Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 92079 

23 Id. 

24 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

25Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 Statistics of 

U.S. Businesses (SUSB) (Dec. 2023) (https://

www.census.gov/data/tables/2021/econ/susb/2021- 

susb-annual.html). Local Downloadable CSV data. 

Select U.S. & states, 6-digit NAICS; U.S. Small Bus. 

Admin., Table of Size Standards (Mar. 17, 2023) 

(https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards). 

system of continuing to preserve records 

pertinent to charges filed under title VII, 

the ADA, and GINA until final 

disposition of those charges is modified 

to likewise preserve records relating to 

charges filed under the PWFA (based 

upon the above estimate that a new 

entity would need 30 minutes to 

implement its recordkeeping system). 

For the 887,869 respondents, this 30- 

minute burden per entity results in a 

total one-time burden of 443,935 hours 

(.5 hour × 887,869 respondents = 

443,935 hours). The estimated 

associated one-time burden hour cost to 

respondents is $14,441,189.29, or 

around $16.27 per entity.23

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 

1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits 

public comment to enable it to: 

1. Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

Commission’s functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

2. Evaluate the accuracy of the 

Commission’s estimate of the burden of 

the proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

3. Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

4. Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs in OMB and the 

Commission review all comments 

posted at www.regulations.gov. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires the 

Commission to evaluate the economic 

impact of this rulemaking on small 

entities. The RFA defines small entities 

to include small businesses, small 

organizations, including not-for-profit 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. The Commission must 

determine whether the rule would 

impose a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of such small 

entities. When an agency issues a 

rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires 

the agency to ‘‘prepare and make 

available for public comment an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis’’ which 

will ‘‘describe the impact of the rule on 

small entities.’’ 24 Section 605 of the 

RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, 

in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the 

rulemaking is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. For 

the reasons outlined below, the Chair of 

the Commission hereby certifies that 

this rulemaking will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rulemaking applies to 

employers with fifteen or more 

employees, the majority of which are 

small entities.25 Although this proposed 

rule would impact small entities, it will 

not have a ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ on those entities. As discussed 

above, the proposed rulemaking may 

result in each small entity subject to the 

EEOC’s recordkeeping requirements 

incurring a one-time cost of 

approximately $16.27, either as a new 

entity implementing a recordkeeping 

system that complies with the 

requirement or an existing entity 

updating the recordkeeping system it 

already has in place. The Commission 

has determined that the impact of this 

minimal one-time cost of $16.27 per 

affected small entity will not be 

‘‘significant.’’ Accordingly, the 

Commission certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rulemaking will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

because any burden it may impose on 

these entities is minimal. For this 

reason, a regulatory flexibility analysis 

is not required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rulemaking will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year, in 1995 dollars, 

updated annually for inflation. It will 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501, 1532(a). 

Congressional Review Act 

This proposed rule is not a ‘‘rule’’ 

under the Congressional Review Act 

(Subtitle E of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996) because the Congressional Review 

Act only applies to final rules. 

Therefore, the reporting requirement of 

5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1602 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Equal employment 

opportunity. 

Accordingly, the U.S. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission 

proposes to amend 29 CFR part 1602, as 

follows: 

PART 1602—RECORDKEEPING AND 

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

TITLE VII, THE ADA, GINA, AND THE 

PWFA 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1602 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000e–8, 2000e–12; 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 12117; 42 

U.S.C. 2000ff–6; 42 U.S.C. 2000gg–2. 

§ § 1602.14, 1602.21, 1602.28, and 1602.31 

[Amended] 

■ 2. Remove the words ‘‘title VII, the 

ADA, or GINA’’ and add in their place 

the words ‘‘title VII, the ADA, GINA, or 

PWFA’’ in the following places: 

■ a. Section 1602.14; 

■ b. Section 1602.21(b); 

■ c. Section 1602.28(a); and 

■ d. Section 1602.31. 

For the Commission. 

