Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 146/Friday, July 28, 2000/Proposed Rules
46383
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[FRL-6841-6]
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
Attainment Demonstrations for the
One-Hour National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rule.
SUMMARY: On December 16, 1999, we
(EPA) proposed to approve or
conditionally approve and disapprove
in the alternative attainment
demonstration State implementation
plans (SIPs) for ten areas in the eastern
United States (64 FR 70317). In today's
supplemental notice, we are clarifying
and expanding on two issues relating to
the motor vehicle emissions budgets in
these SIPs. In addition, we are
reopening the comment period to take
comment on these two issues and to
allow comment on any additional
materials that were placed in the
dockets for the proposed actions close to
or after the initial comment period
closed on February 14, 2000.
First, we are proposing to clarify what
occurs if we finalize conditional or full
approval of any of these SIPs based on
a State commitment to revise the SIP's
motor vehicle emissions budgets in the
future. If this occurs, the motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the approved SIP
will apply for transportation conformity
purposes only until the budgets are
revised consistent with the commitment
and we have found the new budgets
adequate. Once we have found the
newly revised budgets adequate, then
they would apply instead of the
previous conditionally or fully
approved budgets.
Second, we are proposing that States
may opt to commit to revise their
emissions budgets 1 year after the
release of MOBILE6, as originally
proposed on December 16, 1999. Or,
States may commit to a new option, i.e.,
to revise their budgets 2 years following
the release of MOBILE6, provided that
conformity is not determined without
adequate MOBILE6 SIP budgets during
the second year.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 28, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this
action should be addressed to the EPA
regional offices responsible for the areas
addressed by the SIPs we are reopening.
Contact names and addresses for these
regional offices are included below in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General questions concerning sections
of this document that relate to motor
vehicles emissions budgets should be
directed to Kathryn Sargeant,
Transportation and Regional Programs
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood Road, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48105,
sargeant.kathryn@epa.gov. (734) 214-
4441.
Comments or questions on our
proposed changes to the applicability of
budgets in specific areas or on the new
information received on area-specific
SIPs should be addressed to the
appropriate EPA Regional Office
representative listed below in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public
dockets for the ten areas addressed by
today's action have been established in
EPA's Regional Offices. Addresses for
these dockets and additional contact
information are listed below:
Region I—(1) Greater Connecticut
Ozone Nonattainment Area; and (2) The
Connecticut Portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey -Long Island
Ozone Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) on either the Greater CT or the
CT portion of the NYniorthern NJ ozone
nonattainment areas should be sent to:
David B. Conroy, EPA Region 1 (New
England) Office, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, Massachusetts
02114-2023.
Copies of the State submittal and
EPA's technical support document are
available for public inspection during
normal business hours (9:00 A.M. to
4:00 P.M.) at the following addresses:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1 (New England), One Congress
St., llth Floor, Boston, Massachusetts
02114-2023, telephone (617) 918-1664,
and at the Bureau of Air Management,
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, State Office
Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT
06106-5127. Please telephone in
advance before visiting.
For general information contact: Jeff
Butensky, (617) 918-1665.
Region I—Western Massachusetts—The
Springfield (Western Massachusetts)
Ozone Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) should be sent to: David B.
Conroy at the EPA Region I (New
England) Office, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, Massachusetts
02114-2023.
Copies of the State submittal and
EPA's technical support document are
available for public inspection during
normal business hours (9:00 A.M. to
4:00 P.M.) at the following addresses:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1 (New England), One Congress
St., llth Floor, Boston, Massachusetts
02114-2023, telephone (617) 918-1664,
and at the Division of Air Quality
Control, Department of Environmental
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor,
Boston, Massachusetts 02108. Please
telephone in advance before visiting.
For general information contact: Jeff
Butensky (617) 918-1665.
Region II—New York-Northern New
Jersey -Long Island (NY-NJ-CT); The
New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) should be sent to: Raymond
Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866.
