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

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