[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57221-57230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23402]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0117; EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-0107; EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-0445; 
A-1-FRL-9203-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; Reasonable Further 
Progress Plans and 2002 Base Year Emission Inventories

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan 
revisions submitted by the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 
Rhode Island. These revisions establish 2002 base year emission 
inventories and reasonable further progress emission reduction plans 
for areas within these states designated as nonattainment of EPA's 1997 
8-hour ozone standard. The intended effect of this action is to propose 
approval of these states' 2002 base year inventories and reasonable 
further progress (RFP) emission reduction plans, and to propose 
approval of the 2008 motor vehicle transportation budgets and 
contingency measures associated with the RFP plans. EPA also proposes 
approval of three rules adopted by Connecticut that will reduce 
volatile organic compound emissions in the state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by one of the following 
Docket ID Numbers: EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0117 for comments pertaining to our 
proposed action for Connecticut, EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-0107 for comments 
pertaining to our proposed action for Massachusetts, or EPA-RO1-OAR-
2008-0445 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Rhode 
Island, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#38594a5657545c165956565d785d4859165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a5b485455565e145b54545f7a5f4a5b145d554c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.

[[Page 57222]]

    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0117, EPA-
RO1-OAR-2008-0107, or EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-0445, Anne Arnold, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 
Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, 
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's 
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to one of the following Docket 
ID Numbers: EPA-R01-OAR-2008-0117 for comments pertaining to our 
proposed action for Connecticut, EPA-RO1-OAR-2008-0107 for comments 
pertaining to our proposed action for Massachusetts, or EPA-RO1-OAR-
2008-0445 for comments pertaining to our proposed action for Rhode 
Island. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if 
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical 
support document are also available for public inspection during normal 
business hours, by appointment at the respective State Air Agency: The 
Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental Protection, State 
Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630; Division of 
Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, One Winter 
Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108; Office of Air Resources, 
Department of Environmental Management, 235 Promenade Street, 
Providence, RI 02908-5767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, U.S. EPA Region 1--New England, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 
02109-3912, phone number: 617-918-1046; e-Mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2c414f4f434242494040025e434e495e586c495c4d024b435a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93fef0f0fcfdfdf6ffffbde1fcf1f6e1e7d3f6e3f2bdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is 
provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory
    A. What is a base year inventory, and why are these states 
required to prepare one?
    1. Point Source Emissions
    2. Area Source Emissions
    3. On-Road Mobile Source Emissions
    4. Non-Road Mobile Source Emissions
    5. Biogenic Emission Sources
    B. Summary of 2002 Base Year Inventories
    C. What action is EPA taking on these inventories?
III. Reasonable Further Progress Plans
    A. What is a Reasonable Further Progress plan, and why are these 
states required to prepare one?
    B. What action is EPA taking on these plans?
    C. What emission levels must Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 
Rhode Island meet by 2008?
    D. To what extent do the RFP plans reduce ozone precursor 
emissions?
    E. Are banked emissions properly accounted for within these RFP 
plans?
    F. What are the pollution control programs that accomplish this 
change in emissions?
    G. Is EPA proposing approval of any state control measures in 
this action?
    H. Have these states met their contingency measure obligation?
    I. Are transportation conformity budgets contained in these 
plans?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On April 30, 2004, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act, 
or CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., EPA designated portions of the country 
as being in nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 
quality standard (NAAQS) (69 FR 23858).\1\ All parts of Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were designated as nonattainment for 
ozone, and all were classified as moderate. There were five 
nonattainment areas created that encompassed the entirety of these 
states, as shown in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 1997 8-hour ozone standard itself is codified at 40 CFR 
50.10.

Table 1--8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas in Connecticut, Massachusetts,
                            and Rhode Island
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Geographic area
           State                  Area name         covered  (counties)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT........................  New York--N. New       Fairfield, Middlesex,
                             Jersey--Long Island,   New Haven.
                             NY-NJ-CT (NY-NJ-CT
                             area).

