4308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(ii) Optional coverage of tuberculosisrelated services under section 

1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XII) of the Social 

Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XII)); 

(iii) Coverage of pregnancy-related 

services under section 

1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(IV) and 

(a)(10)(A)(ii)(IX) of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)(IV), 

(a)(10)(A)(ii)(IX)); 

(iv) Coverage limited to treatment of 

emergency medical conditions in 

accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1611(b)(1)(A), 

as authorized by section 1903(v) of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)); 

(v) Coverage for medically needy 

individuals under section 1902(a)(10)(C) 

of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

1396a(a)(10)(C)) and 42 CFR 435.300 

and following sections; or 

(vi) Coverage authorized under 

section 1115(a)(2) of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1315(a)(2)); 

(vii) Coverage under section 1079(a), 

1086(c)(1), or 1086(d)(1) of title 10, 

U.S.C., that is solely limited to space 

available care in a facility of the 

uniformed services for individuals 

excluded from TRICARE coverage for 

care from private sector providers; and 

(viii) Coverage under sections 1074a 

and 1074b of title 10, U.S.C. for an 

injury, illness, or disease incurred or 

aggravated in the line of duty for 

individuals who are not on active duty. 

* * * * * 

■ Par. 5. Section 1.5000A–3 is amended 

by: 

■ 1. Revising paragraphs (e)(3)(ii)(D) 

and (e)(3)(ii)(E). 

■ 2. Redesignating paragraphs 

(e)(4)(ii)(C) and (e)(4)(ii)(D) as 

(e)(4)(ii)(D) and (e)(4)(ii)(E), 

respectively, and adding and reserving a 

new paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(C). 

■ 3. Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and 

(h)(3). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 1.5000A–3 Exempt individuals. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(D) Employer contributions to health 

reimbursement arrangements. Amounts 

newly made available for the current 

plan year under a health reimbursement 

arrangement that is integrated with an 

eligible employer-sponsored plan and 

that an employee may use to pay 

premiums are taken into account in 

determining the employee’s or a related 

individual’s required contribution. 

(E) Wellness program incentives. 

Nondiscriminatory wellness program 

incentives offered by an eligible 

employer-sponsored plan that affect 

premiums are treated as earned in 

determining an employee’s or a related 

individual’s required contribution to the 

extent the incentives relate to tobacco 

use. Wellness program incentives that 

do not relate to tobacco use are treated 

as not earned for this purpose. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Wellness programs incentives. 

[Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(h) Individuals with hardship 

exemption certification—(1) In general. 

Except as provided in paragraph (h)(3) 

of this section, an individual is an 

exempt individual for a month that 

includes a day on which the individual 

has in effect a hardship exemption 

certification described in paragraph 

(h)(2) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(3) Hardship exemption without 

hardship exemption certification. An 

individual may claim an exemption 

without obtaining a hardship exemption 

certification described in paragraph 

(h)(2) of this section— 

(i) For any month that includes a day 

on which the individual meets the 

requirements of 45 CFR 155.605(g)(3) or 

45 CFR 155.605(g)(5); 

(ii) For the months in 2014 prior to 

the individual’s effective date of 

coverage, if the individual enrolls in a 

plan through an Exchange prior to the 

close of the open enrollment period for 

coverage in 2014; or 

(iii) For any month that includes a 

day on which the individual meets the 

requirements of any other hardship for 

which: 

(A) The Secretary of HHS issues 

guidance of general applicability 

describing the hardship and indicating 

that an exemption for such hardship can 

be claimed on a Federal income tax 

return pursuant to guidance published 

by the Secretary; and 

(B) The Secretary issues published 

guidance of general applicability, see 

§ 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter, allowing 

an individual to claim the hardship 

exemption on a return without 

obtaining a hardship exemption from an 

Exchange. 

* * * * * 

■ Par. 6. Section 1.5000A–4 is amended 

by revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text and paragraph (a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.5000A–4 Computation of shared 

responsibility payment. 