Charlotte A. Burrows, 

Chair. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27286 Filed 11–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2024–0051; FRL–12403– 

01–R1] 

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 

Approval of State Implementation Plan 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Connecticut. The SIP revisions are for 

the Connecticut portion of the New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, 

NY-NJ-CT Serious ozone nonattainment 

area for the 2008 ozone standard. The 

revisions pertain to requirements 

relating to reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plans, an Enhanced vehicle 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
92080 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

emissions inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) program, transportation 

conformity, and a clean fuels for motor 

vehicles program. EPA is also starting 

the adequacy process for the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets included in 

the RFP SIP revision. This action is 

being taken under the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 23, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

OAR–2024–0051 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to: 

mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

at https://www.regulations.gov or at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and 

Radiation Division, 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 and 

facility closures due to COVID–19. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

McConnell, Environmental Engineer, 

Air Quality Branch, (Mail Code 5–MD), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109– 

3912; (617) 918–1046; 

mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Description of State’s Submittals 

III. Evaluation of State’s Submittals 

A. Reasonable Further Progress Plans 

B. RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets/ 

Transportation Conformity 

C. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

Program 

D. Clean Fuels Program 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised 

both the primary and secondary 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone to a level of 0.075 

parts per million (ppm) (annual fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour average 

concentration, averaged over three 

years) to provide increased protection of 

public health and the environment (73 

FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The 2008 

ozone NAAQS retains the same general 

form and averaging time as the 0.08 

ppm NAAQS set in 1997, but is set at 

a more protective level. Under the EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when 

the 3-year average of the annual fourth 

highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

ambient air quality ozone 

concentrations is less than or equal to 

0.075 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. 

Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA 

designated as nonattainment any area 

that was violating the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS based on the three most 

recent years (2008–2010) of air 

monitoring data (77 FR 30088, May 21, 

2012). With that rulemaking, three 

counties within Connecticut, Fairfield, 

Middlesex, and New Haven Counties, 

were included within a nonattainment 

area described as the New York-N. New 

Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT area and 

were designated as a Marginal ozone 

nonattainment area. For brevity, in the 

remainder of this notice we refer to this 

area as the NY-NJ-CT area. Areas that 

were designated as Marginal 

nonattainment were required to attain 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later 

than July 20, 2015, based on 2012–2014 

monitoring data. On May 14, 2016 (81 

FR 26697), the EPA published its 

determination that the NY-NJ-CT area, 

as well as other nonattainment areas in 

the country, had failed to attain the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

Marginal area attainment deadline, and 

so these areas were reclassified to 

Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. 

See 40 CFR 81.306. Moderate areas were 

required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by no later than six years after 

the effective date of designations, or July 

20, 2018. See 40 CFR 51.903. 

Subsequently, on August 23, 2019 (84 

FR 44238), the EPA published its 

determination that the NY-NJ-CT area, 

as well as other nonattainment areas in 

the country, had failed to attain the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

Moderate area attainment deadline, and 

so these areas were reclassified as 

Serious ozone nonattainment areas. 

Serious areas were required to attain the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by no later 

than nine years after the effective date 

of designations, or July 20, 2021. 

Furthermore, on October 7, 2022 (87 FR 

60926), the EPA published its 

determination that the NY-NJ-CT area, 

as well as other nonattainment areas in 

the country, had failed to attain the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

Serious area attainment deadline, and so 

these areas were reclassified as Severe 

ozone nonattainment areas. Severe areas 

are required to attain the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS by no later than 15 years 

after the effective date of designations, 

or July 20, 2027. See 40 CFR 51.903. 

However, Connecticut’s SIP submittal, 

and EPA’s proposed approval, relates to 

obligations under the CAA as a result of 

the area’s prior reclassification to 

Serious. Additional SIP obligations are 

anticipated from the State as a result of 

the area’s most recent reclassification to 

Severe. 

II. Description of State’s Submittals 

Clean Air Act (CAA) section 182, 

subpart 2, outlines SIP requirements 

applicable to ozone nonattainment areas 

in each classification category. 

