[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 14 (Monday, January 24, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3335-3339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1246]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R01-OAR-2004-ME-0004; A-1-FRL- 7862-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
ME; Low Emission Vehicle Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Maine on February 25, 2004 and 
December 9, 2004 which includes the Maine Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) 
Program. The regulations adopted by Maine include the California LEV I 
light-duty motor vehicle emission standards beginning with model year 
2001, California LEV II light-duty motor vehicle emission standards 
effective in model year 2004, the California LEV I medium-duty 
standards effective in model year 2003, and the smog index label 
specification effective model year 2002. The Maine LEV regulation 
submitted does not include any zero emission vehicle (ZEV) 
requirements. Maine has adopted these revisions to reduce emissions of 
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In 
addition, they have worked to ensure that their program is identical to 
California's, as required by section 177 of the CAA. The intended 
effect of this action is to propose approval of the Maine LEV program. 
This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 23, 
2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air 
Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-New England, One Congress Street, 
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Comments may also be submitted 
electronically, or through hand delivery/courier, please follow the 
detailed instructions described in part (I)(B)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

[[Page 3336]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, Air Quality Unit, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 
One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 
918-1045, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. The Regional Office has established an official public 
rulemaking file available for inspection at the Regional Office. EPA 
has established an official public rulemaking file for this action 
under Regional Material EDocket Number R01-OAR-2004-ME-0004. The 
official public file consists of the documents specifically referenced 
in this action, any public comments received, and other information 
related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the 
public rulemaking file does not include Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. The official public rulemaking file is the collection of 
materials that is available for public viewing at the Office of 
Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New 
England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. 
EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your 
inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal Holidays.
    2. Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is 
available through EPA's Regional Material EDocket (RME) system, a part 
of EPA's electronic docket and comment system. You may access RME at 
http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp to review associated documents 
and submit comments. Once in the system, select ``quick search,'' then 
key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number.
    You may also access this Federal Register document electronically 
through the Regulations.gov web site located at http://www.regulations.gov where you can find, review, and submit comments on 
Federal rules that have been published in the Federal Register, the 
Government's legal newspaper, and are open for comment.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, 
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains 
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing 
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in 
the version of the comment that is placed in the official public 
rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted 
material, will be available at the Regional Office for public 
inspection.
    3. Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support 
document are also available for public inspection during normal 
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency. Bureau of Air 
Management, Department of Environmental Protection, State House, 
Station No. 17, Augusta, ME 04333.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text 
``Public comment on proposed rulemaking R01-OAR-2004-ME-0004'' in the 
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' 
EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body 
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside 
of any disk or CD-ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying 
the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA 
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information 
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made 
available in Regional Material EDocket. If EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. Regional Material EDocket (RME). Your use of EPA's Regional 
Material EDocket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's 
preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to RME at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/index.jsp, and follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Once in the RME system, select ``quick search,'' 
and then key in RME Docket ID Number R01-OAR-2004-ME-0004. The system 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
[email protected], please include the text ``Public comment on 
proposed rulemaking R01-OAR-2004-ME-0004'' in the subject line. EPA's 
e-mail system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-
mail comment directly without going through Regulations.gov, EPA's e-
mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket.
    iii. Regulations.gov. Your use of Regulations.gov is an alternative 
method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to 
Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov, then click on the button 
``TO SEARCH FOR REGULATIONS CLICK HERE'', and select Environmental 
Protection Agency as Agency name to search on. The list of current EPA 
actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. The system is an ``anonymous 
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail 
address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment.
    iv. Disk or CD-ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in section 2, directly 
below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect, 
Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any 
form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send your comments to: David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air 
Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One 
Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Please include the 
text ``Public comment on proposed

[[Page 3337]]

rulemaking R01-OAR-2004-ME-0004'' in the subject line on the first page 
of your comment.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: David 
Conroy, Unit Manager, Air Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 
02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional 
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding 
federal Holidays.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA 
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you 
submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy 
that does not contain CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the 
disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not 
marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for 
public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about 
CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your 
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that 
support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 
regional file/rulemaking identification number in the subject line on 
the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you 
provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your 
comments.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to 
aid in locating information in this preamble.

A. What Is the Background for This Action?
B. What Is the California LEV Program?
C. What Are the Relevant EPA and CAA Requirements?
D. What Is the History of the Maine Low Emission Vehicle Program?
E. What Level of Emission Reductions Will This Program Achieve?