(a) In general. For each taxable year, 

the shared responsibility payment 

imposed on a taxpayer in accordance 

with § 1.5000A–1(c) is the lesser of— 

(1) The sum of the monthly penalty 

amounts; or 

* * * * * 

John Dalyrmple, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01439 Filed 1–23–14; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0121; A–1–FRL– 

9905–79–Region 1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Connecticut; Low Emission Vehicle 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Connecticut. The regulations adopted by 

Connecticut include the California Low 

Emission Vehicle (LEV) II light-duty 

motor vehicle emission standards 

effective in model year 2008, the 

California LEV II medium-duty vehicle 

standards effective in model year 2009, 

and greenhouse gas emission standards 

for light-duty motor vehicles and 

medium-duty vehicles effective with 

model year 2009. The Connecticut LEV 

regulation submitted also includes a 

zero emission vehicle (ZEV) provision, 

as well as emission control label and 

environmental performance label 

requirements. Connecticut has adopted 

these revisions to reduce emissions of 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), as well as to reduce 

greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, 

methane, nitrous oxide, and 

hydrofluorocarbons). In addition, 

Connecticut has worked to ensure that 

their program is identical to California’s, 

as required by the CAA. The intended 

effect of this action is to propose 

approval of the Connecticut LEV II 

program. In addition, EPA is proposing 

to approve the removal of the definition 

and regulation of ‘‘composite motor 

vehicles’’ from the Connecticut’s SIPapproved vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program. These actions are 

being taken under the CAA. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4309 

1On May 10, 2004, the Governor of the State of 

Connecticut signed into law Public Act 04–84, 

which the General Assembly adopted on April 22, 

2004. Public Act 04–84, amending section 22a–174g 

of the Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.), directs 

the Commissioner of Environmental Protection to 

adopt regulations by December 31, 2004, in 

accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 of the 

C.G.S., to implement the light duty motor vehicle 

emission standards of the state of California 

applicable to motor vehicles of model year 2008 

and later. Furthermore, this Public Act directs the 

Commissioner to amend such regulations from time 

to time, in accordance with any changes in the 

standards made by the state of California. California 

has revised its Low Emission Vehicle standards to 

adopt green house gas emission standards for 

passenger cars, light duty trucks and medium duty 

passenger vehicles commencing with 2009 and 

subsequent model year vehicles. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 26, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2010–0121 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2010–0121,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

New England Regional Office, Office of 

Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality 

Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square— 

Suite 100, (mail code OEP05–2), Boston, 

MA 02109–3912. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. The 

Regional Office’s official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2010– 

0121. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the state 

submittal are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the State Air 

Agency; the Bureau of Air Management, 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, State Office 

Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 

06106–1630. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Planning 

Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA New England Regional 

Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 

Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, telephone 

number (617) 918–1668, fax number 

(617) 918–0668, email cooke.donald@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. Organization of this document. 

The following outline is provided to aid 

in locating information in this preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. The California LEV Program 

III. Relevant EPA and CAA Requirements 

A. Waiver Process 

B. State Adoption of California Standards 

IV. Level of Emission Reductions This 

Program Will Achieve 

V. Revisions to the Connecticut Motor 

Vehicle Inspection Program 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On January 22, 2010, the Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(now known as the Connecticut 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection, CT DEEP) 

submitted a revision to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of 

Connecticut’s Low Emissions Vehicle II 

(LEV II) program, as adopted on 

December 4, 2004, and subsequently 

amended on December 22, 2005 and 

August 4, 2009. The Connecticut LEV II 

program is cited as a weight-of-evidence 

measure in Connecticut’s Attainment 

Demonstration SIP for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, submitted to EPA on 

February 1, 2008. 

On December 4, 2004, Connecticut 

repealed the provisions of section 22a– 

174–36 of the Regulations of 

Connecticut State Agencies, rescinding 

both the California Low Emission 

Vehicle I program and the National Low 

Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program. In 

accordance with section 177 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and as required by 

Connecticut Public Act 04–84,1

Connecticut adopted section 22a–174– 

36b, the California Low Emission 

Vehicle II (LEV II) program, including 

all ‘‘zero emission vehicle’’ program 

elements, commencing with 2008 model 

year vehicles. 

On December 22, 2005, Connecticut 

amended section 22a–174–36b of the 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies, making minor technical 

corrections and clarifications; adopting 

California LEV II emission standards 

and related provisions for medium-duty 

vehicles commencing with the 2009 

model year; adopting recently 

announced revisions concerning LEV II 

greenhouse gas emission standards and 

related provisions for passenger cars, 

light duty trucks and medium-duty 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
4310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2On June 6, 2006, the Governor of the State of 

Connecticut signed into law Public Act 06–161. 