Requirements for each type of 

classification area were established 

under the provisions of the EPA’s ozone 

implementation rule for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (40 CFR part 51, subpart 

AA). Examples of these requirements 

include submission of a reasonable 

further progress plan, and controls on 

stationary sources that represent 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT). 

On June 23, 2022, Connecticut 

submitted SIP revisions required due to 

the State’s classification as a Serious 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone 

standard that included an RFP plan 

with motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(‘‘budgets’’), the I/M program 

certification, and a certification that the 

State’s previously adopted clean fuels 

program continues to meet CAA 

requirements. EPA is proposing 

approval of these items for the reasons 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 92081 

articulated below. Connecticut’s June 

23, 2022, submittal also contained other 

SIP revisions, but today we are 

proposing action on only the items 

mentioned above. 

On November 17, 2022, Connecticut 

submitted a supplement to the June 23, 

2022 SIP submittal; the November 17, 

2022 supplement consists of a modeling 

analysis comparing the Connecticut I/M 

program to the Federal Enhanced I/M 

performance standard. 

On December 12, 2023, Connecticut 

submitted a clarification letter as a 

supplement to the June 23, 2022 RFP 

SIP submittal. The December 12, 2023 

supplement clarified that motor vehicle 

emissions budgets were being submitted 

only for the Connecticut portion of the 

NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area. The 

December 12, 2023 supplement also 

included a revised version of the RFP 

plan to replace section 9 of the June 23, 

2022 SIP submittal. 

The RFP plan contained within 

Connecticut’s submittal documents 

showed that a nine percent (9%) 

reduction in ozone precursor emissions 

occurred over the three-year time period 

from 2018 to 2020 relative to emissions 

in 2011. Table 9–2 of the State’s 

submittal illustrates the oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) emission target 

levels that needed to be met by 2020 for 

the State to meet its RFP emission 

reduction obligation, and table 9–4 

provides a comparison of 2020 emission 

levels to these targets and confirms that 

the State did meet these targets, and 

furthermore, was considerably below 

them. Regarding transportation 

conformity, Connecticut’s RFP SIP 

submittal establishes motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for 2020 for the 

Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area that are more 

restrictive than the previous budgets 

that EPA approved for 2017 on October 

1, 2018 (see 83 FR 49297), and also 

notes that the State provides a two 

percent (2%) contingency buffer to 

account for uncertainties inherent to the 

creation of these budgets. The 

Connecticut Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection notes that it 

works with the State’s Department of 

Transportation to ensure that emissions 

from transportation projects do not 

exceed the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets it establishes. 

Regarding vehicle emissions I/M 

program, Connecticut’s submittal notes 

that it implements a statewide program 

that meets EPA’s Enhanced I/M 

performance specifications pursuant to 

State authority codified within the 

Regulations of Connecticut State 

Agencies (RCSA) at section 22a–174–27 

and the Connecticut General Statutes at 

14–164c. The aforementioned November 

17, 2022 supplement includes 

additional technical support regarding 

Connecticut conducting performance 

standard modeling to support its June 

23, 2022 I/M certification submittal. 

Regarding a clean fuels program, 

Connecticut’s submittal documents that 

its previously adopted and SIP 

approved program continues to meet 

CAA requirements. These SIP revisions 

and associated supporting documents 

are available in the docket for this 

action, at https://www.regulations.gov, 

docket number EPA–R01–OAR–2024– 

0051. Section III discusses our 

evaluation of these SIP submittals from 

Connecticut. 

III. Evaluation of State’s Submittals 

A. Reasonable Further Progress Plans 

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and the 

EPA’s 2008 Ozone Implementation Rule 

require that States submit an RFP 

demonstration for each 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area designated moderate 

and above, for review and approval into 

its SIP, that describes how the area will 

achieve actual emissions reductions of 

VOC and NOX from a baseline emissions 

inventory. The 2008 Ozone 

Implementation Rule sets 2011 as the 

base year against which RFP emission 

reductions are measured, and EPA 

approved Connecticut’s 2011 base year 

emissions inventory into the 

Connecticut SIP on October 1, 2018 (see 

83 FR 49297). Additionally, EPA 

approved Connecticut’s initial RFP plan 

for the 2008 NAAQS, which 

demonstrated a 15% reduction in ozone 

precursor emissions that occurred 

between 2012–2017, within the same 

October 1, 2018 action mentioned 

above. 