Copies of the New Jersey submittals
and EPA's technical support document
are available at the following addresses
for inspection during normal business
hours: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs
Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New
York, New York 10007-1866 and at the
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Office of Air
Quality Management, Bureau of Air
Quality Planning, 401 East State Street,
CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
For general information contact: Paul
Truchan (212) 637-4249 or Kirk Wieber
(212) 637-3381.
Region III—Baltimore (MD) Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) should be sent to David L.
Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources
Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the documents relevant to
this action are available for public
inspection during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and
the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,
Baltimore, Maryland 21224.
For general information contact:
Cristina Fernandez, (215) 814-2178. Or
by ennail atfernandez.cnstina@epa.gov.
-------
46384
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 146/Friday, July 28, 2000/Proposed Rules
Region III—Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD); The
Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) should be mailed to David L.
Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources
Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the documents relevant to
this action are available for public
inspection during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and
the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources & Environmental Control, 89
Kings Highway, Dover, Delaware 19901.
For general information contact: Rose
Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-mail at
quinto.rose@epa.gov.
Region III—Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD); The
Maryland Portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) maybe mailed to David L.
Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources
Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the documents relevant to this
action are available for public
inspection during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and
the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,
Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.
For general information contact:
Cristina Fernandez, (215) 814—2178. Or
by e^ail a.ifernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
Region III—Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD); The
Pennsylvania Portion of the
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton
Ozone Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) maybe mailed to: David L.
Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources
Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the documents relevant to
this action are available for public
inspection during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and
the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
For general information contact:
Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179. Or
by e^Ilail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
Region III—Metropolitan Washington
(DC-MD-VA) Ozone Nonattainment
Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) may be mailed to David L.
Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources
Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the documents relevant to
this action are available for public
inspection during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and
the District of Columbia Department of
Public Health, Air Quality Division, 51
N Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20002;
and the Maryland Department of the
Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,
Baltimore, Maryland, 21224; and the
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia, 23219.
For general information contact:
Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, at
the EPA Region III address above, or by
e^nail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.
Region IV—Atlanta (GA) Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) should be mailed to: Scott M.
Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch,
61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the following addresses for
inspection during normal business
hours: Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch,
61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960; and the Air Protection
Branch, Georgia Environmental
Protection Division, Georgia Department
of Natural Resources, 4244 International
Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia
30354. Telephone (404) 363-7000.
For general information contact: Scott
Martin at (404) 562-9036.
Region V—Chic ago -Gary-Lake County
(IL; IN); Illinois and Indiana Portions of
the Chicago-Gary-Lake County Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) on either the Illinois or
Indiana portions should be mailed to:
Jay Bortzer, Chief, Regulation
Development Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State submittal and
EPA's technical support document are
available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the following
address: United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
(Please telephone Mark Palermo at (312)
886-6082 before visiting the Region 5
Office.)
For general information contact:
Edward Doty, Regulation Development
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone
Number (312) 886-6057, ennail address
doty.edward@epamail.epa.gov.
Region V—Milwaukee-Racine (WI)
Ozone Nonattainment Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) should be mailed to: Carlton
Nash, Chief, Regulation Development
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Copies of the State submittal and
EPA's technical support document are
available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the following
address: United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
(Please telephone Michael G. Leslie at
(312) 353-6680 before visiting the
Region 5 Office.)
For general information contact:
Michael G. Leslie, Regulation
Development Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604, Telephone Number (312) 353-
6680.
Region VI—Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria (TX) Ozone Nonattainment
Area
Written comments (in duplicate if
possible) should be mailed to Mr.
Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 146/Friday, July 28, 2000/Proposed Rules
46385
Protection Agency, telephone: (214)
665-7214.
Copies of the documents relevant to
this action, including the technical
support document, are available for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the following
addresses: Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone:
(214) 665-7214; and the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission,
Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35
Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. Interested
persons wanting to examine these
documents should make an
appointment with the appropriate office
at least 2 working days in advance.
For general information contact: Mr.
Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
telephone: (214) 665-7242.
The contents of this preamble are
listed in the following outline:
I. Background Information
A. What Did We Propose On December 16,
1999?
