[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12005-12015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2976]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CT008-7210a; A-1-FRL-6225-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans and 
Designations of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Connecticut; 
Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; Approval of 
Maintenance Plan, Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Plan and Emissions 
Inventory for the Connecticut Portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-
Long Island Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is conditionally approving a State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut on June 24, 1998 
and a commitment submitted November 13, 1998 to start on-board 
diagnostic testing (OBD) by July 1, 2001. This revision conditionally 
approves the Connecticut statewide enhanced inspection and maintenance 
(I/M) program. The effect of this action is to conditionally approve 
the State's I/M SIP revision which for the most part is approvable, but 
which does not meet all EPA enhanced I/M program regulatory 
requirements. Connecticut has committed to correcting these 
deficiencies by July 1, 1999. EPA is also approving a request by the 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) on May 29, 
1998 to redesignate the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New 
Jersey-Long Island carbon monoxide nonattainment area from 
nonattainment to attainment for carbon monoxide (CO). EPA is approving 
this request which establishes the Connecticut portion of this area as 
attainment for carbon monoxide and requires the State to implement its 
10 year maintenance plan that will insure that the area remains in 
attainment. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), section 107 as amended in 
1990, designations can be revised if sufficient air quality data is 
available to warrant such revisions. EPA is approving the Connecticut 
request because it addresses the redesignation requirements set forth 
in the CAA. This action is being taken under section 107 of the Clean 
Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on May 10, 1999 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by April 
9, 1999. If relevant adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a 
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and 
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress St., Suite 1100, Boston, MA 
02114-2023. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Office Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th Floor, Boston, 
MA; Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W., (LE-131), Washington, D.C. 
20460; and (the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Environmental 
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter X. Hagerty, (617) 918-1049 or 
Jeff Butensky, (617) 918-1665.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M

    The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or Act), requires 
certain States to revise and improve existing     I/M programs or 
implement new ones. All ozone nonattainment areas classified as 
moderate or worse must implement a basic or enhanced I/M program 
depending upon its nonattainment classification, regardless of previous 
requirements. In addition, Congress directed the EPA in section 
182(a)(2)(B) to publish updated guidance for State   I/M programs, 
taking into consideration findings of the Administrator's audits and 
investigations of these programs. The States must then incorporate this 
guidance into the SIP for all areas required by the Act to have an I/M 
program. Metropolitan statistical areas with populations of 100,000 or 
more that are within the Northeast Ozone Transport Region are required 
to meet EPA guidance for enhanced I/M programs.
    Final full approval of the portions of the state's I/M SIP revision 
subject to the conditions stated in this notice is still necessary 
under section 110 and under section 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA.

B. Rationale for CO Redesignation

    On November 2, 1998 EPA published a direct final rule in the 
Federal Register approving the maintenance plan, carbon monoxide (CO) 
redesignation, and emissions inventory for the Connecticut portion of 
the New York--N. New Jersey--Long Island Area (62 FR 58637). This 
action was meant to redesignate the southwest Connecticut moderate 
carbon monoxide (CO) area to attainment. On December 2, 1998, EPA 
received a comment on that action, which should have prevented the 
direct final rule from taking effect. EPA is removing the amendments in 
that action in a parallel document published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register. This action addresses the comment received and again 
redesignates Southwest Connecticut to attainment for CO.
    In the November 2, 1998 document, EPA inaccurately stated that 
Connecticut has a fully approved CO SIP. A fully approved CO 
nonattainment SIP for this area must include a fully approved enhanced 
I/M program. On December 2, 1998, EPA received a comment pointing out 
that EPA has not fully approved Connecticut's enhanced I/M program and 
inquiring as to the basis for EPA's redesignation in light of the 
absence of a fully approved enhanced I/M program.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA also received a comment from the State of New Jersey 
supporting the Connecticut redesignation and making certain 
assertions about New Jersey's eligibility for redesignation and the 
use of oxygenated fuels. EPA is taking no position in this notice on 
New Jersey's eligibility for redesignation and the use of oxygenated 
fuels in either New Jersey or Connecticut. The Clean Air Act 
requires the sale of oxygenated fuels in areas that are located 
within a CMSA in which a carbon monoxide nonattainment area with a 
design value of 9.5 parts per million or greater, and that 
requirement is not changed merely by the redesignation of such areas 
to attainment. Although the Southwest Connecticut emission inventory 
and maintenance plan EPA presented in its prior document (See 63 FR 
58641 (Nov. 2, 1998)) did not include any emissions reductions from 
the sale of oxygenated fuels, the applicability of the requirements 
concerning the sale of oxygenated fuels in the southwest Connecticut 
portion of the New York City consolidated metropolitan statistical 
area will not be affected by the redesignation of southwest 
Connecticut to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A memorandum from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992, Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment, states that 
areas requesting redesignation to attainment must fully adopt rules and 
programs that come due prior to the submittal of a complete 
redesignation request. However, EPA is allowing a deminimis exception 
to this policy in today's action. While all nonattainment area SIP 
requirements that come due prior to the submission of the redesignation 
request

