Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut; One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration; Greater Connecticut Ozone Nonattainment Area

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT056-7215-FRL-6501-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut;

One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration; Greater Connecticut Ozone

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the ground-level one-hour

ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area submitted by the

Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

(CT DEP) on September 16, 1998. We are also proposing, in the

alternative, to disapprove this demonstration if Connecticut does not

submit an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget consistent with

attainment. EPA is also proposing approval of an attainment date

extension until November 15, 2007 for the Greater Connecticut

nonattainment area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be sent

to: David B. Conroy at the EPA Region I (New England) Office, One

Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023.

Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document

are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 (New

England), One Congress St., 11th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts.

Telephone (617) 918-1664, an at the Bureau of Air Management,

Department of Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm

Street, Hartford, CT 06106. Please telephone in advance before

visiting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Burkhart (617) 918-1664.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides background

information on attainment demonstration SIPs for the one-hour ozone

national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and an analysis of the

one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP submitted by the CT DEP for

the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area. This document addresses the

following questions:

What is the Basis for the Attainment Demonstration SIP?

What are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?

What is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment

Demonstration SIPs?

What Does EPA Expect to Happen with Respect to Attainment

Demonstrations for the Greater Connecticut One-hour Ozone

Nonattainment Area?

What are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?

How Does the Connecticut Submittal Satisfy the Frame Work?

I. Background

A. What Is the Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP?

1. CAA Requirements

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires EPA to establish national ambient

air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for certain widespread

pollutants that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably

anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. CAA sections 108 and

109. In 1979, EPA promulgated the one-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm)

ground-level ozone standard. 44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). Ground-level

ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in

the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX and

VOC are referred to as precursors of ozone.

An area exceeds the one-hour ozone standard each time an ambient

air quality monitor records a one-hour average ozone concentration

above 0.124 ppm. An area is violating the standard if, over a

consecutive three-year period, more than three exceedances are expected

to occur at any one monitor. The CAA, as amended in 1990, required EPA

to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the one-hour

ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the

three-year period from 1987-1989. CAA section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694

(Nov. 6, 1991). The CAA further classified these areas, based on the

area's design value, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme.

CAA section 181(a). Marginal areas were suffering the least significant

air pollution problems while the areas classified as severe and extreme

had the most significant air pollution problems.

The control requirements and dates by which attainment needs to be

achieved vary with the area's classification. Marginal areas are

subject to the fewest mandated control

[[Page 70333]]

requirements and have the earliest attainment date. Severe and extreme

areas are subject to more stringent planning requirements but are

provided more time to attain the standard. Serious areas are required

to attain the one-hour standard by November 15, 1999 and severe areas

are required to attain by November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007. The

Greater Connecticut area is classified as serious and its attainment

date is November 15, 1999.

Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the CAA, serious and severe

areas were required to submit by November 15, 1994 demonstrations of

how they would attain the one-hour standard and how they would achieve

reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for each three-year period

until the attainment year (rate-of-progress or ROP). (In some cases,

NOX emission reduction can be substituted for the required

VOC emission reductions.) Today, in this proposed rule, EPA is

proposing action on the attainment demonstration SIP submitted by the

CT DEP for Greater Connecticut nonattainment area. EPA will take action

on the Connecticut's 9% ROP plan for reductions from 1996-1999 in a

separate rulemaking action. (The 9% ROP plan was submitted to EPA on

December 31, 1997, with minor revisions on January 7, 1998.) In

addition, elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is today proposing to

take action on nine other serious or severe one-hour ozone attainment

demonstration and, in some cases ROP SIPs. The additional nine areas

are, Springfield (Western Massachusetts), New York-North New Jersey-

Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), Baltimore (MD), Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton

(PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington, D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta (GA),

Milwaukee-Racine (WI), Chicago-Gary-Lake County (IL-IN), and Houston-

Galveston-Brazoria (TX).

In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling

analysis component showing how the area will achieve the standard by

its attainment date and the control measures necessary to achieve those

reductions. Another component of the attainment demonstration SIP is a

motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity purposes.

Transportation conformity is a process for ensuring that States

consider the effects of emissions associated with new or improved

federally-funded roadways on attainment of the standard. As described

in section 176(c)(2)(A), attainment demonstrations necessarily include

the estimates of motor vehicle emissions that are consistent with

attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of

determining whether transportation plans and projects conform to the

attainment SIP.

2. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP

Notwithstanding significant efforts by the States, in 1995 EPA

recognized that many States in the eastern half of the United States

could not meet the November 1994 time frame for submitting an

attainment demonstration SIP because emissions of NOX and

VOCs in upwind States (and the ozone formed by these emissions)

affected these nonattainment areas and the full impact of this effect

had not yet been determined. This phenomenon is called ozone transport.

On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's

Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by States but

noting the remaining difficulties in making attainment demonstration

SIP submittals.1 Recognizing the problems created by ozone

transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative

process among the States in the eastern half of the country to evaluate

and address transport of ozone and its precursors. This memorandum led

to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)

2 and provided for the States to submit the attainment

demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to

complete its evaluation of ozone transport.

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

\1\ Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' issued

March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum may be found on EPA's web

site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

\2\ Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council of States

(ECOS) Members, dated April 13, 1995.

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

In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations

regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded that transport

of ozone and the precursor NOX is significant and should be

reduced regionally to enable States in the eastern half of the country

to attain the ozone NAAQS.

In recognition of the length of the OTAG process, in a December 29,

1997 memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's then Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, provided until April 1998 for

States to submit the following elements of their attainment

demonstration SIPs for serious and severe areas: (1) evidence that the

applicable control measures in subpart 2 of part D of title I of the

CAA were adopted and implemented or were on an expeditious course to

being adopted and implemented; (2) a list of measures needed to meet

the remaining ROP emissions reduction requirement and to reach

attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a commitment to adopt and submit

target calculations for post-1999 ROP and the control measures

necessary for attainment and ROP plans through the attainment year by

the end of 2000; (4) a commitment to implement the SIP control programs

in a timely manner and to meet ROP emissions reductions and attainment;

and (5) evidence of a public hearing on the State

submittal.3 This submission is sometimes referred to as the

Phase 2 submission. Motor vehicle emissions budgets can be established

based on a commitment to adopt the measures needed for attainment and

identification of the measures needed. Thus, State submissions due in

April 1998 under the Wilson policy should have included a motor vehicle

emissions budget.

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

\3\ Memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and

Pre-Existing PM 10 NAAQS,'' issued December 29, 1997. A copy of this

memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/t1pgm.html.

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

Building upon the OTAG recommendations and technical analyses, in

November 1997, EPA proposed action addressing the ozone transport

problem. In its proposal, the EPA found that current SIPs in 22 States

and the District of Columbia (23 jurisdictions) were insufficient to

provide for attainment and maintenance of the one-hour standard because

they did not regulate NOX emissions that significantly

contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318 (Nov. 7, 1997). The EPA

finalized that rule in September 1998, calling on the 23 jurisdictions

to revise their SIPs to require NOX emissions reductions

within the State to a level consistent with a NOX emissions

budget identified in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). This

final rule is commonly referred to as the NOX SIP Call.

3. Attainment Date Delays Due to Transport

On July 16, 1998, EPA's then Acting Assistant Administrator,

Richard Wilson, issued a guidance memorandum intended to provide

further relief to areas affected by ozone transport.4 The

memorandum

[[Page 70334]]

recognized that many moderate and serious areas are affected by

transported pollution from either an upwind area in the same State with

a higher classification and later attainment date, and/or from an

upwind area in another State that is significantly contributing to the

downwind area's nonattainment problem. The policy recognized that some

downwind areas may be unable to meet their own attainment dates,

despite doing all that was required in their local area, because an

upwind area may not have adopted and implemented all of the controls

that would benefit the downwind area through control of transported

ozone before the downwind area's attainment date. Thus, the policy

provided that upon a successful demonstration that an upwind area has

interfered with attainment and that the downwind area is adopting all

measures required for its local area 5 for attainment but

for this interference, EPA may grant an extension of the downwind

area's attainment date.6 Once an area receives an extension

of its attainment date based on transport, the area would no longer be

subject to reclassification to a higher classification and subject to

additional requirements for failure to attain by its original

attainment date provided it was doing all that was necessary locally.

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

\4\ Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind

Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998. This memorandum is

applicable to both moderate and serious ozone nonattainment areas. A

copy of this policy may be found on EPA's web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

\5\ Local area measures would include all of the measures within

the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes of the

modeled attainment demonstration.

\6\ The policy provides that the area must meet four criteria to

receive an attainment date extension. In summary, the area must: (1)

be identified as a downwind area affected by transport from either

an upwind area in the same State with a later attainment date or an

upwind area in another State that significantly contributes to

downwind nonattainment; (2) submit an approvable attainment

demonstration with any necessary, adopted local measures and with an

attainment date that reflects when the upwind reductions will occur;

(3) adopt all local measures required under the area's current

classification and any additional measures necessary to demonstrate

attainment; and (4) provide that it will implement all adopted

measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date

by which the upwind reductions needed for attainment will be

achieved.

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

A request from the CT DEP for such an extension of the attainment

date for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area and EPA's proposed

response is discussed in this action.

4. Time Frame for Taking Action on Attainment Demonstration SIPs for 10

Serious and Severe Areas

The States generally submitted the SIPs between April and October

of 1998; some States are still submitting additional revisions as

described below. Under the CAA, EPA is required to approve or

disapprove a State's submission no later than 18 months following

submission. (The statute provides up to 6 months for a completeness

determination and an additional 12 months for approval or disapproval.)

The EPA believes that it is important to keep the process moving

forward in evaluating these plans and, as appropriate, approving them.

Thus, in today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing to take action on

the 10 serious and severe one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs

(located in 13 States and the District of Columbia) and intends to take

final action on these submissions over the next 6-12 months. The reader

is referred to individual dates in this document for specific

information on actions leading to EPA's final rulemaking on these

plans.

