[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43015-43017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20481]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 146-1-7134a; FRL-5272-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment
Area, Transportation Control Measure Replacement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone for the San Joaquin Valley, which
was submitted to EPA on March 2, 1995. This direct final approval
action approves the ``Railroad Grade Separations'' transportation
control measure (TCM) adopted by the State of California on January 13,
1995. This TCM supersedes the ``Controls on Extended Vehicle Idling''
transportation control measure (TCM) in the federally-approved 1982
California ozone SIP. The intended effect of direct final approval of
this SIP revision is to control emissions of ozone precursors and
carbon monoxide in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or 1990 Act).
DATES: This direct final action is effective on October 17, 1995 unless
adverse or critical comments are received by September 18, 1995. If the
effective date is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support
document are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted SIP revision are
available for inspection at the following locations:
Mobile Sources Section (A-2-1), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), ANR 443, 401 ``M''
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460
California Air Resources Board, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 92123
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999
Tuolomne Street, Suite #200, Fresno, CA 93721
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Schechter, Mobile Sources
Section, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone:
(415) 744-1227.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 1, 1982, the State of California submitted the 1982
ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) SIP for the San Joaquin County portion
of the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area. EPA approved California's
1982 ozone and CO SIP for San Joaquin County and published the Federal
Register document on December 20, 1983 (48 FR 56215). The 1982 San
Joaquin County SIP, or Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), was adopted
by the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors on June 22, 1982. The
AQMP included a transportation control measure (TCM) designated as
``Controls on Extended Vehicle Idling''. This TCM was intended to
reduce vehicular emissions from extended idling at railroad crossings
by requiring a signing system at all railroad crossings asking
motorists to turn off their engines for waits longer than one minute.
Site design improvements during the planning stage to mitigate
circumstances where excessive idling could occur were also required in
this TCM. This TCM was never implemented.
On March 20, 1991, the air pollution control districts in the San
Joaquin Valley, including the San Joaquin County district, merged into
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD). The SJVUAPCD was authorized to exercise all powers and
carry out all duties of air pollution control districts within the
Valley as provided by state and federal law.
On March 2, 1995, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted to EPA a revision to the SIP for ozone for the San Joaquin
Valley nonattainment area entitled San Joaquin Valley Transportation
Control Measure Replacement. The SIP revision was adopted by the
SJVUAPCD on September 14, 1994 and later by CARB on January 13, 1995.
The SIP revision replaces the ``Controls on Extended Vehicle Idling''
TCM with the ``Railroad Grade Separations'' TCM. In its March 2, 1995
letter to EPA, CARB requested prompt handling of the submittal because
of its implications for conformity determinations.
In a letter to the State dated July 24, 1995, EPA found the
submittal of the San Joaquin Valley Transportation Control Measure
Replacement complete.
II. Summary and Evaluation of SIP Revision
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits any
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) designated under section 134
of title 23 of the United States Code, from approving any
transportation project, program, or plan which does not conform to a
SIP approved under section 110 of the CAA. The federal transportation
conformity regulation (40 CFR Part 51, subpart T) implements the
transportation-related requirements of section 176(c). Section 51.418
of the regulation requires the
[[Page 43016]]
transportation plan and program to provide for the timely
implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) from the
applicable federally-approved implementation plan. A TCM is defined in
section 51.392 as any measure that is specifically identified and
committed to in the applicable implementation plan that is either one
of the types listed in section 108 of the CAA, or any other measure for
the purpose of reducing emissions or concentration of air pollutants
from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic
flow or congestion conditions.
Under the federal transportation conformity rule, before an MPO or
the Department of Transportation (DOT) can approve a transportation
plan or program, a conformity determination must be made which shows
timely implementation of all of the TCMs in the approved SIP and
demonstrates that all obstacles to TCM implementation have been
removed. In the case of San Joaquin County, the TCMs identified in the
1982 SIP must meet the timely implementation criterion in order for the
transportation plan and program to be approved and projects to be
funded. Because the ``Controls on Extended Vehicle Idling'' TCM was
never implemented and is not expected to be implemented, this TCM
cannot be found to meet the criterion of timely implementation.
The preamble to the conformity regulation at 58 FR 62198 states
that if the original project sponsor or the cooperative planning
process decides not to implement the TCM or decides to replace it with
another TCM, a SIP revision which removes the TCM will be necessary
before plans and programs may be found in conformity. (In order to be
approved by EPA, such a SIP revision must include substitute measures
that achieve emissions reductions sufficient to meet all applicable
requirements of the CAA, including section 110(l).)