[[Page 57223]]

 
CT........................  Greater Connecticut    Hartford, Litchfield,
                             area.                  New London, Tolland,
                                                    Windham.
MA........................  Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA)    Barnstable, Bristol,
                             area.                  Dukes, Essex,
                                                    Middlesex,
                                                    Nantucket, Norfolk,
                                                    Plymouth, Suffolk,
                                                    Worcester.
MA........................  Springfield (W. MA)    Berkshire, Franklin,
                             area.                  Hampden, Hampshire.
RI........................  Providence area......  Statewide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 182(a)(1) and 182(b)(1) of the CAA compel the preparation 
and submittal of an emission inventory by states containing ozone 
nonattainment areas. On November 18, 2002, EPA issued guidance \2\ 
indicating that 2002 was the preferred year for states to use as their 
base year in development of state implementation plans (SIPs) for the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr 
Ozone, PM 2.5, and Regional Haze Programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register identifying, in part, the requirements that areas designated 
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard must fulfill in order 
to meet their obligations under the Act. 70 FR 71612, codified at 40 
CFR part 51 subpart X. This rule is commonly referred to as the ``Phase 
2'' implementation rule. The Phase 2 rule provides that areas that had 
previously met the CAA section 182(b)(1) requirement for a 15% volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emission reduction pursuant to the one-hour 
ozone standard would be considered to have met this requirement for the 
1997 8-hour standard. According to the Phase 2 rule, such areas must 
meet reasonable further progress (RFP) obligations under the provisions 
of subpart 1 of the Act, rather than the more stringent RFP obligations 
of subpart 2.
    The Phase 2 rule divides the areas subject to subpart 1 RFP 
requirements into two categories: Those with attainment dates within 5 
years of designation, and those with attainment dates beyond 5 years 
from designation. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all fall 
into the latter category because their attainment dates were 6 years 
from the date of designation. The Phase 2 rule further provides that 
areas with an attainment date beyond 5 years from the date of 
designation would be required to meet their RFP requirement by 
demonstrating a 15 percent emission reduction between 2002 and 2008 in 
VOC, nitrogen oxide (NOx) or a combination of both of these pollutants 
such that the total reduction in these ozone precursor emissions 
equaled 15 percent.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 (DC Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 1, 2008, Connecticut submitted its 2002 to 2008 RFP 
plan and 2002 base year inventory to EPA as part of its attainment 
demonstration SIP submittal. Similar submittals were made by 
Massachusetts on January 31, 2008, and by Rhode Island on April 30, 
2008.

II. 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory

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

    The Act contains a number of requirements for moderate ozone 
nonattainment areas. One requirement, found at section 182(a)(1) of the 
Act and made applicable to moderate ozone nonattainment areas through 
section 182(b)(1), compels the preparation and submittal of a 
``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from 
all sources.'' As mentioned above, EPA's November 18, 2002 guidance 
memorandum identified 2002 as the preferred year for states to use as 
their base year in development of SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard, and the Phase 2 rule affirms this selection of the 2002 
inventory as the baseline for the RFP requirement.
    In August, 2005, EPA published supplemental guidance for states to 
use in development of their base year inventories entitled, ``Emission 
Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 
Regulation'' (EPA-454/R-05-001). This guidance describes for states the 
requirements for development of comprehensive emission estimates from 
stationary point and area sources, and from mobile on-road and non-road 
sources, such that complete emission inventories are available to 
support SIP development for the 8-hour ozone standard. The guidance 
directs states to prepare their emission estimates on a ``typical 
summer day'' basis to reflect emissions that occur during high ozone 
episodes, which occur predominantly during the warm summer months.
    As mentioned above, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island 
all contain ozone nonattainment areas designated as moderate for the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard. Therefore, they were required to develop 
2002 base year emission inventories of VOC and NOx, as these compounds 
react in the presence of heat and sunlight to form ozone.
1. Point Source Emissions
    The point source portion of the inventory consists of emission 
estimates for the major industrial facilities within the state. The 
emission estimates are prepared based on facility specific information 
collected during annual surveys conducted by each state's air agency. 
Connecticut and Massachusetts survey all industrial sources that emit 
10 tons/year or more of VOC or NOx. Rhode Island surveys facilities 
that emit 10 tons/year or more of VOC, and/or 25 tons/year or more of 
NOx. The emission estimates are prepared for each process operation, 
fuel combustion process, or other air emitting activity, then summed 
together to obtain an overall emission estimate for the facility. The 
states submit these air emission estimates to EPA, and we incorporate 
them into our national emissions inventory (NEI) database.
2. Area Source Emissions
    Area source emissions include emissions from small industrial 
facilities not included in the point source inventory, and from sources 
whose emissions are, in most circumstances, spread over a wide 
geographic area from a large number of small sources. Examples include 
gasoline service stations, small graphic arts facilities, landfills, 
and emissions from consumer and commercial products. Emission estimates 
are made for most area source categories by multiplying some indicator 
of activity level for the sector, such as gasoline consumption data for 
gasoline stations,