5. Options for Action on a State's Attainment Demonstration SIP

Depending on the circumstances unique to each of the 10 area SIP

submissions on which EPA is proposing action today, EPA is proposing

one or more of these types of approval or disapproval in the

alternative. In addition, these proposals may identify additional

action that will be necessary from the State.

The CAA provides for EPA to approve, disapprove, partially approve

or conditionally approve a State's plan submission. CAA section 110(k).

The EPA must fully approve the submission if it meets the attainment

demonstration requirement of the CAA. If the submission is deficient in

some way, EPA may disapprove the submission. In the alternative, if

portions of the submission are approvable, EPA may partially approve

and partially disapprove, or may conditionally approve based on a

commitment to correct the deficiency by a date certain, which can be no

later than one year from the date of EPA's final conditional approval.

The EPA may partially approve a submission if separable parts of

the submission, standing alone, are consistent with the CAA. For

example, if a State submits a modeled attainment demonstration,

including control measures, but the modeling does not demonstrate

attainment, EPA could approve the control measures and disapprove the

modeling for failing to demonstrate attainment.

The EPA may issue a conditional approval based on a State's

commitment to expeditiously correct a deficiency by a date certain that

can be no later than one year following EPA's conditional approval.

Such commitments do not need to be independently enforceable because,

if the State does not fulfill its commitment, the conditional approval

is converted to a disapproval. For example, if a State commits to

submit additional control measures and fails to submit them or EPA

determines the State's submission of the control measures is

incomplete, the EPA will notify the State by letter that the

conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval. If the State

submits control measures that EPA determines are complete or that are

deemed complete, EPA will determine through rulemaking whether the

State's attainment demonstration is fully approvable or whether the

conditional approval of the attainment demonstration should be

converted to a disapproval.

Finally, EPA has recognized that in some limited circumstances, it

may be appropriate to issue a full approval for a submission that

consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. Unlike the commitment

for conditional approval, such an enforceable commitment can be

enforced in court by EPA or citizens. In addition, this type of

commitment may extend beyond one year following EPA's approval action.

Thus, EPA may accept such an enforceable commitment where it is

infeasible for the State to accomplish the necessary action in the

short term.

B. What are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?

The EPA provides that States may rely on a modeled attainment

demonstration supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate

attainment.7 In order to have a complete modeling

demonstration submission, States should have submitted the required

modeling analysis and identified any additional evidence that EPA

should consider in evaluating whether the area will attain the

standard.

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

\7\ The EPA issued guidance on the air quality modeling that is

used to demonstrate attainment with the one-hour ozone NAAQS. See

U.S. EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban

Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). A copy may be found on

EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name:

``UAMREG''). See also U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled

Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-

007, (June 1996). A copy may be found on EPA's web site at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').

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

1. Modeling Requirements

For purposes of demonstrating attainment, the CAA requires serious

and severe areas to use photochemical grid modeling or an analytical

method EPA determines to be as effective. The

[[Page 70335]]

photochemical grid model is set up using meteorological conditions

conducive to the formation of ozone. Emissions for a base year are used

to evaluate the model's ability to reproduce actual monitored air

quality values and to predict air quality changes in the attainment

year due to the emission changes which include growth up to and

controls implemented by the attainment year. A modeling domain is

chosen that encompasses the nonattainment area. Attainment is

demonstrated when all predicted concentrations inside the modeling

domain are at or below the NAAQS or at an acceptable upper limit above

the NAAQS permitted under certain conditions by EPA's guidance. When

the predicted concentrations are above the NAAQS, an optional weight of

evidence determination which incorporates, but is not limited to, other

analyses such as air quality and emissions trends, may be used to

address uncertainty inherent in the application of photochemical grid

models.

The EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis

that are essential to obtain credible results. First, the State must

develop and implement a modeling protocol. The modeling protocol

describes the methods and procedures to be used in conducting the

modeling analyses and provides for policy oversight and technical

review by individuals responsible for developing or assessing the

attainment demonstration (State and local agencies, EPA Regional

offices, the regulated community, and public interest groups). Second,

for purposes of developing the information to put into the model, the

State must select air pollution days, i.e., days in the past with bad

air quality, that are representative of the ozone pollution problem for

the nonattainment area. Third, the State needs to identify the

appropriate dimensions of the area to be modeled, i.e., the domain

size. The domain should be larger than the designated nonattainment

area to reduce uncertainty in the boundary conditions and should

include large upwind sources just outside the nonattainment area. In

general, the domain is considered the local area where control measures

are most beneficial to bring the area into attainment. Fourth, the

State needs to determine the grid resolution. The horizontal and

vertical resolutions in the model affect the dispersion and transport

of emission plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too few vertical

layers and horizontal grids) may dilute concentrations and may not

properly consider impacts of complex terrain, complex meteorology, and

land/water interfaces. Fifth, the State needs to generate

meteorological data that describe atmospheric conditions and emissions

inputs. Finally, the State needs to verify that the model is properly

simulating the chemistry and atmospheric conditions through diagnostic

analyses and model performance tests. Once these steps are

satisfactorily completed, the model is ready to be used to generate air

quality estimates to support an attainment demonstration.

The modeled attainment test compares model predicted one-hour daily

maximum concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the

level of the NAAQS. A predicted concentration above 0.124 ppm ozone

indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the

attainment year and a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that

the area is expected to attain the standard. This type of test is often

referred to as an exceedance test. The EPA's guidance recommends that

States use either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests for the

one-hour ozone NAAQS: a deterministic test or a statistical test.

The deterministic test requires the State to compare predicted one-

hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day

8 to the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the

predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed.

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

\8\ The initial, ``ramp-up'' days for each episode are excluded

from this determination.

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

The statistical test takes into account the fact that the form of

the one-hour ozone standard allows exceedances. If, over a three-year

period, the area has an average of one or fewer exceedances per year,

the area is not violating the standard. Thus, if the State models a

very extreme day, the statistical test provides that a prediction above

0.124 ppm up to a certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment

of the standard. (The form of the one-hour standard allows for up to

three readings above the standard over a three-year period before an

area is considered to be in violation.)

The acceptable upper limit above 0.124 ppm is determined by

examining the size of exceedances at monitoring sites which meet the

one-hour NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for which the four

highest one-hour average concentrations over a three-year period are

0.136 ppm, 0.130 ppm, 0.128 ppm and 0.122 ppm is attaining the

standard. To identify an acceptable upper limit, the statistical

likelihood of observing ozone air quality exceedances of the standard

of various concentrations is equated to the severity of the modeled

day. The upper limit generally represents the maximum ozone

concentration observed at a location on a single day and it would be

the only reading above the standard that would be expected to occur no

more than an average of once a year over a three-year period.

Therefore, if the maximum ozone concentration predicted by the model is

below the acceptable upper limit, in this case 0.136 ppm, then EPA

might conclude that the modeled attainment test is passed. Generally,

exceedances well above 0.124 ppm are very unusual at monitoring sites

meeting the NAAQS. Thus, these upper limits are rarely substantially

higher than the attainment level of 0.124 ppm.

2. Additional Analyses Where Modeling Fails To Show Attainment

When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment,

additional analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area

will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are

inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and its results. For

example, there are uncertainties in some of the modeling inputs, such

as the meteorological and emissions data bases for individual days and

in the methodology used to assess the severity of an exceedance at

individual sites. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, and

provides a means for considering other evidence to help assess whether

attainment of the NAAQS is likely. The process by which this is done is

called a weight of evidence (WOE) determination.

Under a WOE determination, the State can rely on and EPA will

consider factors such as other modeled attainment tests, e.g., a

rollback analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in the

predicted frequency and pervasiveness of exceedances and predicted

changes in the design value; actual observed air quality trends;

estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the

responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls; and,

whether there are additional control measures that are or will be

approved into the SIP but were not included in the modeling analysis.

This list is not an exclusive list of factors that may be considered

and these factors could vary from case to case. The EPA's guidance

contains no limit on how close a modeled attainment test must be to

passing to conclude that other evidence besides an attainment test is

sufficiently compelling to suggest attainment.

[[Page 70336]]

However, the further a modeled attainment test is from being passed,

the more compelling the WOE needs to be.

The EPA's 1996 modeling guidance also recognizes a need to perform

a mid-course review as a means for addressing uncertainty in the

modeling results. Because of the uncertainty in long term projections,

EPA believes a viable attainment demonstration that relies on WOE needs

to contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring, emissions, and

modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements to emission

control measures are needed. The mid-course review is discussed in

Section C.6.

C. What Is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment

Demonstration SIPs?

In addition to the modeling analysis and WOE support demonstrating

attainment, the EPA has identified the following key elements which

must be present in order for EPA to approve or conditionally approve

the one-hour attainment demonstration SIPs. These elements are listed

below and then described in detail.

--CAA measures and measures relied on in the modeled attainment

demonstration SIP. This includes adopted and submitted rules for all

previously required CAA mandated measures for the specific area

classification. This also includes measures that may not be required

for the area classification but that the State relied on in the SIP

submission for attainment and ROP plans on which EPA is proposing to

take action on today.

--NOX reductions affecting boundary conditions.

--Motor vehicle emissions budget. A motor vehicle emissions budget

which can be determined by EPA to be adequate for conformity purposes.

--Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits where needed to demonstrate

attainment. Inclusion of reductions expected from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe

and low sulfur-in-fuel standards in the attainment demonstration and

the motor vehicle emissions budget.

--In certain areas, additional measures to further reduce emissions to

support the attainment test. Additional measures, may be measures

adopted regionally such as in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), or

locally (intrastate) in individual States.

--Mid-course review. An enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-course

review and evaluation based on air quality and emission trends. The

mid-course review would show whether the adopted control measures are

sufficient to reach attainment by the area's attainment date, or that

additional control measures are necessary.

