# Response to Comments

Proposed Rule: Rescission of Determination
of Attainment and Call for Attainment Plans for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut
for the 1997 8

- Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for the NY

- NJ

- CT
199 7 Ozone Nonattainment Area

April 8 , 201 61 

## Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 2

2.0 Comments Received

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6

Supported proposed action

................................ ................................ .................. 6 Opposed to proposed action

................................ ................................ ................ 6 Reclassification of area to the next highest classification

................................ .. 9 Expedite attainment

................................ ................................ .......................... 10 Applicab ility to 2008 ozone NAAQS

................................ ............................... 11 Transport related comments

................................ ................................ .............. 12 Attainment Planning Requirements

................................ ................................ .. 22

Table 1. Explanation of Acronyms and Frequently Used Abbreviations Acronym Long Name
CAA C lean A ir A ct
CDD Clean Data Determination
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSAPR Cross State Air Pollution Rule

DV Design Value
EGU Electric Generating Unit

EIIP Emission Inv entory Improvement Program
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FR Federal Register

HEDD High Energy Demand Days
I/M Inspection and maintenance

MVEB Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO x Nitrogen Oxides

PPB Parts per Billion

PPM Parts per Million
RACM Reasonably Available Control Measures
RACT Reasonably Available Control Technology

RFP Reasonable Further Progress
ROP Rate of Progress
SIP State Implementation Plan2



## 1.0 Introduction

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), the EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm)

. The New York

- N. New Jersey

- Long Island, NY

- NJ

- CT 1997 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area (hereaft er, the NY

- NJ

- CT area or the NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area) was designated a moderate ozone nonattainment area and is composed of: Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and
Warren Counties in New Jer sey; Bronx, Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties in New York; and Fairfield, Middlesex, and New
Haven Counties in Connecticut. See 40 CFR 81.307, 81.331, and 81.333. Also, on April 30, 2004 ( See 69 FR 23951 ), the EPA promulgated the Phase 1, 8

- hour ozone implementation rule which provided how areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard would be
classified. These designations triggered the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements under

se ction 182(b) for moderate nonattainment areas, including a requirement to submit an
attainment demonstration. T he EPA 's Phase 2 ozone implementation rule for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard, published on November 29, 2005 ( See 70 FR 71612) (Phase 2 Rule), s pecifies that states must submit attainment demonstrations for their nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later than three years from the effective date of designation, that is, by June 15, 2007 ( See 40 CFR 51.908(a)). All three states comprising portions of the NY

- NJ

- CT area timely submitted the required attainment demonstration for the area. On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to a level of 0.075 ppm to provide increased protection of public health and the environment. T he 2008 ozone NAAQS retain the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but are set at a more protective level. State and Federal emission reduction efforts adopted to meet the 1997
8

- hour ozone standard will continue with im plementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In addition, on May 21, 2012 ( See 77 FR 30088), effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated as nonattainment any area that was violating the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS based on the three most recent years of air quality d ata. The NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area was designated as a marginal ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 1 The boundaries for the 2008
ozone nonattainment area are identical to the 1997 ozone nonattainment area. As a result of its “marginal” cla ssification, the area is required to attain the 2008 ozone standard by July 20, 2015 2

1 See 40 CFR 81.307. 81.331, and 81.333.

2 The EPA originally established the attainment deadline to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS to be December 31, 2015 ( See 7 7 FR 30167, May 21, 2012) , but p ursuant to a challenge of the EPA’s interpretation of the attainment deadlines, on December 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision rejecting, among other things, the Classifications Rule’s attainment deadlines for the
2008 ozone nonattainment areas, finding that the EPA did not have statutory authority under the
CAA to extend those deadlines to the end of the calendar year. NRDC v. EPA

, 777 F.3d 456,3

but is not required to submit an attainment demonstration for the 2008 ozone standard. Furthermore, on November 25, 2014

, 3 the EPA again proposed to revise the ozone NAAQ S. The
EPA has finalized th e 2015 ozone NAAQS standard in the Federal Register

, 4 but has n either proposed n or finalized designations or implementation regulations for this standard. In the 2008 ozone NAAQS State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements : Final Rule, 5

the EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes and established anti

- backsliding requirements for that NAAQS. The EPA retained a listing of the designated areas for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR Part 81, for the sole purpose of identifying anti

- backsliding requirements that may apply to the areas. A ccordingly, in an area designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the time of revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as is the case wi th multi

- state NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area, the

state s will be obligated to implement the applicable requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.1100(o).
As such, the complete list of applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.1100(o) is: (1) RACT; (2) Vehicle I/M progr ams; (3) Major source applicability cut

- offs for purposes of RACT; (4) ROP
and/or RFP reductions; (5) the Clean fuels fleet program under CAA section 183(c)(4) of the CAA; (6) Clean fuels for boilers under section 182(e)(3) of the CAA; (7) Transportation c ontrol measures during heavy traffic hours as provided under section 182(e)(4) of the CAA; (8) Enhanced (ambient) monitoring under section 182(c)(1) of the CAA; (9) Transportation controls
under section 182(c)(5) of the CAA; (10) Vehicle miles traveled pro visions under section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA; (11) NO x requirements under section 182(f) of the CAA; (12) Attainment demonstrations; (13) Nonattainment contingency measures; (14) Nonattainment NSR major source thresholds and offset ratios; 6 (15) CAA section 185 requirements for Severe and
Extreme areas for failure to attain; (16) RACM; and (17) Contingency measures for SIPs invoking section 182(e)(5) of the CAA.

On June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36163), the EPA issued a clean data determination (CDD) for

464

– 69 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, as part of the final 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule ( See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015), the EPA modified the maximum
attainment dates for all nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, consistent with the
court’s decision. As relevant here, the SIP Requirements Rule established a maximum deadline for Marginal nonattainment areas of 3 years from the effective date of designation, or July 20, 2015, to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR at 12268; 40 CFR 51.1103.

3 See 79 FR 75234, (December 17, 2014), “National Ambient Air Qual ity Standards for Ozone: Proposed Rule.”

4 See 80 FR 65292, (October 26, 2015), “National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Final Rule.” Additionally, in this rule, the EPA changed the beginning of ozone monitoring

seasons.

5 See 80 F R 12296, (March 6, 2015).

6 It should be noted that replacement of nonattainment NSR SIP provisions with PSD upon successful redesignation to attainment does not relieve sources of their obligations under previously established permit conditions

.4

the NY

- NJ

- CT area with respect to the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard. On May 15, 2014 (79 FR
27830 ), the EPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing to rescind this CDD and proposing a SIP Call for submittal of a new ozone attainment demons tration for the NY

- NJ

CT area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The EPA also proposed that states could opt to respond to
the SIP Call for a new 1997 ozone NAAQS attainment demonstration by requesting a voluntary reclassification, or “bump

- up,” to M oderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and in turn to submit an attainment demonstration for that more stringent standard. We requested public comments on this proposal and the comment period ended June 14, 2014. The EPA received a number of
comments that can be accessed throu gh the EPA’s docket website at www.regulations.gov

. The
official docket for the May 15, 2014 proposal is identified by Docket ID number EPA

- R02

- OAR

- 2014

- 0251. The comments we received in response to the May 15, 2014, proposal (79 FR 27830) to rescind the CDD for the NY

- NJ

- CT 1997 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area and the accompanying SIP Call for attainment plans are summarized in detail with accompanying responses in this document. It is important to note that b ef ore taking final action on the rescission of the CDD for the
NY

- NJ

- CT area, the EPA issued a proposal on August 27, 2015 (80 FR 51992) to determine

, among other things, that the NY

- NJ

- CT area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainme nt deadline of July 20, 2015. The EPA also determined that the area was not eligible for a 1

- year attainment date extension because the 4 th highest daily maximum 8

- hour average for at least one monitor in the area was greater than 0.075 ppm for 2014, the y ear preceding the attainment year. We indicated in the August 27, 2015 proposal that if we finalized

our action finding that the area had failed to attain and reclassified the area as Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut would be required to submit a Moderate area attainment demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the SIP submission date
established under that action. We noted that the states’ submissions of adequate SIPs demonstrating attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS would also serve to satisfy a final SIP Call under CAA section 110(k)(5) for new demonstrations showing how the area would attain the less stringent 1997 ozone NAAQS

. 7 We also noted that either of our proposed 2008 ozone SIP
revision due dates would meet the statutory timeframe permitted for a response to a SIP Call f or the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the area identified in the May 2014 proposal