[[Page 57224]]

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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission estimates 
from the model.
4. Non-Road Mobile Source Emissions
    Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island estimated emissions 
for the majority of equipment within the non-road sector using the 
EPA's NONROAD 2005 model. The NONROAD model estimates emissions for 
diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural 
gas-fueled non-road equipment types. The non-road model does not 
estimate emissions from aircraft, locomotives, or commercial marine 
vessels, and so the states used other EPA recommended methods to 
estimate emissions from these sectors.
5. Biogenic Emission Sources
    Biogenic (naturally occurring) emissions occur from plants, trees, 
grasses and crops. EPA developed a computer model, referred to as the 
Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS v. 3.12), to estimate VOC 
emissions from this source category, and calculates biogenic emissions 
for all counties in the country. EPA recommends that states use EPA's 
biogenic emission estimates, and Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode 
Island all relied on EPA's emission estimates for this sector.
B. Summary of 2002 Base Year Inventories
    The 2002 VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions for these areas.

        Table 2a--2002 Base Year Inventory for the NY-NJ-CT Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2002 VOC     2002 NOX
              Nonattainment area                 emissions    emissions
                                                 (tons/day)   (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY-NJ-CT area:
  Point.......................................         11.3         37.7
  Area........................................         84.1          7.2
  On-road.....................................         48.1        102.7
  Non-road....................................         66.0         38.7
  Biogenics...................................        125.6          0.7
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        335.3        187.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 2b--2002 Base Year Inventory for the Greater Connecticut Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2002 VOC     2002 NOX
              Nonattainment area                 emissions    Emissions
                                                 (tons/day)   (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater Connecticut area:
  Point.......................................          4.6         19.0
  Area........................................         75.5          6.4
  On-road.....................................         45.1         89.3
  Non-road....................................         56.2         30.8
  Biogenics...................................        268.9          1.3
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        450.3        146.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 2c--2002 Base Year Inventory for the Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2002 VOC     2002 NOX
              Nonattainment area                 emissions    Emissions
                                                 (tons/day)   (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) area:
  Point.......................................         13.6        116.6
  Area........................................        282.0         33.9
  On-road.....................................        127.4        381.4
  Non-road....................................        196.2        122.1
  Biogenics...................................        535.7          4.4
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................      1,154.9        658.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 2d--2002 Base Year Inventory for the Springfield (W. MA) Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2002 VOC     2002 NOX
              Nonattainment area                 Emissions    Emissions
                                                 (tons/day)   (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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2002 VOC     2002 NOX
              Nonattainment area                 emissions    emissions
                                                 (tons/day)   (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providence area:
  Point.......................................         10.3          7.0
  Area........................................         47.9          3.4
  On-road.....................................         32.3         42.4
  Non-road....................................         26.8         19.7
  Biogenics...................................        124.2          0.7
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        241.5         73.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What action is EPA taking on these inventories?

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

III. Reasonable Further Progress Plans

A. What is a reasonable further progress plan, and why are these states 
required to prepare one?

    A reasonable further progress (RFP) plan illustrates how an ozone 
nonattainment area will make emission reductions of a set amount over a 
given time period. Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA required moderate and 
above ozone nonattainment areas to develop plans to reduce VOC 
emissions by 15 percent over a six year time period beginning with the 
date of enactment of the 1990 amendments to the Act, which occurred on 
November 15, 1990. EPA's Phase 2 rule interpreted how this requirement 
would apply to areas designated as moderate (or higher) nonattainment 
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and did so in a number of ways. See 
40 CFR part 51 subpart X. Of relevance for Connecticut, Massachusetts, 
and Rhode Island is what the Phase 2 rule required for areas with 
attainment dates greater than 5 years from designation that previously 
accomplished a 15% reduction in VOC emissions pursuant to one-hour 
ozone nonattainment requirements, as all three of these states meet 
these criteria. For such areas, the Phase 2 rule indicates that RFP 
will be met if the area can demonstrate a 15% reduction in ozone 
precursor emissions (VOC and/or NO<INF>X</INF>)

