Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64357

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(NTTAA) requires Federal agencies to

evaluate existing technical standards

when developing a new regulation. To

comply with NTTAA, EPA must

consider and use ‘‘voluntary consensus

standards’’ (VCS) if available and

applicable when developing programs

and policies unless doing so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s does

not require the public to perform

activities conducive to the use of VCS.

I. 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 December 26,

2000. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final action does not affect the

finality of this action 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

action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 19, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority for citation for part

52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart B—Alabama

2. Section 52.66 is amended by

designating the existing text as

paragraph (a) and adding a new

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 52.66 Control Strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *

(b) The State of Alabama is required

to submit an attainment demonstration

SIP for the Birmingham 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area by April 27, 2000.

For purposes of the SIP revision

required by this section, EPA may make

a finding as applicable under section

179(a)(1)–(4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.

7509(a)(1)–(4), starting the sanctions

process set forth in section 179(a) of the

CAA. Any such finding will be deemed

a finding under § 52.31(c) and sanctions

will be imposed in accordance with the

order of sanctions and the terms for

such sanctions established in § 52.31.

[FR Doc. 00–27584 Filed 10–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CT–25–7223a; A–1–FRL–6891–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Connecticut; Enhanced Motor Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: We are converting our limited

approval under the Clean Air Act of the

State of Connecticut’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for

an enhanced vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program, which was

granted on March 10, 1999 (64 FR

12005), to a full approval. In our March

10, 1999 limited approval, we said

Connecticut needed to submit revisions

to its SIP to address eight sections of

EPA’s enhanced I/M regulation for full

approval. We have determined that on

November 16, 1999 Connecticut

submitted revisions that meet all of the

conditions for full approval. The intent

of this action is to convert our limited

approval of Connecticut’s enhanced

vehicle I/M program SIP to a full

approval.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on December 26, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives relevant

adverse comment by November 27,

2000. If 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

David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air

Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem

Protection (mail code CAQ),

Environmental Protection Agency, EPANew England, One Congress Street,

Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023.

Copies of the State submittal and EPA’s

technical support document are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA-New England, One Congress Street,

11th floor, Boston, MA 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 Hagerty, (617) 918–1049.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

Supplementary Information section is

organized as follows:

I. What action Is EPA taking today?

II. What Connecticut SIP revision is the topic

of this action?

III. What were the requirements for full

approval of the Connecticut program?

IV. How did Connecticut fulfill these

requirements for full approval?

V. EPA Action

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, we are converting our

limited approval of Connecticut’s I/M

program as a revision to the SIP to a full

approval.

II. What Connecticut SIP Revision Is

the Topic of This Action?

This notice deals with a revision to

the State of Connecticut’s Clean Air Act

SIP submitted by the State of

Connecticut on November 16, 1999 for

certain program elements necessary to

complete the enhanced vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program. Today we are acting only upon

this November 16, 1999 submittal to

determine that Connecticut submitted

revisions meeting all of the conditions

necessary to convert the limited

approval of the enhanced I/M plan to a

full approval. In so doing we are not

reopening our March 10, 1999 final

rulemaking granting limited approval of

Connecticut’s enhanced I/M SIP

submitted on June 24, 1998, as

supplemented on November 13, 1998.

64358 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

III. What Were the Requirements for

Full Approval of the Connecticut

Program?

Approval of Connecticut’s I/M

program SIP required submission of

information to meet the requirements of

the following sections of the regulations:

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.

IV. How Did Connecticut Fulfill These

Requirements for Full Approval?

On November 16, 1999, Connecticut

submitted revisions to its enhanced I/M

SIP to EPA in order to correct

conditions for full approval. The

following is a description of the

measures which Connecticut has

submitted to meet each of the deficient

areas described in the March 10, 1999

limited approval.

1. Network Type and Program

Evaluation—40 CFR 51.353—

Connecticut will utilize the NYTEST

test performed on 1100 randomly

selected vehicles in the test lanes. This

is an acceptable option for program

evaluation testing as explained in

Inspection and Maintenance Program

Evaluation Methodologies (EPA420–S–

98–015). The legal authority for program

evaluation is in Section 14–164c(e)(C)

and Section 164h(a) and (b) of the

Connecticut General Statutes. This

section of the SIP now meets the

requirements of EPA’s I/M rule.

