 :5 = 588 .1 684.6 - 121 .9 = 562 .7 

from step 2). 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions 525.7 440 .6 

Table 3d - 2008 RFP calculations'for the Springfield area 

Description VOC Emissions 

(tons/day) 

NOx Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 1 : Calculate 2002 base year inventory. 354.8 114.2 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract 100.2 113 .1 

biogenics). 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by -2.9 = 97.3 -8.5 = 104.6 ' 

subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP 

reductions from RFP inventory. 

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of 3%; 2 .9 tons 12%; 12 .6 tons 

VOC and NOx reductions must equal 15 percent) . 

Step 5: Calculate total expected reduction (add 2.9 + 2.9 = 5 .8 8.5 + 12.6 = 21 .1 

steps 3 & 4 together). 

17 
Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step 5 100 .2 - 5 .8 = 94.4 113.1 - 21 .1 = 92 .0 

from step 2). 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions 84.2 66.9 

Table 3e - 2008 RFP calculations for the Providence area 

Description VOC Emissions 

(tons/da 

NOx Emissions 

(tons/day) 

Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year inventory. 243.4 73 .2 

Step 2: Develop RFP inventory (subtract 119.2 72 .5 

biogenics). 

Step 3: Develop adjusted base year inventory by -5 .5 = 113 .7 . -3 .2 = 69 .3 

subtracting non-creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP 

reductions from RFP inventory. 

Step 4: Calculate required reduction (total of 0% 15% 

VOC and NOx reductions must equal 15 percent) . 

Step S: Calculate total expected reduction (add 5 .5 + 0 = 5.5 3 .2 + 10.4 = 13 .6 

steps 3 & 4 together). 

Step 6: Set target level for 2008 (subtract step S , 119.2 - 5 .5 = 113 .7 72.5- 3 .6 - 1 .1=57.8 

from step 2; also, the Providence area NOx target 

includes additional 1.1 ton reduction to cover 

VOC shortfall) . 

Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008 emissions 115.4 55 .3 

Note that in Tables 3a-3e above, all of the projected, controlled 2008 emission levels 

shown in step 7 are lower than the corresponding 2008 emission target levels shown in step 6, 

with the exception of the Providence area's VOC emissions which are 1 .5% higher than the 2008 

VOC target . In light of this, Rhode Island allocated an additional 1 .5% NOx reduction (which 

translates to 1 .1 tons) to cover this shortfall. Thus, Rhode Island has set its 2008 NOx target to 

57.8 tons/day rather than 58.9 tons/day. In essence, Rhode Island has selected a 16.6% reduction 

in NOx emissions and a 1 .5% increase in VOC emissions, resulting in a combined reduction of 

15 .1%. 
EPA's guidance to states on the development of RFP plans does not directly address the 

situation found in Rhode Island's RFP plan, where surplus reductions for one ozone precursor 

were used to cover an increase in emissions for the other precursor. For example, EPA's Phase 2 

implementation rule provides that moderate areas such as Rhode Island with attainment dates 

more than 5 years from the date of designation, 

" (A) Shall provide for a 15 percent emission reduction from the baseline year within 6 years 

after the baseline year. (B) May use either NOx or VOC emissions reductions (or both) to 

achieve the 15 percent emission reduction requirement. Use of NOx emissions reductions must 

meet the criteria in section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act." 40 CFR 51 .910(b)(2)(ii) . EPA's NOx 

Substitution Guidance, which EPA issued pursuant to section 182(c)(2)(C), does not specifically 

address offsetting an increase in one precursor with surplus reductions from another precursor. 

Thus, we reviewed the facts of this specific case and, as explained below, have determined that 

the submitted plan is consistent with the CAA requirements . 

First, EPA's December, 1993 NOx substitution guidance provides the criteria that must be 

met in order for NOx emission reductions to be used in RFP plans as provided by section 

182(c)(2)(C) of the Act. The guidance directs states to ensure that such substitution is done only 

to the extent that the modeled attainment demonstration for the area indicates that this 

substitution is appropriate. For example, section 2 of the guidance provides that, "This linkage 

provides assurance that the RFP reductions are consistent with the SIP attainment demonstration. 