[[Page 57225]]

will occur between 2002 and 2008.\4\ See 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2)(ii)(A)-
(B). If the area uses NO<INF>X</INF> reductions to meet part or all of 
this requirement, it must satisfy EPA guidance concerning the 
conditions under which NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
``NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution Guidance.'' Therefore, the RFP plans 
submitted by Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were 
evaluated against these criteria. These states prepared RFP plans for 
each of the nonattainment areas shown in Table 1 above. We note that 
Connecticut's plan for the NY-NJ-CT area only accounts for emission 
reductions from within the Connecticut portion of the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If the area wishes to use NO<INF>X</INF> reductions to meet 
part or all of this 15% requirement, the calculation is not done by 
measuring the overall percent of combined VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
reductions, but rather by separately calculating the percent of VOC 
reductions and the percent of NO<INF>X</INF> reductions, and adding 
those percentages together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions to achieve the overall 15 percent 
reduction in ozone precursor emissions. Available modeling indicates 
that NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions are clearly beneficial in 
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and so as outlined in 
EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> Substitution Guidance, use of NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission reductions to meet RFP requirements is appropriate.
    The manner in which states are to determine the required level of 
emission reductions is similar to the procedure explained in the 
guidance document entitled, ``Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year 
Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for the 15% Rate of Progress 
Plans'' (EPA-452/R-92-005). Adjustments to this procedure pertaining to 
proper accounting of the non-creditable emission reductions from the 
pre-1990 Federal motor vehicle control program (FMVCP) are noted within 
Appendix A of the Phase 2 rule (70 FR 71696, as corrected by 71 FR 
58498).

B. What action is EPA taking on these plans?

    We are proposing approval of the RFP plans submitted by 
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for the moderate 
nonattainment areas shown in Table 1 above, as revisions to these 
states' implementation plans. Note that regarding the NY-NJ-CT moderate 
area, we are proposing action today only on the Connecticut portion of 
the RFP plan.

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

    Tables 3a-3e below contain a summary of the RFP calculations as 
performed by Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island for their 
moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Some of the 2002 base year 
inventory values shown in Step 1 of Tables 3a-3e are slightly higher 
than those shown in Tables 2a-2e due to adjustments each state made to 
their RFP SIPs to account for emissions banking and trading programs. 
These adjustments are described elsewhere in this proposal. The 
emission target levels are shown in step 6 of Tables 3a-3e. The 
emission targets represent the maximum amount of emissions that can 
occur in 2008 given the state's selected mix of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
percent reductions as noted in step 4 of the calculations. The RFP 
plans submitted by Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island 
indicate that the projected, controlled emissions for 2008 shown in 
Step 7 of Tables 3a-3e are below the 2008 emission target levels shown 
in step 6, with the exception of Rhode Island's VOC emissions. To 
remedy this small shortfall, Rhode Island allocated surplus 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions that were available as shown in 
Table 3e.

                              Table 3a--2008 RFP Calculations for the NY-NJ-CT Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                    VOC emissions  (tons/day)             NOX emissions (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year        335.3..............................  189.1.
 inventory.
Step 2: Develop RFP inventory           209.7..............................  188.4.
 (subtract biogenics).
Step 3: Develop adjusted base year      -4.5 = 205.2.......................  -11.7 = 176.7.
 inventory by subtracting non-
 creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP \5\
 reductions from RFP inventory.
Step 4: Calculate required reduction    10%; 20.5 tons.....................  5%; 8.8 tons.
 (total of VOC and NOX reductions must
 equal 15 percent).
Step 5: Calculate total expected        4.5 + 20.5 = 24.9..................  11.7 + 8.8 = 20.5.
 reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together).
Step 6: Set target level for 2008       209.7-24.9 = 184.6.................  186.3-20.4 = 167.9.
 (subtract step 5 from step 2).
Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008      167.6..............................  142.6.
 emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.


                        Table 3b--2008 RFP Calculations for the Greater Connecticut area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                    VOC emissions  (tons/day)            NOX emissions  (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year        450.3..............................  147.3.
 inventory.
Step 2: Develop RFP inventory           181.4..............................  146.1.
 (subtract biogenics).
Step 3: Develop adjusted base year      -4.3 = 177.1.......................  -9.3 = 136.8.
 inventory by subtracting non-
 creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP reductions
 from RFP inventory.
Step 4: Calculate required reduction    10%; 17.7 tons.....................  5%; 6.8 tons.
 (total of VOC and NOX reductions must
 equal 15 percent).
Step 5: Calculate total expected        4.3 + 17.7 = 22.0..................  9.3 + 6.8 = 16.1.
 reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together).
Step 6: Set target level for 2008       181.4-22.0 = 159.4.................  145.5-16.1 = 130.0.
 (subtract step 5 from step 2).