. We solicited but did not receive comments on our August 27, 2015 proposal about our statement that submitting an
attain ment plan for the 2008 ozone standard could satisfy a final SIP Call on the 1997 ozone
standard. The official docket for this August 2015 proposal is identified by Docket ID number
EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2015

- 0468 and can be accessed through the www.regulations.gov website.
In EPA’s final rule associated with our August 2015 proposed actions , with regard to the
NY

- NJ

- CT area, we are finalizing a determination of failure the area to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date

, and the area is being reclassified to Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We are therefore establishing that the respective states must submit a revision to their
SIP addressing the CAA’s pollution control requirements for a Moderate ozone nonattainment

area by January 1, 2017

. We are also finalizing the rescission of the CDD for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the accompanying SIP Call

. The SIP Call finds that the SIPs for New Jersey, New

7 See 80 FR 51992 (August 27, 2015).5

York, and Connecticut are substantially inadequate for demo nstrating attainment of the 1997 standard and thus requires New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut to submit new plans. In the agency’s August 27, 2015, proposal regarding determinations of attainment of the 2008 Marginal o zone areas, the EPA discussed how its proposed actions affected the May 2014 proposed options for responding to a SIP Call for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the proposed option to permit the relevant states to respond to the final SIP Call by requesting
reclassification to Mo derate for the 2008 ozone standard [ see CAA section 181(b)(3)] would consequently require that the states submit SIPs demonstrating how they would attain the more stringent 2008 standard as expeditiously as practicable. We explicitly noted in the August 20 15 proposal that

, if we were to finalize the determination that the NY

- NJ

- CT area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area attainment date, the area would be rec lassified by operation of law, and t hus effectively eliminating the need for the three states to voluntarily request reclassification. The area would then be subject to Moderate nonattainment area plan ning requirements, and the subsequent submission of Moderate area attainment plans for the 2008 ozone standard would necessarily sat isfy a final SIP Call for the NY

- NJ

- CT area on the 1997 ozone standard, because an approvable plan would demonstrate attainment of a more stringent NAAQS. We also noted that either of the proposed 2008 ozone attainment plan due dates would
meet the statuto ry timeframe for the SIP revision due subsequent to a SIP Call for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the area.
Included in this document are summaries of the comments received on the May 15, 2014 proposed rule and the EPA’s responses. Comments are arranged consist ent with the relevant sections of the proposed rule.

Table 2 . List of Commenters and Associated Docket Numbers
Docket Number Commenter Name

EPA

- R02

- OAR

- 2014

- 0251

- 0002 Anonymous Commenter

EPA

- R02

- OAR

- 2014

- 0251

- 0003 Robert J. Klee, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Hartford,
C onnecticut

EPA

- R02

- OAR

- 2014

- 0251

- 0004 Roger Caiazza, Director, Environmental Energy Alliance of New York, Albany, New York

EPA

- R02

- OAR

- 2014

- 0251

- 0005 Jane Korzinski, Esq., Assistant Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey

EPA

- R02

- OAR

- 2014

- 0251

- 0006 Andrea Schmitz, Vice President, Environment, Health and Safety, Consolidated Edison Company of New York
Incor porated, New York, New York

EPA

- R02

- OAR

- 2014

- 0251

- 0007 Haley Stein, Senior Counsel, Environmental Law Division, New York City Law Department, New York, New York

EPA

- R02

- OAR

- 2014

- 0251

- 0008 Joseph J. Martens, Commissioner, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New
York

EPA

- R02

- OAR

- 2014

- 0251

- 000 9 Seth L. Johnson, Attorney , Earthjustice, Washington, D.C.6



## 2.0 Comments Received

Supported proposed action

Comment : C ommenter (0004) supported the EPA ’s proposal to rescind the CDD and to reinstate the CAA requirements that will bring the NY

- NJ

- CT area into attainment with the 1997
ozone standard. The commenter pointed out that design values (DV) for the NY

- NJ

- CT area in 2012 ( 0.0 87 parts per million

- ppm) and 2013 ( 0.0 89 ppm) ex ceeded the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standard of 0.0 84 ppm. Response : The EPA is finalizing the rescission of the CDD and issuing a SIP Call under CAA section 110(k)(5)

.

Comment : Commenter (0009 ) urge d the EPA to require New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to move swiftly to clean up their air. The commenter argued that the EPA has no authority to allow the states to delay submission of the plans affected by the CDD and 19 months is too long. The commenter further argued that the EPA provide d no reason for delaying the
effective date of the SIP Call by 30 days. The commenter contended that t here is no reason to give the states 30 days to “adjust their behavior and prepare” to make plans that the EPA

proposes will be due a year and half later. The commenter also contended that t here isn’t a reasoned basis for allowing a full 18 months for submission of the requisite plans and for the corresponding SIP Call

. An 18

- month time frame is irrational because none of the 3 affected states will be working off a blank slate. Response : The EPA proposed the SIP Call pursuant to section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. The provisions of 110(k)(5) state: “The Administrator shall notify the State of the inadequacies, and may establish reasonable deadlines (not to exceed 18 months after the date of such notice) for the submission of such plan revisions

. ” The EPA is finalizing the requirement that states
must submit a Moderate area SIP demonstrating attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for this

area as expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1, 2017, which is less than 9 months from the date of signature of the final notice. It will be necessary for the states to develo p revised attainment demonstration s and, if necessary, ide ntify, develop, propose and adopt additional local control strategies that would achieve emissions reductions towards attainment of the more stringent 2008 standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than July 20, 2018. In doing so, the EPA expec ts that the states’ attainment plan submittal should satisfy the SIP Call for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as long as it meets the attainment planning requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.



### Opposed to proposed action

Comment : Commenter (000 9 ) conten d ed that the clean data rule allows for suspension of planning requirements only for so long as the area remains in attainment. The commenter stated, “There is no provision in that rule for EPA to promote further delay by engaging in a SIP Call process after the area h as fallen back into violation of the standard, and such an approach unlawfully flouts the Act’s express deadlines for nonattainment area plans and timely attainment, as set out in Subpart 2 of Part D. Temporary attainment of the standard does not allow EPA to7

abandon those deadlines and related requirements. States that choose to suspend planning requirements based on temporary attainment do so at their own risk: The Act does not allow them to evade Subpart 2’s deadlines if they fall back into nonattainment .” Response : We disagree with the commenter that a SIP Call under CAA section 110(k)(5) is inappropriate here. The EPA approved the New York and New Jersey 1997 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration plans on February 11, 2013 (78 FR 9596). The EPA proposed , but has not finalized, approval of the Connecticut ozone attainment plan for the NY

- NJ

- CT area. See 78 FR 27161; May 9, 2013. As shown by the recent violations of the standard, the states’ implementation plans are substantially inadequate to attain the N AAQS, and as such, the Administrator is thus requiring the states to revise the ir plans to correct the inadequacies. The

new SIP submissions must demonstrate attainment by a new expeditious attainment date and

may need to include additional control measure s that would require the states to go through the formal administrative process required for a SIP revision , including public review and comment

.

Comment : Commenter (0005) ask ed that the EPA forgo action on the proposed SIP Call
and focus its and the stat es’ resources on implementation of the 2008 ozone standard and ozone transport. Another commenter believed that t he SIP Call is not necessary and is a burden on state resources. The EPA should focus its efforts on the implementation of the 0.0 75 ppm ozone
standard and not the 0.0 85 pp m 8 SIP Call. Response : The EPA does not disagree with the commenter that focusing attention on addressing the more stringent 2008 standard would preserve resources and also simultaneously address the less stringent 1997 standar d. That is why in the proposed rescission of the CDD and proposed SIP Call, the EPA provided states the opportunity to voluntarily reclassify for purposes of the 2008 ozone standard and to begin working on Moderate area plans to meet that more stringent st andard as a way to also address attainment of the 1997 standard. Today, we are finalizing our determination that the NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area failed to attain the 2008 standard by its Marginal attainment date of July 20, 2015, and we are reclassifying the area to Moderate by operation of law in accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2)(A). By simultaneous ly resci nding the CDD for this area for the 1997 standard and issuing a final SIP Call , the EPA anticipates that New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York may respond to the SIP Call by submitting their Moderate area plans for the 2008 ozone NAAQS by
the due date of January 1, 2017

. The EPA is focusing on both ozone transport and on planning for attainment of the 2008 ozone standard, as well as ensuring that the NY

- NJ

- CT area has an adequate attainment
demonstration that will achieve expeditious attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As explained in more detail below, the EPA recognizes that ozone transport is a problem for the NY

- NJ

- CT area, and the Agency has take n significant steps towards addressing ozone transport and the statutory obligations of states upwind of the NY

- NJ

- CT area that contribute to the nonattainment problem in that area. However, such action does not preclude or absolve the Agency of also

8 The 1997 ozone 8

- hour NAAQS standard was 0.08 ppm. The commenter represented the standard as 0.085 ppm.8

fulfi lling the statutory and regulatory requirement to ensure that New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have adequate state implementation plans that address how attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS will be achieved.