B. What Is Transportation Conformity?
C. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets?
D. Which Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Usually Apply?
II. What Is EPA Proposing Today?
A. Clarification of the Applicability of
Revised Budgets
B. Additional Option for Timing of Budget
Revision Following MOBILE6
C. Reopening of the Comment Period
III. Administrative Requirements
I. Background Information
A. What Did We Propose on December
16, 1999?
We proposed to conditionally or fully
approve, and in the alternative to
disapprove, ozone attainment
demonstration (SIPs) for ten areas. The
ten areas are described below. Our
proposals, all of which were published
on December 16, 1999, contain a full
explanation of the background and
proposed actions for the following areas:
Atlanta, 64 FR 70478; Houston-
Galveston, 64 FR 70548; Metropolitan
Washington, DC, 64 FR 70460;
Milwaukee^lacine, 64 FR 70531;
Springfield, 64 FR 70319; Greater
Connecticut, 64 FR 70332; Baltimore, 64
FR 70397; Chicago-Gary4,ake County,
64 FR 70514 and 64 FR 70496;
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, 64
FR 70412, 64 FR 70428, 64 FR 70444
and 64 FR 70380; and New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island, 64 FR
70380, 64 FR 70348, 64 FR 70364. For
more detail, see the December proposals
as cited above.
In order to conditionally or fully
approve the attainment demonstration
SIPs, we proposed that several areas
needed to commit to adopt additional
control measures to achieve the level of
emissions reductions that we identified
as necessary to attain the 1-hour ozone
standard. We also proposed that these
areas must commit to recalculate and
submit revised motor vehicle emissions
budgets that include the effects of the
measures that are ultimately adopted, if
those measures pertain to motor
vehicles. We explain the term "motor
vehicle emissions budget" in item C
below.
In addition, we proposed that where
a SIP includes the benefits of EPA's Tier
2/Sulfur program, the State must
commit to revise the SIP's motor vehicle
emissions budgets within 1 year after
we release the MOBILE6 model. This
commitment would be necessary in
order for us to approve the SIP.
Our December 16, 1999 proposals also
addressed many other issues that are not
directly relevant to today's
supplemental proposal. We direct the
reader to the December proposals for
more details.
B. What Is Transportation Conformity?
Transportation conformity is a Clean
Air Act (CAA) requirement for
metropolitan planning organizations
and the U.S. Department of
Transportation to ensure that federally
supported highway and transit activities
are consistent with ("conform to") the
SIP. Conformity to a SIP means that an
action will not cause or contribute to
new violations; worsen existing
violations; or delay timely attainment.
The conformity requirements are
established by CAA section 176(c). We
issued the transportation conformity
rule (40 CFR part 93) to implement this
CAA requirement.
C. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets?
As described in CAA section
176(c)(2)(A), attainment demonstrations
necessarily include estimates of motor
vehicle emissions to help areas reach
attainment. These estimates act as a
budget or ceiling for emissions from
motor vehicles, and are used in
conformity to determine whether
transportation plans and projects
conform to the attainment SIP. In order
for transportation plans and projects to
conform, estimated emissions from
transportation plans and projects must
not exceed the emission budgets
contained in the attainment
demonstration.
D. Which Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets Usually Apply?
According to the transportation
conformity rule, motor vehicle
emissions budgets ("budgets") in a
submitted SIP apply for conformity
purposes even before we have approved
the SIP, under certain circumstances.
First, there must not be any other
approved SIP budgets that have been
established for the same timeframe and
with respect to the same CAA
requirements. For example, if there is
already an approved attainment
demonstration SIP that establishes
budgets for the attainment date, and the
State submits a revision to those
budgets, the newly submitted budgets
do not apply for conformity purposes
until we have approved them into the
SIP.
Second, submitted SIP budgets cannot
be used before we have approved the
SIP unless we have found that the
submitted SIP budgets are adequate for
conformity purposes. Our process for
determining adequacy is explained at 40
CFR 93.118(e) and EPA's May 14, 1999
memo entitled, "Conformity Guidance
on Implementation of March 2, 1999
Conformity Court Decision."