Public Act 06–161 requires the Department of 

Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) 

commissioner, in consultation with the Department 

of Motor Vehicles (DMV) commissioner, to: (1) 

Establish a greenhouse gas (GHG) labeling program 

for new motor vehicles sold or leased in 

Connecticut beginning with the 2009 model year; 

and (2) educate the public about the labeling 

program and GHGs. It bars the sale or lease of a 

2009 or later model year motor vehicle without the 

required GHG label and funds these programs 

through a $5 fee the DMV must impose on new car 

registrations starting January 1, 2007, and bars the 

sale or lease of a 2009 or later model year motor 

vehicle without the required GHG label. The Act 

applies to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 

rating of 10,000 pounds or less. 

3Specifically, C.G.S. section 14–164(c) exempts 

the following twelve (12) categories from ‘‘an 

inspection procedure using an on-board diagnostic 

information system for all 1996 model year and 

newer motor vehicles:’’ ‘‘(1) Vehicles having a gross 

weight of more than ten thousand pounds; (2) 

vehicles powered by electricity; (3) bicycles with 

motors attached; (4) motorcycles; (5) vehicles 

operating with a temporary registration; (6) vehicles 

manufactured twenty-five or more years ago; (7) 

new vehicles at the time of initial registration; (8) 

vehicles registered but not designed primarily for 

highway use; (9) farm vehicles, as defined in 

subsection (q) of section 14–49; (10) diesel-powered 

type II school buses; (11) a vehicle operated by a 

licensed dealer or repairer either to or from a 

location of the purchase or sale of such vehicle or 

for the purpose of obtaining an official emissions 

or safety inspection; or (12) vehicles that have met 

the inspection requirements of section 14–103a and 

are registered by the commissioner as composite 

vehicles.’’ Section 14–103a further dictates that the 

commissioner inspect ‘‘[a]ny motor vehicle that (1) 

has been reconstructed, (2) is composed or 

assembled from the several parts of other motor 

vehicles, (3) the identification and body contours of 

which are so altered that the vehicle no longer bears 

the characteristics of any specific make of motor 

vehicle, or (4) has been declared a total loss by any 

insurance carrier and subsequently reconstructed.’’ 

EPA interprets the exemption in C.G.S. section 14– 

164(c) to apply to all of and only these twelve (12) 

categories. 

passenger vehicles commencing with 

the 2009 model year in accordance with 

section 177 of the CAA and Connecticut 

Public Act 04–84; and providing 

additional clarification and flexibility 

with respect to the implementation of 

the zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) 

program in Connecticut. 

On August 4, 2009, Connecticut 

adopted a third amendment consisting 

of revisions to two sections of the air 

quality regulations concerning motor 

vehicles. The recall, warranty, ZEV, and 

ZEV travel provision amendments 

update the Connecticut LEV program 

consistent with changes California made 

to its LEV program. Specifically, section 

22a–174–36b was revised in three 

respects: 

—First, section 22a–174–36b was 

updated in accordance with 

Connecticut Public Act 06–161 2 to 

require manufacturers to place 

environmental performance labels 

starting on 2008 model year and later 

vehicles sold or leased in Connecticut 

on or after January 1, 2009. Labels 

must contain a smog score and a 

global warming score measuring the 

amount of greenhouse gas emissions 

from the car compared to the average 

emissions of all vehicle models of the 

same model year for that class of cars. 

The label will provide consumers 

with information on how a vehicle 

purchase will affect the environment. 

—Second, section 22a–174–36b was 

updated in accordance with changes 

made to the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) low emissions vehicle 

program, which serves as the basis for 

section 22a–174–36b. The updated 

provisions include the ‘‘travel 

provisions’’ contained in the ZEV 

program. Travel provisions amend 

methods by which manufacturers are 

credited when placing zero emission 

or other advanced technology vehicles 

in service in California or any state 

that has adopted California’s motor 

vehicle emission control program 

under section 177 of the CAA. 

—Third, technical changes consistent 

with California’s vehicle recall and 

warranty provisions were included. 

