[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38104-38109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16622]
[[Page 38104]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0168, FRL-9981-37--Region 1]
Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Plan Submittals for the 2008
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by
Connecticut which relate to the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP revisions are for the Greater
Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT moderate ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is
proposing to approve submittals which include 2011 base year emissions
inventories, an emissions statement certification, reasonable further
progress (RFP) demonstrations, reasonably available control measures
(RACM) analyses, motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency
measures. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 4,
2018.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0168. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA Region 1 Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Environmental Engineer,
Air Quality Planning Unit, Air Programs Branch (Mail Code OEP05-02),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912; (617) 918-1046;
mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Description of State's Submittals
III. Evaluation of State's Submittals
A. Emissions Statement Certification
B. 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory
C. Reasonable Further Progress Plans
D. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets/Transportation Conformity
E. Contingency Measures
F. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary
NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) (annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged
over three years) to provide increased protection of public health and
the environment (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 2008 ozone NAAQS
retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.08 ppm NAAQS
set in 1997, but is set at a more protective level. Under the EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained
when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or
equal to 0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15.
Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated as nonattainment any
area that was violating the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on the three
most recent years (2008-2010) of air monitoring data (77 FR 30088, May
21, 2012). With that rulemaking, the Greater Connecticut area and the
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT area were designated as
marginal ozone nonattainment areas. The latter area is herein referred
to as the NY-NJ-CT area. Areas that were designated as marginal
nonattainment were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no
later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. On May
14, 2016 (81 FR 26697), the EPA published its determination that the
Greater Connecticut area and the NY-NJ-CT area had failed to attain the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment deadline and the areas were
reclassified to moderate ozone nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 81.306.
Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no
later than six years after the effective date of designations, or July
20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.903.
II. Description of State's Submittals
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 182 of subpart 2 outlines SIP
requirements applicable to ozone nonattainment areas in each
classification category. Moderate area designations trigger additional
state requirements established under the provisions of the EPA's ozone
implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR part 51,
subpart AA). Examples of these requirements include submission of a
modeling and attainment demonstration, a reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan, controls on stationary sources that represent reasonably
available control technology (RACT), and a demonstration that all
reasonably available control measures (RACM) have been adopted. The
EPA's May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26699) rulemaking established a January 2,
2017 moderate area SIP revision submission deadline.
On March 9, 2016, Connecticut submitted a 2011 emissions inventory
of ozone precursors for all areas of the State. On September 5, 2017,
Connecticut submitted an emissions statement certification which also
covered all areas of the State. On January 17, 2017, Connecticut
submitted SIP revisions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Greater
Connecticut moderate nonattainment area that included an RFP plan,
contingency measures for the RFP plan, motor vehicle emissions budgets
as defined by the RFP plan, and a RACM demonstration. Connecticut made
a similar submittal on August 8, 2017, for the state's portion of the
NY-NJ-CT moderate nonattainment area. Although Connecticut's January
17, 2017 and August 8, 2017 submittals also included attainment
demonstrations for the 2008 ozone standard, we are not addressing those
submittals in this proposed rulemaking.
III. Evaluation of State's Submittals
A. Emissions Statement Certification
EPA's implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, herein referred
to as the 2008 ozone rule, was published in the Federal Register on
March 6, 2015. See 80 FR 12264. The 2008 ozone rule notes than many
areas that were nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS had previously
adopted an
[[Page 38105]]
emissions statement reporting program due to being nonattainment for a
prior ozone NAAQS. For these areas, the 2008 ozone rule indicates that
the state should review its existing rule to see whether it still meets
the requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, and if the state
determines that it does, the state may submit a SIP revision
certification to that effect to meet this obligation for purposes of
the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
On September 5, 2017, Connecticut submitted an emissions statement
certification which covered all areas of the State. The submittal notes
that Connecticut had previously adopted an emissions statement program
pursuant to obligations it had under the one-hour ozone standard, and
that EPA approved that program into the Connecticut SIP on January 10,
1995. See 60 FR 2524. Connecticut reviewed its current set of air
pollution reporting requirements and confirmed that pursuant to its
authority under the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA)
22a-174-33, 22a-174-4(d), and 22a-174-3a, all stationary sources of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or nitrogen oxides
(NOX) that emit 25 tons or more a year of those pollutants
are required to report their emissions, along with a certification as
to the accuracy of the reported emissions, to the State. Emissions from
smaller stationary sources that emit less than 25 tons per year of VOC
and/or NOX are inventoried as area sources within
Connecticut's emissions inventory, which is described in section III.B
of this proposal. Given the above, we propose to approve Connecticut's
emissions statement certification for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
B. 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory
CAA section 172(c)(3) requires that each SIP include a
``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from
all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in [the] area. . .