For more details about the
applicability of submitted and approved
budgets, see 61 FR 36117 (July 9, 1996)
and 62 FR 43783 (August 15, 1997).
II. What Is EPA Proposing Today?
Today, we are proposing to
supplement and clarify our December
16, 1999 proposals to conditionally or
fully approve (and disapprove in the
alternative) the attainment
demonstration SIPs for ten areas. As
discussed below, our supplemental
notice addresses two issues specifically
pertaining to the motor vehicle
emissions budgets in these SIPs.
In addition, we are reopening the
comment period so the public may
comment on these two issues and may
consider and comment on any
additional materials that have been
placed in the docket for each of these
proposed rules close to or after the
February 14, 2000 date of the initial
comment period. We are also reopening
the comment period for all issues with
respect to the Pennsylvania portion of
the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton
nonattainment area based on requests
received from the State of Pennsylvania
and other interested parties during the
initial comment period.
-------
46386
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 146/Friday, July 28, 2000/Proposed Rules
A. Clarification of the Applicability of
Revised Budgets
I. How Are We Proposing to Clarify the
Applicability of Revised Budgets?
In today's notice, we are proposing to
clarify what occurs if we finalize
approval or conditional approval of any
of the December 16, 1999 SIPs based on
a State commitment to revise the
budgets in the future. If this occurs, the
approved SIP budgets will apply for
conformity purposes only until the
revised budgets have been submitted
and we have found the submitted
budgets to be adequate for conformity
purposes.
In other words, when the State
submits revised budgets as they have
committed, those revised budgets will
apply for conformity purposes as soon
as we have found those budgets to be
adequate for conformity purposes and
our adequacy finding is effective. The
revised budgets would then replace the
budgets in the approved (or
conditionally approved) attainment
demonstration SIP, provided that (as we
expect) the revised budgets are
submitted as a revision to part of the
attainment demonstration SIP and are
established for the same year as those in
the approved SIP.
2. Why Are We Proposing to Clarify the
Applicability of Revised Budgets?
In December 1999, we proposed that
we would not approve the attainment
demonstration SIPs from certain areas
unless the States commit to revise the
SIPs' budgets in the future. As described
in section I.A. of this preamble,
emissions budgets must be revised to
reflect the effects of additional control
measures that a State has committed to
adopt. The budgets must also be revised
within 1 year after we release MOBILE6,
if the budget that is approved reflects
the benefits of our Tier 2/Sulfur
regulation.
Since we are proposing to approve
budgets only because the States have
committed to revise them, we want our
approval of the budgets to last only until
adequate revised budgets are submitted
pursuant to the commitments. We
believe the revised budgets should
apply as soon as we find them adequate;
we do not believe it is appropriate to
wait until we have approved the revised
attainment demonstration SIP. This is
because we know now that once we
have confirmed that the revised budgets
are adequate, they will be more
appropriate than the originally
approved budgets for conformity
purposes.
Specifically, once an area has adopted
additional measures that affect motor
vehicle emissions, an appropriate motor
vehicle emissions budget must reflect
those measures. Otherwise, the budget
would not be the level of motor vehicle
emissions that is consistent with the
attainment demonstration; it would be
inappropriately large.
In addition, we know now that we
cannot accurately estimate the benefits
of the Tier 2 program until we release
the MOBILE6 model. We are proposing
to approve budgets based on interim
approximations of Tier 2 benefits only
because the States are committing to
recalculate the budgets using MOBILE6
in a timely fashion.
If we do not clarify our proposed
approval of the budgets, States will
revise their budgets as they have
committed, but they will not be able to
start using them quickly for conformity
purposes. This would defeat the
purpose of our original requirement for
the budgets to be revised quickly. In
contrast, according to today's proposal,
the revised budgets could be used for
conformity after we have completed our
adequacy review process, which we
have committed to complete within 90
days after revisions are submitted,
provided they are adequate.