In addition to the amendments to the 

Connecticut LEV program, 

Connecticut’s January 22, 2010 SIP 

revision includes a change in its motor 

vehicle emissions inspection program to 

exempt composite vehicles from 

tailpipe inspections. The first change to 

section 22a–174–27, ‘‘Emission 

standards and on-board diagnostic II test 

requirements for periodic motor vehicle 

inspection and maintenance,’’ consists 

of removing the definition of 

‘‘composite vehicle’’ at section 22a– 

174–27(b)(3). This section previously 

stated, ‘‘Composite Motor Vehicle’’ 

means a vehicle that is designated 

‘‘COMP’’ or ‘‘COMPO’’ in the ‘‘make’’ 

field of an applicable Connecticut motor 

vehicle registration certificate.’’ The 

second change was the removal of 

section 22a–174–27(e), ‘‘Composite 

motor vehicles,’’ which previously 

stated, ‘‘For 2005 and earlier model year 

composite motor vehicles, the 

maximum allowable emissions shall be 

4.0 VOL. % CO [volume % carbon 

monoxide] and 800 ppm HC [parts per 

million hydrocarbons]. For 2006 and 

later model year composite motor 

vehicles, the maximum allowable 

emissions shall be 1.2 VOL. % CO and 

220 ppm HC.’’ When EPA approved 

Connecticut’s December 19, 2007 

inspection and maintenance program 

SIP revision on December 5, 2008 (73 

FR 74019), we approved the August 25, 

2004 version of section 22a–174–27 into 

the SIP. The Connecticut regulation 

section 22a–174–27, adopted by 

Connecticut on August 25, 2004, does 

not reflect Connecticut’s Public Act 07– 

167, which was signed into law on June 

25, 2007 by the Governor of the State of 

Connecticut. Public Act 07–167, as 

codified in Connecticut General Statutes 

(C.G.S.) section 14–164c(c), exempts 

composite vehicles from on-board 

diagnostic emissions testing 

requirements.3

II. The California LEV Program 

CARB adopted the first generation of 

LEV regulations (LEV I) in 1990, which 

were effective through the 2003 model 

year. CARB adopted California’s second 

generation LEV regulations (LEV II) 

following a November 1998 hearing. 

Subsequent to the adoption of the 

California LEV II program in February 

2000, EPA adopted separate Federal 

standards known as the Tier 2 

regulations (February 10, 2000; 65 FR 

6698). In December 2000, CARB 

modified the California LEV II program 

to take advantage of some elements of 

the Federal Tier 2 regulations to ensure 

that only the cleanest vehicle models 

would continue to be sold in California. 

EPA granted California a waiver for its 

LEV II program on April 22, 2003 (68 FR 

19811). 

The LEV II regulations expanded the 

scope of the LEV I regulations by setting 

strict fleet-average emission standards 

for light-duty, medium-duty (including 

sport utility vehicles) and heavy-duty 

vehicles. The standards began with the 

2004 model year and increased in 

stringency through the 2010 model year 

and beyond. The LEV II regulations 

provide flexibility to auto manufacturers 

by allowing them to certify their vehicle 

models to one of several different 

emissions standards. The different tiers 

of increasingly stringent LEV II emission 

standards to which a manufacturer may 

certify a vehicle are: Low emission 

vehicle (LEV), ultra-low emission 

vehicle (ULEV), super-ultra low 

emission vehicle (SULEV), partial zero 

emission vehicle (PZEV), advanced 

technology partial zero emission vehicle 

(ATPZEV) and zero emission vehicle 

(ZEV). 

The manufacturer must show that the 

overall fleet for a given model year 

meets the specified phase-in 

requirements according to the fleet 

average non-methane hydrocarbon 

requirement for that year. The fleet 

average non-methane hydrocarbon 

emission limits are progressively lower 

with each model year. The program also 

requires auto manufacturers to include 

a ‘‘smog index’’ label on each vehicle 

sold, which is intended to inform 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4311 

4See EPA’s October 29, 2007 letter to 

Manufactures regarding ‘‘Sales of Californiacertified 2008–2010 Model Year Vehicles (CrossBorder Sales Policy),’’ with attachments. 

Attachment 1—EPA Policy on Cross-Border Sales of 

2008 to 2010 Model Years California-Certified 

Vehicles; Attachment 2—Questions and Answers 

on EPA’s Cross Border Sales Policies; and 

Attachment 3—Updated summary table and a set of 

maps reflecting the status of Section 177 states by 

model year. http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_

file.jsp?docid=16888&flag=1. 

5On August 1, 2013, Connecticut adopted 

revisions to Section 22a–174–36b ‘‘Low Emission 

Vehicle II Program’’ and Section 22a–174–36c ‘‘Low 

Emission Vehicle III Program.’’ These regulations 

have not yet been submitted to EPA as a SIP 

revision and are not part of today’s action. 

consumers about the amount of 

pollution produced by that vehicle 

relative to other vehicles. 