Comment : Two c ommenter s (000 4 & 0005 ) claim ed that the NY

- NJ

- CT area will attain
the old 0.0 85 ppm standard by 2018 or sooner without the SIP Call. A dditionally, the

commenter s maintained that the p roposed SIP Call is not needed because ozone levels in the area
will be well below the old 0.0 85 ppm ozone standard due to emission reductions requirements already in the pipeline, which will be implemented well ahead of any new control measures resulting from the SIP Call

. Response : The EPA has determined that the NY

- NJ

- CT area has violated the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS based on complete, quality

- assured air monitoring data. Pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 51. 11 18, the area no longer qualifies for SIP planning requirements to be suspended. Those previously suspended provisions require the states with jurisdiction over the nonattainment area to submit SIPs that will provide for attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS as “expeditiously as practicable.” Notwithstanding the revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, the requirement to have a SIP containing an adequate attainment demonstration remains an “applicable requirement” for the NY

- NJ

- CT area for anti

- backsliding purposes. Analysis indicating that the area will eventually attain in 2018 or even sooner does not abrogate
the EPA ’s obligation to issue a SIP Call under section 110(k)(5) for a new attainment plan that will demonstrate attainment of the 1997 standard as expeditiously as practicable. In response to the second comment, it may be true that the area ozone levels may eventually fall below 0.085 p pm due to controls already planned

, but without a demonstration the
EPA has no assurance this will occur. The CAA requires an attainment demonstration that shows
that the area will attain expeditiously, and the Act requires that states identify the specifi c , federally enforceable measures that will cause this to occur (CAA 110(a)(2)(A)) . Those measures may include those already in the pipeline if they account for emissions reductions
accounted for in the attainment demonstration for the area.

Comment : Comm enter s (000 4) stated that the EPA should withdraw the SIP Call as it is premature to require additional state action given the EPA expects the area to attain the 0.0 75 ppm standard by 2015. Another commenter (0008) believed t he proposed SIP Call should be withdrawn because it is contrary to the President’s initiative for “common sense” regulation and

to the EPA ’s desire to streamline the SIP process. Response : The EPA disagrees with th e s e comment s

. Air quality data from 2012

- 2 014
indicate that the area did not attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date of July 20

, 2015. Based on the certified 2012

- 2014 air quality data, the DV was 0.085 ppm and the 2014 4 th highest daily maximum 8

- hour average was 0.081 ppm

. The area d i d not meet the 0.075 pm
standard. Moreover, even if EPA had data indicating that the area had attain ed the 2008 standard by the attainment deadline, we would still be statutorily obligated to issue the SIP Call to address the inadequacy of the 1997 attainm ent plan

. In response to the second comment, w hile the President’s initiative for “common sense” regulation and the EPA ’s desire to streamline the SIP process are important goals, they cannot justify the EPA not performing its legal obligation to implement and enforce the CAA. Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA requires that when the EPA finds the applicable implementation plan is9

substantially inadequate to attain or maintain a standard, the Administrator shall require the state to revise the SIP as necessary to correct such inadequacies. As codified in 40 CFR 51.1110(o), this obligation endures for anti

- backsliding purposes even after a standard is revoked.

Comment : C ommenter (0003 & 0005) believed that t he SIP Call is not the appropriate mechanism to address what is a larger regional ozone transport problem. The commenter s maintained that a mere three

- state SIP Call is the wrong solution to address ozone nonattainment and stipulated that the EPA must address oz one transport on a regional level. Response : Addressing emissions from within nonattainment areas and addressing regionally transported emissions are not mutually exclusive endeavors. The EPA has and will continue to take steps to address regional ozone tr ansport. These efforts do not preclude the EPA from also implementing the CAA’s requirements , even for revoked standards, with regard to
local emissions from within the nonattainment area. As stated above, given that the NY

- NJ

- CT area is no longer attainin g the 1997 standard, the EPA finds that the state implementation plan s designed to achieve expeditious attainment for the area are substantially inadequate and must be
revised.



### Reclassification of area to the next highest classification

Comment : Comment er (000 6 ) maintained that the EPA must bump the NY

- NJ

- CT area up to severe for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The commenter stated the following: “Subpart 2 makes clear that if a nonattainment area fails to bring its ozone pollution levels into compliance
with the NAAQS by the relevant attainment deadline, the area must be bumped up to a stricter nonattainment classification.” The commenter claimed that b y not bumping up the NY

- NJ

- CT

area, the EPA takes the position that it has discretion to allow a nonattainment area that temporarily attains, without ever being redesignated, to escape the one

- way path that Subpart 2 sets up. Response : On June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36163), the EPA determined that the NY

- NJ

- CT area attained the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment date , June 15, 2010, based on complete, quality

- assured and certified ozone monitoring data for 2007

– 2009. CAA section 181(b)(2) mandates that “any area that the Administrat or finds has not attained the
standard by that date shall be reclassified by operation of law” (emphasis added). In this case, the area attained the relevant standard by its attainment date and therefore the EPA interprets the CAA to requir e the agency to address the area’s subsequent nonattainment through revisions of
the SIP

, but not a bump up to the higher classification. Furthermore, the regulations implementing the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS standard and
the more recent 2008 ozone SIP R equirements R ule bo th clearly state that EPA does not make findings of failure to attain by the attainment date or reclassifications for revoked standards. See10

40 CFR 51.1105(d)(2)(ii). 9 As the 1997 ozone standard is now revoked, under the terms of its regulations , the EPA c annot reclassify the NY

- NJ

- CT area for that standard.



### Expedite attainment

Comment : C ommenter (0003) asked h ow one state may determine the da te for “expeditious” attainment when that state is conjoined with other state in a multi

- state nonattainment area, i.e., NY

- NJ

- CT. Response : According to CAA section 181(a)(1), as interpreted by EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.1103, M oderate ozone nonattainme nt areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are required to attain the standard ‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but no later than 6 years after the designation effective date of July 20, 2012 ( i.e., no later than July 20, 201 8 ). However, because
even multi

- state nonattainment areas are treated as a single entity with one attainment date that applies to it , CAA s ection 182(j)(1)(A) directs states to “take all reasonable steps to coordinate, substantively and procedurally, the revisions and implementation of [SIPs] applicable to the nonattainment area concerned.” The EPA acknowledges that it will take some time for the three states to develop an ozone attainment plan and adopt new control measures, if needed. T he EPA

encourages the states to work together in a coo rdinated manner when working toward attainment.

Comment : Commenter (000 9 ) advocated that the EPA must require the states to show attainment at the earliest possible date using all available controls. The commenter believed that

s imply updating SIPs to sh ow how the NY

- NJ

- CT area will re

- attain the 1997 NAAQS is not enough as the EPA calls for the plans to achieve attainment “as expeditiously as practicable.” Response : The EPA is finalizing the requirement that states must submit SIP s addressing the Moder ate area requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the NY

- NJ

- CT area as expeditiously as practicable but no later than January 1, 2017, which is less than 9 months from the date of signature of the final notice. It will be necessary for the states to devel o p revised
attainment demonstration s and, if necessary, identify, develop, propose and adopt additional local control strategies that would achieve emissions reductions towards attainment of the 2008 standard as expeditiously as practicable

, but no later t han July 20, 2018. Given that these control measures are required to be in place by early 2017, the EPA believes that the control strategy that expeditiously achieve s attainment of the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS will simultaneously satisfy similar requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS

.