In addition to demonstrating the 15% 

emission reduction described above, 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

Serious or higher must also demonstrate 

that additional reductions in ozone 

precursor emissions occur that average 

three percent (3%) per year beginning in 

the seventh year after designation and 

lasting until the area’s attainment date, 

which for Serious areas occurs nine 

years after designation. After taking into 

consideration the 15% emission 

reduction that was previously 

documented to occur between 2011 and 

2018, Connecticut’s submittal 

demonstrates that RFP was achieved for 

the second RFP increment by showing 

that ozone precursor emissions declined 

by a total of 24 percent (15% between 

2011 and 2017, plus 9% between 2018 

and 2020) between 2011 and 2020. 

Connecticut set its ozone precursor 

target levels to reflect a 16% reduction 

in NOX emissions, and an 8% reduction 

in VOC emissions would occur by 2020. 

As noted below, Connecticut’s RFP plan 

illustrates that Connecticut achieved a 

greater reduction in ozone precursor 

emissions than this amount over the 

nine-year period from 2011 to 2020. 

One aspect of the RFP plan includes 

estimating emissions for the year 2020. 

Connecticut relied primarily on the 

emissions projection work it had 

developed and submitted to the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management 

Association (MARAMA), which is a 

regional organization that assists the 

mid-Atlantic and Northeast States with 

the development of emissions modeling 

files for use in ozone modeling. The 

projection of emissions from electrical 

generating units (EGUs) was 

accomplished using a forecasting tool 

developed by the Eastern Regional 

Technical Advisory Group (ERTAC) 

which is made up of technical staff from 

the Northeast and mid-Atlantic States, 

including Connecticut, with expertise in 

the emissions, controls, and projection 

of emissions from electrical generating 

units. Connecticut accounted for 

emissions held within its emissions 

offsets bank that are available for use as 

emissions offsets within the RFP 

analysis. 

Table 1 below contains a summary of 

the 2011 RFP baseline inventory, 2020 

target levels incorporating the eight 

percent (8%) VOC and 16% NOX

emission reductions, and 2020 

projected, controlled emissions for the 

Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT 

nonattainment area. Connecticut’s RFP 

analysis shows that projected, 

controlled VOC and NOX emissions in 

2020 will be well below the emission 

target levels, thereby demonstrating that 

RFP has been met. Note that we are only 

proposing action on the Connecticut 

portion of the RFP plan for the NY-NJCT area. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
92082 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1For more information, see Overview of Vehicle 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs (EPA– 

420–F–21–067, October 2021) at https://

nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=

P1013CC0.pdf. 

2Connecticut was required to implement an 

Enhanced I/M program as a result of having statewide designations of serious and severe for the 1979 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, because 

Connecticut is in the OTR, CAA section 184(b)(1) 

requires implementation of an Enhanced I/M 

program in some portions of the State. 

Connecticut’s state-wide Enhanced I/M program 

was initially approved into the Connecticut SIP on 

December 5, 2008 (73 FR 74019). 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF RFP CALCULATIONS FOR CT’S PORTION OF THE NY-NJ-CT NONATTAINMENT AREA

Description VOC emissions 

(tons/summer day) 

NOX emissions 

(tons/summer day) 

RFP 2011 Baseline inventory .......................................................................................................... 115.6 115.1 

2020 target level of emissions ......................................................................................................... 106.4 96.7 

2020 projected, controlled emissions .............................................................................................. 83.9 60.4 

RFP plans must include budgets, 

which identify the allowable on-road 

mobile emissions an area can produce 

and continue to demonstrate RFP. The 

State’s RFP plan includes budgets for 

the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJCT nonattainment area for 2020. The 

budgets are discussed in detail in 

section III.B of this notice. 

B. RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets/Transportation Conformity 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. 

Conformity to a SIP means conformity 

to an implementation plan’s purpose of 

eliminating or reducing the severity and 

number of violations of the NAAQS and 

achieving expeditious attainment of the 

NAAQS, and that transportation 

activities will not produce new air 

quality violations, worsen existing 

violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS or any required interim 

emission reductions or other milestones 

in any area. (CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B)). 

The EPA’s conformity rule at 40 CFR 

part 93, subpart A requires that 

transportation plans, transportation 

improvement programs, and projects 

conform to SIPs and establishes the 

criteria and procedures for determining 

whether or not they conform. To 

effectuate its purpose, the conformity 

rule requires a demonstration that 

emissions from the metropolitan 

planning organization’s (MPO) Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 

Transportation Improvement Program 

(TIP) are consistent with the budgets 

contained in the control strategy SIP 

revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 

93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). The term 

‘‘Motor vehicle emissions budget’’ is 

defined in 40 CFR 93.101 as ‘‘that 

portion of the total allowable emissions 

defined in the submitted or approved 

control strategy . . . [SIP] or 

maintenance plan for a certain date for 

the purpose of meeting reasonable 

further progress milestones or 

demonstrating attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS, for any 

pollutant or its precursors, allocated to 

highway and transit vehicle use and 

emissions.’’ 

The RFP plan submitted by 

Connecticut is a control strategy SIP, 

and it contains 2020 budgets for VOCs 

and NOX for the Connecticut portion of 

the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area. Table 

2 contains these VOC and NOX budgets, 

based on MOVES2014b, in units of tons 

per summer day: 

TABLE 2—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS IN THE CONNECTICUT RFP PLAN

Area name 

2020 Transportation 

conformity budgets 

(tons/day) 

VOC NOX

NY-NJ-CT area (CT portion) Without Contingency Buffer .......................................................................... 17.3 22.8 

NY-NJ-CT area (CT portion) With Contingency Buffer ............................................................................... 17.6 23.3 

In this action, we are proposing 

approval of the 2020 budgets for VOC 

and NOX for the Connecticut portion of 

the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area 

shown in table 2 above. As part of this 

action, EPA is also initiating the 

adequacy process for these 2020 budgets 

providing opportunity for the public to 

review and comment. The criteria we 

use to determine whether a SIP’s 

budgets are adequate for conformity 

purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4). We further described our 

process for determining the adequacy of 

submitted SIP budgets in 40 CFR 

93.118(f). The public can comment on 

the adequacy of budgets, along with 

EPA’s proposed approval of the budgets, 

during the comment period defined in 

the DATES section above. 

C. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

Program 

The goal of I/M programs is to 

identify and repair high-emitting 

vehicles to improve air quality in areas 

that are not attaining the NAAQS.1

Section 182(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

States with ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as Serious or above to 

implement an Enhanced I/M program to 

reduce VOC and NOX emissions from 

in-use motor vehicles registered in 

urbanized portions of the nonattainment 

area. The Federal rules addressing I/M 

program requirements are provided at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart S. Under these 

requirements, Serious ozone 

nonattainment areas in urbanized areas 

with 1980 Census-defined urbanized 

populations of 200,000 or more are 

required to adopt Enhanced I/M 

programs (40 CFR 51.350(a)(2)). 

Similarly, pursuant to CAA section 

182(b)(4), States with ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

Moderate are required to implement a 

Basic I/M program in certain applicable 

areas. To address this Basic I/M 

requirement for the Connecticut portion 

of the NY-NJ-CT 2008 ozone NAAQS 

Moderate nonattainment area, 

Connecticut submitted a SIP revision on 

August 8, 2017. Due to more stringent 

nonattainment classifications under 

previous NAAQS and Connecticut’s 

inclusion as part of the Ozone Transport 

Region (OTR), Connecticut already had 

been implementing an Enhanced I/M 

program.2 On March 29, 2019, at 84 FR 

11884, EPA approved Connecticut’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 92083 

3Connecticut’s Low Emission Vehicles and Zero 

Emission Vehicles Programs was most recently 

approved into the Connecticut SIP on July 15, 2024 

(see 89 FR 57361). 

certification that the State’s vehicle 

emissions I/M program implemented via 

the regulation and statute mentioned 

above satisfied the CAA’s requirement 

for Moderate ozone nonattainment areas 

and for States located within the Ozone 

Transport Region (OTR). 

