[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46618-46621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17875]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-079-SIPS; FRL-7246-3]


Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Progress, Attainment, and 
Maintenance State Implementation Plans for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and 
Nitrogen Dioxide; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: At the request of the State of California, EPA is proposing to 
limit the duration of our approvals of motor vehicle emissions budgets 
(``budgets'') in certain existing California state implementation plans 
(SIPs) that provide for progress, attainment, and maintenance of the 1-
hour ozone, 8-hour carbon monoxide (CO), and annual nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Specifically, we 
propose to limit our approvals of the existing budgets to last only 
until the effective date of EPA's adequacy finding for new budgets that 
replace these existing approved budgets (i.e., budgets for the same 
pollutant, Clean Air Act requirement and year). The State of California 
will submit new budgets as part of comprehensive revisions to certain 
approved progress, attainment, and maintenance plans that reflect 
updated information and a new version of California's motor vehicle 
emission factor model. On the effective date of EPA's adequacy finding 
for a new budget our approval of the existing budget would terminate 
and thus the new adequate budget would apply instead of the existing 
budget for transportation conformity purposes.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received by August 15, 
2002.

ADDRESSES: Please mail comments to: Dave Jesson (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. The rulemaking 
docket for this notice is available for public inspection during normal 
business hours at EPA's Region IX office. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying parts of the docket.
    Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at 
the following location: California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, 
Sacramento, California, 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Jesson, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3957, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What Approved SIPs Are Affected by this Proposed Action?
    B. What Is Transportation Conformity?
    C. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?
    D. Which Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Usually Apply?
II. What Are We Proposing Today?
    A. What Modification to Our Approvals of the Existing Budgets 
Has the State Requested?

[[Page 46619]]

    B. How Are We Proposing to Modify Our Approval of the Budgets?
III. Request for Public Comment
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. What Approved SIPs Are Affected by this Proposed Action?

    In Table 1 below, labeled ``California SIPs Whose Budget Approvals 
Are Being Modified,'' we list those SIPs in California that would be 
affected by this proposed action.

                                           Table 1.--California SIPs Whose Budget Approvals Are Being Modified
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Area                      Pollutant               Plan              Adoption            Submittal                  FR Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antelope Valley (SE Desert)....  Ozone.................  Attainment Plan...  9/9/94, 12/9/94, 4/ 11/15/94, 12/29/    1/8/97 62 FR 1150.
                                                                              12/96.              94, 7/10/96.
Bakersfield....................  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
Chico..........................  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
Coachella (SE Desert)..........  Ozone.................  Attainment Plan...  9/9/94, 12/9/94, 4/ 11/15/94, 12/29/    1/8/97 62 FR 1150.
                                                                              12/96.              94, 7/10/96.
Fresno.........................  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
Kern (SE Desert)...............  Ozone.................  Attainment Plan...  12/1/94...........  1/28/94...........  1/8/97 62 FR 1150.
Lake Tahoe--North..............  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
Lake Tahoe--South..............  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
Modesto........................  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
Mojave (SE Desert).............  Ozone.................  Attainment Plan...  10/26/94..........  11/15/94..........  1/8/97 62 FR 1150.
Monterey.......................  Ozone.................  Maintenance Plan..  5/25/94, 10/19/94.  7/14/94, 11/14/94.  1/17/97 62 FR 2597.
Sacramento.....................  Ozone.................  Attainment Plan...  12/1/94, 12/12/94,  12/29/94..........  1/8/97 62 FR 1150.
                                                                              12/13/94, 12/14/
                                                                              94, 12/20/94.
Sacramento.....................  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
San Diego......................  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
San Francisco Bay Area.........  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
South Coast....................  Ozone.................  Attainment Plan...  11/15/96, 12/10/99  2/5/97, 2/4/00....  4/10/00 65 FR 18903.
South Coast....................  NO2...................  Maintenance Plan..  11/15/96..........  2/5/97............  7/24/98 63 FR 39747.
Stockton.......................  CO....................  Maintenance Plan..  4/26/96...........  7/3/96............  3/31/98 63 FR 15305.
Ventura........................  Ozone.................  Attainment Plan...  11/8/94, 12/19/95.  11/15/94, 7/12/96.  1/8/97 62 FR 1150.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The attainment plans typically also address CAA provisions relating to progress.