1. CAA Measures and Measures Relied On in the Modeled Attainment

Demonstration SIP

The States should have adopted the control measures already

required under the CAA for the area classification. Since these 10

serious and severe areas need to achieve substantial reductions from

their 1990 emissions levels in order to attain, EPA anticipates that

these areas need all of the measures required under the CAA to attain

the one-hour ozone NAAQS.

In addition, a state may have included more control measures in its

attainment strategy that are in addition to measures required in the

CAA. (For serious areas, these should have already been identified and

adopted, whereas severe areas have until December 2000 to submit

measures necessary to achieve ROP through the attainment year and to

attain.) For purposes of fully approving the State's SIP, the State

will need to adopt and submit all VOC and NOX controls

within the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes of

the modeled attainment demonstration

The information in Table 1 is a summary of the CAA requirements

that need to be met for each serious area for the one-hour ozone NAAQS.

These requirements are specified in section 182 of the CAA. Information

on more measures that States may have adopted or relied on in their

current SIP submissions is not shown in the table. EPA will need to

take final action approving all measures relied on for attainment,

including the required ROP control measures and target calculations,

before EPA can issue a final full approval of the attainment

demonstration as meeting CAA section 182(c)(2).

Table 1.--CAA Requirements for Serious Areas

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

--NSR for VOC and NOX,1 including an offset ratio of 1.2:1 and a major

VOC and NOX source cutoff of 50 tons per year (tpy).

--Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOX.1

--Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program.

--15% volatile organic compound (VOC) plans.

--Emissions inventory.

--Emission statements.

--Periodic inventories.

--Attainment demonstration.

--9 percent ROP plan through 1999.

--Clean fuels program or substitute.

--Enhanced monitoring Photochemical Assessment Monitoring stations

(PAMS).

--Stage II vapor recovery.

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

\1\ Unless the area has in effect a NOX waiver under section 182(f). The

Greater Connecticut area is not such an area.

2. NOX Reductions Consistent With the Modeling Demonstration

The EPA completed final rulemaking on the NOX SIP call

on October 27, 1998, which required States to address transport of

NOX and ozone to other States. To address transport, the

NOX SIP call established emissions budgets for

NOX that 23 jurisdictions were required to show they would

meet through enforceable SIP measures adopted and submitted by

September 30, 1999. The NOX SIP call is intended to reduce

emissions in upwind States that significantly contribute to

nonattainment problems. The EPA did not identify specific sources that

the States must regulate nor did EPA limit the States' choices

regarding where to achieve the emission reductions. Subsequently, a

three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit issued an order staying the portion of the NOX SIP

call rule requiring States to submit rules by September 30, 1999.

The NOX SIP call rule establishes budgets for the States

in which 9 of the nonattainment areas for which EPA is proposing action

today are located. The 9 areas are: Greater Connecticut, Springfield

MA, New York-North New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), Baltimore MD,

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta GA, Milwaukee-Racine WI, and Chicago-Gary-Lake

County (IL-IN).

Emission reductions that will be achieved through EPA's

NOX SIP call will reduce the levels of ozone and ozone

precursors entering nonattainment areas at their boundaries. For

purposes of developing attainment demonstrations, States define local

modeling domains that include both the nonattainment area and nearby

surrounding areas. The ozone levels at the boundary of the local

modeling domain are reflected in modeled attainment demonstrations and

are referred to as boundary conditions. With the exception of Houston,

the one-hour attainment demonstrations on which EPA is proposing action

have relied, in part, on the NOX SIP Call reductions for

purposes of determining the boundary

[[Page 70337]]

conditions of the modeling domain. Emission reductions assumed in the

attainment demonstrations are modeled to occur both within the State

and in upwind States; thus, intrastate reductions as well as reductions

in other States impact the boundary conditions. Although the court has

indefinitely stayed the SIP submission deadline, the NOX SIP

Call rule remains in effect. Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate

to allow States to continue to assume the reductions from the

NOX SIP call in areas outside the local one-hour modeling

domains. If States assume control levels and emission reductions other

than those of the NOX SIP call within their State but

outside of the modeling domain, States must also adopt control measures

to achieve those reductions in order to have an approvable plan.

Accordingly, States in which the nonattainment areas are located

will not be required to adopt measures outside the modeling domain to

achieve the NOX SIP call budgets prior to the time that all

States are required to comply with the NOX SIP call. If the

reductions from the NOX SIP call do not occur as planned,

States will need to revise their SIPs to add additional local measures

or obtain interstate reductions, or both, in order to provide

sufficient reductions needed for attainment.

As provided in section 1 above, any controls assumed by the State

inside the local modeling domain 9 for purposes of the

modeled attainment demonstration must be adopted and submitted as part

of the State's one-hour attainment demonstration SIP. It is only for

reductions occurring outside the local modeling domain that States may

assume implementation of NOX SIP call measures and the

resulting boundary conditions.

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

\9\ For the purposes of this document, ``local modeling domain''

is typically an urban scale domain with horizontal dimensions less

than about 300 km on a side, horizontal grid resolution less than or

equal to 5 x 5 km or finer. The domain is large enough to ensure

that emissions occurring at 8 am in the domain's center are still

within the domain at 8 pm the same day. If recirculation of the

nonattainment area's previous day's emissions is believed to

contribute to an observed problem, the domain is large enough to

characterize this.

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

3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

The EPA believes that attainment demonstration SIPs must

necessarily estimate the motor vehicle emissions that will be produced

in the attainment year and demonstrate that this emissions level, when

considered with emissions from all other sources, is consistent with

attainment. The estimate of motor vehicle emissions is used to

determine the conformity of transportation plans and programs to the

SIP, as described by CAA section 176(c)(2)(A). For transportation

conformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle emissions is known

as the motor vehicle emissions budget. The EPA believes that

appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions budgets are a

necessary part of an attainment demonstration SIP. A SIP cannot

effectively demonstrate attainment unless it identifies the level of

motor vehicle emissions that can be produced while still demonstrating

attainment.

The EPA has determined that except for the Western MA (Springfield)

attainment demonstration SIP, the motor vehicle emission budgets for

all areas in today's proposals are inadequate or missing from the

attainment demonstration. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the

attainment demonstration SIPs for those nine areas if the States do not

submit motor vehicle emissions budgets that EPA can find adequate by

May 31, 2000. In order for EPA to complete the adequacy process by the

end of May, States should submit a budget no later than December 31,

1999.10 If an area does not have a motor vehicle emissions

budget that EPA can determine adequate for conformity purposes by May

31, 2000, EPA plans to take final action at that time disapproving in

full or in part the area's attainment demonstration. The emissions

budget should reflect all the motor vehicle control measures contained

in the attainment demonstration, i.e., measures already adopted for the

nonattainment area as well as those yet to be adopted.

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

\10\ A final budget is preferred; but, if the State public

hearing process is not yet complete, then the draft budget for

public hearing may be submitted. The adequacy process generally

takes at least 90 days. Therefore, in order for EPA to complete the

adequacy process no later than the end of May, EPA must have by

February 15, 2000, the final budget or a draft that is substantially

similar to what the final budget will be. The State must submit the

final budget by April 15, 2000.

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

4. Tier 2/Sulfur Program Benefits

On May 13, 1999, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) proposing a major, comprehensive program designed to

significantly reduce emissions from passenger cars and light trucks

(including sport-utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks) and to

reduce sulfur in gasoline. Under the proposed program, automakers would

produce vehicles designed to have very low emissions when operated on

low-sulfur gasoline, and oil refiners would provide that cleaner

gasoline nationwide. The EPA subsequently issued two supplemental

notices. 64 FR 35112 (June 30, 1999); 64 FR 57827 (October 27, 1999).

These notices provide one-hour ozone modeling and monitoring

information that support EPA's belief that the Tier 2/Sulfur program is

necessary to help areas attain the one-hour NAAQS. Under the proposed

rule, NOX and VOC emission reductions (as well as other

reductions not directly relevant for attainment of the one-hour ozone

standard) would occur beginning in the 2004 ozone season although

incentives for early compliance by vehicle manufacturers and refiners

will likely result in some reductions prior to 2004. Nationwide, the

Tier 2/Sulfur program is projected to result in reductions of

approximately 800,000 tons of NOX per year by 2007 and

1,200,000 tons by 2010.

In the October 27, 1999 supplemental notice, EPA reported in Table

1 that EPA's regional ozone modeling indicated that 17 metropolitan

areas for which the one-hour standard applies need the Tier 2/Sulfur

program reductions to help attain the one-hour ozone standard. The

Greater Connecticut area whose attainment demonstration EPA is

proposing action on today is included on that list.

The EPA issued a memorandum that provides estimates of the

emissions reductions associated with the Tier 2/Sulfur program

proposal.11 The memorandum provides the tonnage benefits for

the Tier 2/Sulfur program in 2007 on a county-by-county basis for all

counties within the 10 serious and severe nonattainment areas for which

EPA is proposing to take action today and the 2005 tonnage benefits for

the Tier 2/Sulfur program for each county for three areas.

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

\11\ Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and

Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking'' from Lydia Wegman, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile

Sources to the Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI, issued November

8, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at

http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.

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

The EPA also issued a memorandum which explains the connection

between the Tier 2/Sulfur program, motor vehicle emissions budgets for

conformity determinations, and timing for SIP revisions to account for

the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefit.12 This memorandum

explains that conformity analyses in serious and severe ozone

nonattainment areas can begin

[[Page 70338]]

including Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits once EPA's Tier 2 rule is

promulgated, provided that the attainment demonstration SIPs and

associated motor vehicle emissions budgets include the Tier 2 benefits.

For areas that require all or some portion of the Tier 2 benefits to

demonstrate attainment but have not yet included the benefits in the

motor vehicle emissions budgets, EPA's adequacy finding will include a

condition that conformity determinations may not take credit for Tier 2

until the SIP budgets are revised to reflect Tier 2 benefits. See EPA's

memorandum for more information.

