Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 2005 and 2007 using MOBILE6.2 for the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Nonattainment Area and for 2007 for the Greater Connecticut Nonattainment Area

[Federal Register: December 18, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 243)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70437-70444]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18de03-10]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CT-057-7216e; A-1-FRL-7600-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut;
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 2005 and 2007 using MOBILE6.2 for
the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
Nonattainment Area and for 2007 for the Greater Connecticut
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a revision to the Connecticut State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the attainment and maintenance of the
one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground level
ozone submitted by the State of Connecticut. The intended effect of
this action is to approve Connecticut's 2005 and 2007 motor vehicle
emissions budgets recalculated using MOBILE6.2 for the Connecticut
portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment
area and to approve Connecticut's 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets
for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area also recalculated using
MOBILE6.2. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective February 17, 2004,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 20, 2004. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air
Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Comments may also
be submitted electronically, or through hand delivery/courier, please
follow the detailed instructions described in part (I)(B)(1)(i) through
(iii) of the Supplementary Information section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Butensky, Environmental Planner,
Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA
02114-2023, (617) 918-1665, butensky.jeff@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. The Regional Office has established an official public
rulemaking file available for inspection at the Regional Office. EPA
has established an official public rulemaking file for this action
under CT-057-7216e. The official public file consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. Although a part of the
official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public rulemaking
file is the collection of materials that is available for public
viewing at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress
Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding
federal holidays.
2. Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support
document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency. Bureau of Air
Management, Department of Environmental Protection, State Office
Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-1630.
3. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the Regulation.gov Web site located at
http://www.regulations.gov where you can find, review, and
submit comments on Federal rules that have been published in the Federal
Register, the government's legal newspaper, and are open for comment.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office,
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in
the version of the comment that is placed in the official public
rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted
material, will be available at the Regional Office for public
inspection.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text
``Public comment on proposed rulemaking CT-057-7216d'' in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to
conroy.david@epa.gov please including the text ``Public comment on
proposed rulemaking CT-057-7216d'' in the subject line. EPA's e-mail
system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail
comment directly without going through Regulations.gov, EPA's e-mail
system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses
that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as
part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and
made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

[[Page 70438]]

ii. Regulation.gov. Your use of Regulation.gov is an alternative
method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to
Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov, then click on the
button ``TO SEARCH FOR REGULATIONS CLICK HERE,'' and select Environmental
Protection Agency as Agency name to search on. The list of current EPA
actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. The system is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail
address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment.
iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM
that you mail to the mailing address identified in section 2, directly
below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect,
Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption.
2. By Mail. Send your comments to: David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air
Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One
Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Please include the
text ``Public comment on proposed rulemaking CT-057-7216d'' in the
subject line on the first page of your comment.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: David
Conroy, Unit Manager, Air Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA
02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding
federal Holidays.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy
that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the
disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not
marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for
public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about
CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Rulemaking Information

On June 17, 2003, the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection (CTDEP) submitted an amendment to the Connecticut State
Implementation Plan (SIP) containing 2005 and 2007 motor vehicle
emissions budgets recalculated using the MOBILE6.2 model for the
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area and 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the
Greater Connecticut nonattainment area. This SIP revision fulfills the
commitment made by the CTDEP in its February 8, 2000 SIP submittal to
revise the transportation conformity budgets using EPA's MOBILE6
emissions model.\1\ In addition, this SIP revision demonstrates that
the new levels of motor vehicle emissions calculated using MOBILE6.2
continue to support achievement of the rate of progress requirements
and projected attainment of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for the
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area and the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area.
Connecticut held a public hearing on its proposed SIP revision on May
27, 2003. Today's action approves these budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Document titled ``Addenda to the Ozone Attainment
Demonstrations for the Southwest Connecticut Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Area and Greater Connecticut Serious Ozone
Nonattainment Area,'' February 8, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

A. Background
B. What is MOBILE6.2?
C. Are the revised budgets using MOBILE6.2 consistent with
Connecticut's one-hour attainment demonstration?
D. Are Connecticut's motor vehicle emissions budgets approvable?