States are required to justify substitution by illustrating "consistency" between the cumulative 

emission changes emerging from the RFP/substitution proposal and the emission reductions in 

the modeled attainment demonstration." 
Rhode Island worked in conjunction with the other states within the ozone transport . 

region (OTR) to perform the urban airshed modeling that the state included within its attainment 

demonstration, and on development of recommended control strategies to reduce VOC and NOx 

emissions in the Northeast such that the ozone NAAQS would be met by 2009. This modeling 

exercise showed that both VOC and NOx emission reductions would be needed to reach the 

area's attainment goals. The resulting suite of federal and state control measures indicate that 

NOx emission reductions figured prominently in the area's attainment strategy. This is most 

clearly seen by the fact that NOx emissions were projected to decline by a greater extent than 

VOC emissions between the base year and attainment year across the OTR. This illustrates that 

Rhode Island's use of NOx emission reductions within its RFP plan is appropriate. 

Second, the increase in VOC emissions between 2002 and 2008 is an artifact of EPA's 

RFP calculation procedure; the state's actual VOC emissions in 2008 were predicted to be lower 

than they were in 2002. In explanation, as shown in step 2 of table 3e above, Rhode Island's 

2002 anthropogenic VOC emissions were 119.2 tons per summer day (tpsd) . However, EPA's 

RFP calculation procedure requires that emission reductions from the pre-1990 federal motor 

vehicle control program (FMVCP) that will accrue between 2002 and 2008 be subtracted from 

the 2002 anthropogenic baseline because the Act, at section 182(b)(1)(D)(i), provides such 

reductions are not creditable for purposes of meeting RFP requirements . This subtraction is 

shown in step 3 of Table 3e above, and resulted in the 2002 baseline being lowered by 5 .5 tpsd to 

113.7 tpsd. Since no VOC reductions were planned for in the RFP plan, 113 .7 tpsd is also the 

state's target level of emissions for VOCs. As shown in step 7 of Table 3e, Rhode Island's 2008 

VOC emissions were estimated to be 115.4 tpsd . This is higher than the VOC target emission 

level of 113 .7 tpsd by 1 .7 tpsd, but is lower than the state's actual 2002 anthropogenic baseline 

20 
emissions of 119.2 tpsd by 3 .8 tpsd. The preceding comparison is not intended to diminish the 

significance of the Act's prohibition against crediting reductions due to the pre-1990 FMVCP 

towards RFP. Rather, this analysis simply clarifies that this is not a situation where a state 

proposes to rely on a larger-than-15% decrease in NOx emissions to offset an actual increase in 

VOC emissions; rather, here Rhode Island has in fact reduced its VOC emissions from the 

baseline. 

Third, in 2009, Rhode Island adopted and implemented VOC control measures on 

consumer and commercial products and architectural and industrial maintenance coatings . The 

effective date for these two rules was June 4, 2009, and since the RFP plan covers the time 

period between 2003 to 2008 Rhode Island did not factor reductions from these rules into their 

RFP analysis. However, these rules are now in effect and are currently acting to lower VOC 

emissions beyond that shown in the RFP analysis. Thus, while Rhode Island could not take 

credit for these emission reductions as part of the RFP plan for 2003 to 2008, additional 

reductions in VOC emissions have occurred in the state since then. 

Last, but by no means of least importance, Rhode Island is currently in attainment of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, and EPA published a clean data determination for the area on June 

3, 2010 (75 FR 31288) . In addition, on July 28, 2010 (75 FR 44179), EPA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking indicating that this area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by its 

attainment date of June 15, 2010. Thus, our primary basis for approving the RFP plan is to 

approve the 2008 motor vehicle emission budgets contained within the plan as the plan is not 

necessary to ensure that the state makes reasonable further progress towards the 1997 standard it 

has already attained. 
In light of these circumstances, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to propose 

approval of Rhode Island's RFP plan. 

D. To what extent do the RFP plans reduce ozone precursor emissions? 

The Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island RFP plans indicate that ozone 

precursor emissions will be substantially reduced between 2002 and 2008, allowing each state to 

exceed the 15% ozone precursor emission reduction obligation over this time frame. Compared 

to 2002 emission levels, the RFP plans and associated modeling showed that VOC emissions 

were expected to decline by 19% in Connecticut, 16% in Massachusetts, and 3% in Rhode Island 

by 2008. Additionally, NOx emissions were expected to decline by 25% in Connecticut, 37% in 

Massachusetts, and 24% in Rhode Island over this timeframe. These percent reductions include 

reductions from the pre-1990 FMVCP program shown in step 3 of Tables 3a - 3e. 