.'' By requiring an accounting of actual emissions from all sources of
the relevant pollutants in the area, this section provides for the base
year inventory to include all emissions that contribute to the
formation of a particular NAAQS pollutant. Additionally, for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, EPA's March 6, 2015 ozone rule recommended 2011 as a
baseline year from which emission reductions used to meet RFP
requirements are creditable.
On March 9, 2016, Connecticut submitted to EPA as a SIP revision
request an emissions inventory of ozone precursors for 2011. The
inventory was submitted to meet the CAA section 182(a)(3)(A) obligation
to develop a base year inventory, and was also used as the baseline
year in the State's RFP plans which are described elsewhere in this
proposal. The State conducted a public comment process on the inventory
which concluded on August 31, 2015. The inventories include emission
estimates in tons per summer day, and represent emissions estimates
from stationary and mobile source categories during a typical summer
day when ozone formation is highest. The ozone emissions inventory
catalogs NOX and VOC emissions because these pollutants are
precursors to ozone formation. Connecticut's 2011 emissions inventory
contains emission estimates at the county level, and also contains
emission estimates summed to the geographic areas that correspond to
the State's two moderate ozone nonattainment areas.
Connecticut's 2011 emission inventory documents the procedures used
to estimate emissions from individual stationary sources, referred to
as point sources. The inventory describes the means by which the State
identifies facilities that must report their air emissions to the
State, and the techniques used to verify this information. These
approaches include verification of information submitted by facilities
by Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT
DEEP) enforcement staff during compliance inspections. Connecticut
transmits its point source air emissions data to EPA's National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) database each year in accordance with the
requirements found within 40 CFR part 51, subpart A.
Area source emission estimates are made for small, stationary
sources of air pollution that do not emit much individually, but do
have significant emissions collectively. Examples include gasoline
stations, automobile refinishing shops, and architectural and
industrial maintenance coatings. Connecticut's area source emissions
inventory identifies the source categories for which the State relied
upon EPA's estimates, provides information on any adjustments made to
EPA estimates, and notes which categories' emission estimates were
prepared by the State. The inventory also explains how double counting
between emissions from facilities inventoried as individual point
sources were excluded from the area source emission estimates.
Connecticut used EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES)
model to calculate emissions for on-road and most non-road mobile
source sectors. The State provided the model with local activity inputs
including vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and average speed data by county
provided by the Connecticut Department of Transportation. Connecticut
also provided inputs to the model which reflect that the State has more
light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles than national averages
would suggest, and provided inputs for meteorology and fuels
information.
We propose to find that the air emission estimates for these
sources were adequately accounted for in Connecticut's 2011 emissions
inventory. The methodology used to calculate emissions for each source
category followed relevant EPA guidance, most notably the July 2017
guidance entitled ``Emissions Inventory Guidanec for Implementation of
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Regional Haze Regulations,'' used appropriate, documented emission
factors, or relied on emission estimates prepared for EPA's National
Emissions Inventory. Furthermore, the inventory submittal is
sufficiently documented as to the techniques used to prepare the
emission estimates.
Table 1 shows the emissions by source category, in tons per summer
day (tpsd), from the 2011 base year emission inventory for each of the
State's two nonattainment areas.
Table 1--Emissions Inventory Summary for Connecticut's Nonattainment Areas
[Tons/summer day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT portion of NY-NJ-CT area Greater CT area
Source ---------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 2.0 18.5 1.3 10.0
Area............................................ 52.7 6.9 48.5 6.2
Nonroad......................................... 41.8 32.5 37.0 36.1
[[Page 38106]]
Onroad.......................................... 33.4 64.6 30.3 55.8
Biogenic........................................ 141.4 0.7 283.7 1.7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................................... 271.3 123.3 400.7 109.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional details regarding Connecticut's emissions inventory are
included in Connecticut's 2011 Periodic Emissions Inventory document,
which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. The
inventories are based on the most current and accurate information
available to the State at the time it was being developed.