A. Background

The entire State of Connecticut is designated as nonattainment for
the one-hour ozone NAAQS. Southwest Connecticut (i.e., all of Fairfield
County except the town of Shelton, plus the Litchfield County towns of
Bridgewater and New Milford) is part of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island severe ozone nonattainment area, and the remainder
of Connecticut is the Greater Connecticut serious ozone nonattainment
area. The CTDEP submitted attainment demonstrations for both the
Southwest Connecticut and Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment areas
on September 16, 1998, and EPA published proposed rulemakings on
CTDEP's attainment demonstrations on December 16, 1999. 64 FR at 70332-
70364 (December 16, 1999).
EPA's December 16, 1999 proposal to approve the attainment
demonstration for the Greater Connecticut area was contingent upon
several issues. The issues relevant to this action were the submittal
of an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget that was consistent with
attainment and a commitment to revise the motor vehicle emissions
budget within one year after official release of EPA's MOBILE6
emissions model. The CTDEP submitted the required motor vehicle
emissions budgets (calculated using EPA's MOBILE5b emissions model) for
Greater Connecticut on February 8, 2000. The motor vehicle budgets
submitted for Greater Connecticut on February 8, 2000 were calculated
using then-current EPA guidance. This guidance is articulated in two
memoranda which detail how states should incorporate the benefits of
the federal motor vehicle Tier 2 standard into their SIPs, ``Guidance
on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in one-hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstrations,'' issued November 3, 1999, and ``One-hour Ozone
Attainment Demonstrations and Tier2/Sulfur Rulemaking,'' issued
November 8, 1999. In addition, states that have attainment
demonstrations that include interim MOBILE5b-based estimates of the
federal motor vehicle Tier 2 standards are required to submit motor
vehicle emissions budgets using the EPA's April 2000 MOBILE5 guidance,
``MOBILE5 Information Sheet #8: Tier 2 Benefits Using
MOBILE5.''\2\ EPA granted full approval to the Greater Connecticut

[[Page 70439]]

attainment demonstration on January 3, 2001 (66 FR 633).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ The final rule on Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards
and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements (``Tier 2 standards'') for
passenger cars, light trucks, and larger passenger vehicles was
published on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island nonattainment area, EPA's December 16, 1999 rulemaking
proposed to conditionally approve the ozone attainment SIP for the
nonattainment area, and in the alternative, to disapprove the SIP if
the specified conditions were not satisfied. The only condition of
importance to today's action is the submittal of adequate MOBILE5b 2007
motor vehicle emissions budgets that are consistent with attainment,
and a commitment to revise the 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets
within one year after official release of EPA's MOBILE6 emissions
model. In the February 8, 2000 submittal, the CTDEP submitted revised
2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets (determined with MOBILE5b), which
EPA found adequate on June 16, 2000 (65 FR 37778-37779). Connecticut
also committed to revise its motor vehicle emissions budgets within one
year after release of MOBILE6.\3\ In addition, the CTDEP incorporated
the federal motor vehicle Tier 2 standards program into the SIP and
provided the necessary SIP commitments as part of revisions submitted
to EPA in February 2000 and October 2001,\4\ respectively. As a result
of this submittal and the resolution of other issues on the attainment
demonstration, EPA granted full approval of Connecticut's one-hour
ozone attainment demonstrations on December 11, 2001 for the
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area (66 FR 63921).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The Connecticut commitment for submitting MOBILE6 budgets
within one year after is codified at 40 CFR 52.377(b) for the
Greater Connecticut area and 40 CFR 52.377(c) for the Southwest
Connecticut area.
\4\ MOBILE5b inputs and estimates are from the previously
approved SIP submittals ``Addenda to the Ozone Attainment
Demonstrations for the Southwest Connecticut Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Area and Greater Connecticut Serious Ozone
Nonattainment Area'' (submitted to EPA on February 8, 2000) and
``Updates to the Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the Southwest
Connecticut Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area (submitted to EPA in
October 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SIP being approved today satisfies CTDEP's commitments to
revise motor vehicle emissions budgets within one year after EPA's
release of the MOBILE6 motor vehicle emissions model. EPA published the
release of the MOBILE6 model in the Federal Register on January 29,
2002 (67 FR 4254), beginning the one-year time line for submitting
revised budgets. Thus, the effective date of that Federal Register
notice constituted the start of the one-year time period for which
Connecticut was required to revise its one-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP using the MOBILE6 model. Therefore, Connecticut was
required to submit this SIP revision to EPA by January 29, 2003. EPA
subsequently released updated versions of the model, and the latest
model update, MOBILE6.2, was used to prepare this SIP revision.
Although not required by EPA, CTDEP is electing to replace the
existing 2005 MOBILE5b budgets for Connecticut portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area with MOBILE6.2
budgets. There are no applicable budget requirements for 2005 for
Greater Connecticut, but the State previously had 2005 budgets approved
by EPA for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island nonattainment area (66 FR 63921). Connecticut is only
required to submit new 2007 budgets using the MOBILE6.2 model for the
attainment year of 2007. Therefore, EPA's adequacy determination will
only be for the revised attainment year budgets for 2007 for both the
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area and the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area and
not for the revised reasonable further progress (2005) budgets for the
Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island
nonattainment area. This is consistent with EPA's approval of the
previous MOBILE5 budgets which limited the adequacy process to only the
revised attainment year budgets, or 2007 for both nonattainment areas
in Connecticut. EPA has notified the public of Connecticut's SIP
revision containing 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets recalculated
using the MOBILE6.2 model for the Connecticut portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area and for the
Greater Connecticut ozone nonattainment area on EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality Web site ``SIP Submissions Currently
Under EPA Adequacy Review'' located at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/
conform/currsips.htm. The thirty-day public comment period associated
with the adequacy review process started Friday, December 5, 2003.