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

\12\ Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle emissions Budgets

in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations'', from Merrylin Zaw-

Mon, Office of Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-

VI, issued November 3, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found

on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.

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

For the New York-North New Jersey-Long Island, Philadelphia-

Wilmington-Trenton, Baltimore, Houston-Galveston-Brazoria and Atlanta

nonattainment areas, the EPA is proposing to determine that additional

emission reduction beyond those provided by the SIP submission are

necessary for attainment. With the exception of the Atlanta

nonattainment area, a portion of that reduction will be achieved by

EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, which EPA expects to finalize shortly.

States that need to rely in whole or in part on the Tier 2 benefits to

help demonstrate attainment will need to adjust the demonstration for

their SIP submission, emission inventories and motor vehicle emissions

budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions in order for

EPA to approve the SIP submittal. The submittal requirement including

the analysis to make that submission is described in the two memoranda

cited. States may use the tonnage benefits and guidance in these

memoranda to make these adjustments to the SIP submission and motor

vehicle emission budgets. The EPA encourages States to submit these SIP

revisions by December 31, 1999 to allow EPA to include them in the

motor vehicle emissions budget adequacy determinations which need to be

completed by May 31, 2000. Alternatively, these revisions should be

submitted by July 2000 for serious nonattainment areas, as EPA

anticipates completing rulemaking on these SIPs in the fall of 2000.

For severe nonattainment areas, these revisions should be submitted by

December 31, 2000.

A number of areas for which the EPA is not proposing to determine

that additional emission reduction beyond those provided by the SIP

submission are necessary for attainment will be taking a partial credit

for Tier 2 when they use credit from national low emissions vehicles

(NLEV) in their attainment demonstration. These nonattainment areas are

the Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan

Washington, D.C. areas. By regulation, the NLEV standards do not extend

beyond the 2003 model year unless EPA promulgates Tier 2 vehicle

standards at least as stringent as the NLEV standards. See 40 CFR

86.1701-99(c). Thus, the emission reductions relied upon from 2004 and

later model year NLEV vehicles will actually be due to the promulgation

of the Tier 2 standards, either through the extension of the NLEV

program or a portion of the reduction from vehicles meeting the Tier 2

standards.

Like all the other SIPs that rely on Tier 2 reductions in order to

demonstrate attainment, the attainment demonstrations for the

Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. areas must be revised to estimate the effects of Tier 2 according

to our policy before EPA can take final action approving such

attainment demonstrations. Until the SIPs are revised to include full

Tier 2 credit, EPA can determine by May 31, 2000 that a motor vehicle

emissions budget is adequate if the budget would be otherwise adequate.

No conditions need be placed on such adequacy determinations since the

budgets in such SIPs already include reductions equivalent to the

amount of emission reductions the areas will be relying on from Tier 2

by virtue of the NLEV reductions included in the budgets.

a. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget and the

Attainment Demonstration When EPA Issues the MOBILE6 Model. Within one

year of when EPA issues the MOBILE6 model for estimating mobile source

emissions which takes into account the emissions benefit of EPA's Tier

2/Sulfur program, States will need to revise their motor vehicle

emissions budgets in their attainment demonstration SIPs if the Tier 2/

Sulfur program is necessary for attainment. In addition, the budgets

will need to be revised using MOBILE6 in those areas that do not need

the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment but decide to include its

benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budget anyway. The EPA will

work with States on a case-by-case basis if the new emission estimates

raise issues about the sufficiency of the attainment demonstration.

States described in the paragraph above will need to submit an

enforceable commitment in the near term to revise their motor vehicle

emissions budget within one year after EPA's release of MOBILE6. This

commitment should be submitted to EPA along with the other commitments

discussed elsewhere in this notice, or alternatively, as part of the

SIP revision that modifies the motor vehicle emission inventories and

budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits needed in order

for EPA to approve the SIP submittal.13

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

\13\ For purposes of conformity, the State needs a commitment

that has been subject to public hearing. If the State has submitted

a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and that

provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for attainment,

the State should submit a letter prior to December 31, 1999,

amending the commitment to include the revision of the budget after

the release of MOBILE6.

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

5. Additional Measures To Further Reduce Emissions

The EPA is proposing to find that the attainment demonstrations for

New York-North New Jersey-Long Island; Baltimore; Philadelphia-

Wilmington-Trenton; Atlanta and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria even

considering the Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions and the WOE, will not

achieve attainment without the application of additional emission

control measures to achieve additional emission reductions. Thus, for

each of these areas, EPA has identified specific tons per day emissions

of NOX and/or VOC that must be reduced through additional

control measures in order to demonstrate attainment and to enable EPA

to approve the demonstration. The need for additional emission

reductions is generally based on a lack of sufficient compelling

evidence that the demonstration shows attainment at the current level

of adopted or planned emission controls. As discussed below the Greater

Connecticut area does contain compelling evidence that attainment will

be attained by its proposed attainment date of November 2007, and that

the area does not need the additional reductions outlined in this

section. The details for the Greater Connecticut area are discussed

below.

6. Mid-Course Review

A mid-course review (MCR) is a reassessment of modeling analyses

and more recent monitored data to determine if a prescribed control

strategy is resulting in emission reductions and air quality

improvements needed to attain the ambient air quality standard for

ozone as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the statutory

dates.

The EPA believes that a commitment to perform a MCR is a critical

element of the WOE analysis for the attainment demonstration on which

EPA is proposing to take action today. In order to approve the

attainment demonstration SIP for the Greater Connecticut area, EPA

believes that the

[[Page 70339]]

State must have an enforceable commitment to perform a MCR as described

here. 14

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

\14\ For purposes of conformity, the State needs a commitment

that has been subject to public hearing. If the State has submitted

a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and that

provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for attainment,

the State should submit a letter prior to December 31, 1999,

amending the commitment to include the MCR.

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

The Connecticut DEP submitted an enforceable commitment with its

attainment demonstration on September 16, 1998, to submit a MCR in the

2001/2002 time frame and an additional MCR in 2005. To make it easier

for EPA to accept that commitment of an MCR, Connecticut should revise

its commitment to agree to perform the MCR immediately following the

2003 ozone season and to submit the results to EPA by December 31,

2003. Connecticut should also revise its commitment to agree to work

with EPA in a public consultative process to develop a methodology for

performing the MCR and developing the criteria by which adequate

progress would be judged.

EPA believes that an analysis in 2003 would be most robust since

some or all of the regional NOX emission reductions should

be achieved by that date. EPA would then review the results and

determine whether any States need to adopt and submit additional

control measures for purposes of attainment. The EPA is not requesting

that States commit now to adopt new control measures as a result of

this process. It would be impracticable for the States to make a

commitment that is specific enough to be considered enforceable.

Moreover, the MCR could indicate that upwind States may need to adopt

some or all of the additional controls needed to ensure an area attains

the standard. Therefore, if EPA determines additional control measures

are needed for attainment, EPA would determine whether additional

emission reductions as necessary from States in which the nonattainment

area is located or upwind States, or both. The EPA would require the

affected State or States to adopt and submit the new measures within a

period specified at the time. The EPA anticipates that these findings

would be made as calls for SIP revisions under section 110(k)(5) and,

therefore, the period for submission of the measures would be no longer

than 18 months after the EPA finding. A draft guidance document

regarding the MCR process is located in the docket for this proposal

and may also be found on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

scram.

D. What Does EPA Expect To Happen With Respect to Attainment

Demonstrations for the Greater Connecticut One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment

Area?

Table 2 shows a summary of information on what EPA expects from

States such as Connecticut to allow EPA to approve the one-hour ozone

attainment demonstration SIPs.

Table 2.--Summary Schedule of Future Actions Related to the Attainment Demonstration for the Greater Connecticut

Serious Nonattainment Area

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

Required no later than: Action

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

12/31/99......................................................... State submits the following to EPA:

--Motor vehicle emissions budget.\1\

--Commitments to do the following:

--Submit revised SIP & motor vehicle

emissions budget one year after MOBILE6

issued.\2\

--Perform a mid-course review.

4/15/00.......................................................... State submits in final any submissions made

in draft by 12/31/99.

Before EPA final rulemaking...................................... State submits enforceable commitments for any

above mentioned commitments that may not yet

have been subjected to public hearing.

7/1/00........................................................... --State revises and submits SIP and motor

vehicle emissions budget to account for Tier

2 reductions as needed.\3\

Within one year after release of MOBILE6 model................... State submits revised SIP & motor vehicle

emissions budget based on MOBILE6.

12/31/03......................................................... State submits mid-course review.

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

\1\ Final budget preferable; however, if public process is not yet complete, then a ``draft'' budget (the one

undergoing public process) may be submitted at this time with a final budget by 4/15/00. However, if a final

budget is significantly different from the draft submitted earlier, the final budget must be submitted by 2/15/

00 to accommodate the 90 day processing period prior to the 5/31/00 date by which EPA must find the motor

vehicle emissions budget adequate. Note that the budget can reflect estimated Tier 2 emission reductions--see

memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur

Rulemaking.''

\2\ The revision for MOBILE6 is only required for SIPs that include the effects of Tier 2. The commitment to

revise the SIP after MOBILE6 may be submitted at the same time that the state submits the budget that includes

the effects of Tier 2 (no later than 7/1/00).

\3\ If the state submits such a revision, it must be accompanied by a commitment to revise the SIP and motor

vehicle emissions budget 1 year after MOBILE6 is issued (if the commitment has not already been submitted).

E. What Are the Relevant Policy and Guidance Documents?

This proposal has cited several policy and guidance memoranda. The

EPA has also developed several technical documents related to the

rulemaking action in this proposal. Some of the documents have been

referenced above. The documents and their location on EPA's web site

are listed below; these documents will also be placed in the docket for

this proposal action.

Recent Documents

1. ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through

Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.'' U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality

Modeling Group, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999. Web

site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``ADDWOE1H'').

