Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-81-167; FRL-6427-4]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;

California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

from the State of California demonstrating that the California Low

Emission Vehicle (LEV) program qualifies as a substitute for the Clean

Air Act (CAA) Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF) vehicle program. The CAA requires

states, in order to opt-out of the CFF vehicle program, to submit a

substitute program for all or a portion of the program which consists

of measures not otherwise required by the Act and that achieves at

least equal long-term emission reductions of ozone-producing and air

toxic emissions. EPA is taking these actions under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national ambient

air quality standards (NAAQS), and plan requirements for nonattainment

areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval is effective on September 27, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The rulemaking docket for this notice is available for

public inspection during normal business hours at EPA's Region IX

office, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-

3901. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts of the docket.

Copies of related materials are also available for inspection at

the following location: California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street,

Sacramento, California 95814-2815

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanne Johnson, EPA Region IX Air

Planning Office, (415) 744-1225, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. EPA's Final Action

We are approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of

California, consisting of Executive Order G-125-145 containing a

substitute for the CAA CFF vehicle program, dated November 7,

1994.1 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Executive

Order G-125-145 is a formal document which sets forth the substance of

California's opt-out request and describes the legal authority under

which the SIP revision was submitted.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ CARB submitted the Executive Order on November 7, 1994 which

appended the State's May 11, 1994 SIP submittal. On November 13,

1992, CARB submitted a request to EPA to revise the SIP and opt-out

of the CAA CFF vehicle program. In this submittal CARB committed to

supply more detailed emission reduction data demonstrating

equivalence to the CAA CFF vehicle program, and requested the EPA to

conditionally approve the commitment pursuant to CAA section

110(k)(4). The conditional approval dated November 29, 1993,

(published at 58 FR 62532) stated that California would be required

to submit a SIP revision fulfilling the commitment by May 15, 1994.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 of the Act require certain states,

including California, to submit for EPA approval a SIP revision that

includes measures to implement the Clean Fuel Fleet vehicle program.

Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows states to ``opt-out'' of the

[[Page 46850]]

CFF vehicle program by submitting for EPA approval a SIP revision

consisting of a program or programs not otherwise required by the Act

that will result in at least equivalent long term reductions in ozone-

producing and toxic air emissions.

II. Background

The six serious and above nonattainment areas for either one or

both ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) subject to the CAA Clean Fuel

Fleets program include: Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin; Sacramento

Metro; San Diego; San Joaquin Valley; Southeast Desert Modified AQMD;

and Ventura County. California has designated a certain portion of the

emission benefits achieved by their LEV program as a substitute for the

CAA fleet program. California has estimated that the LEV program will

achieve more than 50 times the ROG emission reduction and more than 30

times the NOX emission reduction compared to the CAA fleet

program.

On November 7, 1994, CARB submitted as a SIP revision Executive

Order G-125-145, formally adopting its request to opt-out of the CAA

CFF vehicle program, and attaching supporting materials demonstrating

that the State's LEV program achieves longterm reductions in emissions

of ozone-forming and air toxic pollutants at least as large as those

that would be achieved by the CAA CFF vehicle program. On January 30,

1995, the revision was found to be complete pursuant to EPA's

completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix

V.2 On April 14, 1997, EPA proposed approval of the State's

November submittal and removed the condition on approval of

California's opt-out of the CAA CFF vehicle program in a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published at 62 FR 18071 3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990

(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,

revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

\3\ Final rulemaking published November 29, 1993 at 59 FR 62532.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Public Comments

A. Summary of Comments and Responses

EPA received comments on the proposed approval only from the

California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB pointed out that the

language in the proposal did not clearly state that CARB was opting to

use a ``portion'' of the benefits achieved from their Low Emission

Vehicle (LEV) program to meet the CAA opt-out requirements.