B. What is MOBILE6.2?

MOBILE6.2 is an EPA emissions factor model for estimating pollution
from on-road motor vehicles in states outside of California. MOBILE6.2
calculates emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen
oxides (NO_X) and carbon monoxide (CO) from passenger cars,
motorcycles, buses, and light-duty and heavy-duty trucks. The model
accounts for the emission impacts of factors such as changes in vehicle
emission standards, changes in vehicle populations and activity,
variations in temperature, humidity, fuel type, vehicle type and age
distribution, and air quality programs such as inspection and
maintenance, and many other variables. Although some minor updates were
made in 1996 with the release of MOBILE5b, MOBILE6.2 is the first major
revision to MOBILE since MOBILE5a was released in 1993.
In developing mobile source emission estimates, states rely on
estimates of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using travel demand
forecasting models which use variables such as population, housing,
land use, and other relevant planning data. Resulting VMT, speed data,
vehicle age distribution, speed data, road types, vehicle type data,
and other data are then entered into the MOBILE6.2 model to develop on-
road vehicle emission factors. More information on Connecticut's travel
demand modeling is contained in the state's June 17, 2003 SIP
submittal.
Transportation conformity is required under section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. The purpose of transportation conformity is to ensure
that federally supported highway and transit project activities are
consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose of a SIP. Conformity to
the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS. EPA's transportation conformity rule
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether
transportation activities conform to the state air quality plan. 40 CFR
part 51, subpart W and part 93. The purpose of the MOBILE6.2
transportation conformity budgets being proposed for approval today is
to cap the emissions resulting from Connecticut's statewide
transportation improvement program (STIP) in the effort to reduce
emissions and achieve the NAAQS for ground level ozone. The modeling
conducted as part of the STIP must show that emissions are below these
emissions budgets. This process is known as a ``conformity
determination.''