[[Page 57226]]

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


                            Table 3c--2008 RFP Calculations for the Bos-Law-Wor area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                    VOC emissions  (tons/day)            NOX emissions  (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year        1,157.3............................  689.0.
 inventory.
Step 2: Develop RFP inventory           621.6..............................  684.6.
 (subtract biogenics).
Step 3: Develop adjusted base year      -15.3 = 606.3......................  -45.2 = 639.4.
 inventory by subtracting non-
 creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP reductions
 from RFP inventory.
Step 4: Calculate required reduction    3%; 18.2 tons......................  12%; 76.7 tons.
 (total of VOC and NOX reductions must
 equal 15 percent).
Step 5: Calculate total expected        15.3 + 18.2 = 33.5.................  45.2 + 76.7 = 121.9.
 reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together).
Step 6: Set target level for 2008       621.6-33.5 = 588.1.................  684.6 - 121.9 = 562.7.
 (subtract step 5 from step 2).
Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008      525.7..............................  440.6.
 emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Table 3d--2008 RFP Calculations for the Springfield area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                    VOC emissions  (tons/day)            NOX emissions  (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year        354.8..............................  114.2.
 inventory.
Step 2: Develop RFP inventory           100.2..............................  113.1.
 (subtract biogenics).
Step 3: Develop adjusted base year      -2.9 = 97.3........................  -8.5 = 104.6.
 inventory by subtracting non-
 creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP reductions
 from RFP inventory.
Step 4: Calculate required reduction    3%; 2.9 tons.......................  12%; 12.6 tons.
 (total of VOC and NOX reductions must
 equal 15 percent).
Step 5: Calculate total expected        2.9 + 2.9 = 5.8....................  8.5 + 12.6 = 21.1.
 reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together).
Step 6: Set target level for 2008       2.9 + 2.9 = 5.8....................  8.5 + 12.6 = 21.1.
 (subtract step 5 from step 2).
Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008      84.2...............................  66.9.
 emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Table 3e--2008 RFP Calculations for the Providence area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                    VOC Emissions  (tons/day)            NOX emissions  (tons/day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Calculate 2002 base year        243.4..............................  73.2.
 inventory.
Step 2: Develop RFP inventory           119.2..............................  72.5.
 (subtract biogenics).
Step 3: Develop adjusted base year      -5.5 = 113.7.......................  -3.2 = 69.3.
 inventory by subtracting non-
 creditable, pre-1990 FMVCP reductions
 from RFP inventory.
Step 4: Calculate required reduction    0%.................................  15%.
 (total of VOC and NOX reductions must
 equal 15 percent).
Step 5: Calculate total expected        5.5 + 0 = 5.5......................  3.2 + 10.4 = 13.6.
 reduction (add steps 3 & 4 together).
Step 6: Set target level for 2008       119.2-5.5 = 113.7..................  72.5-3.6-1.1 = 57.8.
 (subtract step 5 from step 2; also,
 the Providence area NOX target
 includes additional 1.1 ton reduction
 to cover VOC shortfall).
Step 7: Projected, controlled 2008      115.4..............................  55.3.
 emissions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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% 
NO<INF>X</INF> reduction (which translates to 1.1 tons) to cover this 
shortfall. Thus, Rhode Island has set its 2008 NO<INF>X</INF> target to 
57.8 tons/day rather than 58.9 tons/day. In essence, Rhode Island has 
selected a 16.6% reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> or VOC emissions reductions (or both) to achieve 
the 15 percent emission reduction requirement. Use of NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions reductions must meet the criteria in section 182(c)(2)(C) of 
the Act.'' 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2)(ii). EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> substitution guidance 
provides the criteria that must be met in order for NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission reductions to be used in RFP plans as provided by section

[[Page 57227]]