B. What Is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation conformity is a Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement for 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) 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.
    Under section 176(c), a determination of conformity must be based 
on the most recent estimates of emissions, and such emissions estimates 
must be determined from the most recent population, employment, travel 
and congestion estimates as determined by the MPO or other agency 
authorized to make such estimates. To comply with section 176(c), motor 
vehicle emissions estimates for conformity purposes must keep pace with 
the periodic updates of population, employment, travel and congestion 
estimates. Section 176(c)(4)(B)(ii) of the Clean Air Act requires MPOs 
and DOTs to determine the conformity of transportation plans and 
transportation improvement programs no less frequently than every three 
years even in the absence of any revision to the underlying progress, 
attainment, or maintenance SIP. See 40 CFR 93.104 for the frequency 
requirements in the conformity rule.

C. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?

    Progress, attainment, or maintenance SIPs necessarily include 
estimates of motor vehicle emissions to help areas attain and maintain 
the NAAQS. These estimates act as a budget or ceiling for emissions 
from motor vehicles, and are used in transportation conformity to 
determine whether transportation plans, programs and, in some 
circumstances, individual transportation projects conform to the 
progress, attainment or maintenance SIPs. In order for transportation 
plans, programs and projects to conform, estimated emissions from 
transportation plans, programs and projects must not exceed the 
emission budgets contained in the applicable progress, attainment or 
maintenance SIPs.
    In California, new planning data are becoming available that have 
not as yet been incorporated into the SIPs. However, the CAA requires 
that the latest planning assumptions be used to make conformity 
determinations. As a result it becomes difficult to determine 
conformity to SIPs that are based on older planning assumptions. 
Therefore, the State has requested that we limit our approval of SIP 
budgets so that budgets that incorporate new planning data will apply 
for conformity as soon as they are adequate rather than when they are 
approved. As explained below, today's proposal sets forth a means to 
provide for the earliest possible use of new emissions budgets in the 
transportation planning and conformity process consistent with the 
fundamental SIP goal of expeditious attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS.

D. Which Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Usually Apply?

    According to 40 CFR 93.118(e) of the transportation conformity 
rule, budgets in a submitted SIP can 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 time frame and with respect to the same CAA 
requirements. For example, if there is already an approved attainment

[[Page 46620]]

demonstration SIP that establishes budgets for the attainment date, and 
the State submits a revision to those budgets, the newly submitted 
budgets cannot apply for conformity purposes until we have approved 
them into the SIP.
    Second, submitted SIP budgets cannot be used unless we have 
formally found that the submitted SIP budgets are adequate for 
conformity purposes. Our process for determining adequacy is explained 
at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5), and in a May 14, 1999 memo from Gay 
MacGregor, Director, Regional and State Programs Division, Office of 
Mobile Sources, 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). As explained below, today's proposal is not intended to modify 
the generally applicable rules regarding when submitted budgets become 
effective for the purposes of transportation conformity. Rather, 
today's proposal sets forth a means to accommodate the State's request 
to allow for the prompt use of new budgets in California within the 
bounds of existing regulatory and statutory requirements.

II. What Are We Proposing Today?

    Today, as authorized in CAA sections 110(k) and 301(a), we are 
proposing to limit the duration of our prior approvals of existing 
budgets associated with the SIPs for the areas listed above. Under this 
proposed modification, the existing budgets will continue to be 
approved but will apply for transportation conformity purposes only 
until new budgets have been submitted and we have found the new budgets 
to be adequate.