C. Are the Revised Budgets Using MOBILE6.2 Consistent With
Connecticut's One-Hour Attainment Demonstration?

In using MOBILE6.2 to calculate the revised budgets, states must
consider whether these calculations continue to

[[Page 70440]]

support attainment of the NAAQS for ozone. EPA has articulated its
policy regarding the use of MOBILE6.2 in SIP development in its
``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2 for SIP Development and
Transportation Conformity'' \5\ and ``Clarification of Policy Guidance
for MOBILE6.2 in Mid-course Review Areas.'' \6\ Consistent with this
policy guidance, Connecticut submitted a relative reduction comparison
to show that its one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP continues
to demonstrate attainment when applying the new MOBILE6.2 budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Memorandum, ``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2 for
SIP Development and Transportation Conformity,'' issued January 18,
2002.
\6\ Memorandum, ``Clarification of Policy Guidance for MOBILE6.2
SIPs in Mid-course Review Areas,'' issued February 12, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In developing the EPA approved one-hour ozone attainment
demonstrations, Connecticut relied on a ``weight-of-evidence'' approach
that examined photochemical grid modeling results, emission
projections, and air quality data. As part of Connecticut's one-hour
attainment demonstration, the level of additional emission reductions
needed for attainment was determined by applying a relative emission
reduction technique.\7\ This relied on measured air quality data and
emission estimates from 1999, along with previous photochemical grid
modeling with 2007 emission estimates, to determine whether additional
emission reductions were necessary to provide for a projection of
attainment for Connecticut in 2007. EPA concluded that attainment could
be demonstrated if emission reductions expected from the federal motor
vehicle Tier 2 program were incorporated into the SIP, and Connecticut
subsequently incorporated this program into the SIP as part of
revisions submitted to EPA in February 2000 and October 2001,
respectively.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 66 FR 63921-63938 (December 11, 2001) for the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area; 66 FR 634-663
(January 3, 2001) for the Greater Connecticut area.
\8\ MOBILE5b inputs and estimates are from the previously
approved SIP submittals ``Addenda to the Ozone Attainment
Demonstrations for the Southwest Connecticut Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Area and Greater Connecticut Serious Ozone
Nonattainment Area'' (submitted to EPA on February 8, 2000) and
``Updates to the Ozone Attainment Demonstration for the Southwest
Connecticut Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area (submitted to EPA in
October 2001). MOBILE6.2 estimates were determined as described in
the current SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CTDEP used a similar approach to determine if the 2007 MOBILE6.2
emission projections remain consistent with the approved attainment
plans. CTDEP analyzed 1999 through 2007 to compare the relative
emission reductions projected by MOBILE6.2 to those projected by
MOBILE5b to determine if the relative reductions estimated over the
1999-2007 period with MOBILE6.2 equal or exceed those estimates using
MOBILE5b.
MOBILE6.2 generally calculates higher emission factors than
MOBILE5b between the base year and the attainment year, or 1999 and
2007 for the budgets that are being approved today. As can be seen in
table 1, for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area, MOBILE6.2 reductions are greater
than MOBILE5b for emissions of total precursors (39.7 tons per summer
day (tpd) versus 26.6 tpd), VOC (18.3 tpd versus 7.9 tpd), and
NO_X (21.4 tpd versus 18.7 tpd). In addition, the rate of
emission reductions between the base year of 1999 and attainment year
of 2007 is also greater with MOBILE6.2 than MOBILE5b for total
precursor emissions (46.3% versus 44.3%) and VOC emissions (52.7%
versus 44.9%); but slightly lower for NO_X emissions (41.9%
versus 44.1%). Therefore, MOBILE6.2 provides an ``excess'' rate of VOC
reductions that is 7.9% above what MOBILE5b provided in the approved
attainment SIP. In addition, MOBILE6.2 provides a 2.2% smaller rate of
NO_X reductions compared to the MOBILE5b emissions included
in the approved attainment SIP.