2. Waivers and Compliance Via

Diagnostic Inspection—40 CFR 51.360—

Connecticut has submitted revised

regulation Section 14–164c–11a,

entitled ‘‘Emissions Repairs

Expenditure Requirements to Receive

Waiver,’’ requiring a $450 expenditure

for a waiver starting in January 2000,

and $450 adjusted each year for the cost

of living beginning in January 2001.

This regulation was effective on June 24,

1999. This section of the SIP now meets

the requirements of EPA’s I/M rule.

3. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

Program Oversight—40 CFR 51.362—

Exhibit 3 of the November 16, 1999 SIP

submittal describes in detail an

enforcement oversight program meeting

the requirements of this section. The

legal authority for this aspect of the

program is at Section 14–164c(j) of the

Connecticut General Satutes. This

section of the SIP now meets the

requirements of EPA’s I/M rule.

4. Quality Assurance—40 CFR

51.363—The state has submitted the

needed procedures manuals in Exhibit 4

of the November 16, 1999 submittal.

This section of the SIP now meets the

requirements of EPA’s I/M rule.

5. Enforcement Against Contractors,

Stations and Inspectors—40 CFR

51.364—Exhibit 5 of the November 16,

1999 submittal contains a description of

enforcement authority Connecticut has

over the contractor that is operating the

I/M program. Essentially, Connecticut

can hold the contractor liable under the

contract for monetary penalties for

violations of the contract and the

contract provides for disbarment of

inspectors upon a finding of program

violations or incompetence. The

submittal also includes Connecticut

Regulations pertaining to disciplinary

and termination action with respect to

state of Connecticut employees:

Regulation 5–240–1.—Suspension.;

Regulation 5–240–2.—Demotion.; and

Regulation 5–240–3.—Dismissal. This

section of the SIP now meets the

requirements of EPA’s I/M rule.

6. Public Information and Consumer

Protection—40 CFR 51.368—

Connecticut has submitted additional

material in Exhibit 6 of the November

16, 1999. With this supplementary

material the SIP meets all requirements

of this section of EPA’s I/M Rule.

7. Compliance with Recall Notices—

40 CFR 51.370—Connecticut has

provided in Exhibit 7 of the November

16, 1999 submittal an agreement with

the contractor to enforce compliance

with all recall notices prior to

completing the next inspection. This

agreement is adequate to meet the

requirements of EPA’s I/M rule.

8. On-road Testing—40 CFR 51.371—

Connecticut has submitted a detailed

description of remote sensing program

screening 5500 vehicles per year. Legal

authority for this program is at Section

14–164c(f) of the Connecticut General

Statutes. When the March 10, 1999

limited approval was granted, states

were required to have as part of the offroad testing program a requirement that

vehicles which exceeded standards for

this program be subjected to an out-ofcycle I/M test. However, the I/M

flexibility rule EPA published in the

Federal Register on July 24, 2000 (65 FR

45526) allows states to develop on-road

testing programs that do not mandate

out-of-cycle testing and repair. With this

change to EPA’s I/M rule, the

Connecticut program meets the

requirements of this section.

EPA’s review of this material

indicates that Connecticut has corrected

all of the deficiencies with regard to I/

M as described in the March 10, 1999

limited approval of the program.

V. EPA Action

EPA is converting its limited approval

of Connecticut’s enhanced I/M program

to a full approval. An extensive

discussion of Connecticut’s enhanced I/

M program and our rationale for our

limited approval action was provided in

the previous final rule for the

Connecticut enhanced I/M program

published on March 10, 1999 (see 64 FR

12005). This action to convert our

limited approval to a full approval is

being published without prior proposal

because we view this as a

noncontroversial amendment and

because we anticipate no adverse

comments. In a separate document in

the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this

Federal Register publication, we are

proposing to convert our limited

approval of Connecticut’s enhanced I/M

program SIP revision to a full approval

if relevant adverse comments are filed.

This action will be effective without

further notice unless we receive relevant

adverse comment by November 27,

2000. If we receive such comment, we

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect. We will

address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. Any parties interested in

commenting must do so at this time. If

no such comments are received by

November 27, 2000, you are advised

that this action will be effective on

December 26, 2000. You should send

comments to the EPA-New England

office listed in the Addresses section of

this notice.

VI. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting Federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 64359

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

Federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’ issued under the

executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,

generally provides that before a rule

may take effect, the agency

promulgating the rule must submit a

rule report, which includes a copy of

the rule, to each House of the Congress

and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report

containing this rule and other required

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by December 26,

2000. 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. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and record

keeping requirements.