E. Are banked emissions properly accounted for within these RFP plans? . 

Although the initial RFP plan submittals made by Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island did not account for banked emissions, each state made subsequent amendments to their 

plans that incorporated banked emissions into the RFP analysis. 

Many states operate emissions banking and trading programs. These programs allow 

facilities that agree to permanently cease, or alternatively agree to permanently reduce their 

emissions to levels below allowable levels, to generate emission reduction credits (ERCs) that 

can be sold or traded to other facilities . ERCs are often purchased by facilities seeking emission 

offsets to meet the requirements of the new source review (NSR) program. State air agencies 

facilitate and monitor these transactions by creating and maintaining an emissions bank where 
ERCs are stored until they are purchased. Since ERCs represent emissions that may occur at 

some point in the future, and RFP plans contain both base year and future year emission 

estimates as well as maximum allowable (target level) emissions for the nonattainment area as a 

whole, banked emissions need to be accounted for in a state's RFP analysis. 

On October 14, 2009, Connecticut submitted a revision to the RFP plan which it had 

originally submitted to EPA on February 1, 2008 . The revision consisted of the incorporation of 

a small number of banked NOx ERCs into the state's RFP analysis . The inclusion of the banked 

ERCs into the RFP analysis did not alter the state's conclusion that it easily meets RFP 

requirements . The emission estimates within Tables 3a and 3b above reflect the revised 

calculations contained within Connecticut's October 14, 2009 submittal to EPA. 

On October 23, 2009, Massachusetts submitted a revision to the RFP plan which it had 

originally submitted to EPA on January 31, 2008 . The revision consisted of the incorporation of 

a small amount of banked VOC, and a larger amount of banked NOx ERCs into the state's RFP 

analysis. As with Connecticut, the inclusion of Massachusetts' banked ERCs into the RFP 

analysis did not change the state's conclusion that it readily meets RFP. Tables 3c and 3d above 

contains the revised RFP calculations contained within Massachusetts' October 23, 2009 

submittal. 

On October 19, 2009, Rhode Island submitted a revision to the RFP plan which it had 

submitted to EPA on April 30, 2008 . The revision consisted of the incorporation of banked VOC 

ERCs into the state's RFP analysis. As with the above mentioned submittals from Connecticut 

and Massachusetts, Rhode Island's revised plan continues to show that the state meets its RFP 

emission reduction obligations, and these revised estimates are reflected in Table 3e above. 
F. What are the pollution control programs that accomplish this change in emissions? 

Many post-1990 Federal mobile source control programs which are creditable towards 

meeting RFP took effect between 2002 and 2008, and they are responsible for the bulk of the 

VOC and NOx emission reductions that occurred over this time frame in Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island . For example, within the on-road mobile sector the Federal 

Tier 2 motor vehicle control program and controls for heavy duty diesel vehicles and fuels were 

significant programs that helped to reduce emissions during this period of time. Within the nonroad sector, Federal controls on diesel engines and the Phase 2 standards for gasoline powered 

handheld and non-handheld equipment began, which helped reduce emissions from that sector . 

In addition to Federal measures for mobile source emissions, state-adopted control 

measures also acted to reduce VOC and NOx emissions between 2002 and 2008. In Connecticut, 

state-adopted rules limiting emissions from portable fuel containers, architectural and industrial 

maintenance (AIM) coatings, pressure-vacuum (PV) valves at gasoline service stations, and 

requirements for solvent cleaning fluids were adopted between 2002 and 2008, and will help to 

reduce VOC emissions in the state. The portable fuel container and PV valves at gasoline station 

rules have been approved by EPA into the state's SIP. (See 71 FR 51761). The AIM and solvent 

cleaning rules have not yet been approved by EPA into the State's SIP, but we are proposing 

approval of them in other parts of this document and intend to approve them prior to, or in 

conjunction with, our final rulemaking action on Connecticut's RFP plan. Additionally, in May 

of 2003, Phase 2 of the state's limits for emissions from municipal waste combustors began, and 

this program will reduce NOx emissions from that sector . This program has also been approved 

into the state's SIP . (See 66 FR 63311) . 
Connecticut's NOx budget program began in 2002 and so emission reductions from the 

program are reflected in the state's 2002 base year inventory. Connecticut's Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) rule has taken the place of its NOx budget program beginning in 2009 . On July 11, 

2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an opinion vacating 

and remanding EPA's CAIR rule . See North Carolina vs . EPA, 531 F .3d 896 (D .C . Cir. 2008) . 