Additionally, the inventories comprehensively address all source
categories in Connecticut's nonattainment areas and were developed
consistent with the relevant EPA inventory guidance. For these reasons,
we are proposing to approve the 2011 baseline emissions inventories
into the Connecticut SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section
172(c)(3).
C. Reasonable Further Progress Plans
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and the EPA's 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule requires that State's submit a reasonable further
progress (RFP) demonstration for each 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
designated moderate and above, for review and approval into its SIP,
that describes how the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of
VOC and NOX from a baseline emissions inventory. Section
182(b)(1) of the CAA requires RFP to demonstrate a 15% reduction in VOC
emissions before the more general RFP requirements of section 172(c)(2)
of the CAA apply, which permits a combination of VOC and NOX
emission reductions to show RFP. Connecticut has previously submitted
15% VOC-only RFP SIPs under section 182(b)(1), due to nonattainment
obligations it had under the one-hour ozone standard. Therefore, for
purposes of the 2008 ozone standard, Connecticut submitted RFP
demonstrations for its two moderate nonattainment areas showing VOC and
NOX emission reductions greater than 15% within six years
after the 2011 base year inventory (between 2012-2017). Note that we
are only proposing action on the RFP plan for Connecticut portion of
the NY-NJ-CT area.
Connecticut chose to demonstrate that RFP was achieved between the
2011 baseline year and the 2017 target year by showing that
NOX emissions would decline by at least 10%, and VOC
emissions by at least 5%, within each of its nonattainment areas.
Connecticut updated its 2011 emission estimates for use within the RFP
baseline inventory by using the most recently available version of
EPA's MOVES model, MOVES 2014a, for the calculation of on-road and non-
road mobile source emissions. Additionally, Connecticut accounted for
emissions available for use as emissions offsets held within its
emissions offset bank within the RFP analysis. Connecticut relied
primarily on the emissions projection work it had developed and
submitted to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association
(MARAMA) for their effort to develop a 2017 modeling platform. The
projection of emissions from electrical generating units (EGUs) was
accomplished using a forecasting tool developed by the Eastern Regional
Technical Advisory Group (ERTAC). We reviewed these projections during
the public comment period that Connecticut held for its RFP plans and
found that the ERTAC EGU emissions forecasts produced reasonable
results for facilities in the State.
Table 2 below contains a summary of the 2011 RFP baseline
inventory, 2017 target levels incorporating the 5% VOC and 10%
NOX emission reductions, and 2017 projected, controlled
emissions for the Greater Connecticut and the Connecticut portion of
the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment areas. Connecticut's RFP analysis for its
two moderate nonattainment areas shows that projected, controlled VOC
and NOX emissions in 2017 will be well below the emission
target levels, thereby demonstrating that RFP has been met.
Table 2--Summary of RFP Calculations for CT's Two Nonattainment Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC emissions NOX emissions (tons/
Description (tons/summer day) summer day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFP Baseline inventory:
Gr. CT area............... 106.1 91.9
CT portion of NY-NJ-CT 115.6 115.1
area.....................
2017 target level of
emissions:
Gr. CT area............... 100.8 82.7
CT portion of NY-NJ-CT 109.8 103.6
area.....................
2017 projected, controlled
emissions:
Gr. CT area............... 84.6 56.4
CT portion of NY-NJ-CT 92.3 71.3
area.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFP plans must include a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB),
which provides the allowable on-road mobile emissions an area can
produce and continue to demonstrate RFP. The State's RFP plans included
MVEBs for both nonattainment areas for the year 2017. The MVEBs are
discussed in detail in Section III.D of this document.
D. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets/Transportation Conformity
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means conformity
[[Page 38107]]
to an implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the
severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving
expeditious attainment of the NAAQS, and that transportation activities
will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(A)
and (B)). The EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A
requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to
SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether or not they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity
rule requires a demonstration that emissions from the Metropolitan
Planning Organization's (MPO) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent with the
motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in the control strategy
SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124).