A. What Modification to Our Approvals of the Existing Budgets Has the 
State Requested?

    The California SIPs identified in Table 1 were developed and 
adopted in the period 1994 through 1996. In the years since the 
development of these plans, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
has prepared draft revisions to the mobile source component of the 
emissions inventories, including a major draft revision to the model 
used to calculate exhaust and evaporative emissions from motor 
vehicles. This California-specific model is known as EMFAC. CARB is now 
making final refinements to this completely new version of EMFAC.
    The version of the State's motor vehicle emissions model available 
for development of the Table 1 SIPs was EMFAC 7F for those SIPs adopted 
before 1996. The most recent version of EMFAC applicable to these areas 
is 7G, which was adopted by CARB in 1996 and which was used in 
California SIPs adopted after 1995.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See CARB, Methodology for Estimating Emissions from On-Road 
Motor Vehicles, 1996. EPA approved EMFAC 7G for use in 
transportation plan and program conformity analyses in a letter from 
David Howekamp, EPA, to Michael P. Kenny, CARB, dated April 16, 
1998. On January 11, 2002 (67 FR 1464), we approved SF Bay Area-
EMFAC2000 for use only in the Bay Area ozone SIP, but we set certain 
conditions on the approval as explained in that notice due to 
significant technical limitations in the model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 14, 2002, CARB submitted a letter indicating the State's 
intention to submit comprehensive revisions to the progress, 
attainment,and maintenance SIPs and the budgets for the areas listed in 
Table 1 to reflect, among other new information, the State's revised 
motor vehicle emissions factors and the updated information on vehicle 
fleet, age distribution, and activity levels (letter from Michael P. 
Kenny, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA). The State notes that these plan 
revisions will benefit air quality and strengthen the SIPs by 
incorporating: new federally enforceable commitments and control 
measures; new and updated data that reflect the various emission 
control rules adopted since the old SIPs were developed; recent vehicle 
test data for cars and trucks to better represent real-world emissions; 
and updated vehicle registration data and activity data.
    CARB anticipates that by January 2003 the new version of EMFAC will 
be submitted to us for approval for use in SIPs and conformity analyses 
statewide. In an April 26, 2002, letter to EPA, the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 
CARB included a schedule according to which the State expects to submit 
revised plans and new budgets based on the new EMFAC model and updated 
information.\2\ The schedule shows that the State expects to submit 
SIPs for almost all of the areas listed in Table 1 by April 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Letter from Michael P. Kenny (CARB) to Jack Broadbent (EPA), 
Michael G. Ritchie (FHWA), and Leslie T. Rogers (FTA). A copy of 
this letter is in the docket to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 14, 2002 letter, CARB discusses the benefits of 
promptly replacing the existing budgets with the new budgets, noting 
the advantages of basing transportation conformity determinations on 
updated and enhanced plans and budgets that use the most current and 
accurate motor vehicle emissions data. CARB expresses concern that 
these benefits will not be realized for well over a year after the new 
plans and budgets are submitted, if our prior SIP approvals are not 
modified to allow for the replacement of the existing budgets upon our 
adequacy determination with respect to the new budgets.
    As described above in Section I.D., new budgets associated with 
progress, attainment, and maintenance plans generally may not replace 
existing budgets for conformity purposes until we have taken final 
action to approve the new budgets and the new plans to which they 
correspond.\3\ This SIP approval process may take as much as 18 months 
from submittal of the plans.\4\ During this period of time, the 
conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects would have 
to continue to be determined based on the existing budgets, which will 
increasingly diverge from the progress, attainment, and maintenance 
needs of the areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In cases where there are currently no approved budgets, the 
applicability of new budgets would occur when EPA found the budgets 
adequate under 40 CFR 93.118(e).
    \4\ CAA section 110(k) provides for a completeness determination 
6 months after submittal of a SIP revision, unless we have before 
that date deemed the submittal complete or incomplete, and requires 
us to take final action on the submittal within 1 year of the date 
on which the submittal became complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The adequacy process may be completed in far less time than would 
be required for full SIP and budget approval. Indeed, under the May 14, 
1999, conformity guidance, EPA has established an expedited adequacy 
process, designed to be completed no more than 90 days from budget 
submittal.
    Because CARB knows that existing SIPs are based on older planning 
data and models, CARB asks EPA to modify the approval of the existing 
budgets in the SIPs listed in Table 1 so that the approval of these 
budgets lasts only until EPA finds adequate new budgets based on 
updated planning data and models.