In order to meet the requirement of the conformity regulation for
timely implementation of TCMs and to enable FHWA to approve future
transportation plans and programs for San Joaquin County, the San
Joaquin County Council of Governments (SJCOG), the SJVUAPCD, and the
State of California have opted to revise the SIP to delete the
``Controls on Extended Vehicle Idling'' TCM and replace the measure
with an alternative TCM for which timely implementation can be
demonstrated. On March 2, 1995, California submitted a SIP revision for
San Joaquin County which replaces the ``Controls on Extended Vehicle
Idling'' TCM with the ``Railroad Grade Separations'' TCM.
The TCM includes two railroad grade separations to be constructed
in the Stockton Urbanized Area:
--Hammer Lane at Southern Pacific RR (scheduled completion in 1997)
--Hammer Lane at Union Pacific RR (scheduled completion in 1997)
The SIP revision anticipated the following emissions reductions
from these projects: 1.2 kg total organic gases (TOG) per day, 4.0 kg
nitrogen oxides (NoX) per day, and 20 kg carbon monoxide (CO) per
day.
The 1982 SIP took credit only for the CO emissions reductions
expected from the implementation of the ``Controls on Extended Vehicle
Idling'' TCM. The expected reduction was 0.017 tons/day or 15.4 kg/day
of CO in 1987. Thus, the ``Railroad Grade Separations'' TCM is expected
to result in greater reductions in CO, TOG, and NOX than were
credited to the ``Controls on Extended Vehicle Idling'' TCM.
In addition, the SJCOG and the SJVUAPCD have found that the
emissions reductions that would result if the ``Controls on Extended
Vehicle Idling'' TCM were implemented today are likely to be less than
originally projected. First, the TCM was voluntary. Emissions
reductions were calculated based on the assumption that motorists would
obey the signs and turn off their engines for waiting times of over one
minute, when, in reality, motorists may have kept their engines idling
due to a lack of an enforcement mechanism for the measure. In addition,
changes in motor vehicle technology have led to a reduced benefit from
this TCM. Motor vehicle engine technology has led to reduced idling
emissions from today's cars. As a result, shutting off idling vehicles
and starting them back up again a few minutes later will result in
fewer emissions reductions today than in 1982 when the TCM was included
in the SIP.
Because the ``Railroad Grade Separations'' TCM is expected to
result in greater emissions reductions than the ``Controls on Extended
Vehicle Idling'' TCM, the SIP revision does not weaken the federally-
approved 1982 SIP.
III. EPA's Action
This action approves the ``Railroad Grade Separations'' TCM,
submitted to EPA by the State of California on March 2, 1995 for
inclusion in the California Ozone SIP for the San Joaquin Valley. This
TCM supersedes the ``Controls on Extended Vehicle Idling'' TCM in the
1982 SIP. This latter TCM is, therefore, no longer subject to the
timely implementation criterion of the conformity regulation. EPA has
evaluated the submitted TCM and has determined that it is consistent
with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, the San
Joaquin Valley Transportation Control Measure Replacement SIP revision
is being approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the
requirements of sections 110(a) and (l) and part D.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future 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.
EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document published elsewhere
in this Federal Register, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
revision should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will
be effective October 17, 1995, unless, by September 18, 1995, adverse
or critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule
published elsewhere in this Federal Register. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action
will be effective October 17,1995.
IV. Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises and
government entities with jurisdiction over population of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301(a) and subchapter I, Part
D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
[[Page 43017]]
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship
under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory 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. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.
Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2).
The OMB has exempted this action from review under Executive Order
12866.
V. Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan revision, the
State and any affected local or tribal governments have elected to
adopt the program provided for under sections 110 and 182(b) of the
Clean Air Act. These rules may bind State, local, and tribal
governments to perform certain actions and also require the private
sector to perform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being
approved by this action will impose any mandate upon the State, local,
or tribal governments either as the owner or operator of a source or as
a regulator, or would impose any mandate upon the private sector, EPA's
action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already
subject to these requirements under State law. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action. EPA has also determined that
this direct final action does not include a mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: July 26, 1995.
Jeff Zelikson,
Acting Regional Administrator.
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)(223) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(223) Revised ozone transportation control measure (TCM) for the
San Joaquin Valley submitted on March 2, 1995, by the Governor's
designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Railroad Grade Separations TCM, adopted on September 14, 1994.
[FR Doc. 95-20481 Filed 8-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P