182(c)(2)(C) of the Act. The guidance directs states to ensure that 
such substitution is done only to the extent that the modeled 
attainment demonstration for the area indicates that this substitution 
is appropriate. For example, section 2 of the guidance provides that, 
``This linkage provides assurance that the RFP reductions are 
consistent with the SIP attainment demonstration. States are required 
to justify substitution by illustrating ``consistency'' between the 
cumulative emission changes emerging from the RFP/substitution proposal 
and the emission reductions in the modeled attainment demonstration.''
    Rhode Island worked in conjunction with the other states within the 
ozone transport region (OTR) to perform the urban airshed modeling that 
the state included within its attainment demonstration, and on 
development of recommended control strategies to reduce VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in the Northeast such that the ozone NAAQS 
would be met by 2009. This modeling exercise showed that both VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions would be needed to reach the area's 
attainment goals. The resulting suite of federal and state control 
measures indicate that NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions figured 
prominently in the area's attainment strategy. This is most clearly 
seen by the fact that NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions within its RFP plan 
is appropriate.
    Second, the increase in VOC emissions between 2002 and 2008 is an 
artifact of EPA's RFP calculation procedure; the state's actual VOC 
emissions in 2008 were predicted to be lower than they were in 2002. In 
explanation, as shown in step 2 of Table 3e above, Rhode Island's 2002 
anthropogenic VOC emissions were 119.2 tons per summer day (tpsd). 
However, EPA's RFP calculation procedure requires that emission 
reductions from the pre-1990 federal motor vehicle control program 
(FMVCP) that will accrue between 2002 and 2008 be subtracted from the 
2002 anthropogenic baseline because the Act, at section 
182(b)(1)(D)(i), provides such reductions are not creditable for 
purposes of meeting RFP requirements. This subtraction is shown in step 
3 of Table 3e above, and resulted in the 2002 baseline being lowered by 
5.5 tpsd to 113.7 tpsd. Since no VOC reductions were planned for in the 
RFP plan, 113.7 tpsd is also the state's target level of emissions for 
VOCs. As shown in step 7 of Table 3e, Rhode Island's 2008 VOC emissions 
were estimated to be 115.4 tpsd. This is higher than the VOC target 
emission level of 113.7 tpsd by 1.7 tpsd, but is lower than the state's 
actual 2002 anthropogenic baseline emissions of 119.2 tpsd by 3.8 tpsd. 
The preceding comparison is not intended to diminish the significance 
of the Act's prohibition against crediting reductions due to the pre-
1990 FMVCP towards RFP. Rather, this analysis simply clarifies that 
this is not a situation where a state proposes to rely on a larger-
than-15% decrease in NO<INF>X</INF> 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, 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 57228]]

amount of banked VOC, and a larger amount of banked NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission reductions that occurred over this time frame in Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. For example, within the on-road mobile 
sector the Federal Tier 2 motor vehicle control program and controls 
for heavy duty diesel vehicles and fuels were significant programs that 
helped to reduce emissions during this period of time. Within the non-
road sector, Federal controls on diesel engines and the Phase 2 
standards for gasoline powered handheld and non-handheld equipment 
began, which helped reduce emissions from that sector.
    In addition to Federal measures for mobile source emissions, state-
adopted control measures also acted to reduce VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from that sector. 
This program has also been approved into the state's SIP. (See 66 FR 
63311).
    Connecticut's NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> budget program beginning 
in 2009. On July 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia issued an opinion vacating and remanding EPA's 
CAIR rule. See North Carolina v EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). 
However, on December 23, 2008, the court granted rehearing in part and 
remanded the rule back to EPA for revision without vacatur. 550 F.3d 
1176 (DC Cir. 2008). Accordingly, CAIR is to be implemented as it was 
originally intended until EPA revises the rule to address the court's 
remand.\6\ Therefore, the NO<INF>X</INF> reductions achieved by 
Connecticut's NO<INF>X</INF> 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions achieved by the state's 
NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call Trading program, as that program's 
implementation date was in 2003. Massachusetts submitted its 
``NO<INF>X</INF> Allowance Trading Program'' (also referred to as the 
NO<INF>X</INF> Budget or the NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> Budget program beginning in 2009. Therefore, 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from sources covered by the Commonwealth's 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions. These emission 
reductions occur as a result of the post-1990 Federal mobile source 
control measures, as mentioned above, the state's adoption of a motor 
vehicle I&M Program, and the state-adopted Low Emissions Vehicle 
program. EPA has approved both of these programs into the Rhode Island 
SIP. (See 66 FR 9661, and 65 FR 12476, respectively.)