B. How Are We Proposing to Modify Our Approval of the Budgets?

    In today's notice, we are proposing to limit our approval of 
existing budgets such that the approved motor vehicle emissions budgets 
for the SIPs listed in Table 1 will continue to be approved but will 
apply for transportation conformity purposes only until new budgets 
based on updated planning data and models have been submitted and we 
have found them to be adequate for conformity purposes.
    In other words, when the State submits revised SIPs containing new

[[Page 46621]]

budgets using the new version of EMFAC and the updated information, as 
they have indicated they intend to do, those new budgets will apply for 
conformity purposes if and when we find the budgets to be adequate for 
conformity purposes and our adequacy finding is effective. The new 
budgets would then replace the existing budgets in the approved SIPs, 
provided that (as we expect) the new budgets are submitted as a 
revision to the progress, attainment, or maintenance SIPs and are 
established for the same years as those in the approved SIPs.
    We believe the new budgets should apply as soon as we find them 
adequate rather than delaying applicability of the new budgets until we 
have approved the revised SIPs. This is because we know now that once 
we have confirmed that the new budgets are adequate, they will be more 
appropriate than the existing budgets for conformity purposes because 
the new budgets will be based on updated information.
    If we do not modify our approval of the existing budgets, 
California will revise their plans and budgets as they have committed, 
but they will not be able to start using them quickly for conformity 
purposes. 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. If we 
do not find the new budgets adequate, the existing budgets would 
continue to apply. In the event that we disapprove the plans and the 
new budgets after finding the new budgets adequate, we would act to 
reapprove the original budgets so that they will again apply, unless we 
have issued a protective finding with respect to disapproval of the new 
budgets. Conformity determinations of a transportation plan or TIP made 
based on the adequate budget will remain valid.
    This notice does not propose any change to the transportation 
conformity rule or to the way it is normally implemented with respect 
to other submitted and approved SIPs.
    We are proposing only one change to our prior approvals of the 
California SIPs listed in Table 1: we propose to limit our approval of 
the budgets in those plans so that they will no longer apply once we 
find adequate new budgets for the same Clean Air Act requirement and 
year. In all other respects, the Table 1 SIPs will remain federally 
approved and enforceable unless and until we finalize approval of 
revised plans, and our limitations apply only to the extent that any 
new plans explicitly supersede the approved SIPs. Lastly, we do not 
view California's request to limit the duration of the approval of the 
existing budgets and have the new budgets apply after they are found 
adequate to be a SIP revision itself but rather a request that we 
modify our approvals of previously submitted and approved budgets.

III. Request for Public Comment

    We are soliciting public comment on all aspects of this proposal. 
These comments will be considered before taking final action. To 
comment on today's proposal, you should submit comments by mail or in 
person to the ADDRESSES section listed in the front of this document. 
Your comments must be received by August 15, 2002, to be considered in 
the final action taken by EPA.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action modifies certain previous 
SIP approval actions and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to modify 
certain previous SIP approval actions and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to modify 
certain previous SIP approval actions, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not economically significant.
    Because the requirements of section 12(d) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do 
not apply in the context of EPA's review of SIP submissions, the 
requirements also do not apply in the context of EPA's modification of 
its previous approvals of such SIP submissions. This proposed rule does 
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 3, 2002.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-17875 Filed 7-15-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P