9 As of April 6, 2015, the EPA is no longer obligated to reclassify an area to a higher
classification for the 1997 oz one NAAQS based upon a determination that the area failed to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the area's attainment date for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. And in any case, the NY

- NJ

- CT area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the original applicable
attainment date.11



### Applicability to 2008 ozone NAAQS

Comment : Commenter (000 9 ) believed that the area is legally obligated to come into attainment with the stricter 2008 NAAQS no later than 2015, therefore the EPA cannot allow the states more time than that to come into attainment with the less protective 1997 NAAQS. Response : Given that the EPA is finalizing its determination that the NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area failed to attain the 2008 standard by its Marginal a ttainment date of July 20, 2015, and must be reclassified to Moderate by operation of law in accordance with CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) , the area’s new outside attainment date for the 2008 standard is July 20, 2018

. The EPA is also finalizing the SIP Call th at was proposed on May 15, 2014, to which the commenter is referring. However, at the time that the EPA proposed the SIP Call, it proposed to provide states with 18 months to submit a plan demonstrating attainment of the 1997 standard. Given the
intervenin g events, and the fact that the states must now submit plans demonstrating attainment and the associated controls that will achieve attainment by January 1, 2017 , the response time
under the SIP Call for this final action is far more abbreviated than what was proposed. The states will have less than one year to assess what controls are needed to achieve the tighter 2008
standards , and thus necessarily to also achieve the less stringent 1997 standard, and to implement
those controls. The EPA does not believe a more expeditious schedule than that would be
feasible.

Comment : Commenter (000 9 ) stated that w ith respect to the voluntary reclassification option (without any legal analysis), the EPA announce d that it will only grant a voluntary bump

up if all three states request it. The commenter further supposed that the CAA doesn’t require
that all states in a multi

- state nonattainment area request a voluntary bump up. The commenter
believed instead that se ction 181(b)(3) of the CAA makes it clear that if any state requests
reclassification of its sole portion in a multi

- state nonattainment area, the EPA shall grant the request for that state’s portion

. The commenter pointed out that the NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainme nt area encompasses New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The commenter concludes that even if a voluntary bump up request by one state could not trigger bump up of the entire multi

- state nonattainment area.
The commenter believed that the EPA’s unexplaine d position that all three states must request a bump

- up for the entire NY

- NJ

- CT area is inconsistent as it only requires that the three states move in lockstep for the voluntary bump

- up option; for the other two options, the EPA does not express any positi on on whether all three states must follow the same course. Response : First, as the option for requesting voluntary reclassification is no longer available, this comment is no longer germane to the situation of the NY

- NJ

- CT area. However, as a general matt er, t he EPA disagrees with the commenter that the CAA does not require all
states in which a multi

- state nonattainment area resides to collectively agree to voluntarily reclassify the area. Where section 181(b)(3) states that “the Administrator shall grant the request of any State to reclassify a nonattainment area in that State . . . to a higher classification” (emphasis added), the EPA interprets the provision to mean that a multi

- state nonattainment area
is not in one single state, and therefore every st ate with jurisdiction over the area must make the request to reclassify. Contrary to the commenter’s suggestion, the EPA also does not believe that the “plain language” of section 181(b)(3) dictates that the EPA re

- classify only the New York portion of the NY

- NJ

- CT area, and further the EPA does not think it is reasonable to do so. To12

reclassify only a portion of the NY

- NJ

- CT area would result in different deadlines for attainment for different portions of the ar ea; such a result would be unworkable. The EPA also does not believe it is reasonable to interpret section 181(b)(3) to mean that a request from New York to voluntarily bump up the NY

- NJ

- CT area can override the prerogatives of Connecticut and New Jersey n ot to exercise the voluntary bump up option. Section 182(j) of the CAA indicates that states with jurisdiction over multi

- state ozone nonattainment areas must work in cooperation with each other to meet joint air quality planning goals, and interpreting se ction 181(b)(3) in the manner proposed by commenter would be inconsistent with that directive.

Comment : One commenter assumed that if the EPA finalizes the rescission of the CDD in either July or August, that the proposed 18

- month deadline for responding to the SIP Call

, the affected states will not have to submit the voluntary attainment SIP until the end of 2015 or early 2016. By that time, the NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area either will or will not have attained the 2008 NAAQS, for its attainment deadline is in 2015. The commenter expressed their belief that

p lans submitted at the end of 2015 or in 2016 detailing how the states will attain by 2015 will serve little purpose. Response : Intervening events since the submission of this comment have rendered the comment no longer germane to the situation of the NY

- NJ

- CT area. Because the EPA is finalizing the determination of the NY

- NJ

- CT area’s failure to attain by the attainment date and the corresponding reclassification to Moderate, the new deadlines establish ed under today’s action for submitting a SIP to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and by extension the 1997 ozone NAAQS, alleviate the commenter’s concern that the timing under the proposed SIP Call would not be productive.



### Transport related comments

Commen t : [2] Commenter (000 5 ) believes t he proposed SIP Call unfairly burdens the states that have significantly reduced their NO x emissions while other states have increased
ozone season NO x emissions. Response : The CAA directs much of the responsibility for attainment of any NAAQS
onto the states in which the nonattainment area resides. However, under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), all states have an obligation to eliminate the significant contributions of their
emissions to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states

. Where states have failed to make required SIP submissions or have made inadequate SIP submissions fulfilling the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), t he EPA has fulfilled its obligation to implement that provision by issuing SIP Call s or issuing Federal Implementation Plans (FIP s ), where appropriate. M ost recently , the EPA issu ed the Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) FIP s, which addressed upwind state obl igations to eliminate significant contributions of precursor emissions in order to address, as relevant here, downwind
nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard

. The EPA has also proposed to update the ozone

- season NO x budg ets of CSAPR in order to address states’ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 75706

, (Dec ember 3,
2015. However, regardless of the implementation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

, EPA is still obligated to enforce the other relevant portions of the CAA, and specifically in this case, to make13

a finding that the downwind states’ SIPs, and more specifically, their attainment plans, are inadequate to meet the applicable ozone NAAQS and must be revised under 110(k)(5).

Comment : C ommenter (000 5 ) believed that it is necessary to ensure that NO x emissions are reduced every day during the ozone season. The commenter further stated that unfortunately, the EPA and some states have regulatory frameworks for NO x emissions that do not focu s on the daily nature of the ozone problem. The commenter acknowledged significant steps the state has taken to decrease emissions during high ozone days by establishing performance standards for all power plants for each day of operation. The commenter fu rther affirmed turbine peak emissions will be mostly eliminated with their High Electric Demand Day ( HE D D ) NO x limits for turbines that became effective in 2015. The commenter believed that their state’s daily enforceable
emission limitations better addres s ozone nonattainment than emissions trading programs that allow the averaging of NO x emissions over the entire summer. The commenter suggested that the
EPA must consider shift ing its focus to daily emissions, not on ozone season emissions. The commenter alleged that the EPA has failed to recognize the nature of ozone formation in its policies that the commenter believes continues to lead to unhealthy air quality and health impacts
on the citizens of this nation. Response : The EPA disagrees with the commenter ’s contention to the extent that the commenter is advocating a one

- size

- fits

- all approach to modeling and controlling the ozone problem . The EPA will allow use of any and all technically sound existing ozone modeling in any revised attainment plan for the three state NY

- NJ

- CT area. The EPA strongly recommends the states follow the EPA modeling guidance carefully in any new ozone modeling. The EPA also realizes that all three states have extensive experience with ozone modeling, as we have

rece ived attainment demonstrations from each of these states for both the one

- hour ozone standard and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The three states should consider daily emissions as part of
their revised attainment demonstration s . The three state air agencies should review and consider
the EPA’s draft emissions inventory SIP Guidance and the 2008 ozone NAAQs SIP Requirements Rule regarding EGU emissions during HEDD periods. Such emissions can be crucial for having a complete understanding of relevant emissions source s within a modeling domain. Where these emissions are important for assessing a nonattainment problem, the state air agencies should consider the potential impact of HEDD emissions when selecting time periods (e.g. episodes, season, year) to model.

Commen t : Commenter (000 5 ) suggested that New Jersey should be removed from the SIP Call because New Jersey has more stringent existing rules that will further reduce ozone and its precursors, while surrounding states have less stringent rules. Response : The SIP Call is New Jersey’s opportunity to revise the 0 .085 ppm (1997) ozone attainment plan to reflect any control measure benefit that was not included in the original attainment plan and demonstrate that they will now attain with these more stringent rules.