However, on December 23, 2008, the court granted rehearing in part and remanded the rule back 

to EPA for revision without vacatur. 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) . Accordingly, CAIR is to 

be implemented as it was originally intended until EPA revises the rule to address the court's 

remand.6 Therefore, the NOx reductions achieved by Connecticut's NOx budget program 

continue as the state has transitioned to its CAIR program. Connecticut's CAIR program was 

approved by EPA on January 24, 2008 (73 FR 4105). 

For the on-road mobile sector, in 2004, Connecticut adopted an enhanced motor vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I&M) program including on-board diagnostics (OBD-2) 

requirements . EPA approved Connecticut's I&M program with OBD-2 requirements into the 

state's SIP on December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74019) . 

Massachusetts claimed emission reduction credit within its RFP plan for the NOx 

emission reductions achieved by the state's NOx SIP Call Trading program, as that program's 

implementation date was in 2003 . Massachusetts submitted its "NOx Allowance Trading 

Program" (also referred to as the NOx Budget or the NOx SIP Call trading program) to EPA as a 

SIP revision request, and EPA approved the rule into the Commonwealth's SIP . Amendments to 

the rule were incorporated into the state's SIP on December 3, 2007. (72 FR 67854) . EPA's 

December 3, 2007 action also approved the Commonwealth's CAIR, which replaced the state's 

6 On August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45210), EPA proposed the Transport Rule to address the flaws in CAIR noted by the 

25 
NOx Budget program beginning in 2009. Therefore, NOx emissions from sources covered by 

the Commonwealth's NOx Allowance trading program will remain constrained after 2008 as the 

state implements its CAIR control program. 

Massachusetts expects to reduce on-road mobile source emissions by its state-run Low 

Emissions Vehicle (LEV) program. Massachusetts submitted the adopted LEV program to EPA, 

and EPA approved it into the state's SIP on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78179). 

At the time Rhode Island developed its RFP SIP, it was in the process of adopting a 

number of control measures for stationary sources of VOC emissions that were set to take effect 

in 2009, and so emission reductions from these measures were not incorporated into the state's 

RFP plan because measures in such plans need to have an impact by 2008 . Rhode Island was not 

required to participate in EPA's CAIR program. Accordingly, Rhode Island's RFP plan shows 

that it meets the 15%-emission reduction obligation by relying exclusively on emission 

reductions between 2002 and 2008 in the mobile source sector . Additionally, the state shows 

that it can meet its obligation by relying only upon NOx emission reductions . These emission 

reductions occur as a result of the post-1990 Federal mobile source control measures, as 

mentioned above, the state's adoption of a motor vehicle I&M Program, and the state-adopted 

Low Emissions Vehicle program . EPA has approved both of these programs into the Rhode 

Island SIP . (See 66 FR 9661, and 65 FR 12476, respectively .) 

G. Is EPA proposing approval of any state control measures in this action? 

We are proposing to approve three VOC control measures from Connecticut, two of 

which were included in the state's February 1, 2008 SIP submittal to EPA. These rules consist of 

Court. 

26 
a solvent metal cleaning rule, an architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings rule, 

and an asphalt paving rule submitted on January 8, 2009. The solvent metal cleaning and AIM 

coatings rules have compliance dates in May of 2008, and so achieve emission reductions that 

help Connecticut demonstrate compliance with its RFP obligation. The asphalt paving rule has a 

May 1, 2009 compliance date and was submitted to help the state demonstrate that it meets the 

Clean Air Act section 182(b)(2) requirement that sources in the state use reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) to control air pollution. We are not proposing action on 

Connecticut's overall RACM or RACT submittals at this time. Additional information about 

each of these rules is provided below. 

Metal cleaning rule. Connecticut's February 1, 2008 SIP submittal to EPA included an 

amendment to its existing SIP approved metal cleaning rule, located at section 22a-174-20 of the 

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies ("Control of organic compound emissions, loading of 

gasoline and other volatile organic compounds"), paragraph (1) ("Metal cleaning"). The amended 

rule adds a limit on the vapor pressure of solvents used in cold cleaning and other requirements 

to further limit emissions of VOCs from metal cleaning operations . These requirements are 

consistent with the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC's) 2001 model rule for solvent 

cleaning . The compliance date for the rule was May 1, 2008. 

