[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