Table 1.--Comparison of MOBILE5b and MOBILE6.2 Emission Estimates: 1999-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut portion of the New Greater Connecticut
York-Northern New Jersey-Long ---------------------------------
Island nonattainment area
---------------------------------- VOC + NOX VOC NOX
VOC + NOX VOC NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILE5b: 1999 (tpd)........................ 60.0 17.6 42.4 191.7 52.3 139.4
MOBILE5b: 2007 (tpd)........................ 33.4 9.7 23.7 109.6 30.0 79.6
M5b Reduction (tpd)......................... 26.6 7.9 18.7 82.1 22.3 59.8
M5b % Reduction............................. 44.3% 44.9% 44.1% 42.8% 42.6% 42.9%
MOBILE6.2: 1999 (tpd)....................... 85.8 34.7 51.1 272.2 107.3 164.9
MOBILE6.2: 2007 (tpd)....................... 46.1 16.4 29.7 150.3 51.9 98.4
M6.2 Reduction (tpd)........................ 39.7 18.3 21.4 121.9 55.4 66.5
M6.2 % Reduction............................ 46.3% 52.7% 41.9% 44.8% 51.6% 40.3%
Difference in % Reductions (M6.2- M5b)...... 1.9% 7.9% -2.2% 2.0% 9.0% -2.6%
``Excess'' Reductions with MOBILE6.2 (after NA 4.9% 0.0% NA 5.5% 0.0%
VOC for NOX substitution at 0.83 to 0.61
ratio established by EPA method)...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To demonstrate the net beneficial effect on ozone of the combined
7.9% ``excess'' VOC reductions and the 2.2% NO_X ``deficit,''
CTDEP applied the emission reduction factors previously approved by EPA
to determine the amount of additional reductions needed in Connecticut
to ensure attainment of the ozone standard. See Addenda to the Ozone
Attainment Demonstrations for the Southwest Connecticut Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Area and Greater Connecticut Serious Ozone Nonattainment
Area, section 3.B. at 4-7 (January 14, 2000). This method determined
that emission reductions of 0.83% VOC and 0.61% NO_X resulted
in an ozone air quality improvement of one ppb in the New York City
modeling domain. Scaling these ``normalized'' values, the 2.2%
MOBILE6.2 NO_X deficit described above can be offset by 3.0%
(i.e., (0.83/0.61) x 2.2% = 3.0% with rounding) of the 7.9% MOBILE6.2
VOC ``excess.'' \9\ This substitution results in a final MOBILE6.2 VOC
``excess'' reduction of 4.9% (with a net

[[Page 70441]]