[[Page 12006]]

remain applicable requirements, the EPA believes it appropriate, in 
this instance, to allow a narrow exception to this policy with respect 
to the conditional approval of the I/M program.
    In its approval of the redesignation to attainment for ozone of 
Grand Rapids, Michigan, EPA formulated a limited exception to the 
requirement that an area must have a fully approved SIP prior to 
redesignation. 61 FR 31831, 31833, 31843-31847 (June 21, 1996). In that 
action, EPA allowed redesignation where the area had not adopted nor 
received approval for certain VOC RACT rules, accepting instead a 
commitment to adopt and implement the RACT rules as contingency 
measures in the maintenance plan, rather than require full adoption and 
approval prior to redesignation. EPA allowed this exception based on a 
combination of several factors: (1) The rules were not needed to bring 
about attainment of the ozone standard in Grand Rapids; (2) the State 
demonstrated maintenance without the implementation of these measures; 
(3) the State placed other contingency measures in the maintenance plan 
that would bring about greater emission reductions than the VOC RACT 
rules would. 31833-31834. See also 61 FR 14526-14527 (April 2, 1996) 
(proposed rulemaking on Grand Rapids). Moreover, the State would have 
been able to have the RACT rules become a part of the contingency 
measures upon approval of the redesignation, and thus the only 
difference lay in having a commitment to adopt contingency measures 
rather than fully adopted contingency measures. 31843-31844. EPA 
concluded that ``this difference has no significant environmental 
consequence and that it is permissible to approve the Grand Rapids 
redesignation on this basis.'' 61 FR 14527.
    The Southwestern Connecticut redesignation presents a similar case 
for an exception to the general policy that all SIP provisions must be 
fully approved. In the case of southwestern Connecticut, EPA believes 
that, as in Grand Rapids, a number of factors in combination justify an 
approach similar to that taken with respect to Grand Rapids.
    First, as explained in the first direct final rule for this 
redesignation, the modeling supporting Connecticut's redesignation 
demonstrates that emission reductions from enhanced I/M are not needed 
to attain the CO standard. Second, reductions from enhanced I/M are not 
needed to maintain the CO standard during the maintenance period. 
Third, the State has committed to implement enhanced I/M as a 
contingency measure in their CO maintenance plan, as well as the low 
emission vehicle program. Fourth, Connecticut remains obligated to 
implement a fully enhanced I/M program under the Act based on the 
state's status as an ozone nonattainment area. Indeed, Connecticut is 
already implementing the enhanced I/M program in order to achieve 
emissions reductions for the purposes of addressing ozone 
nonattainment. Note that the enhanced I/M program only commenced 
operation in January 1998. Therefore, any CO reductions achieved by the 
enhanced program were not a factor in attaining the CO standard in 
southwest Connecticut or elsewhere in this CO nonattainment area, 
because the enhanced I/M program did not operate during the 1996-1997 
years, two of the years when the entire area monitored air quality 
attaining the CO standard. Nevertheless, Connecticut's operation of the 
program gives EPA substantial assurance that the environmental benefit 
of the enhanced I/M program will be achieved despite this minor 
departure from Agency redesignation policy. Fifth, the deficiencies in 
the Connecticut enhanced I/M program, while they must be corrected for 
full approval, are not flaws in the program that substantially diminish 
the level of emissions reductions the current program achieves as 
compared with a fully approvable program. Finally, EPA is today 
conditionally approving the enhanced I/M program into the SIP. 
Connecticut has committed to meeting the conditions of EPA's approval 
and correcting its program by July 1, 1999. Even if the State failed to 
meet these conditions, EPA is providing that the conditional approval 
will convert to a limited approval/limited disapproval of the enhanced 
I/M program, so the emissions reductions from Connecticut's current 
enhanced I/M program will remain enforceable under the SIP in the 
unlikely event the State fails to meet its commitment to cure the I/M 
program.
    For all these reasons, EPA has concluded that relying on a 
conditional approval of Connecticut's enhanced I/M program for the 
purposes of redesignating the southwest portion of the State to 
attainment for CO is a deminimis departure from redesignation 
requirements. In the context of this particular CO redesignation, the 
difference between full and conditional approval has a trivial 
environmental impact, if any.
    As in Grand Rapids, EPA believes that the difference between full 
approval and the circumstances presented by Southwestern Connecticut 
has no significant environmental consequence and that it is permissible 
to approve the redesignation on this basis. Indeed, arguably 
Connecticut's circumstances are even more persuasive than those in 
Grand Rapids: the fact that the program has been substantially adopted 
and is currently being implemented, and that Connecticut will remain 
obligated after redesignation to implement an enhanced I/M program 
based on its ozone nonattainment status, and the fact that EPA is 
providing that its conditional approval will convert to a limited 
approval to preserve the enforceability of the I/M program, all provide 
even greater assurances that redesignation will not put at risk the 
achievement of any significant environmental benefits.

C. Background on Connecticut's I/M Program

    On June 24, 1998, Connecticut submitted an enhanced I/M SIP 
revision to EPA, requesting action under the CAA of 1990. The official 
submittal was made by the appropriate State officials, Mr. Jose O. 
Salinas, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, and Mr. Arthur J. Roche Jr., 
Commissioner Environmental Protection, and was addressed to John 
DeVillars, Regional Administrator, the appropriate EPA official in the 
Region.
    The State of Connecticut has adopted legislation, at Sec. 14-164c 
and Sec. 22a of the Connecticut General Statutes, enabling the 
implementation of an enhanced I/M program.
    On March 26, 1998 and April 7, 1998, the Connecticut I/M 
regulations were filed with the Secretary of State thereby making them 
effective. The regulations call for implementation of a test-only 
enhanced I/M program which started operation in January 1998, utilizing 
new emission analyzers and dynamometers connected to a central computer 
with final cut points being implemented in 2001.
    The program calls for biennial ASM2525 testing in test-only 
contractor-operated facilities. The test equipment will be ASM 
connected to a contractor operated central computer. The program 
evaluation year is 2000.

D. Analysis of the EPA I/M Regulation and CAA Requirements

    Based upon EPA's review of Connecticut's submittal, EPA believes 
the State has complied with most but not all aspects of the CAA and the 
I/M Rule. For those sections of the I/M rule identified below with 
which the State has not yet fully complied, EPA is conditionally 
approving the SIP since

[[Page 12007]]

the State has committed in the I/M SIP submittal to correct said 
deficiencies by a date certain (July 1, 1999) within 1 year of EPA 
approval.
    The State must correct these deficiencies by the date committed to 
in the I/M SIP or the conditional approval will convert to a final 
limited approval/limited disapproval under CAA section 110(k)(4). In 
that event, EPA would issue a letter to notify the State that the 
conditions had not been met and that the approval had converted to a 
limited approval/limited disapproval, starting an 18 month clock prior 
to imposing sanctions under CAA Section 179.