2. ``Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on

Emissions, Control Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available

Control Measures.'' Draft Report. November 3, 1999. Ozone Policy and

Strategies Group. U.S. EPA, RTP, NC.

3. Memorandum from Merrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air Division Directors,

Regions I-VI, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour

Attainment Demonstrations.'' November 3, 1999. Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm

4. Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air

Division Directors, Regions I-VI,

[[Page 70340]]

``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur/Sulfur

Rulemaking.'' November 8, 1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/

transp/traqconf.htm

5. Draft Memorandum, ``Analyses To Support Mid-course Review Of

SIP's To Meet The 1-hr NAAQS For Ozone.'' From John Seitz, Director,

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram (file name: ``DR6MCR'').

6. Memorandum, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control

Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions

for Ozone Nonattainment Areas.'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

Previous Documents

1. U.S. EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban

Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMREG'').

2. U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to

Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, (June

1996). Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').

3. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D.

Nichols, issued March 2, 1995. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t1pgm.html.

4. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind

Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.

5. December 29, 1997 Memorandum from Richard Wilson, Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation ``Guidance for

Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS.''

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html

II. How Does the Connecticut Submittal Satisfy the Frame Work?

This section provides a review of Connecticut's submittal and an

analysis of how this submittal satisfies the frame work discussed in

Section I. of this notice.

A. What Was Submitted by Connecticut?

As mentioned previously, the CAA requires nonattainment areas

classified as moderate or worse for the one-hour ozone standard to

prepare air quality modeling, using a photochemical grid model. This

modeling is required to show that collective control strategies will

reduce ozone to concentrations below the air quality standard by the

area's attainment date. Connecticut submitted its modeling in several

submittals. A January 4, 1995 submittal gave EPA the then up-to-date

status of the state's modeling effort, including the completed elements

of the one-hour modeling. The Phase I submittal, required for those

states participating in the OTAG effort, was submitted on November 21,

1997. The Phase II submittal, which along with the previous submittals

constitutes the attainment demonstration, was submitted on September

16, 1998.

The Greater Connecticut area is classified as a serious ozone

nonattainment area. The Greater Connecticut area includes the entire

State of Connecticut except for the southwest corner of Connecticut,

near New York City. The Greater Connecticut area was required to attain

the one-hour ozone standard by November 15, 1999. This area includes

all of the following counties: Hartford, Middlesex, New Haven, New

London, Tolland, and Windham. It also includes Shelton City in

Fairfield County, and all cities and towns in Litchfield County except

Bridgewater and New Milford (40 CFR 81.307). The rest of Connecticut,

officially titled the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Area,

will be referred to in this notice as the Connecticut portion of the

New York City area. The Connecticut portion of the New York City area's

attainment demonstration is a separate SIP action, and is discussed

elsewhere in this Federal Register. The rest of the New York City

area's attainment demonstration is also a separate SIP action, and is

discussed elsewhere in this Federal Register.

The Greater Connecticut area was modeled by the New York Department

of Environmental Conservation, with input from environmental agency

staff of both the States of Connecticut and New Jersey and by staff

from EPA Regions I and II. This arrangement was agreed to in 1990 by

all the participating parties, with concurrence from EPA Regions I and

II. The modeling also includes the modeling for the New York City area.

B. How Was the Model Selected?

EPA recommended that states use the Urban Airshed Model (UAM)

version IV as the ozone model of choice for the grid-point modeling

required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the one-hour attainment

demonstrations. Other models are allowed if the states show that they

are scientifically valid and they perform (i.e. are just as reliable)

as well as, or better than, UAM IV. The NYC domain chose to use UAM IV.

Details on the model and its selection can be found in the submittal

from the State of Connecticut. Many different sensitivity runs and

model performance runs were performed using the UAM IV model, also

different boundary conditions were tried. The results of these runs are

available in the submittal from Connecticut.

C. What Did the Photochemical Grid Modeling Show?

The UAM modeling analysis is contained in the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) submitted by the CT DEP. A similar analysis was also

submitted by New Jersey (NJDEP) and New York State (NYSDEC) since, as

explained above, the modeling performed was conducted both for the

Greater Connecticut area and the New York City area.

The domain covers both the New York Northern-New Jersey-Long Island

severe area, and the Greater Connecticut serious area. Information on

how the UAM modeling meets EPA guidance is summarized here and detailed

in the State's submittals.

EPA's Guideline on the use of photochemical grid models recommends

that areas model three or more episodes including the types of weather

conditions most conducive to ozone formation. The final photochemical

grid modeling submitted by Connecticut focused on the UAM-IV modeling

for several episodes from 1988 and 1991. All episodes represent

significant ozone exceedances, under various meteorological conditions.

The episodes have some of the worst case meteorology (i.e., the highest

potential for ozone formation) of the episodes in the past forty years.

It follows that if an extreme episode, like the ones chosen, pass the

modeled attainment test, then less extreme days would pass as well.

The UAM IV was run using the CALMET meteorological processor, with

State actual emission inventories for the base years (1988 or 1991 as

appropriate) and with projected emissions representing grown and

controlled emissions for the attainment year. The projected emissions

used were the Case-E scenario developed for EPA-OTC modeling

simulations and included the effects of projected growth, the CAA

required measures, low emission vehicle (LEV) assumptions for the motor

vehicle section, and NOX reductions equivalent to the

regional NOX SIP call adopted by EPA.

The UAM IV model shows that domain wide there is a 91% decrease in

the number of grid cells that exceed the one-hour standard from the

base year to 2007. A 100% decrease would be

[[Page 70341]]

necessary to pass the deterministic model test. For the model

predictions in the Greater Connecticut area and areas downwind, the UAM

model predicts levels below the acceptable upper limit on all but two

of the days. The predicted peaks in the Greater Connecticut

nonattainment portion of the modeling domain for 2007 remain above the

one-hour standard with peak concentrations of 152 ppb in 2007. This too

does not pass the deterministic test. Since the UAM-IV model, as run

for this analysis, does not show attainment in 2007 additional weight

of evidence analyses were performed. These additional analyses are

discussed below.

D. How Well Did the Model Perform?

The UAM-IV model predicts ozone within the quality limits set by

EPA guidance on most days. Qualitatively, the model predicts the peak

ozone in the observed locations downwind of New York City. The model

shows a slight bias toward over predicting ozone.

As prescribed by EPA Guidance, the UAM-IV modeling predicts ozone

concentrations for the year 2007 using the meteorology of the episodes

from 1988 and 1991 combined with the emissions that are projected for

the year 2007. The 2007 emissions include emission increases due to

population and economic growth and decreases due to the control

strategies that will be in place by then (including an estimate of the

EPA NOX SIP Call).

E. What Other Type of Analyses Were Performed By Connecticut?

In the past, EPA guidance for use of the UAM model required that

all modeling days show attainment of the ozone standard at all grid

cells. This is called the deterministic method. The attainment

demonstration guidance allows the user to adjust for days that have an

extremely high ability to form ozone because of its meteorology.

Adjustments are allowed since the one-hour ozone standard allows each

location to have one day per year, on average, over the one-hour ozone

standard.

The attainment demonstration guidance allows use of additional

corroborative analyses to support the attainment demonstration when the

modeled attainment test is not passed. These other analyses can be used

as part of the weight of evidence to attainment. The weight of evidence

used to supplement the modeled attainment test in the Greater

Connecticut area attainment demonstration, and how they can help

predict that the area will attain the standard, are described here. In

addition, one of the factors that EPA can consider as part of the

weight-of-evidence analysis is whether there will be additional

emission reductions anticipated that are not modeled.

Greater Connecticut is classified as serious, and is required under

the CAA to attain the ozone standard by 1999. This is not possible,

based on the preliminary measured air quality from the summer of 1999.

EPA policy allows for an attainment date extension based on transport,

and Connecticut has asked for an extension for the Greater Connecticut

area to November 15, 2007, the attainment date for the upwind New York

City area. The attainment date extension is discussed here, and EPA's

action on the request is discussed below. The State submittal for

Greater Connecticut gives evidence of significant transport into the

Greater Connecticut area from the south and west. The state performed

several model runs and other analyses which show that the Greater

Connecticut area is effected by significant transport. These analyses

as well as the request for an attainment date extension are discussed

below.

Connecticut submitted additional information from other methods

that can predict future concentrations of ozone. Air quality trends

data show that attainment of the standard by 2007 for the Greater

Connecticut area is feasible and this is confirmed by use of recent air

quality data combined with ozone reductions predicted by photochemical

grid modeling (i.e. the Design Value analysis method). In short, and as

shown later, these weight of evidence analyses lead EPA to conclude

that the Greater Connecticut area is likely to attain the ozone

standard by 2007, as a result of additional control measures to be

implemented by the States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut in

conjunction with upwind reductions accomplished by CAA requirements for

upwind states and reductions from EPA's NOX SIP call which

requires further NOX reductions from 23 jurisdictions in the

Eastern United States.

This notice discusses several analyses, which when combined lead

EPA to conclude that the Greater Connecticut area will achieve

attainment by 2007. Those analyses are the local Photochemical Grid

Modeling (discussed above), Air Quality Trends Analyses, the Design

Value Rollback analysis, and an additional analysis done pursuant to

EPA memorandum entitled ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence

Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not

Modeled.''

F. What Do Air Quality Trends Show?

Linear extrapolation of present air quality trends predicts that

the peak ozone values will be less than 125 ppb and the number of

exceedances of the air quality standard will be less than one per year

about the year 2005. Since a number of emission control programs, such

as the NOX SIP Call, and Tier 2 car standards are still to

be implemented and others, like the OTC NOX agreement and

vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, are still being

implemented (i.e. not achieving full emissions reduction benefit),

emissions of ozone precursors will continue to decrease from now

through 2007. Connecticut's attainment demonstration states that

attainment of the one-hour ozone standard is possible based on an

extrapolation of the air quality data.