Connecticut’s I/M certification 

submittal of June 23, 2022, being 

proposed for approval here, notes that 

although the OTR requirements of the 

CAA include a requirement that 

Enhanced I/M programs be 

implemented within metropolitan 

statistical areas with populations 

exceeding 100,000, the State 

implements Enhanced I/M statewide 

and thus the I/M program is SIPstrengthening and more stringent than 

required. Connecticut’s Enhanced I/M 

program tests gasoline-fueled and 

diesel-fueled motor vehicles up to 

10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR), requires on-board 

diagnostic testing on Model Year (MY) 

1996 and newer vehicles, and requires 

more comprehensive tailpipe testing on 

MY 1995 and older vehicles. The 

Enhanced I/M program also implements 

an emissions control device inspection 

through visual inspection for the 

presence of catalytic converter(s) and 

other major emissions control 

equipment. More details of the State’s 

Enhanced I/M program may be found in 

section 6 of Connecticut’s June 23, 2022, 

submittal. The State’s submittal also 

attests that Connecticut’s I/M program 

complies with all applicable CAA and 

I/M rule requirements for Enhanced I/M 

programs. 

On November 17, 2022, Connecticut 

submitted supplemental documentation 

containing an I/M performance standard 

modeling analysis using EPA’s latest 

mobile source emissions model at the 

time of the analysis (MOVES3). To 

demonstrate that the Connecticut 

Enhanced I/M program meets the 

Enhanced program performance 

standard described in 40 CFR 51.351, 

the Connecticut program must be 

modeled to show that, it achieves the 

same or lower emission rates of VOC 

and NOX as the Federal model 

Enhanced program to within 0.02 grams 

per mile for the area’s total vehicle 

miles travelled on a July weekday in the 

appropriate analysis year. Connecticut’s 

supplemental demonstration shows that 

the State’s I/M program meets the 

applicable Enhanced I/M performance 

standard requirements for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS for the analysis years of 

2020, 2023, and 2025. 

Table 3 contains the results of the 

performance standard modeling, which 

illustrates that the Connecticut I/M 

program achieves the same or lower 

emission rates as the Federal model 

Enhanced program to within 0.02 grams 

per mile. 

TABLE 3—I/M PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION EMISSION RATES

CT’s portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area 

Current Connecticut 

I/M program 

Enhanced 

performance standard 

I/M Performance Standard Evaluation Emission Rates (grams/mile) 

2020 Summer 

VOC ......................................................................................................................................... 0.364 0.369 

CO ............................................................................................................................................ 3.772 4.333 

NOX .......................................................................................................................................... 0.267 0.265 

2023 Summer 

VOC ......................................................................................................................................... 0.230 0.227 

CO ............................................................................................................................................ 3.143 3.615 

NOX .......................................................................................................................................... 0.279 0.278 

2025 Summer 

VOC ......................................................................................................................................... 0.211 0.207 

CO ............................................................................................................................................ 2.783 3.203 

NOX .......................................................................................................................................... 0.238 0.236 

Based on our review, we find that 

State’s modeling analysis showed that 

the State I/M program was modeled 

appropriately; modeling inputs 

accurately reflected the vehicles subject 

to I/M testing and emission reductions 

from the State program were greater 

than or equal to the I/M benchmark 

program for the Enhanced performance 

standard. This modeling was consistent 

with the most current guidance at the 

time of, and we concur with the State’s 

determination that the Connecticut I/M 

program meets the performance 

standard and requirements for 

Enhanced I/M. We therefore propose 

approval of the I/M SIP certification. 