zero balance of NO_X), relative to the MOBILE5b emissions
included in the approved attainment SIP. Similar calculations are
summarized in Table 1 for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Note that Connecticut's submittal indicates that the
required ``offset'' for the level of NO_X reduction from
the MOBILE6 model is 3.1%, not 3.0%. EPA has re-run these
calculations, and we believe that the correct number is 3.0%. In
either case, it is clear that the level of VOC reduction projected
by the MOBILE6 model more than compensates for the ``deficit'' in
NO_X reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The methodology used in these calculations differs from the
methodology provided in EPA guidance,\10\ but Connecticut has provided
evidence that these budgets continue to support attainment of the ozone
NAAQS by 2007 in both nonattainment areas. First, to assess the
relative level of reduction under the MOBILE5 model compared with the
MOBILE6 model, Connecticut compared mobile source emission reductions
from 1999 to 2007, the attainment year for these areas. EPA's guidance,
however, recommends comparing reductions from the base year of the
attainment demonstration with the attainment year. For most purposes,
the base year for the attainment demonstrations in Connecticut was
1990. Nevertheless, Connecticut believes that it makes more sense to
start the comparison with 1999 levels, because that was the year
Connecticut assembled its attainment demonstration for EPA using a
weight of evidence assessment of various emissions and air quality
trends. Much of the data used in that weight of evidence assessment
came from the late 1990's and made projections of attainment in 2007 by
assessing how past trends in that data would likely proceed from 1999
forward. See e.g. the discussion of the Regional Design Value Rollback
Analysis for the Connecticut Nonattainment Areas (64 FR at 70341-70342
(Greater Connecticut) and at 70359 (Southwest Connecticut) (December
16, 1999)). Connecticut and EPA effectively used 1999 as a base year
for several purposes when constructing the weight of evidence analysis
supporting our approval of the state's attainment demonstration.
Therefore, Connecticut used 1999 as the starting point for assessing
whether the relative level of reductions in mobile emissions projected
using MOBILE6 still supports its attainment demonstration, since a
critical step in that demonstration relied on projections from 1999 to
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Two Memoranda: ``Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6.2
for SIP development and Transportation Conformity,'' issued January
18, 2002, and ``Clarification of Policy Guidance for MOBILE6.2 SIPs
in Mid-course Review Areas,'' issued February 12, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, Connecticut used the factors described above to compare and
offset the ``deficit'' in NO_X reductions with ``excess'' VOC
reductions. EPA's guidance does not directly address the situation
where the overall level of ozone precursor reductions appears to
support the weight of evidence analysis underlying the attainment
demonstration but there is a slight shortfall in the level of reduction
for one pollutant. Connecticut has looked to an analogous exercise the
State and EPA undertook to calculate how to balance between
NO_X and VOC reductions when calculating emission reduction
shortfalls in ozone nonattainment areas. EPA believes the State's use
of these factors is a reasonable extension of that methodology, since
the goal of both exercises is to compare the relative benefit in
reducing ozone that results from reductions in either VOC or
NO_X.
Application of this methodology provides evidence that MOBILE6.2
projects a net reduction in total ozone precursor emissions between the
1999 base year and the 2007 attainment year that are at least
equivalent to the level of reduction Connecticut relied on for its
attainment demonstration using MOBILE5. These excess emission
reductions determined with MOBILE6.2 reaffirm that the transportation
budgets developed with MOBILE6.2 are consistent with Connecticut's
previously approved attainment demonstrations.
In addition to the evaluation of on-road mobile source emissions,
CTDEP also reevaluated the effects on the attainment plan of recent
changes to 2007 growth projections for other emission source categories
(i.e., point, area, and non-road mobile sources). The Connecticut
Department of Labor's updated total employment projections for the
manufacturing sector are actually lower than previous projections by
almost five percent. In addition, population projections were also
updated. When updated employment growth and population forecasts are
incorporated into emission calculations,\11\ overall ozone precursor
emission projections for 2007 are slightly lower than those included in
the previously approved attainment plan. These lower emission
projections further support the attainment plan's conclusion that
emission reductions included in the SIP are on target to achieve one-
hour ozone attainment by 2007 in both the Connecticut portion of the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area and the
Greater Connecticut area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Calculations with updated CTDOL employment projections,
U.S. Census Bureau were carried out using the procedures documented
in Connecticut's Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress Plan. See section 3.2
and appendix F of ``Ozone Reduction Strategy for the Southwest
Connecticut Portion of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Severe
Nonattainment Area: Post-1999 Rate-of-Progress Plan''; CTDEP;
September 2001. See: http://www.dep.state.ct.us/air2/siprac/2001/pst99tsd.pdf.

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

Connecticut must submit a mid-course review of its attainment
demonstration by December 31, 2004 to ensure that the state remains on
track to attain by 2007. During that mid-course review, EPA can
reconfirm that these mobile budgets continue to support Connecticut's
attainment demonstration.
Lastly, to further support the approval of Connecticut's mobile
source budgets, EPA supplemented Connecticut's analysis with an
analysis of its own based on information provided by the CTDEP. For the
entire state, we compared the relative reduction, by percentage,
between the 1990 and 2007 inventories generated using the two different
versions of the models to ensure that the approved 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstrations for Connecticut will continue to demonstrate
attainment by 2007. The methodology for this relative reduction
comparison consists of comparing the revised MOBILE6 baseline and
attainment case inventories, by pollutant, with the previously approved
MOBILE5 inventory totals for the State of Connecticut to determine if
attainment can still be predicted by the attainment date.
Table 2 below contrasts Connecticut's revised MOBILE6-based motor
vehicle emissions inventories with the previously approved MOBILE5-
based inventories for the two Connecticut nonattainment areas, by
pollutant, expressed in units of tons per summer day (tpd). These
revised inventories were developed using the latest available
information including vehicle registration data, traffic data, vehicle
miles traveled, and growth assumptions. Non-road emissions were
calculated using the latest version of EPA's non-road model.