The attainment demonstration also includes research showing that

ozone decreases occur at all of the monitors in the New York City

airshed. Even when the trends are adjusted for year-to-year changes in

how favorable the weather is for ozone formation (i.e. meteorologically

adjusted trends), every air quality monitor except one shows decreased

ozone. This supports the conclusion that the improvements in air

quality during recent years are due to reductions in emissions rather

than meteorology.

G. What Does The Regional Design Value Rollback Analysis Show?

One of the analyses in the weight of evidence is the design value

rollback analysis. Design value rollback uses the design value from

recent air quality data as its starting point. The amount of ozone

reduction predicted by the model from the starting point to the

attainment year is calculated and the design value from recent air

quality data is reduced by that amount.

For the Connecticut analysis, EPA supplied calculations of the

percentage reduction in ozone at the grid cells near the monitoring

sites. The calculations were from the UAM-V modeling that EPA has been

doing for the NOX SIP Call. EPA ran the UAM-V for the entire

eastern United States for various episodes in 1991, 1993 and 1995 with

both 1995 and 2007 OTAG emission inventories. The 2007 run included

emissions adjusted for growth and reductions from the CAA-required

controls plus the NOX SIP Call, and the National LEV (NLEV)

program.

The percentage difference between the base and the future case was

calculated for the days when the modeling predicted the highest

concentrations near each monitoring

[[Page 70342]]

site. The ozone reductions on those days were averaged for each

monitoring site. This percent difference was divided by 100 to produce

a ``rollback factor.'' The observed ozone design value was multiplied

by the rollback factor to obtain the concentration of ozone predicted

for the monitoring site for the year 2007. The ozone design value was

the fourth highest concentration at each site over the three-year

period from 1996 to 1998. The highest predicted design value for 2007

from all the monitoring sites is 122 ppb, less than the 125 ppb one-

hour ozone standard. This is how the design value rollback method

predicts that the area may attain the ozone standard by 2007. The three

years of data used by Connecticut in its submittal to calculate the

observed design value were the latest available data at the time: 1996

to 1998. When EPA used the method in the NOX SIP Call, it

used the design value from 1994 to 1996, centered on 1995 when the

model begins its reductions in emissions and ozone. The period used by

in the analysis submitted by CT DEP does not overlap 1995. It should

also be noted that preliminary ozone data from the summer of 1999 for

this area shows that ozone levels have risen, most likely due to

weather conditions, and that the three year design value has also

risen. So the regional design value rollback method, when applied to

the most recent air quality data does not show attainment in 2007.

Further analyses are thus necessary, such as those discussed below.

The design value rollback technique is a way of using existing air

quality and the model in a relative sense to predict how the air

quality will improve. Existing air quality is a readily measured

quantity. Models may be more accurate at calculating the amount of

improvement in air quality as opposed to predicting an absolute

concentration. Therefore, this method counteracts some of UAM-IV's

biases toward underestimating the extent of ozone reduction. The design

value rollback method provides another gauge of whether an area will

attain the air quality standard, using a method which does not rely

solely on the absolute predictions made by the models.

In summary, the design value rollback method was applied to the New

York City airshed, where it used the most recent data to predict that

all of the air quality stations will have better air quality than the

one-hour air quality standard when the present ozone concentrations are

reduced by the percentage ozone reduction that the UAM-V model predicts

from the baseline to the attainment year. More recent air quality data

call this analysis into question.

H. Does Greater Connecticut Area Need Additional Local Measures?

Realizing that the attainment analysis for Greater Connecticut

yields uncertain results regarding whether the area will attain by the

year 2007, EPA conducted a further analysis of the attainment

demonstration submitted by Connecticut. For this analysis, EPA looked

at the base year modeling performed using UAM-IV as well as the future

year modeling for 2007. The EPA analysis concentrated only on the

Greater Connecticut area. Base year model maximums and future year

model maximums were derived from the attainment demonstration

submittal. Using the statistical test described above, the future year

maximums for each episode day were compared to their acceptable upper

limits. For the model predictions in the Greater Connecticut area and

areas downwind, the UAM model predicts levels below the acceptable

upper limit on all but two of the days. EPA's analysis also looked at

the projected ozone benefits from the Tier 2/Sulfur program in 2007.

The Tier 2/Sulfur program will show improvements in the modeled peaks.

Since the attainment test is not passed in this additional

analysis, EPA analyzed whether additional local measures are necessary

to achieve attainment. In order to do this, EPA did an analysis

pursuant to EPA memorandum entitled ``Guidance for Improving Weight of

Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not

Modeled.'' The method used pursuant to this guidance makes use of the

relationship between ozone and its precursors (VOC and NOX)

to identify additional reductions that, at a minimum, would bring the

model predicted future ozone concentration to a level at or below the

standard. The relationship is derived by comparing changes in either

(1) the model predicted ozone to changes in modeled emissions or (2) in

observed air quality to changes in actual emissions. The results for

the Greater Connecticut area show that the UAM-IV modeling performed

for Connecticut estimates the future design value with the benefits of

the Tier 2/Sulfur program incorporated to be 116 ppb, which is below

the 124 ppb one-hour standard. Therefore, additional emission controls

beyond the benefits of the Tier 2/Sulfur program are not expected to be

needed for the Greater Connecticut area to demonstrate attainment.

Weighing all of the evidence, as provided in EPA's Guidance, EPA

believes the Attainment Demonstration for the Greater Connecticut

demonstrates attainment by 2007 and should thus be approved.

I. Does Greater Connecticut Need A Mid-Course Review?

Since Greater Connecticut has requested and EPA is proposing to

approve an attainment date extension to November 2007, and since the

attainment date extension and attainment demonstration approval are

based on a weight-of-evidence analysis, and not a purely deterministic

test, EPA guidance provides for a mid-course review to access if the

assumptions used in 1999 are still true in the future. This mid-course

review should take place after the 2003 ozone season. The Connecticut

DEP submitted an enforceable commitment with its attainment

demonstration on September 16, 1998, to submit a MCR in the 2001/2002

time frame, and an additional MCR in 2005. In order for EPA to accept

that commitment of an MCR, Connecticut will have to agree to perform

the MCR immediately following the 2003 ozone season and to submit the

results to EPA by December 31, 2003. Connecticut should also work with

EPA in a public consultative process to develop a methodology for

performing the MCR and developing the criteria by which adequate

progress would be judged. Once Connecticut modifies their commitment on

the MCR to include these issues, then EPA can move forward to approve

the attainment demonstration.

J. What Are EPA's Recommendations With Regard to the Modeling Portion

of the Attainment demonstration?

The modeling for Greater Connecticut uses analyses that follow the

EPA guidelines for predicting future air quality. These analyses, on

balance, show that air quality will meet the one-hour ozone air quality

standard by the requested attainment date of 2007. EPA guidance allows

for this weight of evidence analysis when other modeling methods give

results that contradict the traditional deterministic photochemical

grid modeling analysis. The weight-of-evidence in conjunction with

additional analyses performed by EPA using the most up-to-date EPA

guidance confirm that the trend analysis is correct in determining that

the continued decreases in emissions, locally and from distant sources,

will result in attainment by 2007.

Connecticut, along with New York and New Jersey, has committed to

perform a mid-course review, as recommended by EPA. The states are

[[Page 70343]]

expected to follow EPA guidance in conducting this mid-course review.

Because the modeling portion of the submittal demonstrates

attainment consistent with EPA's guidance, it should be approved by

EPA. As a result of decreases in emissions currently in place and

additional reductions expected to continue, the Greater Connecticut

area should attain the one-hour ozone standard by 2007.

K. What Is EPA Policy With Regard To An Attainment Date Extension?

On July 16, 1998, a guidance memorandum entitled ``Extension of

Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' was signed by Richard

D. Wilson, then Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

That memorandum included EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act

regarding the possibility of extending attainment dates for ozone

nonattainment areas that have been classified as moderate or serious

for the 1-hour standard and which are downwind of areas that have

interfered with their ability to demonstrate attainment by dates

prescribed in the Act. That memorandum stated that EPA will consider

extending the attainment date for an area that:

(1) has been identified as a downwind area affected by transport

from either an upwind area in the same State with a later attainment

date or an upwind area in another State that significantly contributes

to downwind nonattainment;

(2) has submitted an approvable attainment demonstration with any

necessary, adopted local measures and with an attainment date that

shows that it will attain the one-hour standard no later than the date

that the reductions are expected from upwind areas under the final

NOX SIP call and/or the statutory attainment date for upwind

nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the boundary conditions reflecting

those upwind reductions;

(3) has adopted all applicable local measures required under the

area's current classification and any additional measures necessary to

demonstrate attainment, assuming the reductions occur as required in

the upwind areas;

(4) has provided that it will implement all adopted measures as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by which the

upwind reductions needed for attainment will be achieved.

L. Does the Greater Connecticut Area Qualify For An Attainment Date

Extension?

As discussed above, Connecticut requested an attainment date

extension to November 15, 2007. This is consistent with EPA guidance

for attainment date extensions. The first test for an attainment date

extension is that you are effected by transport, and but for this

transport, you would achieve attainment of the standard by your CAA

attainment date.

The CT DEP submitted evidence of significant transport into the

Greater Connecticut area. First, it must be stated that, the maximum

observed ozone in Northern New Jersey, New York and Connecticut are

currently in the Greater Connecticut area. Greater Connecticut is

classified as serious, and is required under the CAA to attain the

ozone standard 8 years before the New York City area, which has an

attainment date of 2007. The Greater Connecticut area is required by

the CAA to attain by 1999. This is not possible based on the

preliminary measured air quality from the summer of 1999. EPA policy

allows for an attainment date extension based on transport, and as

mentioned above Connecticut has asked for an extension of the Greater

Connecticut area to November 15, 2007, the same attainment date for the

upwind New York City area. The State submittal for Greater Connecticut

gives evidence of significant transport into Greater Connecticut from

the south and west, where the NYC nonattainment area is located. The

state performed an ``informal UAM-IV sensitivity analysis investigating

the effects within the * * * modeling domain of excluding anthropogenic

emissions strictly in Connecticut. The sensitivity run was conducted

for the July 6, 1988 event using 1988 data files supplied by the

NYSDEC, 1988 ROM boundary conditions, and no anthropogenic emissions

within Connecticut.''