This supplemental notice does not
propose any change to the existing
transportation conformity rule or to the
way it is normally implemented with
respect to other submitted and approved
SIPs, which do not contain
commitments to revise the budgets.
3. How Does the 18-Month Clock Apply
With Respect to These Budget
Revisions?
Section 93.104(e)(2) of the conformity
rule requires conformity of the
transportation plan and transportation
improvement program (TIP) to be
redetermined within 18 months
following the date of a State's initial
submission of each SIP establishing a
budget.
As described at 60 FR 44792 (August
29, 1995), the first submission of a given
type of SIP that establishes a budget
(e.g., an ozone attainment
demonstration) starts the 18^Ilonth
clock for redetermining conformity.
However, the 18-month, clock is
unaffected by subsequent changes to
that submitted SIP.
Therefore, the revisions to the
attainment demonstration SIPs to reflect
additional measures or MOBILE6 will
not start a new ISnnonth clock. Of
course, whenever conformity is
eventually determined in accordance
with the ISnnonth clock, the
demonstration must use whatever
budgets are applicable at that time. If an
initial submission starts the
clock but then is changed and the
revised budgets are found adequate, any
subsequent conformity determination
must use the new, adequate budgets.
Section 93.104(e)(3) also requires
conformity of the transportation plan
and TIP to be redetermined 18 months
following our approval of a SIP that
establishes or revises a budget. If we
conditionally approve an ozone
attainment demonstration, an ISnnonth
clock will be started on the effective
date of our conditional approval. A
subsequent conversion of the
conditional approval to full approval
will not start another 18^Ilonth clock,
unless the budgets we are approving
have changed since the conditional
approval.
B. Additional Option for Timing of
Budget Revision Following MOBILES
1. What Is the Additional Option?
In our December 16, 1999 proposal to
approve and/or disapprove SIPs for ten
urban areas, we stated that if a SIP
relied on Tier 2 benefits to demonstrate
attainment, States would need to
commit to revise their motor vehicle
emissions budgets within 1 year after
we release MOBILE6, in order for us to
approve the SIP.
We proposed that States recalculate
their budgets using MOBILE6 because
the emission reduction benefits of Tier
2 cannot be properly estimated until
MOBILE6 is released. The estimates of
Tier 2 benefits that are currently in
submitted SIPs are interim
approximations.
In this supplemental notice we are
proposing that the affected States may
have a 1-year extension of time to revise
their emissions budgets, under certain
circumstances. Specifically, a State may
commit to revise its SIP's budgets
within 2 years after MOBILE6 is
released, if the State also commits that
conformity will not be determined
during the additional year unless there
are adequate SIP budgets in place that
were developed using MOBILE61. As
part of this commitment, we also are
proposing that States inform affected
metropolitan planning organizations
and their State transportation
departments of this requirement.
States may opt to commit to revise
their emissions budgets 1 year after the
release of MOBILE6, as originally
proposed on December 16, 1999. Or,
States may commit to the new option,
i.e., to revise their budgets 2 years
1 This concept was discussed in a letter dated
March 6, 2000 from John S. Seitz, Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Ralph
Marquez, Commissioner, Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 146/Friday, July 28, 2000/Proposed Rules
46387
following the release of MOBILES,
provided that conformity is not
determined without adequate MOBILES
SIP budgets during the second year. Any
SIPs that rely on Tier 2 benefits must be
accompanied by one of these two types
of commitments in order for us to find
the budgets adequate for conformity
purposes, and in order for us to finalize
approval of the SIP. The commitment
must be subject to a public hearing and
fully enforceable as part of the SIP
before we can finalize approval of the
SIP.
2. How Is "Release of MOBILES"
Defined?
We will publish a notice of
availability in the Federal Register that
announces the formal release of
MOBILES. The date of publication of
that Federal Register notice will
constitute "release of MOBILES" for the
purposes of the commitments discussed
in this supplemental proposal.
3. Why Are We Proposing This
Additional Option?