Response: EPA understands that CARB intended to rely on a portion

of the emissions reductions achieved by the LEV program as its

substitute for the CFF program. In the May 1994 SIP submittal, CARB

estimated the reductions in ozone-forming and toxic air emissions that

would be achieved through implementation of the CAA clean fuel fleet

program compared to the LEV program. The estimated emission benefits

for both programs were calculated for reactive organic gas (ROG),

NOX, and CO emission benefits for the years 2000 and 2010.

Implementation of the CAA CFF program is expected to reduce 2.2 tons/

day of ROG, 5.0 tons/day of NOX, and 6.0 tons/day of CO in

the year 2000 and 5.0 tons/day of ROG, 10.2 tons/day of NOX,

and 10.4 tons/day of CO in the year 2010. CARB also provided a

rationale from their LEV program for long-term emission reductions of

toxic air contaminants. The comparison of the emission benefits from

the LEV program and the CAA CFF program demonstrated emission

reductions in the two ozone precursors ROG and NOX and

therefore a concurrent reduction in the toxic air contaminants included

in ROG. CARB cited an EPA study on motor vehicle related toxic air

contaminants emphasized those toxics that `` * * * pose the greatest

risk to human health or about which significant uncertainties remain,

including emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene (EPA,

1993).'' CARB further stated that emissions of benzene typically

account for over 80 percent of the sum total exhaust emissions of these

three compounds and are expected to be reduced by the same relative

amount as total ROG emissions. Formaldehyde and 1,3-butadiene emissions

are also expected to be reduced with ROG emissions although the

relative amounts appear to be more variable. CARB's LEV program is

expected to provide long-term reductions in toxic air contaminants that

will exceed levels anticipated from implementation of the CAA CFF

program due to the reductions in ROG emissions of 252 tons/day in the

year 2010.

B. Conclusion

We are finalizing the action as proposed. The emission benefits

analysis performed by CARB demonstrates that the LEV program provides

long-term reductions in ozone and toxic air contaminants exceeding

those of the CAA clean fuel fleet program (see Table 1). It should also

be noted that CARB is not committing the full benefits demonstrated by

the LEV program, but is committing only that portion of the benefits

equivalent to those provided by the CAA clean fuel fleet program.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state

implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to

relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Table 1.--Emission Benefits: CAA CFF Program v CA LEV Program

[Tons/day]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAA CFF Program LEV Program

Vehicle Type -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROG NOx CO ROG NOx CO

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Year 2000:

Passenger Cars................ 0.84 0.93 3.97 34.61 214.11 38.22

Light-Duty Trucks < 6,001 lbs. 0.28 0.41 0.00 8.27 8.17 11.51

Medium-Duty Vehicles.......... 0.09 0.00 0.00 2.53 0.43 0.26

Heavy-Duty Vehicles \1\....... 0.97 3.65 2.00 0.77 0.44 0.11

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total..................... 2.18 4.99 5.97 46.18 223.15 50.10

=============================================================================

Year 2010:

Passenger Cars................ 1.60 1.74 6.62 170.35 222.52 824.73

[[Page 46851]]

Light-Duty Trucks < 6,001 lbs. 1.16 1.61 0.00 52.35 86.40 88.77

Medium-Duty Vehicles.......... 0.38 0.00 0.00 20.11 5.80 18.02

Heavy-Duty Vehicles........... 1.89 6.83 3.83 9.45 6.72 11.78

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total..................... 5.03 10.18 10.45 252.26 321.44 943.30

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ For this analysis, heavy-duty vehicles consist of two categories: (1) light heavy-duty (8501--321.4414,000

lbs) and (2) medium heavy-duty (14,001-33,000 lbs). The federal clean fuel fleet program applies to vehicles

weighing less than 26,000 lbs and the LEV program to those weighing less than 14,000 lbs.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by

statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary

to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875

do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does

not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or

safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian

tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of

E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create

any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not

create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective

[[Page 46852]]

and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the

rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this action does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or

more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: August 14, 1999.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, 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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(201) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(201) A plan for the following agency was submitted on November 7,

1994 by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) California Air Resources Board.

(1) California's Opt-out Program, Executive Order G-125-145, dated

November 7, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-22187 Filed 8-26-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P