[[Page 70442]]

Table 2.--Comparison of Connecticut's MOBILE5 and Revised MOBILE6-Based Emissions Inventories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 2007 1990 2007
State of Connecticut VOC VOC Percent NOX NOX Percent
(tpd) (tpd) reduction (tpd) (tpd) reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOBILE5b-based emissions inventory............... 536.3 311.1 41.99 463.6 297.2 35.88
MOBILE6.2-based revised emissions inventory...... 587.3 341.8 41.80 452.3 285.7 36.82
Difference in % Reductions (M6.2-M5b)............ ....... ....... -0.18 ....... ....... 0.94
``Excess'' Reductions with MOBILE6.2 (after NOX ....... ....... 0.0 ....... ....... 0.81
for VOC substitution at 0.61 to 0.83 ratio).....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This relative reduction comparison shows that the reduction in
NO_X emissions, on a percentage basis, is greater in the
revised MOBILE6-based inventories than in the previously approved
MOBILE5 inventories. For VOC emissions, the relative reduction in the
revised MOBILE6-based inventories is slightly less than in the
previously approved MOBILE5 inventories. However, the ``deficit'' in
VOC reductions is more than offset with the ``excess'' in
NO_X reductions when the technique that Connecticut DEP used
in its analysis is performed. This analysis satisfies the conditions
outlined in EPA's MOBILE6 Policy guidance, and demonstrates that the
new levels of motor vehicle emissions calculated using MOBILE6 continue
to support achievement of the projected attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone
NAAQS by the attainment date of 2007 for Connecticut ozone
nonattainment areas.

D. Are Connecticut's Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Approvable?

Table 3 contains Connecticut's revised budgets that EPA is
approving today. These budgets were developed using the latest planning
assumptions, including 2000 vehicle registration data, VMT, speeds,
fleet mix, and SIP control measures. For the Connecticut portion of the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area, EPA is
approving budgets for 2005 and 2007, and for the Greater Connecticut
nonattainment area EPA is approving budgets for 2007.

Table 3.--MOBILE6.2 Transportation Conformity Budgets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut portion of Greater Connecticut
the New York-Northern -------------------------
New Jersey-Long Island
Year nonattainment area
-------------------------- VOC (tons/ NOX (tons/
VOC (tons/ NOX (tons/ day) day)
day) day)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005........................................................ 19.5 36.8 NA NA
2007........................................................ 16.4 29.7 51.9 98.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated in section IIA above, EPA has posted an announcement on
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/
conform/currsips.htm, initiating the adequacy
review process for the MOBILE6.2 2007 attainment year budgets for both
areas in Connecticut in accordance with EPA guidance.\12\ The 2005
budgets for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area must be approved before being
used in a conformity analysis and are not subject to the adequacy
process. The 2007 MOBILE6.2 attainment year budgets may be used for
conformity determinations upon EPA's determination of ``adequate,'' as
described in EPA guidance \13\ and specified in EPA's approvals of
Connecticut's attainment demonstrations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Memorandum, ``Conformity Guidance on Implementation of
March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision,'' issued May 14, 1999. A
copy of this memorandum cab be found on EPA's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/tranqconf.htm.

\13\ Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development
and Transportation Conformity; dated January 18, 2002; see
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/mobile6/m6policy.pdf.