Applicability--40 CFR 51.350

    Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.350(a) 
require all states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) which contain 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) or parts thereof with a 
population of 100,000 or more to implement an enhanced I/M program. 
Connecticut is part of the OTR and contains the following MSAs or parts 
thereof with a population of 100,000 or more: Hartford-New Britain-
Middletown, CMSA, New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT 
CMSAs.
    Connecticut is also classified as a serious ozone nonattainment 
area for the greater Connecticut Area and a severe ozone nonattainment 
area for the New York-New Jersey-Long Island area and is required to 
implement an enhanced I/M program per section 182(c)(3) of the CAA and 
40 CFR 51.350(a)(2). Although the New Haven/Meriden/Waterbury area and 
the Hartford-New Britain-Middletown area are no longer CO nonattainment 
areas, a basic CO I/M program is part of the CO Maintenance Plan and an 
enhanced I/M program is part of the CO Contingency Plan for these 
areas. This is also true for the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. 
New Jersey-Long Island area redesignation to attainment, which will 
become effective May 10, 1999 as described earlier in this notice.
    Although under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, not all 
counties in Connecticut would be subject to I/M program requirements, 
the Connecticut I/M regulation requires that the enhanced I/M program 
be implemented statewide. As stated in the State submittal, the 
Connecticut I/M legislative authority in section 14-164c, and section 
22a of the Connecticut General Statutes provides the authority to 
establish a statewide enhanced program. EPA finds that the geographic 
applicability requirements are satisfied. The federal I/M rule requires 
that the state program not terminate until it is no longer necessary. 
EPA interprets the federal rule as stating that a SIP which does not 
sunset prior to the attainment deadline for each applicable area 
satisfies this requirement. The Connecticut submittal does not address 
the length of time the program will be in effect. The program must 
continue past the attainment dates for all applicable nonattainment 
areas in Connecticut. In the absence of a sunset date, EPA interprets 
the SIP submittal as requiring the I/M program to continue 
indefinitely, and approves the program on this basis. This unlimited 
term of the program will be federally enforceable as a requirement of 
the SIP.

Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351

    The enhanced I/M program must be designed and implemented to meet 
or exceed a minimum performance standard, which is expressed as 
emission levels in area-wide average grams per mile (gpm) for certain 
pollutants. The performance standard shall be established using local 
characteristics, such as vehicle age mix and local fuel controls, and 
the following model I/M program parameters: network type, start date, 
test frequency, model years, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission 
test type, emission standards, emission control device, evaporative 
system function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and 
evaluation date. The emission levels achieved by the state's program 
design shall be calculated using the most current version, at the time 
of submittal, of the EPA mobile source emission factor model. At the 
time of the Connecticut submittal, the most current version was 
MOBILE5b. Areas shall meet the performance standard for the pollutants 
which cause them to be subject to enhanced I/M requirements. In the 
case of ozone nonattainment areas, the performance standard must be met 
for both nitrogen oxides (NOX) and hydrocarbons (HC). In the 
case of carbon monoxide areas, the performance standard must be met for 
CO. This Connecticut submittal must meet the enhanced I/M performance 
standard statewide for HC and NOx and in the Connecticut portion of the 
New York-Northern New Jersey and Long Island CO nonattainment area for 
CO.
    EPA published requirements for on-board diagnostic (OBD) testing in 
inspection and maintenance programs in the Federal Register at 61 FR 
40940 on August 6, 1996 and extended the required date until January 1, 
2001 in the Federal Register at 63 FR 24429 on May 4, 1998. States were 
required to submit a SIP by August 6, 1998 committing to begin OBD 
testing in accordance with EPA regulations by January 1, 2001.
    The Connecticut submittal includes the following program design 
parameters:

Network type--test-only
Start date--1998
Test frequency--biennial
Model year/ vehicle type coverage--1981+, light and heavy duty up to 
10,000 GVW, gasoline
Exhaust emission test type--ASM2525
Emission standards--See Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies 
Section 22a-174-279(c) and (d)
Emission control device check--yes (catalytic converters)
Evaporative system function checks--81+ (gas cap only)
Stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--20%
Waiver rate--3%
Compliance rate--96%
Evaluation date(s)--2000

    Connecticut has submitted modeling demonstrations using the EPA 
computer model MOBILE5b showing that the enhanced performance standard 
reductions will be met in 2000 for NOx, HC, and CO.
    In the modeling, Connecticut has claimed full credit for mechanic 
training. Repair shops are licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles 
in Connecticut. Either by complaints or a high rate of retest failures 
shops are identified for nonroutine visits to identify problems. There 
will be extensive training and support network provided for mechanics 
provided by the educational community, DMV and the contractor. Only 
work done by licensed shops can be counted toward a waiver. Based on 
this, the state has taken full credit for mechanic training. Since EPA 
has no conflicting data to refute the State's claim at this time, the 
use of full credit for mechanic training will be approved at this time, 
subject to reconsideration in connection with final full approval of 
the entire program subsequent to the July 1, 1999 submittal to satisfy 
conditions in this document. EPA is studying the technician training 
credit available, and expects to have further guidance available prior 
to the July 1, 1999 date for submittal by Connecticut of a revision to 
meet the conditions specified in this document.
    On November 13, 1998, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision which 
committed to start OBD testing meeting EPA requirements by January 1, 
2001. This submittal meets the requirements set forth in the I/M 
regulations for OBD at this time.
    EPA is conditionally approving the Connecticut program at this time

[[Page 12008]]

consistent with the requirements of the CAA. If the State cannot meet 
the high enhanced I/M performance standard, the State may demonstrate 
compliance with the low enhanced performance standard established in 40 
CFR 51.351(g). That section provides that states may select the low 
enhanced performance standard if they have an approved SIP for 
reasonable further progress in 1996, commonly known as a 15 percent 
reduction SIP or 15 percent plan. EPA's approval of Connecticut's 15 
percent plan is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register as a 
direct final rule. The approval of this I/M program is conditioned on 
the approval of Connecticut's 15 percent plan. In the event that 
effective date of the 15 percent plan is delayed, EPA will 
correspondingly delay the effective date of the I/M plan and the CO 
redesignation in this document.
    Calculations done by the State for a revised 15% plan indicate that 
the State can achieve the needed 15% reduction without the high 
enhanced standard utilizing the ASM credits The State has shown that 
the program meets the ``low enhanced I/M performance standard'' in 
2000.

Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353

    The enhanced program shall include an ongoing evaluation to 
quantify the emission reduction benefits of the program, and to 
determine if the program is meeting the requirements of the Act and the 
federal I/M regulation. The SIP shall include details on the program 
evaluation and shall include a schedule for submittal of biennial 
evaluation reports and the legal authority enabling the evaluation 
program.
    The program evaluation requirements of EPA's I/M rule were 
postponed in the Federal Register on January 9, 1998, (63 FR 1362) in 
order for EPA to evaluate alternate methods for states to meet this 
requirement. On January 9, 1998, EPA required states to submit program 
evaluation requirements by November 30, 1998. In its June 15, 1998 
submittal, the state committed to meet the program evaluation 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.353. EPA interprets this commitment to mean 
that Connecticut will submit program evaluation requirements consistent 
with EPA's January 9, 1998 guidance by July 1, 1999. This part of the 
submittal does not meet the requirements of this section set forth in 
the federal I/M rule and this is a SIP deficiency. The State has 
committed to correct this SIP deficiency by a date certain (July 1, 
1999) within one year of conditional approval of this submittal.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354

    The federal regulation requires the state to demonstrate that 
adequate funding of the program is available. A portion of the test fee 
or separately assessed per vehicle fee shall be collected, placed in a 
dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding 
approaches are acceptable if it is demonstrated that the funding can be 
maintained. Reliance on funding from the state or local General Fund is 
not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the 
state's constitution. The SIP shall include a detailed budget plan 
which describes the source of funds for personnel, program 
administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP 
shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality 
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement, 
public education and assistance and other necessary functions.
    The State has provided for a dedicated fund for the program, and 
has submitted resource allocations and budgets. The submittal meets the 
requirements of this section set forth in the federal I/M rule and is 
approvable.

Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355

    The enhanced I/M performance standard assumes an annual test 
frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the performance 
standard is achieved. The SIP shall describe the test year selection 
scheme, how the test frequency is integrated into the enforcement 
process and shall include the legal authority, regulations or contract 
provisions to implement and enforce the test frequency. The program 
shall be designed to provide convenient service to the motorist by 
ensuring short wait times, short driving distances and regular testing 
hours.
    The Connecticut program will require biennial testing for 1981 and 
newer vehicles and annual testing of 1968-1980 vehicles in a test-only 
network. The program meets the performance standard with this level of 
testing. The state has expanded the network to accommodate a longer 
enhanced test. The contractor is required to provide convenient 
locations and reasonable wait times. Legal authority for these 
requirements is found in Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) section 
14-164c(c) and regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (R.C.S.A.) 
section 14-164c-2a(a). This part of the submittal meets all applicable 
requirements of this section as set forth in the federal I/M rule and 
is part of the basis for conditional approval of the Connecticut I/M 
SIP.

Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356

    The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs assumes coverage 
of all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles and light duty 
trucks up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, and includes vehicles operating on all 
fuel types. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary 
emission reductions are achieved. Vehicles registered or required to be 
registered within the I/M program area boundaries and fleets primarily 
operated within the I/M program area boundaries and belonging to the 
covered model years and vehicle classes comprise the subject vehicles. 
Fleets may be officially inspected outside of the normal I/M program 
test facilities, if such alternatives are approved by the program 
administration, but shall be subject to the same test requirements 
using the same quality control standards as non-fleet vehicles and 
shall be inspected in the same type of test network as other vehicles 
in the state, according to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.353(a).
    The federal I/M regulation requires that the SIP shall include the 
legal authority necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage 
requirement, a detailed description of the number and types of vehicles 
to be covered by the program and a plan for how those vehicles are to 
be identified including vehicles that are routinely operated in the 
area but may not be registered in the area, and a description of any 
special exemptions including the percentage and number of vehicles to 
be impacted by the exemption. Such exemptions shall be accounted for in 
the emissions reduction analysis.
    EPA is not requiring states to implement section 40 CFR 
51.356(a)(4) dealing with federal installations within I/M areas at 
this time. The Department of Justice has recommended to EPA that this 
regulation be revised since it appears to grant states authority to 
regulate federal installations in circumstances where the federal 
government has not waived sovereign immunity. It would not be 
appropriate to require compliance with this regulation if it is not 
constitutionally authorized. EPA will be revising this provision in the 
future and will review state I/M SIPs with respect to this issue when 
this new rule is final.
    The State program proposes to test 1968 and newer light and heavy 
duty vehicles up to 10,000 lbs. The

[[Page 12009]]

Connecticut submittal contains a detailed description of the number and 
types of vehicles included in the program. See June 15, 1998, state 
submittal at p. 8 and Apps. 7 and 8. There are no special provisions 
for fleet testing at this time. All vehicles must be tested at 
contractor operated stations. Legal authority for these requirements is 
found in C.G.S. section 14-164c(c) and R.C.S.A. section 14-164c-2a(a).
    This part of the submittal meets all applicable requirements of 
this section as set forth in the federal I/M rule and is part of the 
basis for conditional approval of the Connecticut I/M SIP.

Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 51.357

    Written test procedures and pass/fail standards shall be 
established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included 
in the program. Test procedures and standards are detailed in 40 CFR 
51.357 and in the EPA documents entitled ``High-Tech
I/M Test Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, 
and Equipment Specifications,'' EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, dated April 1994 
and ``Acceleration Simulation Mode Test Procedures, Emission Standards, 
Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications,'' EPA-AA-
RSPD-IM-96-2, dated July 1996. The federal I/M regulation also requires 
vehicles that have been altered from their original certified 
configuration (i.e. engine or fuel switching) to be subject to the 
requirements of Sec. 51.357(d).
    Connecticut is using an Acceleration Simulation Mode Test (ASM2525) 
and has adopted the EPA test procedures and standards. This part of the 
submittal meets the requirements of this section as set forth in the 
federal I/M rule and is part of the basis for conditional approval of 
the Connecticut I/M SIP.

Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358

    Computerized test systems are required for performing any 
measurement on subject vehicles. The federal I/M regulation requires 
that the state SIP submittal include written technical specifications 
for all test equipment used in the program. The specifications shall 
describe the emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment, 
the required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and 
procedures.
    Connecticut is using ASM specifications for test equipment to be 
used in the program and a system which will utilize the latest 
computerized equipment. Connecticut has fully explained its 
specifications in its submittal. This part of the submittal meets all 
applicable requirements of this section as set forth in the federal I/M 
rule and is part of the basis for conditional approval of the 
Connecticut I/M SIP.

Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359

    Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement 
equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection, 
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created, 
recorded and maintained.
    The Connecticut submittal includes a portion of the inspection 
agreement which describes and establishes detailed quality control 
measures for the emission measurement equipment, and record keeping 
requirements. This part of the submittal meets all applicable 
requirements of this section as set forth in the federal I/M rule and 
is part of the basis for conditional approval of the Connecticut I/M 
SIP.

Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360

    The federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver, 
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows 
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. For 
enhanced I/M programs, an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, 
adjusted annually to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) as compared to the CPI for 1989, is required by statute in order 
to qualify for a waiver. Waivers can only be issued after a vehicle has 
failed a retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been made. 
Any available warranty coverage must be used to obtain repairs before 
expenditures can be counted toward the cost limit. Tampering related 
repairs shall not be applied toward the cost limit. Repairs must be 
appropriate to the cause of the test failure. Repairs for 1980 and 
newer model year vehicles must be performed by a recognized repair 
technician. The federal regulation allows for compliance via a 
diagnostic inspection after failing a retest on emissions and requires 
quality control of waiver issuance. The SIP must set a maximum waiver 
rate and must describe corrective action that would be taken if the 
waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP.
    Connecticut has provided for a waiver program for 1981 and later 
vehicles (the portion of the fleet used to show achievement of the 
enhanced performance standard) which meets the requirements of the I/M 
rule with one exception.
    The date for compliance with the $450 adjusted waiver cost 
requirement is beyond the January 1, 2000 deadline established by the 
I/M rule. This part of the submittal does not meet the requirements of 
this section set forth in the federal I/M rule and this is a SIP 
deficiency. The State has committed to correct this major deficiency by 
a date certain (July 1, 1999) within one year of conditional approval 
of this submittal. The State has committed to a waiver rate in practice 
equal to or lower than three percent. If the rate is higher, the State 
will implement corrective strategies including ceasing waivers for 
vehicles under six years of age, raising minimum expenditure limits, 
and limiting waivers to once every four years for any one vehicle. June 
15, 1998 State submittal at page 14.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361

    The federal regulation requires that compliance shall be ensured 
through the denial of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M 
programs unless an exception for use of an existing alternative is 
approved. An enhanced
I/M area may use either sticker-based enforcement programs or computer-
matching programs if either of these programs were used in the existing 
program, which was operating prior to passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments, and it can be demonstrated that the alternative has been 
more effective than registration denial. The SIP shall provide 
information concerning the enforcement process, legal authority to 
implement and enforce the program, and a commitment to a compliance 
rate to be used for modeling purposes and to be maintained in practice.
    The State is planning on utilizing a sticker system for visible 
evidence of compliance, but registration will be suspended or not 
renewed for noncompliance. Noncomplying vehicles will be identified 
within 14 days of the required inspection date and notified to comply. 
This will be done with a computer matching program run by the 
contractor. Registration suspension will take place for noncompliance 
within 90 days. The Connecticut SIP submittal uses a 96% compliance 
rate in the performance standard modeling demonstration and the State 
has committed to it in practice. Connecticut has also described what 
other measures will be used to achieve this compliance rate if it drops 
below 96%. Legal authority for these requirements is found in C.G.S. 
section 14-164c(a) and (j) and R.C.S.A. section 14-164-17a. This part 
of the submittal meets all applicable requirements of this section as 
set forth in the federal I/M rule and

[[Page 12010]]

is part of the basis for conditional approval of the Connecticut I/M 
SIP.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362

    The federal I/M regulation requires that the enforcement program 
shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program 
management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when 
necessary. The SIP shall include quality control and quality assurance 
procedures to be used to insure the effective overall performance of 
the enforcement system. An information management system shall be 
established which will characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.
    Connecticut has described in the SIP an outline of a program which 
could meet the requirements of this section, however there is not 
enough detailed information to determine whether the requirements are 
met. This is a SIP deficiency which Connecticut must correct by a date 
certain within one year of final conditional approval. The State has 
committed in the I/M SIP to submit a plan to address these requirements 
in more detail by July 1, 1999.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363

    An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to 
discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the program. 
The program shall include covert and overt performance audits of the 
inspectors, audits of station and inspector records, equipment audits, 
and formal training of all state I/M enforcement officials and 
auditors. A description of the quality assurance program which includes 
written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be 
submitted as part of the SIP.
    Connecticut has described a program which addressed these 
requirements in the SIP submittal. However, the written procedures 
manuals, have not yet been developed. The state has committed to submit 
these by July 1, 1999. This part of the submittal does not meet the 
requirements of this section as set forth in the federal I/M rule 
however, the State has committed in the I/M SIP to revise this section 
by a date certain (July 1, 1999) within one year of final conditional 
approval.

Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364

    Enforcement against licensed stations, contractors and inspectors 
shall include swift, sure, effective, and consistent penalties for 
violation of program requirements. The federal I/M regulation requires 
the establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules 
and procedures which can be imposed against stations, contractors and 
inspectors. The legal authority for establishing and imposing 
penalties, civil fines, license suspensions and revocations must be 
included in the SIP. State quality assurance officials shall have the 
authority to temporarily suspend station and/or inspector licenses 
immediately upon finding a violation that directly affects emission 
reduction benefits, unless constitutionally prohibited. An official 
opinion explaining any state constitutional impediments to immediate 
suspension authority must be included in the submittal. The SIP shall 
describe the administrative and judicial procedures and 
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which 
agencies, courts and jurisdictions are involved, who will prosecute and 
adjudicate cases and the resources and sources of those resources which 
will support this function.
    A detailed description of this part of the program including 
minimum penalties and statutory suspension authority was submitted. See 
June 15, 1998 state submittal at p. 22 and C.G.S. section 14-164c(e). 
But Connecticut did not provide a description of administrative and 
judicial procedures and responsibilities. Connecticut has in the I/M 
SIP submittal committed to submit this information by a date certain 
(July 1, 1999) within one year of conditional approval of the SIP.

Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365

    Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation 
and enforcement of an I/M program. The federal I/M regulation requires 
data to be gathered on each individual test conducted and on the 
results of the quality control checks of test equipment required under 
40 CFR 51.359.
    The Connecticut SIP provides a commitment to meet all of the data 
collection requirements and has listed all the required data which will 
be collected. This part of the submittal meets all applicable 
requirements of this section set forth in the federal I/M rule and is 
part of the basis for conditional approval of the Connecticut I/M SIP.

Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 51.366

    Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring 
and evaluation of the program by the state and EPA. The federal I/M 
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide 
information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each 
of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control 
and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July and shall 
provide statistics for the period of January to December of the 
previous year. A biennial report shall be submitted to EPA which 
addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority, 
program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the 
two year period and how these problems will be or were corrected.
    The Connecticut has committed to meet all of the data analysis and 
reporting requirements of this section. The contractor will be required 
to meet most of these requirements and submit them to the state, and 
the state will submit the reports to EPA as required. This part of the 
submittal meets all applicable requirements of this section as set 
forth in the federal I/M rule and is part of the basis for conditional 
approval of the Connecticut I/M SIP.

Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.367

    The federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally 
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections.
    The Connecticut I/M SIP requires training and certification of 
inspectors as required in the I/M rule. This portion of the submittal 
meets all applicable requirements of this section of the federal I/M 
rule and is part of the basis for conditional approval of the 
Connecticut I/M SIP.

Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368

    The federal I/M rule requires the SIP to include public information 
and consumer protection programs. The Connecticut inspection program 
has an existing public awareness and consumer protection plan, however, 
it does not meet all the requirements of this section. The State has 
committed in the I/M SIP to submit by a date certain (July 1, 1999) 
additional information to show compliance with all aspects of this 
section.

Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369

    Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The 
federal regulation requires states to take steps to ensure that the 
capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP 
must include a description of the technical assistance program to be 
implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria to be used in 
meeting the performance monitoring requirements required in the federal

[[Page 12011]]

regulation, and a description of the repair technician training 
resources available in the community. Connecticut has included all of 
these required elements in its SIP submittal. See June 15, 1998 State 
submittal at pp. 28-29.
    This part of the submittal meets all applicable requirements of 
this section set forth in the federal I/M rule and is part of the basis 
for conditional approval of the Connecticut I/M SIP.

Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370

    The federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to 
ensure that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included 
in a emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to 
completing the emission test and/or renewing the vehicle registration.
    Most of the requirements of this section are met by the Connecticut 
submittal, however, the requirement for a quality assurance plan for 
this section is not addressed. The state has committed in the I/M SIP 
to submit by a date certain (July 1, 1999) a quality assurance plan for 
this section meeting the requirements of this section.

On-road Testing--40 CFR 51.371

    On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas. The use of 
either remote sensing devices (RSD) or roadside pullovers including 
tailpipe emission testing can be used to meet the federal regulations. 
The program must include on-road testing of 0.5% of the subject fleet 
or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, in the nonattainment area or the 
I/M program area. Motorists that have passed an emission test and are 
found to be high emitters as a result of an on-road test shall be 
required to pass an out-of-cycle test.
    The Connecticut SIP submittal outlines an on-road testing program 
which could meet the requirements of the federal I/M rule. More detail 
is needed to determine if all of the requirements of this section will 
be met. The State in the I/M SIP submittal has committed to submit by a 
date certain (July 1, 1999) an on-road testing program meeting the 
requirements of this section.