Modeled ozone concentrations for this zero-out model run (looking

only at levels above the standard) are relatively similar to the ``base

case'' or full anthropogenic run, suggesting that even if one could

shut down all anthropogenic emission within the Greater Connecticut

area it would still violate the ozone standard as of its 1999

attainment date, and furthermore, there would be little improvement to

observed ozone levels. This type of analysis shows that Greater

Connecticut is affected by significant transport.

Another way to look for evidence of significant transport is to

look for differences in the number of grid-cell hours (gch) between

``zero-out'' runs and the base case runs. The following is taken from

the Connecticut submittal: ``The improvement (decrease) in the number

of grid-cell hours (gch) above 120 ppb, was also determined for the

Connecticut zero-out run. In the base case, there were 6032 gch above

120 ppb in the entire modeling domain, of which 3214 gch occurred in

Connecticut. In the zero-out run, there were 5321 gch above 120 ppb in

the domain, an improvement of 711 gch.'' An improvement of 711 gch out

of 3214 gch is only a 22% improvement. This shows that significant

emission reductions are needed from upwind areas to reach attainment of

the one-hour ozone NAAQS in Greater Connecticut.

Connecticut was also able to use the modeling done by Massachusetts

and New Hampshire to bolster its demonstration that it is significantly

effected by transport. The model used by these states is CALGRID. The

model was run for the July 8, 1988 episode, an episode with very high

ozone levels in all of New England, including Connecticut. In the

CALGRID run, anthropogenic emissions were eliminated (set to zero) in

Connecticut and the model run. These ``zero-out'' results were compared

to the same model run assuming 1999 Clean Air Act emissions throughout

the domain. Connecticut reached several conclusions using these

results. Taken from the attainment demonstration submittal they are as

follows:

1. ``Eliminating Connecticut's man-made emissions has very little

effect on both the magnitude and the geographical extent of maximum

ozone concentrations within Connecticut by its 1999 attainment date.

Widespread areas of modeled nonattainment remain in the State. Modeled

exceedances in Connecticut for this event are largely due to

overwhelming transport from upwind areas.''

2. ``Zeroing out Connecticut emissions for this event does not have

much effect on the magnitude or geographic area of modeled exceedances

downwind in western and central Massachusetts.''

3. ``Zeroing out Connecticut's man-made emissions results in an

area of modeled ozone increases (disbenefits) of 1 to 10 ppb in north-

central Connecticut and Central Massachusetts.''

The second test is that an area has submitted an approvable

attainment demonstration with any necessary, adopted local measures and

with an attainment date that shows that it will attain the one-hour

standard no later than the date that the reductions are expected from

upwind areas under the final NOX SIP call and/or the

statutory

[[Page 70344]]

attainment date for upwind nonattainment areas, i.e., assuming the

boundary conditions reflecting those upwind reductions. Since the CT

DEP submitted an attainment demonstration for the Greater Connecticut

area and this notice is proposing approval of that plan without

additional measures, this test is passed.

The third test that Greater Connecticut had to meet is to show that

it met all the CAA requirements for a serious nonattainment area. The

Greater Connecticut area is classified as serious and is required to

submit certain measures. Table 3 contains a summary of the CAA required

ozone SIP elements and of any additional measures included in the

attainment demonstration. This Table indicates if a control measure was

part of the modeling demonstration and a summary of the approval or

promulgation status.

Table 3.--Control Measures in the One-Hour Ozone Attainment Plans for the Greater Connecticut Serious Ozone

Nonattainment Area

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

Name of control measure Type of measure Included in local modeling Approval status

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

On-board Refueling Vapor federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40

Recovery. CFR 86.

Federal Motor Vehicle Control federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40

program. CFR 86.

Federal Non-road Gasoline federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40

Engines. CFR 90.

Federal Non-road Heavy Duty federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40

diesel engines. CFR 89.

AIM Surface Coatings........... federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40

CFR 59 subpart

D.

Consumer & commercial products. federal rule................. Yes.......................... Promulgated at 40

CFR 59 subpart

C.

Enhanced Inspection & CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... Conditionally SIP

Maintenance. approved (64 FR

12005; 3/10/

99).1

NOX RACT....................... CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... SIP approved (62

FR 52016; 10/6/

97).

VOC RACT pursuant to sections CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... SIP approved (56

182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2)(B) FR 52205; 10/18/

of Clean Air Act. 91 and 64 FR

12019; 3/10/99).

VOC RACT pursuant to sections CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... Conditionally SIP

182(b)(2)(A) and (C) of Clean approved (64 FR

Air Act. 12019; 3/10/99)--

SIP approval

pending for SIP

submitted in

response to

condition.2

Stage II Vapor Recovery........ CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... SIP approved (58

FR 65930; 12/17/

93).

Stage I Vapor Recovery......... CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... SIP approved (56

FR 52205; 10/18/

91).

Reformulated Gasoline.......... CAA required program in NYC Yes.......................... Promulgated

and Hartford areas. Opt-in statewide under

to federal program for 40 CFR section

remainder of state. 80.70. Also

approved for opt-

in portion of

state as part of

15% plan (64 FR

12015; 3/10/99).

National Low Emission Vehicle State opt-in................. Yes.......................... Federal program

(NLEV). promulgated at

40 CFR 86

subpart R. State

opt-in SIP

approval

proposed 8/16/

99, 64 FR

44450.3

Clean Fuel Fleets.............. CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes.......................... RFG and I/M

reductions

substitute--SIP

approval

pending.4

New Source Review.............. CAA SIP Requirement.......... No........................... SIP approval

pending.5

Base Year Emissions Inventory.. CAA SIP Requirement.......... N/A 6........................ SIP approved (62

FR 55336; 10/24/

97).

15% VOC Reduction Plan......... CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes 7........................ SIP approved (64

FR 12015; 3/10/

99).

Enhanced Rule Effectiveness.... State measure................ Yes 7........................ SIP approved (64

FR 12015; 3/10/

99).

9% rate of progress plan....... CAA SIP Requirement.......... Yes 7........................ SIP approval

pending.8

Emissions Statements........... CAA SIP Requirement.......... N/A 6........................ SIP approved (60

FR 2524; 1/10/

95).

Enhanced Monitoring (PAMS)..... CAA Requirement.............. N/A 6........................ SIP approved (62

FR 55336; 10/24/

97).

OTC NOX MOU Phase II........... State initiative............. Yes.......................... SIP approved (64

FR 52233; 9/28/

99).

EPA NOX SIP call............... EPA requirement.............. Yes.......................... SIP approval

pending.9

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

\1\ The fact that CT's enhanced I/M rule is conditionally approved does not affect the emission reductions that

Connecticut can rely on for attainment purposes since the achievement of those emission reductions in no way

depends upon the fulfillment of the conditions outlined in that final rule. Rather, the conditions relate to

certain procedural requirements only.

\2\ With respect to the various VOC and Non-CTG rules, Connecticut submitted a revised non-CTG RACT rule on

September 2, 1999. In order to meet the requirements of sections 182(b)(2) (A) and (C), CT revised section 22a-

174-32 to remove the exemption for the remaining Appendix E categories, as well as expanding the applicability

to sources in industrial categories in CT for which EPA has published final CTGs since the date of enactment

(e.g., aerospace, shipbuilding, and wood furniture coating). Appendix E categories are those listed in App. E

to EPA's General Preamble 57 FR 18077 (April 28, 1992). EPA deemed the SIP submittal complete on September 10,

1999. EPA will take final action on the revised section 22a-174-32 prior to finalizing action on the one-hour

ozone attainment plan.

\3\ EPA intends to publish final rules for the NLEV opt-in SIP before or at the same time as we publish final

rules on the attainment demonstration.

\4\ Since the clean fuels fleet program would simply substitute for RFG and I/M emission reductions already

approved into the SIP, the Clean Fuel Fleet program will not have to be finally approved in order to approve

the attainment demonstration.

\5\ CT submitted its New Source Review (NSR) program for VOC and NOX as a SIP revision on May 23, 1994. The

state is not relying on emission reductions from this NSR SIP, and therefore it will not have to be finally

approved in order to approve the attainment demonstration.

\6\ Does not produce emission reductions.

\7\ The measures used to demonstrate rate of progress were modeled.

\8\ The nine percent plan rate-of-progress (ROP) plan SIP was submitted to EPA on December 31, 1997, with minor

revisions on January 7, 1998. This plan is currently under review by EPA. A notice of proposed rulemaking will

be published soon. EPA intends to publish final rules for the nine percent ROP plan before or at the same time

as we publish final rules on the attainment demonstration.

[[Page 70345]]

\9\ On September 30, 1999, CT submitted a SIP revision in response to EPA's regulation entitled, ``Finding of

Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for

Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone,'' otherwise known as the ``NOX SIP Call.'' The SIP submittal

included a NOX budget and allowance trading regulation, section 22a-174-22b. Although not a CAA required

measure, section 22a-174-22b requires significant NOX reductions from 2003 onward which will strengthen the

SIP. EPA will take final action on section 22a-174-22b prior to finalizing action on the one-hour ozone

attainment plan. This also fulfills Connecticut's commitment under the OTC MOU Phase III program.

Finally, the state has provided that it will implement all adopted

measures as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by

which the upwind reductions needed for attainment will be achieved. All

of the above measures will be implemented before 2007.

In summary since Connecticut has met all the CAA requirements, or

will before final approval of the attainment date extension is granted,

and since the ozone modeling for the Greater Connecticut area meets the

other requirements for an attainment date extension, EPA proposes to

approve the attainment date extension for Greater Connecticut to

November 15, 2007.

M. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

The CT DEP submitted 2007 conformity budgets associated with their

attainment demonstration for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area

on February 10, 1999. These budgets were developed from the mobile

source inventories developed by EPA for the NOX SIP call. In

its February 10, 1999 letter, CT DEP concluded that it is reasonable to

extract 2007 transportation conformity budgets from the NOX

SIP call since Connecticut's ozone attainment demonstrations rely on

EPA modeling results developed using emission inventories equivalent to

those used by EPA to develop the NOX SIP call. In a November

19, 1999 letter from Susan Studlien, EPA Region I to Carmine

DiBattista, CT DEP, EPA found that the 2007 motor vehicle emissions

budgets submitted for the Greater Connecticut area are inadequate for

conformity purposes. The budgets were determined to be inadequate

because in some instances they do not accurately reflect the mobile

source control strategies Connecticut is implementing and, when

compared to more recent mobile source emission estimates prepared by

the state for conformity, appear to be substantially higher in the

attainment year than the most current projections. The letter, which is

available in the docket for this action, further outlines the rationale

behind this determination.

A notice of public hearing was signed by Arthur Rocque, Jr,

Commissioner, Connecticut DEP on November 24, 1999 requesting public

comment on proposed changes to the attainment demonstration for the

Greater Connecticut serious nonattainment area. In that notice of

public hearing, Connecticut DEP has included proposed 2007 conformity

budgets for the Greater Connecticut area. These budgets incorporate the

benefits of the Tier 2/Sulfur program for the Greater Connecticut area.

The EPA is proposing to approve the attainment demonstration SIP should

Connecticut correct the deficiencies that cause the motor vehicle

emissions budget to be inadequate and, alternatively, to disapprove it

if Connecticut does not correct the deficiencies.

Because many States may shortly be submitting revised

demonstrations with revised motor vehicle emission budgets, EPA is

providing a 60 day comment period on this proposed rule. If Connecticut

submits a revised attainment demonstration, EPA will place the

revisions in the docket for this rulemaking and will post a notice on

EPA's website at www.epa.gov/oms/traq. By posting notice on the

website, EPA will also initiate the adequacy process.

N. Tier 2/Sulfur Program benefits

As a result of EPA's review of the State's SIP submittal, EPA

believes that the ozone modeling submitted by the State for the Greater

Connecticut area, for which EPA is proposing to approve or disapprove-

in-the-alternative, needs to incorporate EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program

benefits to improve the State's weight-of-evidence analysis. This is

the result of a detailed review of the attainment demonstration. With

Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions incorporated, the conclusion that

attainment can be reached in this area by 2007 can be supported. This

is consistent with the conclusions originally reached in the CT DEP

attainment demonstration submittal which did not initially include Tier

2/Sulfur program reductions but specifically noted that there are

uncertainties in the design value approach used to support the

conclusion that attainment can be reached in the Greater Connecticut

nonattainment area by November 15, 2007. The uncertainties noted in the

attainment demonstration submittal were: (1) Uncertainty in year-to-

year meteorological fluctuations; (2) uncertainty in projections of

emissions and economic growth; and (3) uncertainties inherent in the

modeling system chosen. Additionally, the attainment demonstration

noted the need for EPA to pursue other supplemental emission reductions

strategies beyond the measures identified in the OTAG recommendations.

One action specifically noted was more stringent standards for new on-

road vehicles under section 202(i) of the Clean Air Act.

On May 13, 1999, EPA proposed such standards designed to

significantly reduce the emissions from new passenger cars and light

trucks, including pickup trucks, minivans, and sport-utility vehicles

(the ``Tier 2 program''). The proposed program combines requirements

for cleaner vehicles and requirements for lower levels of sulfur in

gasoline. Tier 2 emission reductions will lower ozone in the Greater

Connecticut area and support the conclusion that the future design

value for the nonattainment area will be below 125 parts per billion

and that the area will achieve attainment by the attainment date

requested (i.e., November 15, 2007). EPA, therefore, will require

Connecticut to incorporate the Tier 2/Sulfur requirements into the

attainment demonstration in order to fully approve the attainment

demonstration. As stated previously, a notice of public hearing was

signed on November 24, 1999 requesting public comment on proposed

changes to the attainment demonstration for the Greater Connecticut

serious nonattainment area. In that notice of public hearing,

Connecticut DEP has included proposed 2007 conformity budgets for the

Greater Connecticut area which incorporate the benefits of the Tier 2/

Sulfur program for the Greater Connecticut area.

O. What are the consequences of State failure?

This section explains the CAA consequences of State failure to meet

the time frames and terms described generally in this notice. The CAA

provides for the imposition of sanctions and the promulgation of a

federal implementation plan if States fail to submit a required plan,

submit a plan that is determined to be incomplete or if EPA disapproves

a plan. (We are using the phrase ``failure to submit'' to cover both

the situation where a State makes no submission and the situation where

the State makes a submission that

[[Page 70346]]

we find is incomplete in accordance with section 110(k)(1)(B) and 40

CFR part 51, Appendix V.) For purposes of sanctions, there are no

sanctions clocks in place based on a failure to submit. Thus, the

description of the timing of sanctions, below, is linked to a potential

disapproval of the State's submission.

1. What are the CAA's provisions for sanctions?

If EPA disapproves a required SIP, such as the attainment

demonstration SIPs, section 179(a) provides for the imposition of two

sanctions. The first sanction would apply 18 months after EPA

disapproves the SIP if the State fails to make the required submittal

which EPA proposes to fully or conditionally approve within that time.

Under EPA's sanctions regulations, 40 CFR 52.31, the first sanction

would be 2:1 offsets for sources subject to the new source review

requirements under section 173 of the CAA. If the State has still

failed to submit a SIP for which EPA proposes full or conditional

approval 6 months after the first sanction is imposed, the second

sanction will apply. The second sanction is a limitation on the receipt

of Federal highway funds. EPA also has authority under section 110(m)

to a broader area, but is not proposing to take such action today.

2. What are the CAA's FIP provisions if a State fails to submit a plan?

In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds that a State failed to

submit the required SIP revision or disapproves the required SIP

revision EPA must promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date

of the finding if the deficiency has not been corrected. The attainment

demonstration SIPs on which EPA is taking action today were originally

due in November 1994. However, through a series of policy memoranda,

EPA recognized that States had not submitted attainment demonstrations

and were constrained to do so until ozone transport had been further

analyzed. As provided in the Background, above, EPA provided for States

to submit the attainment demonstration SIPs in two phases. In June

1996, EPA made findings that ten States and the District of Columbia

had failed to submit the phase I SIPs for nine nonattainment areas. 61

FR 36292 (July 10, 1996). In addition on May 19, 1997, EPA made a

similar finding for Pennsylvania for the Philadelphia area. 62 FR

27201.

In July 1998, several environmental groups filed a notice of

citizen suit, alleging that EPA had outstanding sanctions and FIP

obligations for the serious and severe nonattainment areas on which EPA

is proposing action today. These groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal

District Court for the District of Columbia on November 8, 1999.

III. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the ground-level one-hour ozone

attainment demonstration State implementation plan for the Greater

Connecticut nonattainment area submitted by Connecticut on September

16, 1998. This submission includes analyses which taken together and

supplemented to include the effects of the Tier 2/Sulfur program leads

EPA to conclude that the Greater Connecticut area is likely to attain

the ozone standard by 2007. This is a result of additional control

measures to be implemented by the States of New York, New Jersey and

Connecticut in conjunction with upwind reductions accomplished by CAA

requirements for upwind states and reductions from EPA's NOX

SIP call which requires further NOX reductions from 23

jurisdictions in the Eastern United States. EPA is also proposing to

approve an attainment date extension for this area to November 15,

2007, submitted at the same time. EPA is also proposing, in the

alternative, to approve in part and disapprove in part this

demonstration if the State does not submit: take final action an

adequate motor vehicle emissions budget consistent with attainment.

Lastly, EPA intends to publish final rules for Nine Percent ROP, NLEV

and the NOX SIP call for Connecticut either before or at the

same time as publication of final approval of the attainment

demonstration.

EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this

proposal or on other relevant matters. These issues will be considered

before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in

the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the

EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this action. A

more detailed description of the state submittal and EPA's evaluation

are included in a Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in support

of this rulemaking action. A copy of the TSD is available upon request

from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

action.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is

``economically significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,

and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule

has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action

meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health

or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and

reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it

does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health

and safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects

the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or

uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not

[[Page 70347]]

significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal

governments. This action does not involve or impose any requirements

that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements of section

3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132 Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),

revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful

and timely input by State and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies

that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order

to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the national government and the

States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may

not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by

statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to

pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in

the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not

issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts

State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials

early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR

43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a State rule

implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or

the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do

not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

If the approval is converted to a disapproval under section 110(k),

based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it will not affect

any existing State requirements applicable to small entities. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does not affect State-

enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new requirements. Therefore, I certify that such a

disapproval action will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities because it would not remove

existing requirements nor would it substitute a new Federal

requirement.

The EPA's alternative proposed disapproval of the State request

under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act would not affect

any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-

existing Federal requirements would remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the State submittal would not

affect State-enforceability. Moreover EPA's disapproval of the

submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I

certify that the proposed disapproval would not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the proposed approval action does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of

$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to the proposed disapproval

because the proposed disapproval of the SIP submittal would not, in and

of itself, constitute a Federal mandate because it would not impose an

enforceable duty on any entity. In addition, the Act does not permit

EPA to consider types of analyses described in section 202 in

determining whether a SIP submittal meets the CAA. Finally, section 203

does not apply to the proposed disapproval because it would affect only

the State of Connecticut, which is not a small government.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing

technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with

NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''

(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies

unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise

impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's

action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to

the use of VCS.

[[Page 70348]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

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

Dated: November 30, 1999.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 99-31710 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P