D. Clean Fuels Program 

CAA section 182(c)(4) requires States 

with ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as Serious or above with 1980 

populations greater than 250,000 to 

submit a SIP revision to either ‘‘include 

such measures as may be necessary to 

ensure the effectiveness of the 

applicable provisions of the clean-fuel 

vehicle program prescribed under part C 

of subchapter II of this chapter’’ or to 

provide ‘‘a substitute for all or a portion 

of the clean-fuel vehicle program 

prescribed under part C of subchapter II 

of this chapter.’’ In light of this 

requirement, Connecticut adopted the 

Low Emission Vehicle and Zero 

Emission Vehicle programs as set out in 

RCSA section 22a–174–36c (see 89 FR 

57361, July 15, 2024). Connecticut 

submitted these programs and EPA has 

approved them into the Connecticut 

SIP,3 thereby fulfilling requirements for 

Serious ozone nonattainment areas 

based on the State’s past classification 

as Severe for the one-hour ozone 

standard. Pursuant to guidance issued 

by EPA in June of 2022 entitled, 

‘‘Guidance for Fulfilling the Clean Fuel 

Fleets Requirement of the Clean Air 

Act’’ (see EPA–420–B–22–027, June 

2022), EPA’s current Clean Fuels Fleets 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
92084 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 225 / Thursday, November 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

regulations in 40 CFR part 88 provide a 

compliance option where vehicles and 

engines certified to current standards 

under 40 CFR parts 86 and 1036 are 

deemed to also meet the Clean Fuels 

Fleets standards as ultra low-emission 

vehicles. Connecticut’s adoption of the 

Low Emission Vehicle and Zero 

Emission Vehicle programs as set out in 

RCSA section 22a–174–36c, constitutes 

as vehicles meeting more stringent 

emission standards than those found 

under vehicles certified to meeting 40 

CFR parts 86 and 1036 emission 

standards. Therefore, the purchase of 

any new light-duty or heavy-duty 

vehicle in Connecticut would provide 

emission reductions equivalent to or 

greater than a new vehicle that would 

have been certified to the CAA’s ultralow clean-fuel vehicle emission 

standards. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Connecticut’s RFP plan for the 2018 to 

2020 timeframe, motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for 2020, certification 

of its Enhanced I/M program, and clean 

fuels program certification. EPA is also 

starting the adequacy process for the 

2020 budgets. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this notice and 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 this 

proposed rule by following the 

instructions listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

V. 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. See 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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); and 

• 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. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rulemaking does not 

have Tribal implications and will not 

impose substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies 

to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines EJ as 

‘‘the fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income 

with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.’’ EPA further defines the term 

fair treatment to mean that ‘‘no group of 

people should bear a disproportionate 

burden of environmental harms and 

risks, including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The Connecticut DEEP did not 

evaluate environmental justice 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this action. Due 

to the nature of the action being taken 

here, this action is expected to have a 

neutral to positive impact on the air 

quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of 

achieving environmental justice for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 14, 2024. 

David Cash, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2024–27050 Filed 11–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Parts 386 and 387 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2024–0280] 

RIN 2126–AC76 

Broker and Freight Forwarder 

Financial Responsibility; Extension of 

Compliance Date 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA is reopening the 

comment period for its November 4, 

2024, NPRM, proposing to amend its 

November 16, 2023, final rule, ‘‘Broker 

and Freight Forwarder Financial 

Responsibility,’’ by extending the 

compliance date for certain provisions 

from January 16, 2025, to January 16, 

2026. FMCSA’s forthcoming online 

registration system will be used to 

accept filings and track notifications, 

and this functionality will not be 

available in its legacy systems. As the 

new system is not expected to be 

available before January 16, 2025, 

FMCSA proposes to extend the 

compliance date to January 16, 2026, to 

provide regulated entities time to begin 

using and familiarizing themselves with 

the new system before compliance is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1