# Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-22187

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** August 27, 1999
- **Citation:** 64 FR 46849

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-22187. Public record. Not legal advice.