AIM coatings rule. Connecticut's February 1, 2008 SIP submittal included a new rule, 

section 22a-174-41 ("Architectural and industrial maintenance coatings"), that limits VOC 

emissions from AIM coatings . The state's rule establishes VOC content limits consistent with 

those developed in 2001 within a model rule created by the OTC. The limits in the state's rule 

27 
are as stringent as, or more stringent than, those contained in the Federal AIM rule adopted by 

EPA in December 1998 (40 CFR part 59, subpart D). The compliance date for most of the 

regulated product categories was May 1, 2008 . EPA notes that we are relying on the federal 

enforceability of section (g)(3)(A)(iii) referenced in that section of the rule . 

Asphalt paving rule. On January 8, 2009, Connecticut submitted an amendment to its 

existing SIP-approved section 22a-174-20 ("Control of organic compound emissions, loading of 

gasoline and other volatile organic compounds"), paragraph (k) ("Restrictions on VOC emissions 

from cutback and emulsified asphalt"). The amended regulation includes a seasonal ban on the 

use of cutback asphalt and a reduction in the acceptable VOC content of emulsified asphalt. The 

compliance date for the rule was May 1, 2009. 

Connecticut held a public hearing on the first two rules mentioned above on June 27, 

2006, and held a hearing on the asphalt paving rule on May 1, 2007. EPA reviewed draft 

versions of these rules and provided comments to Connecticut during the public hearing process, 

and Connecticut responded adequately to our comments. We are proposing approval of 

Connecticut's revised solvent metal cleaning and asphalt paving rules, and its new AIM coatings 

rule, so that they may become part of the state's federally enforceable SIP. 

H. Have these states met their contingency measure obligation? 

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires, in part, that nonattainment areas provide for 

contingency measures "to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or 

to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under 

28 
this part." EPA has long interpreted the Act to require that contingency measures must provide 

reductions of 3 percent of the emissions from the adjusted base year inventory (57 FR 13498, 

13510-13511). States may choose to meet this requirement by consuming surplus emission 

reductions shown in their RFP target level calculations, if a surplus exists . However, pursuant to 

a guidance memorandum issued by EPA on November 8, 1993,7 any measures that are already 

required are not creditable as contingency measures . Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island each chose to meet the contingency obligation using surplus emission reductions as noted 

in the target level calculations . 

Connecticut and Massachusetts can both readily show that ample surplus emission 

reductions exist, and that they have implemented controls not otherwise required . In 

Connecticut's case, 2008 VOC emissions are projected to be 5 .7% lower than the target, and 

NOx emissions 16.5% lower than the target in the Greater Connecticut area. For the Connecticut 

portion of the NY-NJ-CT area, these surpluses are 8 .3% for VOC, and 14.5% for NOx. 

Connecticut has adopted a number of rules that are not otherwise required by the CAA that it 

could count towards its contingency obligation, such as its AIM coatings, automobile refinishing, 

and solvent cleaning rules. For Massachusetts, 2008 VOC emissions are projected to be 10 .6% 

lower than the target, and NOx emissions 22.6% lower in the Eastern Massachusetts area. For 

the Western Massachusetts area, these surpluses are 10 .8% for VOC, and 27.6% for NOx. The 

state's low emission vehicle program, which achieves both VOC and NOx emission reductions, 

is an example of a rule the state adopted that was not otherwise required by the CAA. 

7 "Clarification of Issues Regarding the Contingency Measures that are due November 15, 1993 for Moderate and 

Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas." 

29 
Rhode Island projects that it will have a 3 .6% NOx surplus that it claims can be devoted 

towards meeting the RFP contingency requirement. Given the state's reliance on Federal 

measures to reduce emissions between 2002 and 2008, the state has not demonstrated that it can 

meet the contingency requirement via reductions from already-adopted NOx rules not otherwise 

required by the CAA. However, Rhode Island could remedy this by relying on the additional 

VOC control programs for stationary sources that it adopted in 2009, which included rules 

establishing emission limits for consumer and commercial products, and on architectural and 

industrial maintenance coatings . A public hearing on these proposed rules was held on February 

20, 2009, and they were promulgated as final state regulations May 15, 2009, with an effective 

date of June 4, 2009. Rhode Island submitted these regulations to EPA as SIP revisions, but EPA 

has not yet approved into the Rhode Island SIP. Section 8 .3 of Rhode Island's attainment 

demonstration submittal alludes to the possibility of using reductions from these measures as an 

alternative means of meeting the RFP contingency obligation. We are therefore proposing to 

approve use of emission reductions from these stationary source measures (which, as noted 

above, have taken effect under state law but have not yet been approved into Rhode Island's SIP) 

as meeting the state's contingency plan requirement. Section 8 .3 of Rhode Island's attainment 

demonstration submittal stated that reductions from these regulations were expected to reduce 

VOC emissions by 2009 by 5.0 tons/day . This would cover the 3% contingency obligation, as 

3% of the state's 2002 RFP inventory for VOCs, which is 119.2 tons/day, equals 3.6 tons/day . 