In addition to meeting the LEV II 

requirements, large or intermediate 

volume manufacturers must ensure that 

a certain percentage of the passenger 

cars and lightest light-duty trucks that 

they market in California are ZEVs. This 

is referred to as the ZEV mandate. 

California has modified the ZEV 

mandate several times since it took 

effect. Most recently, CARB has put in 

place an alternative compliance 

program (ACP) to provide auto 

manufacturers with several options to 

meet the ZEV mandate. The ACP 

established ZEV credit multipliers to 

allow auto manufacturers to take credit 

for meeting the ZEV mandate by selling 

more PZEVs and ATPZEVs than they 

are otherwise required to sell. On 

December 28, 2006, EPA granted 

California’s request for a waiver of 

Federal preemption to enforce 

provisions of the ZEV regulations 

through model year 2011. 

On October 15, 2005, California 

amended its LEV II program to include 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emission 

standards for passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks, and medium-duty passenger 

vehicles. On December 21, 2005, 

California requested that EPA grant a 

waiver of preemption under CAA 

section 209(b) for its greenhouse gas 

emission regulations. On June 30, 2009, 

EPA granted CARB’s request for a 

waiver of CAA preemption to enforce its 

greenhouse gas emission standards for 

model year 2009 and later new motor 

vehicles (July 8, 2009; 74 FR 32744– 

32784). This decision withdrew and 

replaced EPA’s prior denial of the 

CARB’s December 21, 2005 waiver 

request, which was published in the 

Federal Register on March 6, 2008 (73 

FR 12156–12169). 

III. Relevant EPA and CAA 

Requirements 

Section 209(a) of the CAA prohibits 

states from adopting or enforcing 

standards relating to the control of 

emissions from new motor vehicles or 

new motor vehicle engines. However, 

under section 209(b) of the CAA, EPA 

shall grant a waiver of the section 209(a) 

prohibition to the State of California 

unless EPA makes specified findings, 

thereby allowing California to adopt its 

own motor vehicle emissions standards. 

Other states may adopt California’s 

motor vehicle emission standards under 

section 177 of the CAA. 

For additional information regarding 

California’s motor vehicle emission 

standards and adoption by other states, 

please see EPA’s ‘‘California Waivers 

and Authorizations’’ Web page at URL 

address: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

cafr.htm. This Web site also lists 

relevant Federal Register notices that 

have been issued by EPA in response to 

California waiver and authorization 

requests. 

A. Waiver Process 

The CAA allows California to seek a 

waiver of the preemption which 

prohibits states from enacting emission 

standards for new motor vehicles. EPA 

must grant this waiver before 

California’s rules may be enforced. 

When California files a waiver request, 

EPA publishes a notice for public 

hearing and written comment in the 

Federal Register. The written comment 

period remains open for a period of time 

after the public hearing. Once the 

comment period expires, EPA reviews 

the comments and the Administrator 

determines whether the requirements 

for obtaining a waiver have been met. 

According to CAA section 209—State 

Standards, EPA shall grant a waiver 

unless the Administrator finds that 

California: 

—was arbitrary and capricious in its 

finding that its standards are in the 

aggregate at least as protective of 

public health and welfare as 

applicable Federal standards; 

—does not need such standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary 

conditions; or 

—proposes standards and 

accompanying enforcement 

procedures that are not consistent 

with section 202(a) of the CAA. 

The most recent EPA waiver relevant 

to EPA’s proposed approval of 

Connecticut’s LEV program is 

‘‘California State Motor Vehicle 

Pollution Control Standards; Notice of 

Decision Granting a Waiver of Clean Air 

Act Preemption for California’s 2009 

and Subsequent Model Year Greenhouse 

Gas Emission Standards for New Motor 

Vehicles’’ (July 8, 2009; 74 FR 32744– 

32784). This final rulemaking allows 

California to establish standards to 

regulate greenhouse gas emissions from 

new passenger cars, light-duty trucks 

and medium-duty vehicles. The four 

new greenhouse gas air contaminants 

added to California’s existing 

regulations for criteria and criteriaprecursor pollutants and air toxic 

contaminants are: carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). 