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

    We are proposing to approve three VOC control measures from 
Connecticut, two of which were included in the state's February 1, 2008 
SIP submittal to EPA. These rules consist of a solvent metal cleaning 
rule, an architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings rule, 
and an asphalt paving rule submitted on January 8, 2009. The solvent 
metal cleaning and AIM coatings rules have compliance dates in May of 
2008, and so achieve emission reductions that help Connecticut 
demonstrate compliance with its RFP obligation. The asphalt paving rule 
has a May 1, 2009 compliance date and was submitted to help the state 
demonstrate that it meets the Clean Air Act section 182(b)(2) 
requirement that sources in the state use reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) to control air pollution. We are not proposing action 
on Connecticut's overall RACM or RACT submittals at

[[Page 57229]]

this time. Additional information about each of these rules is provided 
below.
    Metal cleaning rule. Connecticut's February 1, 2008 SIP submittal 
to EPA included an amendment to its existing SIP approved metal 
cleaning rule, located at section 22a-174-20 of the Regulations of 
Connecticut State Agencies (``Control of organic compound emissions, 
loading of gasoline and other volatile organic compounds''), paragraph 
(l) (``Metal cleaning''). The amended rule adds a limit on the vapor 
pressure of solvents used in cold cleaning and other requirements to 
further limit emissions of VOCs from metal cleaning operations. These 
requirements are consistent with the Ozone Transport Commission's 
(OTC's) 2001 model rule for solvent cleaning. The compliance date for 
the rule was May 1, 2008.
    AIM coatings rule. Connecticut's February 1, 2008 SIP submittal 
included a new rule, section 22a-174-41 (``Architectural and industrial 
maintenance coatings''), that limits VOC emissions from AIM coatings. 
The state's rule establishes VOC content limits consistent with those 
developed in 2001 within a model rule created by the OTC. The limits in 
the state's rule are as stringent as, or more stringent than, those 
contained in the Federal AIM rule adopted by EPA in December 1998 (40 
CFR part 59, subpart D). The compliance date for most of the regulated 
product categories was May 1, 2008. EPA notes that we are relying on 
the federal enforceability of section (g)(3)(A)(iii) referenced in that 
section of the rule.
    Asphalt paving rule. On January 8, 2009, Connecticut submitted an 
amendment to its existing SIP-approved section 22a-174-20 (``Control of 
organic compound emissions, loading of gasoline and other volatile 
organic compounds''), paragraph (k) (``Restrictions on VOC emissions 
from cutback and emulsified asphalt''). The amended regulation includes 
a seasonal ban on the use of cutback asphalt and a reduction in the 
acceptable VOC content of emulsified asphalt. The compliance date for 
the rule was May 1, 2009.
    Connecticut held a public hearing on the first two rules mentioned 
above on June 27, 2006, and held a hearing on the asphalt paving rule 
on May 1, 2007. EPA reviewed draft versions of these rules and provided 
comments to Connecticut during the public hearing process, and 
Connecticut responded adequately to our comments. We are proposing 
approval of Connecticut's revised solvent metal cleaning and asphalt 
paving rules, and its new AIM coatings rule, so that they may become 
part of the state's federally enforceable SIP.

H. Have these states met their contingency measure obligation?

    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires, in part, that nonattainment 
areas provide for contingency measures ``to be undertaken if the area 
fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the national 
primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable 
under this part.'' EPA has long interpreted the Act to require that 
contingency measures must provide reductions of 3 percent of the 
emissions from the adjusted base year inventory (57 FR 13498, 13510-
13511). States may choose to meet this requirement by consuming surplus 
emission reductions shown in their RFP target level calculations, if a 
surplus exists. However, pursuant to a guidance memorandum issued by 
EPA on November 8, 1993,\7\ any measures that are already required are 
not creditable as contingency measures. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and 
Rhode Island each chose to meet the contingency obligation using 
surplus emission reductions as noted in the target level calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Clarification of Issues Regarding the Contingency Measures 
that are due November 15, 1993 for Moderate and Above Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF>. 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF>. The state's low emission vehicle program, 
which achieves both VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emission reductions, is an 
example of a rule the state adopted that was not otherwise required by 
the CAA.
    Rhode Island projects that it will have a 3.6% NO<INF>X</INF> 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> rules not otherwise 
required by the CAA. However, Rhode Island could remedy this by relying 
on the additional VOC control programs for stationary sources that it 
adopted in 2009, which included rules establishing emission limits for 
consumer and commercial products, and on architectural and industrial 
maintenance coatings. A public hearing on these proposed rules was held 
on February 20, 2009, and they were promulgated as final state 
regulations May 15, 2009, with an effective date of June 4, 2009. Rhode 
Island submitted these regulations to EPA as SIP revisions, but EPA has 
not yet approved into the Rhode Island SIP. Section 8.3 of Rhode 
Island's attainment demonstration submittal alludes to the possibility 
of using reductions from these measures as an alternative means of 
meeting the RFP contingency obligation. We are therefore proposing to 
approve use of emission reductions from these stationary source 
measures (which, as noted above, have taken effect under state law but 
have not yet been approved into Rhode Island's SIP) as meeting the 
state's contingency plan requirement. Section 8.3 of Rhode Island's 
attainment demonstration submittal stated that reductions from these 
regulations were expected to reduce VOC emissions by 2009 by 5.0 tons/
day. This would cover the 3% contingency obligation, as 3% of the 
state's 2002 RFP inventory for VOCs, which is 119.2 tons/day, equals 
3.6 tons/day. EPA would need to approve these two rules into Rhode 
Island's SIP prior to, or in conjunction with, our taking final action 
on the state's RFP plan.