Comment: C ommenter (0003) state d that only 3 ozone monitors (i.e., the monitors in Stratford, Westport and Madison) do not meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS, based on the monitors ’14

DV 10 for the 2011

- 2013 time period. The commenter also notes that each of the violat ing monitors is located directly on Long Island Sound and all other monitors in Connecticut currently comply with the 1997 NAAQS, with the next highest DVs recorded at the Groton and Greenwich monitors. The commenter goes on to state that no inland monitor s in Connecticut
have recorded a 4 th

- high 8

- hour ozone value of 0.085 ppm or higher since 2008. The commenter asserts that this evidence points to the dominating role that interstate transport plays in overwhelming Connecticut’s efforts to achieve and main tain compliance with the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In addition another commenter points to the fact that the only monitors not meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS are in Connecticut, while the monitors in the New York and New Jersey portion of the three

- state nonattainme nt area are meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Another commenter also states that it will take more than a “three

- state SIP Call to address the high levels in Connecticut,” and that if the EPA had adequately addressed transport, the 1997 NAAQS
would not have be en violated in the NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area. Response : The EPA agrees with the comments regarding the attainment status of the ozone monitors in the Connecticut portion of the NY

- NJ

- CT area. The EPA also notes that

current certified 2014 ozone data sho w only one monitoring site (i.e., the Westport monitor) violating the 1997 ozone NAAQS ( See Table 3 ). However, even with only one site violating the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the entire nonattainment area is by definition not meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the EPA therefore must rescind the previously issued CDD

. 11 See 40 CFR Part 52.377(k). Today’s final rescission of the CDD for the NY

- NJ

- CT area is based on the ozone data presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) and reproduced in Table 3 as the
certified ozone DVs for 2010

- 2012 and 2011

- 2013 , as well as the most recent quality

- assured
and certified 2012

- 2014 DVs , which continue to show that the area ’s prolonged violation of the
1997 ozone standard

. Th e s e certified data support our determi nation to rescind the area’s CDD in
this final rule . P reliminary 2013

- 2015 data indicate s the area could conceivably attain the 1997

ozone NAAQS standard

. However, the EPA does not believe that this possibility is reason enough not to finalize our proposed rescission of the CDD, given that the area ’s 2010

- 2012,
2011

- 2013, and 2012

- 2014 design values ha ve continually violated the 1997 ozone standard. As noted above, the NY

- NJ

- CT area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2004. Once a multistate area is designated nonattainment for ozone, the states with jurisdiction over the area must work together to achieve attainment for the area. ( See CAA section 182(j).) Regardless of where the violating monitors are in the nonattainment area, the states with jurisdiction over the area are collectively responsible and obligated to address

10 A design value is a statistic that describes the air quality status of a given location relative to the level of the NAAQS. Note that for purposes of the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS, ozone DVs are calculated based on the 3

- year average of the annual 4th maximu m 8

- hour ozone
concentration. An area is considered in nonattainment when the 3

- year design value is equal to or greater than 0.085 parts per million (ppm). Ozone DVs are listed at www.epa.gov/airtre nds/values.html

. See 40 CFR part 50.

11 See 77 FR 36163, (June 18, 2012).15

attainment such that the entire area achieves the NAAQS. With respect to the transport issue, the EPA acknowledges that transport, both from
outside of the NY

- NJ

- CT area, and from within the nonattainment area (e.g., from the northern New Jersey or New York state portion of the area), play a role in the exceedances observed in
southwestern Connecticut. However, today’s CDD rescission and SIP Call for a new ozone

a ttainment demonstration and required attainment planning SIPs are based on the recorded ozone monitoring data within the nonattainment area. When developing a new attainment demonstration for the nonattainment area, the three states should work together to analyze the effects of transport and factor that into their analysis and planning for attainment.

Table 3 : Design Values for Ozone Monitors in the NY

- NJ

- CT area (Due to EPA rounding convention, values at 0.085 ppm and above
are considered as not meeti ng the 1997 ozone NAAQS)

State County Site Location Monitor ID 2010

– 2012 Design Value (ppm) 2011

– 2013

Design
Value (ppm) 2012

– 2014

Design Value (ppm)

CT Fairfield Danbury 090011123 0.083 0.081 0.078

CT Fairfield Greenwich 090010017 0.082 0.083 0.082

CT New Haven Madison 090099002 0.086 0.089 0.081

CT Middlesex Middletown 090070007 0.080 0.081 0.081

CT New Haven New Haven 090090027 0.076 0.078 0.076

CT Fairfield Stratford 090013007 0.085 0.089 0.084

CT Fairfield Westport 090019003 0.085 0.087 0.085

NJ Hudson Bayonne 340170006 0.078 0.072 0.070

NJ Morris Chester 340273001 0.078 0.076 0.072

NJ Hunterdon Flemington 340190001 0.080 0.077 0.072

NJ Bergen Leonia 340030006 0.078 0.077 0.073

NJ Monmouth Monmouth U. 340250005 0.083 0.078 0.072

NJ Essex Newark 340130003 0.082 0.076 0.073

NJ Passiac Ramapo 340315001 0.075 0.072 0.069

NJ Middlesex Rutgers U. 340230011 0.085 0.079 0.074

NY Suffolk Babylon 361030002 0.085 0.081 0.073

NY New York CCNY 360610135 0.076 0.072 0.067

NY Bronx Pfizer

- Bronx 360050133 0.076 0.074 0.071

NY Suffolk Holtsville 361030009 0.080 0.078 0.071

NY Queens Queens College 360810124 0.080 0.079 0.072

NY Suffolk Riverhead 361030004 0.079 0.080 0.075

NY Richmond Susan Wagner 360850067 0.083 0.078 0.073

NY Westchester White Plains 361192004 0.076 0.075 0.075

Comment : C ommenter ( 0003 ) assert ed that the ozone meteorology of Long Island Sound and coastal Connecticut is unique, and that the source region for the ozone exceedance is most likely not Connecticut but areas to the south and west of Connecticut. That same commenter16

shows a back trajecto ry analysis of one episode to show this effect. 12 Response : Although the ozone meteorology of coastal Connecticut and Long Island Sound may be unique, the ozone exceedances there must be addressed. As mentioned in an earlier response above, interstate transport may play a role in Connecticut’s ozone exceedances, but today’s action of rescinding the CDD and issuing a SIP Call is the statutory and regulatory consequence of ozone exceedances being recorded in the nonattainment ar ea. Interstate transport may need to be addressed in the ozone attainment demonstrations submitted by the states in response to this SIP Call , but is not relevant to the factual determination that the area is currently not attaining

, and therefore the CDD must be rescinded.

Comment : C ommenter ( 0003 ) assert ed that CSAPR modeling confirms the overwhelming role that interstate transport plays in causing Connecticut’s high levels of ozone, especially at the coastal sites. The commenter states that “ the EPA ’s modeling indicates that emissions outside of Connecticut’s regulatory control contributed at least 95% of modeled 2012
ozone levels at each of the three coastal monitors with measured 2013 DVs that violate the 1997 NAAQS.” Response : The EPA does not dis ag ree the CSAPR modeling shows that Connecticut is impacted by ozone transport. In CSAPR

, promulgated on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48207), the
EPA found that emissions of sulfur dioxide and NO x in 27 eastern, midwestern, and southern states contribute significan tly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in one or more downwind states with respect to one or more of three air quality standards

— the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 2006, and, as relevant here, the ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997.

For the 1997 ozone NAAQS specifically, twenty states are required under CSAPR to reduce NO x emissions during the ozone season (May through September) because they contribute to downwind states’ ozone pollution. The emissi on reductions required by CSAPR in these upwind

states , implementation of which was delayed for three years due to litigation and therefore did not start until last year, will improve ozone air quality in downwind states and help them attain
and maintain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard.

Comment : C ommenter ( 0003 ) states: “As described in Connecticut’s Attainment Demonstration SIP, 13 Connecticut already has in place... control strategies designed to reduce ozone precursor emissions, achieve compliance with the 1997 ozone NAAQS and address

12 A back

- trajectory is a meteorological modeling system that can show and/or predict the possible source region of an air parcel and the precursor pollutants that air parcel may contain. The trajectory is the path the air parcel follows, based on the meteor ology of the time period
modeled.