EPA would need to approve these two rules into Rhode Island's SIP prior to, or in conjunction 

with, our taking final action on the state's RFP plan. 

I. Are transportation conformity budgets contained in these plans? 

30 
Section 176(c) of the CAA, and EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 

subpart A, require that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality 

implementation plans. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not cause or 

contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS. States are required to establish motor vehicle emission budgets in any control 

strategy SIP that is submitted for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The RFP plans 

submitted by Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are control strategy SIPs, and they 

contain 2008 motor vehicle budgets for VOCs and NOx by nonattainment area. Table 4 contains 

these VOC and NOx transportation conformity budgets in units of tons per summer day: 

Table 4 . Conformity budgets in the Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island RFP plans 

Area name 2008 Transportation Conformity Budgets 

(tons/da 

VOC NOx 

NY-NJ-CT area CT portion) 29.7 60.5 

Greater Connecticut 28 .5 54.3 

Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA area 68.30 191 .30 

Springfield W. MA area 11 .80 31 .30 

Providence 24.64 28 .26 

EPA issued letters on June 2, 2008 to Connecticut, March 7, 2008 to Massachusetts, and 

June 16, 2008 to Rhode Island in which we stated these budgets were adequate for use in 

transportation conformity determinations . Additionally, EPA published announcements of these 

adequacy findings in the Federal Register on June 12, 2008 for Connecticut (73 FR 33428), 

March 18, 2008 for Massachusetts (73 FR 14466), and June 30, 2008 for Rhode Island (36862). 

In today's action, we are proposing approval of the 2008 conformity budgets for VOC and NOx 

for the areas shown in Table 4 above. 

31 
Connecticut and Rhode Island increased their projected 2008 motor vehicle emission 

estimates slightly to provide a buffer to their transportation conformity budgets. Connecticut 

increased its 2008 motor vehicle emission estimates by 2 percent, and Rhode Island by 0 .5 

tons/day . Doing so made meeting the 2008 RFP emission target slightly more difficult to 

achieve. However, both of these states were able to meet their respective RFP targets even after 

increasing their projected 2008 motor vehicle emission estimates. These increases are reflected 

in the budgets shown above in Table 4, and were also used in the projected, controlled 2008 

emission estimates shown in step 7 of Tables 3 a, b, and e. The Connecticut and Rhode Island 

2008 motor vehicle conformity budgets are approvable because these states were able to show 

that they can meet their 2008 RFP emission target levels even after providing these buffers to 

their budgets . . 

IV. PROPOSED ACTION: EPA's review indicates that the 2002 base year emission 

inventories, RFP plans, transportation conformity budgets, and contingency plans submitted by 

Connecticut on February 1, 2008, Massachusetts on January 31, 2008, and Rhode Island on April 

30, 2008 to meet, in part, their obligations under EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone standard meet the, 

requirements for these programs. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve these listed 

components of the state's submittals as revisions to each state's SIP. Additionally, EPA is 

proposing approval of three rules adopted by Connecticut that will reduce VOC emissions in the 

state. It should be noted that each states' submittal also included other SIP elements, most 

notably attainment demonstrations for EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone standard, but EPA is not acting 

on those other components at this time. Additional details regarding the state's submittals and 

EPA's review of these submittals is contained in the technical support document (TSD) prepared 

32 
for this action. The TSD is available in the docket for this action . EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in this proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final action . Interested parties may participate in the Federal 

rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Reiaister. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that 

complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a) . Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action : 

" is not a "significant regulatory action" subject to review by the Office of Management and 

Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

" does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S .C. 3501 et seq.) ; 

" is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) ; 

" does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 

104-4) ; 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island ; 

Reasonable Further Progress Plans and 2002 Base Year Emission Inventories Pg. 34 of 34 

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 

43255, August 10, 1999) ; 

" is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject 

to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

" is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001); 

" is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S .C. 272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and 

" does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally 

permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) . 

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

~l9l~b ~ w ~ 

Dated: H . Curt Spalding 

Regional Administrator, 

EPA New England.