I. Are transportation conformity budgets contained in these plans?

    Section 176(c) of the CAA, and EPA's transportation conformity rule 
at 40 CFR part 93 subpart A, require that transportation plans, 
programs, and projects conform to state air quality implementation 
plans. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will 
not cause or contribute to new air quality violations, worsen existing 
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. States are 
required to establish motor vehicle emission budgets in any control 
strategy SIP that is submitted for attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS. The RFP plans submitted by Connecticut,

[[Page 57230]]

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are control strategy SIPs, and they 
contain 2008 motor vehicle budgets for VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF> by 
nonattainment area. Table 4 contains these VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
transportation conformity budgets in units of tons per summer day:

   Table 4.--Conformity Budgets in the Connecticut, Massachusetts, and
                         Rhode Island RFP Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2008
                                                        Transportation
                                                      conformity budgets
                      Area name                           (tons/day)
                                                     -------------------
                                                         VOC       NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY-NJ-CT area (CT portion)..........................     29.7      60.5
Greater Connecticut.................................     28.5      54.3
Bos-Law-Wor (E. MA) area............................     68.30    191.30
Springfield (W. MA) area............................     11.80     31.30
Providence..........................................     24.64     28.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA issued letters on June 2, 2008 to Connecticut, March 7, 2008 to 
Massachusetts, and June 16, 2008 to Rhode Island in which we stated 
these budgets were adequate for use in transportation conformity 
determinations. Additionally, EPA published announcements of these 
adequacy findings in the Federal Register on June 12, 2008 for 
Connecticut (73 FR 33428), March 18, 2008 for Massachusetts (73 FR 
14466), and June 30, 2008 for Rhode Island (36862). In today's action, 
we are proposing approval of the 2008 conformity budgets for VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> for the areas shown in Table 4 above.
    Connecticut and Rhode Island increased their projected 2008 motor 
vehicle emission estimates slightly to provide a buffer to their 
transportation conformity budgets. Connecticut increased its 2008 motor 
vehicle emission estimates by 2 percent, and Rhode Island by 0.5 tons/
day. Doing so made meeting the 2008 RFP emission target slightly more 
difficult to achieve. However, both of these states were able to meet 
their respective RFP targets even after increasing their projected 2008 
motor vehicle emission estimates. These increases are reflected in the 
budgets shown above in Table 4, and were also used in the projected, 
controlled 2008 emission estimates shown in step 7 of Tables 3 a, b, 
and e. The Connecticut and Rhode Island 2008 motor vehicle conformity 
budgets are approvable because these states were able to show that they 
can meet their 2008 RFP emission target levels even after providing 
these buffers to their budgets.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA's review indicates that the 2002 base year emission 
inventories, RFP plans, transportation conformity budgets, and 
contingency plans submitted by Connecticut on February 1, 2008, 
Massachusetts on January 31, 2008, and Rhode Island on April 30, 2008 
to meet, in part, their obligations under EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard meet the requirements for these programs. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to approve these listed components of the state's submittals 
as revisions to each state's SIP. Additionally, EPA is proposing 
approval of three rules adopted by Connecticut that will reduce VOC 
emissions in the state. It should be noted that each states' submittal 
also included other SIP elements, most notably attainment 
demonstrations for EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone standard, but EPA is not 
acting on those other components at this time. Additional details 
regarding the state's submittals and EPA's review of these submittals 
is contained in the technical support document (TSD) prepared for this 
action. The TSD is available in the docket for this action. EPA is 
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal or 
on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before 
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal 
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New 
England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal 
Register.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    Dated: September 9, 2010.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2010-23402 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>