B. State Adoption of California 

Standards 

Section 177 of the CAA allows other 

states to adopt and enforce California’s 

standards for the control of emissions 

from new motor vehicles, provided that, 

among other things, such state standards 

are identical to the California standards 

for which a waiver has been granted 

under CAA section 209(b). In addition, 

the state must adopt such standards at 

least two years prior to the 

commencement of the model year to 

which the standards will apply. EPA 

issued guidance (CISD–07–16) 4

regarding its cross-border sales policy 

for California-certified vehicles. This 

guidance includes a list and map of 

states that have adopted California 

standards, specific to the 2008–2010 

model years. All SIP revisions 

submitted to EPA for approval must also 

meet the requirements of CAA section 

110. 

The provisions of Connecticut Public 

Act 04–84 and section 177 of the CAA 

both require the Connecticut 

Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection to amend the 

Connecticut LEV program at such time 

as the State of California amends its 

California LEV program. Connecticut 

has demonstrated its commitment to 

maintain a Connecticut LEV program 

consistent with the California LEV 

program through the adoption of two 

regulatory amendments to Connecticut’s 

initial LEV program. 

EPA notes that a number of California 

Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 13 

provisions incorporated-by-reference in 

section 22a–174–36b were amended by 

California in January of 2010 and 

became operative under California State 

law on February 13, 2010. As the 

Connecticut SIP revision was submitted 

to EPA on January 22, 2010, these 

subsequent revisions to California 

regulations will be addressed by 

Connecticut at a later date.5

IV. Level of Emission Reductions This 

Program Will Achieve 

The Connecticut LEV program is 

included in Connecticut’s February 1, 

2008 8-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration SIP as a weight-ofVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:16 Jan 24, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27JAP1.SGM 27JAP1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
4312 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

evidence measure, but Connecticut does 

not rely on the LEV program for any 

specific level of emission reduction. If 

EPA finalizes its proposed approval of 

the Connecticut LEV program into the 

SIP, future emission benefit from this 

program could be calculated through 

EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Simulator Model, MOVES2010, which 

was officially released on March 2, 2010 

(75 FR 9411). 

V. Revisions to the Connecticut Motor 

Vehicle Inspection Program 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies section 22a–174–27 

establishes emissions standards and test 

requirements for the periodic motor 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

program to ensure that EPA-required air 

quality benefits are achieved. EPA 

previously approved this motor vehicle 

inspection and maintenance program 

into the Connecticut SIP. (See December 

5, 2008; 73 FR 74019.) On June 25, 2007, 

the Governor of the State of Connecticut 

signed into law Public Act 07–167, 

which the General Assembly adopted on 

June 4, 2007. Public Act 07–167 as 

codified in Connecticut General Statutes 

section 14–164c(c) added a specific 

exemption for composite vehicles from 

on-board diagnostic inspection, while 

maintaining that composite vehicles 

continue to be subject to inspection 

requirements of section 14–103a. The 

amendments to Connecticut General 

Statutes section 14–164c and its 

corresponding SIP amendments will 

exempt composite vehicles from unique 

tailpipe emission testing and on-board 

diagnostic inspection. 

According to the Connecticut 

Department of Motor Vehicles, a 

composite vehicle is defined as, ‘‘Any 

motor vehicle composed or assembled 

from several parts of other motor 

vehicles, or the identification and body 

contours of which are so altered that the 

vehicle no longer bears the 

characteristics of any specific make of 

motor vehicle. Any vehicle not 

assembled by a manufacturer licensed 

as such in the State of Connecticut is 

classified as a composite motor 

vehicle.’’ Connecticut Inspection and 

Maintenance Program data indicates 

that in 2007, there were 359 composite 

motor vehicles in Connecticut. After 

application of existing emission 

inspection exemptions found in 14– 

164(c) of the Connecticut General 

Statutes, only 100 of 359 composite 

motor vehicles would be required to be 

inspected by the Division of Motor 

Vehicles each year. Exempting these 100 

vehicles from Connecticut’s Inspection 

and Maintenance program, which 

applies to approximately 1,959,000 

vehicles, will not have significant air 

quality impacts. 