We are proposing to provide States
with this additional option in response
to a comment on the December 16, 1999
proposal. That comment indicated that
in some areas, allowing more than 1
year to revise and adopt a new motor
vehicle emissions budget based on the
MOBILES model would better suit an
area's schedule for SIP revisions and
updates.
We believe that allowing areas an
additional year to revise their budgets
using MOBILES will not cause any
environmental harm as long as during
that time there are no new conformity
determinations that rely on the older
MOBILES budgets.
C. Reopening of the Public Comment
Period
The EPA is reopening the comment
period for 30 days to take comment on
the proposed approach, discussed
above. In addition, we are reopening the
comment period for all ten areas to
address additional information that has
been placed in the docket close to or
since the initial comment period
concluded on February 14, 2000. In
general, these materials consist of motor
vehicle emissions budgets, and revised
or additional commitments or
reaffirmations submitted by the States.
Interested persons should contact the
appropriate regional contact listed in
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
with any questions regarding whether
new information has been placed in the
docket for a specific proposed action.
In addition, based on requests
received during the initial comment
period, EPA is reopening the comment
period for 30 days with respect to all
issues concerning the Pennsylvania
portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-
Trenton area.
We are not, however, reopening the
separate comment period on the
adequacy of motor vehicle emissions
budgets, which was started by
notification on our adequacy website.
Notably, comments on the adequacy of
motor vehicle emissions budgets are
accepted through a distinct,
administrative process established by
our conformity regulations, known as
adequacy review. That process was not
started for any area covered by today's
notice until all materials relevant to the
budgets had been submitted.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866,
entitled "Regulatory Planning and
Review."
B. 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 Executive
Order 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 Executive
Order 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate
environmental health or safety risks.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly
affects 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 OMB, 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 proposed rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal
governments. This action does not
involve or impose any requirements that
affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of
Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
D. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), revokes
and replaces Executive Orders 12612
(Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership).
Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure "meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications." "Policies
that have federalism implications" is
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that 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." Under Executive
Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. The EPA also may not issue
a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
-------
46388
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 146/Friday, July 28, 2000/Proposed Rules
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, 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 CAA.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The 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 noMor-profit
enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, partD of
the CAA 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
CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis
would constitute Federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of State
action. The CAA 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).
If the conditional approval is
converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k), based on a State's failure
to meet the commitment, it will not
affect any existing State requirements
applicable to small entities. Federal
disapproval of the State submittal does
not affect State-enforceability.
Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the
submittal does not impose any new
requirements. Therefore, I certify that
such a proposed disapproval action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
because it would not remove existing
requirements nor would it substitute a
new Federal requirement.
The EPA's alternative proposed
disapproval of the State request under
section 110 and subchapter I, partD of
the CAA would not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small
entities. Any pre-existing Federal
requirements would remain in place
after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the State submittal does
not affect State-enforceability. Moreover
EPA's disapproval of the submittal
would not impose any new Federal
requirements. Therefore, I certify that
the proposed disapproval would not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more. Under section
205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective 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.
The EPA has determined that the
approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated 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
proposed action.
Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to
the proposed disapproval because the
proposed disapproval of the SIP
submittal would not, in and of itself,
constitute a Federal mandate because it
would not impose an enforceable duty
on any entity. In addition, the CAA does
not permit EPA to consider the types of
analyses described in section 202 in
determining whether a SIP submittal
meets the CAA. Finally, section 203
does not apply to the proposed
disapproval because it would affect only
the State governments, which are not
small governments.
G. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
requires Federal agencies to evaluate
existing technical standards when
developing new regulations. 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.
The EPA believes that VCS are
inapplicable to the regulatory actions in
this supplemental notice. Today's
actions do not require the public to
perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
This supplemental notice of proposed
rule does not impose any new
information collection requirements
from EPA which require approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond
to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a federal
agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 20, 2000.
Robert D. Brenner,
A cting Assistant A d minis tra tor for Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 00-19122 Filed 7-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
------- |