The MVEBs are defined in 40 CFR 93.101 as the level of mobile source
emissions of a pollutant, of the total allowable emissions, defined in
the SIP for a certain date, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS or for meeting reasonable further progress
milestones.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Further information concerning EPA's interpretations
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to EPA's November 24,
1993, transportation conformity rule. See 58 FR 62193-62196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RFP plans submitted by Connecticut are control strategy SIPs,
and they contain 2017 motor vehicle budgets for VOCs and NOX
by nonattainment area. Table 3 contains these VOC and NOX
transportation conformity budgets in units of tons per summer day.
Table 3--Conformity Budgets in the Connecticut RFP Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Transportation conformity
budgets [tons/day]
Area name -------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greater Connecticut..................... 15.9 22.2
CT portion of NY-NJ-CT area............. 17.6 24.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA issued a letter on March 20, 2017 to Connecticut in which we
stated that the budgets for the Greater Connecticut area were adequate
for use in transportation conformity determinations. Additionally, EPA
published an announcement of this adequacy finding in the Federal
Register on May 31, 2017. See 82 FR 24859. We did not make an adequacy
finding for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area; however, this
action serves to notify the public that EPA is reviewing for adequacy
the MVEBs, contained in the RFP plan for the Connecticut portion of the
NY-NJ-CT area, simultaneously with our proposed approval of the RFP
plan as required by 40 CFR part 93.118(f)(2). In this action, we are
proposing approval of the 2008 conformity budgets for VOC and
NOX for the areas shown in Table 3 above.
E. Contingency Measures
Pursuant to section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, nonattainment plan
provisions must provide for the implementation of contingency measures.
These are specific measures to be undertaken if a nonattainment area
fails to make RFP, or to attain the national primary ambient air
quality standard by the applicable attainment date. Such contingency
measures shall take effect without further action by the state or the
EPA. While the CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of
emissions reductions required, the EPA has interpreted the CAA to mean
that implementation of these contingency measures would provide
additional emissions reductions of up to 3% (or a lesser percentage
that will make up the identified shortfall) in the year following the
RFP milestone year. Contingency measures could include federal measures
and local measures already scheduled for implementation, as long as
their emission reductions are beyond those needed for attainment or to
meet RFP. The CAA does not preclude a state from implementing such
measures before they are triggered by a failure to meet RFP. For more
information on contingency measures, see the April 16, 1992 General
Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) and the 2008 ozone rule (80 FR 12264,
12285).
Connecticut provided NOX emissions reductions in excess
of those needed for RFP as contingency measures. Table 2 above
illustrates the magnitude of the excess emission reductions achieved by
Connecticut's RFP plans. For example, within the Greater Connecticut
nonattainment area, the projected, controlled NOX emissions
in 2017 of 56.4 tons/day are 32% below the area's NOX target
of 82.7 tons/day. Given that Connecticut established the 2017
NOX emissions target by factoring in a 10% reduction in
emissions, the additional 32% reduction in NOX emissions is
more than adequate to cover the 3% reduction in emissions needed to
satisfy the area's contingency measure obligation. Similarly, for the
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area, the projected, controlled
NOX emissions in 2017 of 71.3 tons/day are 31% below the
area's NOX target of 103.6 tons day, therby providing a
sufficient surplus to cover that area's contingency measure obligation.
Connecticut's contingency measure analysis notes that the State chose
to use NOX emission reductions from federal non-road engine
standards occurring between 2012 and 2017, which form a part of the
large overall NOX emission reduction surplus, as contingency
measures. Emission reductions realized as newer, lower emitting
equipment replace older, higher emitting equipment carry forward into
the future and will continue to reduce emissions after 2017.
The purpose of the contingency measures is to provide for further
emission reductions to make up the shortfall needed for RFP or for
attainment, during the period in which the State and the EPA determine
whether the nonattainment plan for the area needs further revision to
achieve the NAAQS expeditiously.\2\ The appropriateness of relying on
already-implemented reductions to meet the contingency measures
requirement has been addressed in two federal circuit court decisions.
See Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN) v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575,
586 (5th Cir. 2004), Bahr v. United States EPA, 836
[[Page 38108]]
F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 199 L. Ed. 2d 525, 2018 U.S.