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

Dated: October 19, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Regional Administrator, EPA-New England.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart H—Connecticut

§ 52.369 [Removed]

2. Section 52.369 is removed and

reserved to read as follows:.

3. Section 52.370 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(89) to read as

follows:

§ 52.370 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(89) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection on November

16, 1999.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Subsection (b) of Section 14–164c11a of the Regulations of Connecticut

State Agencies Concerning Emissions

Repairs Expenditure Requirement to

Receive Waiver, adopted and effective

June 24, 1999.

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) Letter from Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection

dated November 19, 1999 submitting a

revision to the Connecticut State

Implementation Plan.

(B) Narrative portion of the Revision

to State Implementation Plan for

Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program, dated October 7,

1999.

4. In § 52.385, Table 52.385 is

amended by removing entries ‘‘22a–

174–27’’ and ‘‘14–164c’’ and adding

new entries in their place to read as

follows:

§ 52.385—EPA-approved Connecticut

Regulations.

* * * * *

64360 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 209 / Friday, October 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 52.385.—EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS

Connecticut state citation Title/subject Dates

Date

adopted

by State

Date

approved by

EPA

Federal

Register

citation

Section 52.370

*******

22a–174–27 ............................ Emissions standards for periodic motor vehicle inspection and maintenance.March

26,

1998.

March

10,

1999.

64 FR 12005 (c)78 .... Revised Department of Environmental Protection regulation contain I/M emission

standards.

14–164c .................................. Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance.April 7,

1998.

March

10,

1999.

64 FR 12005 (c)78 .... Revised Department of Motor

Vehicles regulation for the

Connecticut I/M Program.

June

24,

1999.

October

27,

2000.

[Insert FR citation from

published

date].

(c)89 .... Revised subsection (b) of

Section 14–164c–11a of the

Department of Motor Vehicles regulation concerning

emissions repairs expenditure requirement to receive

waver.

*******

[FR Doc. 00–27655 Filed 10–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA037–01–7211a; A–1–FRL–6891–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; New Source Review

Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. These revisions establish

and require the implementation of the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

(CAAA) requirements regarding New

Source Review (NSR) in areas that have

not attained the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS). In

addition, the revisions include other

definitions and permitting procedures

that make the Massachusetts

nonattainment NSR rules consistent

with Federal permitting requirements.

The intended effect of this action is to

approve revisions to 310 CMR 7.00

Appendix A, ‘‘Emission Offsets and

Nonattainment Review.’’ This action is

being taken in accordance with the

Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on December 26, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by November 27, 2000. If

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

Steven Rapp, Unit Manager, Air Permits

Program, Office of Ecosytem Protection

(mail code CAP), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, EPA New England,

One Congress Street, 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 of Ecosytem 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,

Room M–1500, 401 M Street, (Mail Code

6102), S.W., Washington, D.C.; and

Division of Air Quality Control,

Department of Environmental

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor,

Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brendan McCahill, (617) 918–1652.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 15, 1994, the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) formally submitted a revision to

its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for

purposes of meeting the requirements of

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The revision

consists of changes to Massachusetts’

310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A, ‘‘Emission

Offsets and Nonattainment Review.’’

The DEP submitted additional changes

to 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A on April

14, 1995. The effect of the revisions is

to make the DEP’s rules regarding the

permitting of new major sources or

major modifications in nonattainment

areas consistent with CAA

requirements. Please note that if EPA

receives adverse comment on an

amendment, paragraph, or section of

this rule and if that provision may be

severed from the remainder of the rule,

EPA may adopt as final those provisions

of the rule that are not the subject of an

adverse comment.

A. General Requirements for

Nonattainment NSR Requirements

The air quality planning requirements

for nonattainment NSR are set out in

part D of subchapter I of the Act. The

EPA has issued a ‘‘General Preamble’’

describing EPA’s preliminary views on

how EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP

revisions submitted under part D,

including those State submittals

containing nonattainment area NSR SIP

requirements [see 57 FR 13498 (April

16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,

1992)]. Because EPA is describing its

interpretations here only in broad terms,

the reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of the interpretations of part D advanced

in today’s proposal and the supporting

rationale.

Summary of Massachusetts’ Regulation

The general nonattainment NSR

requirements are found in sections 172

and 173 of part D of subchapter I of the