During the inspection and 

maintenance cycle of January 1, 2008 to 

December 31, 2009, 1,934,285 gasolinepowered vehicles and 24,758 dieselpowered vehicles received initial 

Connecticut inspection and 

maintenance testing. Exempting the 100 

cars, which have all emission-related 

components and settings and are subject 

to all applicable emission regulations, 

from a state emission inspection will 

not change the motor vehicle inspection 

and maintenance program inputs in 

MOVES2010, nor will it change the 

resulting motor vehicle emission factors 

generated by MOVES2010. Furthermore, 

EPA believes removing composite motor 

vehicle from emission testing does not 

contravene the anti-backsliding 

provisions established in section 110(l) 

of the CAA. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve into the 

Connecticut SIP Connecticut’s section 

22a–174–36b, Low Emission Vehicle 

(LEV II) program, which was submitted 

to EPA on January 22, 2010. EPA is also 

proposing to approve section 22a–174– 

36(i) of the Connecticut State 

Regulations, which eliminates 

Connecticut’s earlier National Low 

Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program and 

Connecticut’s Low Emission Vehicle 

(LEV I) program and replaces them with 

the Connecticut LEV II program. The 

Connecticut Low Emission Vehicle II 

program adopted by Connecticut 

includes: The California LEV II lightduty program beginning with model 

year 2008; the California LEV II 

medium-duty vehicle emission 

standards beginning with model year 

2009; the California LEV II green house 

gas emission standards for passenger 

cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles commencing with 

2009 model year vehicles; 

environmental performance labeling 

(with labels containing both smog scores 

and global warming scores) for 2008 

model year and later vehicles; and the 

California ZEV provision. EPA is 

proposing to approve the Connecticut 

LEV II program requirements into the 

SIP because EPA has found that the 

requirements are consistent with the 

CAA. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to remove 

Connecticut’s section 22a–174–27(b)(3), 

the definition of composite motor 

vehicle, and section 22a–174–27(e), the 

maximum allowable composite motor 

vehicle emissions, from the Connecticut 

SIP. Composite motor vehicles were 

eliminated from Connecticut’s motor 

vehicle emission inspection program in 

2007, consistent with Public Act 07–167 

as codified in section 14–164c(c) of the 

General Statute of Connecticut. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 17 / Monday, January 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules 4313 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: January 15, 2014. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01502 Filed 1–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2013–0765; FRL–9905–65– 

Region–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Kansas; Annual Emissions Fee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Operating Permits Program revisions 

submitted by the state of Kansas which 

align the state’s rules entitled ‘‘Annual 

Emissions Fee’’ with the Federal Air 

Emissions Reporting Requirements Rule 

(AERR). 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

February 26, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2013–0765, by mail to Lachala 

Kemp, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may 

also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lachala Kemp at (913) 551–7214, or by 

email at kemp.lachala@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of the Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP and Operating Permits Program 

revision as a direct final rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

revision amendment and anticipates no 

relevant adverse comments to this 

action. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: January 8, 2014. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2014–01210 Filed 1–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 224 

[Docket No. 130321272–4020–01; 0648– 

XC589] 

Listing Endangered or Threatened 

Species: Proposed Amendment to the 

Endangered Species Act Listing of the 

Southern Resident Killer Whale 

Distinct Population Segment 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month 

finding; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition 

submitted by the People for the Ethical 

Treatment of Animals Foundation to 

include the killer whale ‘‘Lolita’’ as a 

protected member of the endangered 

Southern Resident killer whale Distinct 

Population Segment (DPS), we, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), have completed a status review 

and propose to amend the regulatory 

language of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) listing of the DPS by removing the 

exclusion for captive members of the 

population. The current regulatory 

language excluded Lolita, the sole 

member of the Southern Resident killer 

whale DPS held in captivity, from the 

endangered listing. With removal of the 

exclusion, Lolita, a female killer whale 

captured from the Southern Resident 

population in 1970 who resides at the 

Miami Seaquarium in Miami, Florida, 

would be included in the Southern 

Resident killer whale DPS. The 

Southern Resident killer whale DPS was 

listed as endangered under the ESA in 

2005. We accepted the petition to 

include Lolita in the Southern Resident 

killer whale DPS on April 29, 2013, 

initiating a public comment period and 

a status review. Based on our review of 

the petition, public comments, and the 

best available scientific information, we 

find that amending the regulatory 

language to remove the exclusion for 

captive whales from the Southern 

Resident Killer whale DPS is warranted. 

We are soliciting scientific and 

commercial information pertaining to 

the proposed rule. 

DATES: Scientific and commercial 

information pertinent to the proposed 

action and comments must be received 

by March 28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2013–0056, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013- 

0056, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 

Northwest Region, Protected Resources 

Division, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., 

Attention Lynne Barre, Branch Chief. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1