LEXIS 58 (January 8, 2018). The EPA believes that the language of
section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) is ambiguous with respect to this
issue, and that it is reasonable for the agency to interpret the
statutory language to allow approval of already implemented measures as
contingency measures, so long as they meet other parameters such as
providing excess emissions reductions that the state has not relied
upon to make RFP or for attainment in the nonattainment plan for the
NAAQS at issue. Until the Bahr decision, under the EPA's longstanding
interpretation of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), states could
rely on control measures that were already implemented (so called
early-triggered contingency measures) as a valid means to meet the
Act's contingency measures requirement. The Ninth Circuit decision in
Bahr leaves a split among the federal circuit courts, with the Fifth
Circuit upholding the Agency's interpretation of section 172(c)(9) to
allow early-triggered contingency measures and the Ninth Circuit
rejecting that interpretation. The Second Circuit in which Connecticut
is located has not addressed the issue, nor has the Supreme Court or
any other circuit court other than the Fifth and Ninth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See General Preamble, section III.A.3.c (57 FR 13498 at
13511).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there is a split in the federal circuits on this issue, the
EPA expects that states located in circuits other than the Ninth may
elect to rely on EPA's longstanding interpretation of section 172(c)(9)
allowing early-triggered measures to be approved as contingency
measures, in appropriate circumstances. EPA's revised Regional
Consistency regulations pertaining to SIP provisions authorize the
Agency to follow this interpretation of section 172(c)(9) in Circuits
other than the Ninth. See 40 CFR part 56. To ensure that early-
triggered contingency measures appropriately satisfy all other relevant
CAA requirements, the EPA will carefully review each such measure, and
intends to consult with states considering such measures early in the
attainment plan development process.
As shown in Table 2 above, the emissions reductions projected
through 2017 are sufficient to meet the requirements for contingency
measures, consistent with the EPA's interpretation of the CAA to allow
approval of already implemented control measures as contingency
measures in states outside the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, we propose
approval of Connecticut's RFP contingency measures.
F. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Analysis
Connecticut submitted a demonstration that its two moderate
nonattainment areas have adopted all RACM necessary to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable as required by CAA section
172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d). The EPA interprets the CAA RACM
provision to require a demonstration that: (1) The state has adopted
all reasonable measures (including RACT) to meet RFP requirements and
to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as possible, and (2) no
additional measures that are reasonably available will advance the
attainment date or contribute to RFP for the area. States should
consider all available measures, including those being implemented in
other areas, but must adopt measures for an area only if those measures
are economically and technologically feasible and will advance the
attainment date or are necessary for RFP.
The EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM
requirements of section 172(c)(1). See the ``General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I of the CAA of 1990'' (General Preamble), 57
FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992). In that preamble, the EPA stated that
potentially available measures that would not advance the attainment
date for an area would not be considered RACM. The EPA also indicated
in the General Preamble that states should consider all potentially
available measures to determine whether they were reasonably available
for implementation in the area, and whether they would advance the
attainment date. Further, the General Preamble indicates that states
should provide in the SIP submittals a discussion of whether the
measures considered are reasonably available or not. If the measures
are reasonably available, they must be adopted as RACM. Finally, the
EPA indicated that states could reject potential RACM either because
they would not advance the attainment date or would cause substantial
widespread and long-term adverse impacts. States could also consider
local conditions, such as economics or implementation concerns, in
rejecting potential RACM. On November 30, 1999, John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, issued a
memorandum on this topic, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration
Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' which reiterated the CAA
RACM requirements and elaborated on the General Preamble.
To demonstrate that the area meets the RACM requirement,
Connecticut described its current regulatory structure limiting ozone
precursor emissions, which stems back to the 1980s, and evaluated the
likelihood of additional measures being adopted that would advance the
date of attainment for the 2008 ozone standard. Connecticut notes that
stationary and mobile sources of VOC and NOX are well-
controlled in the State as a result of numerous state and federal
measures that have or will soon be implemented to reduce in-state
emissions of ozone precursors. Connecticut's submittal mentions that,
with regard to major stationary sources, reasonable available control
technology (RACT) is considered a subset of RACM. Stationary sources of
VOC and NOX have been subject to RACT requirements for
several decades in light of the State's nonattainment status for
earlier ozone standards, and we recently approved Connecticut's RACT
certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS along with several regulatory
updates that strengthened requirements for sources of NOX.