13 Connecticut submitted an ozone attainment demonstration SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on February 1, 2008. The EPA proposed approval of the SIP for the Connecticut portion of the NY

NJ

- Connecticut area on May 9, 2013, but has not taken final action.17

Connecticut’s contributions to downwind ozone levels. Many of the strategies continue to accumulate additional reductions as, for example, old er on

- road and non

- road vehicles/equipment are replaced by newer, lower emitting, vehicles and equipment.” The commenter goes on to state that NO x emissions in Connecticut are expected to decline more than 40% by 2017 and 50% by 2025, compared to emission levels in 2007. The commenter states that

a dditional emission reductions can be expected from Connecticut’s Low Emission Vehicle III program and the EPA ’s recently finalized Tier 3 program, as well as from stationary source regulation revisions that Connec ticut will consider as part of its effort to meet RACT requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The commenter indicates: “These sizable emission reductions will significantly reduce Connecticut’s contribution to ozone levels both within the
state and in down wind areas.” Response : The EPA agrees that Connecticut has, over the years, promulgated numerous ozone pollution control strategies. These strategies have not, however, resulted in Connecticut continuously meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The NY

- NJ

- CT area d id not meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on final 2012

, 2013 , and 2014 data ( See Table 3). Th us, th e EPA, as proposed, is rescinding the CDD for the area and requiring all three states in the area to produce a new plan showing how the area can meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as possible.
As noted in the August 27, 2015 proposal

, today’s final action reclassifying the NY

- NJ

- CT area as Moderate for the 2008 ozone NAAQS requires New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut to
submit a Moderate area attainmen t demonstration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS independent of the three states’ obligations to respond to the SIP Call. By meeting this independent statutory obligation, Connecticut will also satisfy its obligation under this final SIP Call under CAA
section 110 (k)(5).

Comment : One commenter (0003) urge d the EPA to expand the scope of its SIP Call under 110(k)(5). Specifically, CT DEEP states that section 110(k)(5) of the CAA either compels
the EPA to expand the proposed SIP Call or provides the EPA with the au thority necessary to expand the scope of the proposed SIP Call and asserts that the EPA should, therefore, withdraw the present proposal and issue a new proposal that includes within the SIP Call any state that is shown to significantly contribute to the 3 violating monitors because these states have failed to meet their obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 14 CT DEEP also argues that the
EPA should more broadly apply its authority under 110(k)(5) because the provision allows the Agency to issue a SIP Call to address states’ SIPs that do not adequately mitigate their interstate transport as described in sections 176A and 184, or to address states’ SIPs that more generally are inadequate to “otherwise comply with any requirement of this chapter.” I n addition, the
commenter believed that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in EPA v. EME Homer City (134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014)), compels the EPA to immediately issue federal implementation plans (FIPs) for upwind states that have failed to take all necess ary steps to make it feasible for any nonattainment area significantly impacted by interstate air pollution to attain and maintain both

14 The commenter refers to states’ interstate transport obligations under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), but EPA understands these citations to in fact refer to the good neighbor provision, which is CAA section 110(a)(2 )(D)(i)(I).18

the 1997 and 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS.” Finally, the commenter note d that the “CSAPR modeling shows that Connecticut rece ives no more than a 0.2 ppb total benefit from the CSAPR remedy, which is entirely inadequate given the overwhelming scope of transport.” Response : CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires states to prohibit emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS. In CSAPR

, promulgated on August 8, 2011 ( See 76 FR 48207), the EPA found that emissions of SO 2 and NO x in 27 eastern, midwestern,
and southe rn states contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in one or more downwind states with respect to one or more of three air quality standards

— the annual
PM 2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 1997, the 24

- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 2 006, and the ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997. For the 1997 ozone NAAQS specifically, twenty states are required under CSAPR to
reduce NO x emissions during the ozone season (May through September) because they contribute to downwind states’ ozone pollution. The emission reductions under CSAPR in these upwind states will improve ozone air quality in downwind states and help them attain and
maintain the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard. The timing of CSAPR's implementation was initially affected by litigation over t he rule

. On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed the effectiveness of CSAPR pending resolution of judicial review

. On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated CSAPR, 15 but o n April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the D.C. Circuit’s 2012 decision and
remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit. 16 Following the remand , on October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted the EPA’s motion to lift the CSAPR stay and toll the CSAPR compliance deadlines by 3 years. Accordingly, CSAPR Phase 1 implementation began on January 1, 2015, with Phase 2 beginning in 2017. See CSAPR interim final ru le at 81 FR 13275 (March 14, 2016). Subsequently, the D.C. Circuit issued its final ruling as to CSAPR, affirming it in most respects but invalidating withou t vacating several of the rule’s state

- specific budgets, including some of the rule’s Phase 2 ozone

- season NOx budgets. 17 The EPA has since proposed a rulemaking to update to the CSAPR ozone

- season NOx budgets in order to address the more stringent 2008

ozo ne NAAQS and to respond to the D.C. Circuit’s remand of the Phase 2 ozone

- season NOx budgets. 18 As proposed, the CSAPR Update ozone

- season NOx budgets would be effective starting in 2017, effectively replacing CSAPR Phase 2. The EPA disagrees with the comme nter that the Supreme Court’s decision in EPA v. EME Homer City compels the agency to issue new FIPs or to expand the scope of the proposed
SIP Call to address the 1997 and 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. The Supreme Court did, however, confirm that the EPA prope rly issued the CSAPR FIPs in response to disapprovals of SIPs or findings of failure to submit SIPs implementing states’ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with regard to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Those FIPs took effect and began implementation on January 1,

15 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA

, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012 ).

16 EPA v. EME Homer City Generation , L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014)

.

17 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA , 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

18 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 201 5).19

2015 pursuant to the D.C. Circuit’s grant of the EPA’s motion requesting lifting of the stay, so
we note that at the time the NY

- NJ

- CT area fell back into nonattainment of the 1997 standard, it did not have the benefit of CSAPR reductions. While the commenter p oints out that modeling conducted for the CSAPR rulemaking projected that the remedy would provide “no more than a 0.2 ppb total benefit,” the same modeling also predicted that those reductions, once implemented, would fully resolve nonattainment and maint enance problems for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the receptors identified in the NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area. For upwind states that were linked only to receptors where downwind nonattainment and maintenance problems were fully resolved under the remedy, the EP A found that CSAPR quantified the full reduction responsibility for the 1997 ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 19 Therefore, the EPA could not expand the scope of the SIP Call being issued on the basis that upwind states
had not fulfilled the ir 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations as to the 1997 ozone NAAQS when the EPA has already issued a FIP that fully resolves the obligations of those states with respect to that
standard. The EPA also does not agree that it would be appropriate in this action to more broadly apply its 110(k)(5) authority to include additional states in this SIP Call to address interstate pollutant transport as described in sections 176A and 184 of the CAA. The EPA acknowledges that a number of states, including Connecticut and Ne w York, submitted a petition under CAA section 176A requesting that the EPA add additional states to the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that was established under section 184 of the CAA. The EPA is reviewing that petition separately and is not acting on that petition in this action. In addition, the EPA’s authority to require SIP revisions under 110(k)(5) as they relate to additional control measures required by CAA section 184 applies to only states that are currently part of the OTR.

EPA is finalizing the SIP Call for Connecticut, New Jersey and New York proposed in the May 15, 201 4 NPR (79 FR 27830) and is not proposing or finalizing any other potential SIP
Call s. If, in the future, the EPA determines that additional SIP Call s to address the 1997 ozone
NAA QS are justified notwithstanding implementation of CSAPR, we will propose such SIP
Call s through notice and comment rulemaking. We note that with regard to addressing interstate transport problems affecting nonattainment and maintenance of the 2008 ozone N AAQS, EPA has proposed to tighten the ozone season NO x budgets for nearly all CSAPR states, including the majority of the states whose Phase 2 budgets were remanded by the D.C. Circuit. See 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015)

.