II. Final Action

    EPA is conditionally approving the enhanced I/M program SIP 
revision submitted by the State of Connecticut on June 24, 1998 and 
November 13, 1998 as revisions to the SIP. The State must submit to EPA 
by July 1, 1999 a revision to the deficiencies described in detail 
above to satisfy the requirements of the following sections of EPA's 
enhanced I/M regulation: Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 
51.353, Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 
51.360, Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 
51.362, Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363, Enforcement Against 
Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364, Public Information 
and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368, Compliance with Recall 
Notices--40 CFR 51.370, and On-road Testing--40 CFR 51.371. If the 
State fails to do so, this approval will convert to a limited approval 
and limited disapproval on that date. EPA will notify the State by 
letter that this action has occurred. At that time, the I/M program 
will remain an enforceable part of the Connecticut SIP, but it will be 
disapproved for the purposes of meeting CAA section 182 (c)(3)(C). EPA 
subsequently will publish a document in the Federal Register notifying 
the public that the conditional approval automatically converted to a 
limited approval and limited disapproval. If the State meets its 
commitment, within the applicable time frame, the conditionally 
approved submission will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final 
action approving or disapproving the new submittal. If EPA disapproves 
the new submittal or portions of it, the conditionally approved 
portions will be disapproved at that time. If EPA approves the 
submittal, the inspection and maintenance program will be fully 
approved in its entirety and replace the conditionally approved program 
in the SIP.
    If the conditional approval is converted to a limited approval and 
limited disapproval, such action will trigger EPA's authority to impose 
sanctions under section 110(m) and 179 of the CAA at the time EPA 
issues the final disapproval or on the date EPA notifies the State that 
it has failed to meet its commitment. In the latter case, EPA will 
notify the State by letter that the conditional approval has been 
converted to a limited approval and limited disapproval and that EPA's 
sanctions authority has been triggered. In addition, the final 
disapproval triggers the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement 
under section 110(c). In any case, the I/M program would remain in the 
SIP pursuant to this limited approval for the purposes of strengthening 
the SIP.
    EPA is approving the southwest Connecticut CO redesignation because 
the State has addressed compliance with the requirements of section 
107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation and EPA is approving the maintenance 
plan because it addresses the requirements set forth in section 175A of 
the CAA. This only applies to the Connecticut Portion of the New York--
N. New Jersey--Long Island Area. The New York and New Jersey portions 
of the CO nonattainment area will remain designated nonattainment until 
such time that redesignation requests are submitted and approved by EPA 
for those states. Furthermore, nothing in this action should be 
interpreted as a formal action on the part of EPA which would affect in 
any way any area within the New York--Northern New Jersey--Long Island 
carbon monoxide nonattainment area, except for the southwest 
Connecticut portion of that area.
    EPA is publishing this rule without 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 filed. This action will be effective May 
10, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant 
adverse comments by April 9, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document 
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 another comment period on this action. Any parties interested 
in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are 
received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on May 
10, 1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
    EPA's conditional approval of the I/M program depends on the 
approval of the 15 percent plan being approved elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register. In the event that the 15 percent plan approval is 
withdrawn, EPA will correspondingly withdraw this I/M program 
conditional approval and the CO redesignation request.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

[[Page 12012]]

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 
economically significant and does not involve decisions intended to 
mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because conditional approvals of 
SIP submittals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean 
Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the state is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of 
the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of 
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. 
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a limited approval/
limited disapproval under section 110(k), based on the state's failure 
to meet the commitment, it will not affect any existing state 
requirements applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval of the 
state submittal does not affect its state-enforceability. Moreover, 
EPA's limited disapproval of the submittal does not impose a new 
Federal requirement. Therefore, I certify that this disapproval action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities because it does not remove existing requirements nor 
does it substitute a new federal requirement.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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

[[Page 12013]]

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. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 May 10, 1999. 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).) EPA encourages 
interested parties to 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.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of Connecticut was approved by the Director of 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: January 15, 1999.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.

    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 52.369 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 52.369  Identification of plan--Conditional approval

    (a) Elements of the I/M revision to the State Implementation Plan 
submitted by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on 
June 24, 1998 which address the following sections of the I/M 
regulation are conditionally approved: Network Type and Program 
Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353, Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic 
Inspection--40 CFR 51.360, Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program 
Oversight--40 CFR 51.362, Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363, Enforcement 
Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364, Public 
Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368, Compliance with 
Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370, and On-road Testing--40 CFR 51.371. If 
Connecticut fails to submit SIP revisions to meet these conditions by 
July 1, 1999 at the latest, the conditional approval of these sections 
of the Enhanced I/M SIP will automatically convert to a disapproval as 
explained under Sec. 110(k) of the Clean Air Act.
    (b) EPA is also approving this I/M SIP revision under Sec. 110(k) 
of the Clean Air Act for its strengthening effect on the plan. The I/M 
SIP shall remain an enforceable SIP requirement even if Connecticut 
fails to meet the conditions set forth in Sec. 369(a).
    3. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(78) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (78) Revision to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on June 24, 1998.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) State of Connecticut Regulation of Department of Environmental 
Protection Section 22a-174-27, Emission Standards for Periodic Motor 
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance as revised on March 26, 1998.
    (B) State of Connecticut Regulation of Department of Motor Vehicles 
Concerning Periodic Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance 
Section 14-164c as revised on April 7, 1998.
    (ii) Additional Materials.
    (A) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental 
Protection dated June 24, 1998 submitting a revision to the Connecticut 
State Implementation Plan.
    (B) Letter from Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 
dated November 13, 1998, submitting a revision to the Connecticut State 
Implementation Plan.
    3. Section 52.374 is amended by revising the table to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.374  Attainment dates for national standards.

* * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pollutant
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Air quality control region               SO2
                             ----------------------------     PM10           NO2           CO            O3
                                 Primary      Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AQCR 41: Eastern Connecticut          (a)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (d)
 Intrastate (See 40 CFR
 81.183)....................
AQCR 42: Hartford-New Haven-
 Springfield Interstate Area
 (See 40 CFR 81.26):
    All portions except City          (a)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (d)
     of New Haven...........
    City of New Haven.......          (a)           (a)           (c)           (a)           (a)           (d)
AQCR 43: Connecticut Portion          (a)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (e)
 of the New Jersey-New York-
 Connecticut Interstate Area
 (See 40 CFR 81.13).........
AQCR 44: Northwestern                 (a)           (a)           (a)           (a)           (a)          (d)
 Connecticut Intrastate (See
 40 CFR 81.184).............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Air quality levels presently below primary standards or area is unclassifiable.
b Air quality levels presently below secondary standards or area is unclassifiable.
c December 31, 1996 (two 1-year extensions granted).
d November 15, 1999.
e November 15, 2007.


[[Page 12014]]

    4. Section 52.376 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) and 
adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.376  Control Strategy: Carbon Monoxide.