See 82 FR 35454; July 31, 2017. Connecticut concludes that its state
regulations adopted to meet RACT, except for the most recent updates to
NOX requirements approved in our July 31, 2017 approval
which have an effective date that does not occur in time to advance the
attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, represent RACM for major
sources.
Regarding other stationary sources of ozone precursor emissions,
Connecticut notes that its participation in the Ozone Transport
Commission (OTC) has, among other things, resulted in the state's
adoption of a number of regulations limiting emissions from stationary,
non-major sources of ozone precursor emissions. In particular,
Connecticut notes that as part of its attainment planning process to
meet the 1997 ozone standard, the state adopted regulations recommended
by the OTC that included regulations limiting emissions from consumer
and commercial products, architectural and industrial maintenance
coatings, asphalt paving operations, pressure-vacuum vent valves at
gasoline stations, and limits on VOC emissions used by solvent cleaning
operations. Connecticut adopted these regulations jointly with other
OTC states as a means of implementing effective controls at the
regional level, but acknowledged that none of these measures,
implemented by Connecticut alone, would be sufficient to advance
attainment by one
[[Page 38109]]
year or more. Connecticut considers its analysis of RACM for the 1997
ozone NAAQS to largely suffice for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, but did
perform an additional review to explore whether RACM for non-major
stationary sources exist. This review found that ancillary
NOX emission reductions that are being achieved by a
regional haze measure, a reduction of the level of sulfur allowed in
distillate and residual fuel oil, qualify as a RACM measure.
Connecticut will implement this regulation in two phases, with Phase 1
having become effective on July 1, 2014. The Phase 2 portion of the
regulation does not become effective until July 1, 2018, are therefore
is not considered RACM.
Regarding mobile source emission reductions, Connecticut evaluated
the impact of a number of mobile source initiatives, including
transportation control measures, to evaluate their effectiveness at
reducing ozone precursor emissions. Specifically, Connecticut's RACM
analysis included a summary of the emission reductions achieved by the
Federal Highway Administration's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) program, as funds from this program are used, in part, to
improve traffic congestion, which in turn reduces emissions from on-
road vehicles. For example, Table 6.2 of Connecticut's attainment
demonstration submittal for the Greater Connecticut area shows the
anticipated VOC and NOX emission reductions from specific
transportation projects. The measures in Table 6.2 are expected to
reduce ozone precursor emissions in Connecticut by less than 1%, and
are therefore not considered to be RACM because they are not large
enough to advance the attainment date by at least one year. Other
mobile source measures, such as the Lawn Equipment Exchange Fund,
reductions from the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act funding, Smartway,
and EVConnecticut, were all found to provide meaningful reductions, but
none were determined to advance the attainment date and therefore are
not considered to be RACM.
The RACM analysis presented by CT DEEP did not identify any new
measures that would have substantially advanced the area's achievement
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the State notes that atmospheric transport
from upwind areas on most high ozone days overwhelms the ability of CT
DEEP to significantly advance Connecticut's attainment date solely with
in-state control strategies. In addition, Connecticut notes that EPA's
recently finalized bump-up process provided little time to adopt and
implement additional RACM candidate measures prior to the 2016 ozone
season, which would need to occur to advance the attainment date by one
year.
Connecticut evaluated all source categories that could contribute
meaningful emission reductions and identified and evaluated an
extensive list of potential control measures. The State considered the
time needed to develop and adopt regulations and the time it would take
to see the benefit from these measures to determine their
reasonableness and availability. We agree that Connecticut has adopted
all RACM for it's two moderate nonattainment areas. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve Connecticut's RACM SIPs prepared for the State's
two moderate nonattainment areas.
IV. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve SIP submittals from the State of
Connecticut for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Greater Connecticut
moderate nonattainment area, and for the Connecticut portion of the New
York-N. New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT moderate nonattainment area.
Specifically, we are proposing to approve the following:
An emission statement certification;
2011 base year emission inventories;
RFP demonstrations;
Motor vehicle emissions budgets;
Contingency measures; and
Demonstration of RACM implementation.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 31, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-16622 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P