Comment : C ommenter (000 3 ) alleged tha t the EPA lacks authority under the CAA to use monitored noncompliance with the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS to require the preparation
and submission of an attainment demonstration for the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS because the
NY

- NJ

- CT area is classified as a ma rginal nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The commenter also alleged that the EPA lacks authority under the CAA to use monitored noncompliance with the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS to suggest Connecticut to

19 See 76 FR 48210, Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals (August 8, 2011).20

voluntarily reclassify the Connecticut portion of the NY

- NJ

- CT marginal nonattainment area to
M oderate under the 2008 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. Response : These comments are no longer germane as EPA is today finalizing a
determination that the NY

- NJ

- CT nonattain ment area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by its Marginal attainment date, and is by operation of law reclassifying the area to Moderate. The area is therefore no longer a Marginal ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and can no longer r equest to be “bumped up” because it has already been reclassified to Moderate by operation of law. Therefore, as finalized today, the area is required to submit a Moderate area plan by January 1, 2017 addressing how it will attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

Comment : A commenter ( 0003 ) state d that it is unclear whether the EPA is authorized to issue this proposed SIP Call without first taking final action on pending Connecticut SIP
revisions related to the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. The same commenter (CT) also asks if the
fact that the EPA approved New York and New Jersey's 1997 NAAQS attainment demonstration
SIPs while the EPA took four years to propose approval for Connecticut's attainment demonstration possibly impact Connecticut differently than the other st ates in the NY

- NJ

- CT

area. Response : The commenter is correct that the EPA has not taken final action on the ozone attainment demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the NY

- NJ

- CT area, but did approve the

ozone attainment plans for the New Jersey and New York portion of this same nonattainment

area. Nevertheless, the existing state implementation plans for all three states are inadequate to demonstrate attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and therefore a SIP Call under section 110(k)(5) is appropriate

. As explained in our May 15, 2014 proposal (79 FR 27833), the approvals for New Jersey and New York, and the proposed approval for Connecticut, were based on the fact that the plans showed that the NY

- NJ

- CT area woul d attain by the area’s June 15,
2010 attainment date. Since the nonattainment area has since violated the 1997 8

- hour ozone
standard , the EPA is now requiring the States of Connecticut

, New Jersey and New York to submit updated plans and SIPs addressing th e related planning requirements showing how the
area will re

- attain the standard and meet other planning requirements

. The SIP Call applies equally to the States of Connecticut, New Jersey and New York

. P rior approval by the EPA of any attainment plan for portion s of the NY

- NJ

- CT ozone nonattainment area have no bearing on
this SIP Call for a new ozone attainment demonstration for the NY

- NJ

- CT area

.

Comment : A commenter ( 0003 ) ask ed whether the EPA would issue a new CDD if the
area’s DVs for 2014 or 2015 compl ied with the 1997 NAAQS, thus negating the need to submit a revised 1997 NAAQS attainment demonstration SIP, which the commenter believed wou ld likely be due to the EPA in 2016. CT DEEP requests that the EPA clarify how Connecticut

s hould proceed under this potential scenario. Response : The area did not attain the 1997 NAAQS based on the 2012

- 2014 DVs

. If the
NY

- NJ

- CT area begins once again to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS with complete and certified ozone data, the EPA could consider is su ing a new CDD (via notice and comment rulemaking)

. This would suspend the obligation for New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to submit attainment demonstrations and to address the other attainment planning related requirements for purposes of meeting t he 1997 ozone NAAQS

. The EPA notes, however, that insofar as the states are planning to respond to the 1997 ozone SIP Call by submitting the attainment planning21

requirements for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS, the obligation to submit a SIP to
address th e 2008 ozone requirements would not be suspended by a new determination that the area is attaining the 1997 standard, because the area is separately and independently required to
submit the 2008 ozone Moderate area planning requirements as a result of i ts failure to attain by
the 2008 ozone Marginal attainment date and accompanying reclassification.

Comment : One commenter (0003) believe d the EPA is acting in error wherein it claim ed that by acting under section 110(k) of the CAA that this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action.” Because the violating coastal monitors in Connecticut are heavily influenced by illegal interstate air pollutant transport, the EPA must als o revoke each 110(a)(2)(D) (i)(I) SIP submitted by every upwind state that significantly contributes and interferes with Connecticut’s ability to maintain compliance with the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. CT DEEP assert ed that if
the EPA acknowledged the culpabi lity of upwind states to Connecticut’s air quality problems and correctly named such states within this proposed SIP Call

, then the May 15, 2014 NPR would have triggered the requirement for the EPA to provide the analysis required by E xecutive Order (EO) 1 2866. As such, the State of Connecticut believe d the EPA is acting in contravention to both the letter and spirit of EO 12866. The state asserted that, if the EPA had taken the impact of interstate air pollution transport into account, the agency it would have been constrained to acknowledge this is a significant regulatory action under EO 13211 and acted accordingly. Response : As noted in earlier responses in this section

, the EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Agency either must or should expand the scope of the SIP Call being finalized in this notice to include upwind states that significantly contribute to monitors in the
NY

- NJ

- CT nonattainment area. As we explained in the response above, the EPA disapproved the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) transport SIPs or issued findings of failure to submit those SIPs for each of the states upwind of the monitoring receptors in Connecticut that the Agency projected would have
nonattainment and ma intenance problems with respect to the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA issued CSAPR FIPs in order to fulfill the EPA ’s obligation to act where state SIPs had been disapproved or states had failed to submit SIPs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
th e 1997 standard. For the states upwind of the receptors in the NYC nonattainment area that were projected to violate the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard, the EPA determined that the CSAPR FIP fulfilled the upwind states’ and the EPA ’s obligation under the good neighbor provision. 20 CSAPR was a “significant regulatory action” that was subject to review by OMB under EO

20 In fact, as we noted above, the D.C. Circuit held the CSAPR ozone season budgets over
control led upwind states insofar as EPA had included a number of the upwind states in the Phase 2 ozone season trading program where the record indicated that no transport rule was needed for purposes of addressing nonattainment and maintenance problems under the 1997 standard. EME Homer City, L.P. v. EPA

, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). This only furthers the Agency’s conclusion that it could not require additional reductions under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for purposes of
the 1997 standard.22

12866, and the EPA documented in the docket for the CSAPR rulemaking the changes made in response to OMB recommendations. 21 Also in accordance with E O 12866, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits of CSAPR in its Regulatory Impacts Analysis. Id. In addition, the EPA determined that CSAPR was a significant energy action under EO 13211 and accordingly, prepared a Statement of En ergy Effects for CSAPR. See 76 FR 48346. This proposed SIP Call, by contrast, is limited to the attainment planning activities of three states with respect to one NAAQS for one nonattainment area, and is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, nor does it adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or governments or communities. The EPA therefore does not believe that today’s SIP Call meets
the definitio n of “significant regulatory action” under EO 12866 (and by extension, EO 13211). Finally, as we noted above, the EPA has issued a proposal to tighten most of the ozone season budgets in the CSAPR program in order to address nonattainment and maintenance o f the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015). Those reductions, which would come into effect by 2017 would also replace the Phase 2 ozone season budgets that were remanded by the
D.C. Circuit.



### Attainment Planning Requirements

Comment : A commenter (0003) ask ed how the timing of revocation relative to the timing of finalization of the SIP Call would impact t he requirements of the SIP Call if the EPA ’s Implementation Rule for the 2008 NAAQS revoke d the 1997 ozone NAAQS

. Response : T he EPA ha s finalized the Implementation Rule for the 2008 NAAQS and revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS effective April 6, 2015

. See 80 FR 12264, (March 6, 2015). As noted earlier in this document, the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS does not alter New York, New Jersey and Connecticut’s obligations to have approved into their respective SIPs demonstrations of how the area will attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the associated control measures required for such demonstration. The obligations to have an adequate attainment
d emonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingency measures were retained as anti

- backsliding measures for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS. Because the NY

- NJ

- CT area is no longer attaining the standard, the EPA is finding that the SIPs for those states are substantiall y inadequate for the purposes of meeting those anti

- backsliding measures.

Comment : Commenter (000 8 ) advocated that it would also be important for the EPA to address nonattainment through regional and national programs to eliminate the additional
economic burden to New York's residents and businesses caused by discrepancies in the stringency of various state programs. Response : The EPA recognizes that regional and national programs can play a significant role in combat t ing nonattainment. For example, i mplementation of the Tier 3 motor

21 See 76 FR 48435 (August 8, 2011), Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals: Final Rule.23

vehicle program nationally is expected to reduce NO x emissions from the on

- road inventory by
10

- 25% starting in 2018. The EPA acknowledges that transported pollutants and their precursor emissions, both from outside of the NY

- NJ

- CT area, and from within the area (i.e., from the northern New Jersey or New York state portion of the area), may play a role in the exceedances
observed in southwestern Connecticut. The Cross

- State Air Pollution Rule, which had been stayed for seve ral years pending judicial review, began implementation on January 1, 2015, and require s reductions from areas upwind of the NY

- NJ

- CT area. Today’s CDD rescission and SIP
Call for a new ozone attainment demonstration are based on the recorded ozone monitor ing data
within the nonattainment area. When developing a new attainment demonstration for the nonattainment area, the three states should work together to analyze the effects of transport and all national measures and may factor that into their analysis a nd planning for attainment.