    (a) Approval--On January 12, 1993, the Connecticut Department of 
Environmental Protection submitted a revision to the carbon monoxide 
State Implementation Plan for the 1990 base year emission inventory. 
The inventory was submitted by the State of Connecticut to satisfy 
Federal requirements under sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the 
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, as a revision to the carbon monoxide 
State Implementation Plan for the Hartford/New Britain/Middletown 
carbon monoxide nonattainment area, the New Haven/Meriden/Waterbury 
carbon monoxide nonattainment area, and the Connecticut Portion of the 
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island carbon monoxide nonattainment area.
* * * * *
    (d) Approval--On January 17, 1997, the Connecticut Department of 
Environmental Protection submitted a request to redesignate the New 
Haven/Meriden/Waterbury carbon monoxide nonattainment area to 
attainment for carbon monoxide. As part of the redesignation request, 
the State submitted a maintenance plan as required by 175A of the Clean 
Air Act, as amended in 1990. Elements of the section 175A maintenance 
plan include a base year emission inventory for carbon monoxide, a 
demonstration of maintenance of the carbon monoxide NAAQS with 
projected emission inventories to the year 2008 for carbon monoxide, a 
plan to verify continued attainment, a contingency plan, and an 
obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision in 8 years 
as required by the Clean Air Act. If the area records a violation of 
the carbon monoxide NAAQS (which must be confirmed by the State), 
Connecticut will implement one or more appropriate contingency 
measure(s) which are contained in the contingency plan. The menu of 
contingency measure includes reformulated gasoline and the enhanced 
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program. The redesignation 
request establishes a motor vehicle emissions budget of 229 tons per 
day for carbon monoxide to be used in determining transportation 
conformity for the New Haven/Meriden/Waterbury area. The redesignation 
request and maintenance plan meet the redesignation requirements in 
sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the Act as amended in 1990, 
respectively.
    (e) Approval--In December, 1996, the Connecticut Department of 
Environmental Protection submitted a revision to the carbon monoxide 
State Implementation Plan for the 1993 periodic emission inventory. The 
inventory was submitted by the State of Connecticut to satisfy Federal 
requirements under section 187(a)(5) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 
1990, as a revision to the carbon monoxide State Implementation Plan.
    (f) Approval--On May 29, 1998, the Connecticut Department of 
Environmental Protection submitted a request to redesignate the 
Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island carbon 
monoxide nonattainment area to attainment for carbon monoxide. As part 
of the redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as 
required by 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Elements of 
the section 175A maintenance plan include a periodic emission inventory 
for carbon monoxide, a demonstration of maintenance of the carbon 
monoxide NAAQS with projected emission inventories to the year 2010 for 
carbon monoxide, a plan to verify continued attainment, a contingency 
plan, and an obligation to submit a subsequent maintenance plan 
revision in 8 years as required by the Clean Air Act. If the area 
records an exceedance of the carbon monoxide NAAQS (which must be 
confirmed by the State), Connecticut will implement one or more 
appropriate contingency measure(s) which are contained in the 
contingency plan. The menu of contingency measure includes 
investigating local traffic conditions, the enhanced motor vehicle 
inspection and maintenance program, and the low emissions vehicles 
program (LEV). The redesignation request establishes a motor vehicle 
emissions budget of 205 tons per day for carbon monoxide to be used in 
determining transportation conformity in the Connecticut Portion of the 
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island Area. The redesignation request and 
maintenance plan meet the redesignation requirements in sections 
107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the Act as amended in 1990, respectively.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

    2. The table in 81.307 entitled ``Connecticut-Carbon Monoxide'' is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 81.307  Connecticut.

* * * * *

                                           Connecticut-Carbon Monoxide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Date \1\             Type              Date \1\             Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford-New Britain-Middletown
 Area:
    Hartford County (part)........     1/2/96  Attainment
        Bristol City, Burlington
         Town, Avon Town,
         Bloomfield Town, Canton
         Town, E. Granby Town, E.
         Hartford Town, E. Windsor
         Town, Enfield Town,
         Farmington Town,
         Glastonbury Town, Granby
         Town, Hartford city,
         Manchester Town,
         Marlborough Town,
         Newington Town, Rocky
         Hill Town, Simsbury Town,
         S. Windsor Town, Suffield
         Town, W. Hartford Town,
         Wethersfield Town,
         Windsor Town, Windsor
         Locks Town, Berlin Town,
         New Britain city,
         Plainville Town, and
         Southington Town
    Litchfield County (part)......     1/2/96  Attainment
        Plymouth Town
    Middlesex County (part).......     1/2/96  Attainment
        Cromwell Town, Durham
         Town, E. Hampton Town,
         Haddam Town, Middlefield
         Town, Middletown City,
         Portland Town, E. Haddam
         Town
    Tolland County (part).........     1/2/96  Attainment

[[Page 12015]]

 
        Andover Town, Bolton Town,
         Ellington Town, Hebron
         Town, Somers Town,
         Tolland Town, and Vernon
         Town
New Haven--Meriden--Waterbury
 Area:
    Fairfield County (part).......    12/4/98  Attainment
        Shelton City
    Litchfield County (part)......    12/4/98  Attainment
        Bethlehem Town, Thomaston
         Town, Watertown, Woodbury
         Town
    New Haven County..............    12/4/98  Attainment
New York-N. ew Jersey-Long Island
 Area:
    Fairfield County (part).......    5/10/99  Attainment
        All cities and townships
         except Shelton City
    Litchfield County (part)......    5/10/99  Attainment
        Bridgewater Town, New
         Milford Town
AQCR 041 Eastern Connecticut        .........  Unclassifiable/Attainment
 Intrastate.
    Middlesex County (part)
        All portions except cities
         and towns in Hartford
         Area
    New London County
    Tolland County (part)
        All portions except cities
         and towns in Hartford
         Area
    Windham County
AQCR 044 Northwestern Connecticut   .........  Unclassifiable/Attainment
 Intrastate
        Hartford County (part)
         Hartland Township
    Litchfield County (part)
        All portions except cities
         and towns in Hartford,
         New Haven, and New York
         Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-2976 Filed 3-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P