\14\ 66 FR 63921-63938; (December 11, 2001) (see page 63923 for
a discussion regarding the MOBILE6 conformity budget adequacy
determination for the Southwest Connecticut area); 66 FR 633-663
(January 3, 2001) (see page 635 for a discussion regarding the
MOBILE6 conformity budget adequacy determination for the Greater
Connecticut area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once the MOBILE6.2 2007 attainment year motor vehicle emissions
budgets for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island are deemed adequate, transportation air quality
conformity analyses, prepared with MOBILE6.2, can be evaluated in
southwestern Connecticut using the SIP-approved MOBILE5b 2005 and the
MOBILE6.2 2007 budgets for the emission budget tests.
The MOBILE6.2 budgets for 2005 and 2007 for the Connecticut portion
of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area and
for 2007 for the Greater Connecticut nonattainment area will be
approved effective 60 days from today. Once the MOBILE6.2 budgets are
approved, all future transportation conformity analyses in Connecticut
will be required to demonstrate conformity with the new MOBILE6.2
budgets.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving Connecticut's revision submitted on June 17, 2003
containing 2005 and 2007 motor vehicle emissions budgets using
MOBILE6.2 for the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area and 2007 budgets for the Greater
Connecticut nonattainment area.
The EPA is publishing this action without a prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be

[[Page 70443]]

filed. This rule will be effective February 17, 2004 without further
notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by January
20, 2004.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. Only parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If EPA receives no such comments, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on February 17, 2004 and EPA will take no
further action on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and
if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA
may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the
subject of an adverse comment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does 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. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 17, 2004. Interested
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the
comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: December 10, 2003.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

? Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

? 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart H--Connecticut

? 2. Section 52.377 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) to
read as follows:

Sec. 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
(b) Approval--Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on September
16, 1998, February 8, 2000 and June 17, 2003. The revisions are for the
purpose of satisfying the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act for the Greater Connecticut
serious ozone nonattainment area. The revision establishes an
attainment date of November 15, 2007 for the Greater Connecticut
serious ozone nonattainment area. Connecticut commits to conduct a mid-
course review to assess modeling and monitoring progress achieved
toward the goal of attainment by 2007, and submit the results to EPA by
December 31, 2004. The June 17, 2003 revision

[[Page 70444]]

establishes MOBILE6-based motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2007 of
51.9 tons per day of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 98.4 tons per
day of nitrogen oxides (NO_X) to be used in transportation
conformity in the Greater Connecticut serious ozone nonattainment area.
(c) Approval--Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on October
15, 2001 and June 17, 2003. These revisions are for the purpose of
satisfying the rate of progress requirement of section 182 (c)(2)(B)
through 2007, and the contingency measure requirements of section 182
(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act, for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-
CT severe ozone nonattainment area. The October 15, 2001 revision
establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2002 of 15.20 tons per
day of VOC and 38.39 tons per day of NO_X to be used in
transportation conformity in the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT
severe ozone nonattainment area. The June 17, 2003 revision establishes
motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2005 of 19.5 tons per day of VOC
and 36.8 tons per day of NO_X to be used in transportation
conformity in the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone
nonattainment area.
(d) Approval--Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on September
16, 1998, February 8, 2000, October 15, 2001 and June 17, 2003. The
revisions are for the purpose of satisfying the attainment
demonstration requirements of section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act
for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment
area. The June 17, 2003 revision establishes MOBILE6-based motor
vehicle emissions budgets for 2007 of 16.4 tons per day of VOC and 29.7
tons per day of NO_X to be used in transportation conformity
in the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT severe ozone nonattainment
area. Connecticut commits to adopt and submit by October 31, 2001,
additional necessary regional control measures to offset the emission
reduction shortfall in order to attain the one-hour ozone standard by
November 2007. Connecticut commits to adopt and submit by October 31,
2001, additional necessary intrastate control measures to offset the
emission reduction shortfall in order to attain the one-hour ozone
standard by November 2007. Connecticut commits to adopt and submit
additional restrictions on VOC emissions from mobile equipment and
repair operations; and requirements to reduce VOC emissions from
certain consumer products. Connecticut also commits to conduct a mid-
course review to assess modeling and monitoring progress achieved
toward the goal of attainment by 2007, and submit the results to EPA by
December 31, 2004.

[FR Doc. 03-31234 Filed 12-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut; Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 2005 and 2007 using MOBILE6.2 for the Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Nonattainment Area and for 2007 for the Greater Connecticut Nonattainment Area

Local Navigation