Comment : Commenter (000 3 ) suggested that the EPA should not subject the NY

- NJ

- CT area to a different procedure than it does for similar air quality areas in the nation. Response : The NY

- NJ

- CT area is the only moderate nonattain ment area in the nation that is not attaining the 1997 ozone standard based on certified 2014 air quality data

.

Comment : Commenter (0003) asked what emissions inventories are acceptable to the
EPA for use in a r evised attainment demonstration (e.g., MARAMA 2007 base/future; upcoming EPA or MARAMA 2011 base/future)

. Response : The Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) is a jointly sponsored
effort of the states and the EPA , and is an outgrowth of the Standing Air Emissions Work Group.
Th e goal of EIIP is to provide cost

- effective, reliable inventories by both improving the quality of emissions information, and by developing system(s) for collecting, calculating, and reporting emissions data. Documents prepared by the EIIP should be consid ered the equivalent to federal guidance. On April 11, 2014, the EPA made available its Draft “ Emissions Inventory Guidan ce for Implementation of Ozone [ and Particulate Matter] National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations

. ” 22 T he EPA encourages the NY

- NJ

- CT area to use the resources of the EIIP in developing any new emission inventories for any new attainment demonstration modeling. The EPA recognizes that all three states have extensive experience with
ozone emission inventorie s (e.g., each of these states have submitted ozone emission inventories
for both the one

- hour ozone standard and for state plans under the 1997 ozone NAAQS ).

Comment : A commenter (0003) ask ed what years must be used if a revised Reasonable
Further Progress ( RFP ) S IP is required. Response : Because the EPA is today reclassifying the NY

- NJ

- CT area to Moderate, the states must provide a Moderate area plan for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which will include an

22 See http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/2014revisedeiguidance.pdf . Further information may be located at: www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/index.html

.24

attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, and contingenc y measures. The RFP baseline year for
such SIP was 2011, however, states may use an alternate year (i.e., other than 2011) between the years of 2008 to 2012 that the state justifies as appropriate. 23 RFP requirements at 40 CFR 51.1110 also require that if a state selects a pre

- 2011 alternate baseline year, the area must achieve 3 percent emission reductions each year after the initial 6

- year period has concluded up to the beginning of the attainment year.

Comment : C ommenter (0003) , the State of Connecticut, ask ed if the state must update conformity budgets, and if so whether Connecticut should use the current version of the MOVES
Motor Vehicle Emissions model or the upcoming revised version. Response : The motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) established under the 1997 ozone NAAQS and determined adequate or approved into the SIP remain valid for demonstrating conformity to the new 2008 ozone NAAQS until new MVEBs are established in a
SIP for the 2008 ozone standard. The transportation conformity regulation at 40 CFR 93.109(c)(2)(i) states, “If the nonattainment area covers the same geographic area as another NAAQS of the same pollutant, the budget test [must be satisfied] as required by § 93.118 using the approved or adequate MVEBs for that other NAAQS.” Co nnecticut’s 2008 eight

- hour ozone nonattainment areas cover the same geographic area as the 1997 eight

- hour ozone nonattainment

areas , therefore it is acceptable under the regulation for Connecticut to use approved MVEBs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS to demonst rate conformity under the 2008 ozone NAAQS , yet, states are required to submit a new attainment demonstration that includes new MVEBs for the 2008
ozone standard. On October 7, 2014, the EPA published the notice of availability for the MOVES2014
Motor Veh icle Emissions Model for SIPs and Transportation Conformity. 24 On November 4, 2015, the EPA issued a minor revision to MOVES2014, called MOVES2014a. SIP modeling not substantially underway should use the new MOVES2014 a model. Information about using
MOVES2 014a in a particular area is available on EPA’s MOVES web site. 25 The state should
discuss the use of MOVES2010b/MOVES2014 a with the Regional EPA Office. Additional guidance is available in “EPA’s Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 and Subsequent
Minor Revisions for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes,” (EPA

- 420

- B

- 14

- 008, July 2014). This document describes how and when to use the MOVES2014 for SIP development, transportation conformity, general conformit y, and

23 See 80 FR 12272, (March 6, 2015). Preamble c ontains discussion of alternate baseline year a state may select.

24 See http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR

- 2014

- 10

- 07/pdf/2014

- 23258.pdf

25 See either http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/index.htm or, http:// www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/contacts.htm

.25

other purposes. 26

MOVES2014 and 2014a Technical Guidance: Using MOVES to Prepare Emission Inventories for State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity (PDF) (6 3 pp, 1.0MB , EPA

- 420

- B

- 15

- 0 93

, November 2015)

. This document provides guidance on appropriate input assumptions and sources of data for the use of MOVES2014 in SIP submissions and regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity purposes. 27

Comment : A commenter (0003) asked if updated photochemical modeling will be require d to demonstrate attainment with the 1997 ozone NAAQS and if so, whether recent existing modeling (e.g., OT R screening modeling) or upcoming modeling (e.g., OT R or the
EPA ’s new transport rule) can be used in the r evised attainment demonstration. Additionally, the

commenter specifically ask ed w hat other technical analyses, not already mentioned, will be required (e.g., Weight of Evidence, contingencies, etc)

. Response : The EPA has the authority to require states to use appropriate modeling to predi ct the effect of emissions on air quality of a ny NAAQS

. States are required to submit an
attainment demonstration for Moderate areas . Since photochemical modeling is the most scientifically rigorous technique to determine NO x and/or VOC emissions reduction s needed to show attainment of the NAAQS, we are requiring photochemical modeling for all attainment
demonstrations

, including those for Moderate areas. However, in concert with the flexibility applicable to Serious and above areas under section 182(c)(2)( A), EPA will consider on a case

by

- case basis other analytical methods that are at least as effective as photochemical modeling. In this case, the states will likely be responding to EPA’s SIP Call for a new attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQ S by preparing and submitting an attainment
demonstration that shows expeditious attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is requiring the states to employ photochemical modeling to demonstrate how the area will meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA has an extensive guidance document on ozone modeling ( See “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze,” EPA

- 454/B

- 07

- 002, April 2007; hereinafter referred to as the
EP A modeling guidance . The EPA recommends the states follow the EPA modeling guidance carefully in any new ozone modeling. The EPA has recently completed a draft update to this guidance and is available for review. 28 While modeling is still the critical com ponent of an attainment demonstration, there is always some uncertainty associated with modeling results. W eight

- of

- Evidence analyses are meant to support and supplement the modeling results. Many types of information can be used to demonstrate that expedi tious attainment is likely. These include alternative modeling applications, ambient data analyses and trends, emissions analysis and trends and in some cases additional emissions controls that were not directly accounted for in the modeling demonstration. Any state contemplating an alternative analytical method to substitute for photochemical

26 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b14008.pdf

27 See http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b15007.pd f

28 See http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance_sip.htm26

modeling must identify and document the method and seek formal approval from the EPA.

Comment : C ommenter (0003) noted that the EPA is acting arbitrarily and capricio usly by not pursuing similar actions against other nonattainment areas (Sheboygan) that are similarly
situated to the NY

- NJ

- CT area with respect to noncompliance with the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, another commenter (New Jersey) names several ot her 1997 ozone
nonattainment areas across the eastern U.S. that have ozone DVs based on 2010

- 2012 ozone data as being over the 1997 ozone NAAQS. These areas include, in addition to Sheboygan, the following nonattainment areas: Houston, Dallas, Allegan Coun ty in Michigan, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Louisville, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., and Cincinnati. Response : This comment was made when the most recent quality

- assured air quality monitoring data available was the 2011 to 2013 data. At this time, the 2014 DVs are available based on the quality

- assured 2012 to 2014 monitoring data. The 2014 DVs indicate that all the areas listed in the comment including the Sheboygan nonattainment area are once again attaining
the 1997 ozone standard. The 2014 DVs for these 1997 ozone areas are readily available at the web site provided in the footnote below. 29 Today’s action only pertains to the NY

- NJ

- CT area, which did not meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on certified 2010

- 2012 and 2011

- 2013 ozone data, and is still not meeting the 1997 ozone NAAQS based on certified 2012

- 2014 ozone data.
The rescission of the Clean Data Determination for the NY

- NJ

- CT area is not arbitrary and capricious, but is in keeping with the Clean Data Rule at 40 CFR 51. 111 8 and our June 18, 2012 ( 77 FR 36163 ) rulemaking issuing the Clean Data Determination for the NY

- NJ

- CT area.

29 See http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html