II. Rulemaking Information

A. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Maine had 4 separate 1-
hour ozone nonattainment areas: the Portland area, the Lewiston-Auburn 
area, the Knox and Lincoln Counties area, and the Hancock and Waldo 
Counties area. Effective June 15, 2004, there are now two 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment areas in Maine; the Portland area (not identical to 
previous 1-hour ozone area) and portions of Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and 
Waldo counties.
    To bring these areas into attainment, the State has adopted and 
implemented a broad range of ozone control measures including stage II 
vapor recovery at larger gas stations in the Portland area, numerous 
stationary and area source VOC and NOX controls, a vehicle 
testing (I/M) program in Cumberland county, and a low reid vapor 
pressure (RVP) gasoline control program in southern Maine. In addition, 
the State has required that beginning with the 2001 model year, all new 
light duty vehicles sold in the State meet California LEV emission 
standards. Maine has submitted a SIP revision requesting EPA approval 
of this LEV program.

B. What Is the California LEV Program?

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted California's 
second generation low emission vehicle regulations (LEV II) following a 
November 1998 hearing. These regulations are a continuation of the low 
emission vehicle (LEV I) regulations originally adopted in 1990 which 
were effective through the 2003 model year. The LEV II regulations 
increase the scope of the LEV I regulations by lowering the emission 
standards for all light and medium-duty vehicles (including sport 
utility vehicles) beginning with the 2004 model year. There are several 
tiers of increasingly stringent LEV II emission standards to which a 
manufacturer may certify: Low-emission vehicle (LEV); ultra-low-
emission vehicle (ULEV); super-ultra low-emission vehicle (SULEV); 
partial zero-emission vehicle (PZEV); and zero-emission vehicle (ZEV). 
In addition to stringent emission standards, the LEV II regulations 
provide flexibility to manufacturers by allowing them to choose the 
standards to which each vehicle is certified provided the overall fleet 
meets the specified phase-in requirements according to a fleet average 
hydrocarbon requirement that is progressively lower with each model 
year. The LEV II fleet average requirements commence in 2004 and apply 
through 2010 and beyond. In addition to the LEV II requirements, 
minimum percentages of passenger cars and the lightest light-duty 
trucks marketed in California by a large or intermediate volume 
manufacturer must be ZEVs. The program also includes a ``smog index'' 
label for each vehicle sold, the intent of which is to inform consumers 
about the amount of pollution coming from that vehicle relative to 
other new vehicles.
    Subsequent to the adoption of the LEV II program, the U.S. EPA 
adopted its own substantially more stringent emission standards known 
as the Tier 2 regulations. In December 2000, CARB modified the LEV II 
program to take advantage of some elements of the federal Tier 2 
program to ensure that only the cleanest vehicle models will continue 
to be sold in California.

C. What Are the Relevant EPA and CAA Requirements?

    Section 209(a) of the CAA prohibits states from adopting or 
enforcing standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor 
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. However, section 209(b) of the 
CAA allows the State of California to adopt its own motor vehicle 
emissions standards if a waiver is granted by the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA.) EPA must approve a waiver if, in California's 
determination, it finds that its standards will be `` * * * in the 
aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as such 
Federal standards * * * '' However, no waiver will be granted if the 
EPA Administrator finds the determination of California to be 
``arbitrary and capricious,'' California ``does not need such State 
standards to

[[Page 3338]]

meet compelling and extraordinary conditions,'' or California's 
standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent 
with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
    Section 177 of the Clean Air Act authorizes other states to adopt 
and enforce California motor vehicle emission standards relating to the 
control of emissions if the standards are identical to California's for 
which a waiver has been granted and California and the state adopt such 
standards at least two years prior to the commencement of the model 
year to which the standards will apply.

D. What Is the History of the Maine Low Emission Vehicle Program?

    On February 17, 1993, Maine had adopted a version of this LEV 
regulation which was to be effective with model year 1996. This 
regulation, Chapter 127 of the Maine Department of Environmental 
Protection rules, was entitled ``New Motor Vehicle Emission 
Standards.'' State legislation was enacted prior to the required sale 
of these vehicles which prevented the rule from going into effect in 
Maine until certain triggers were met. These triggers were related to 
other Northeast States also adopting the California LEV (CA LEV) 
program. Vehicle manufacturers were subsequently notified in December, 
1997 that these triggers had been met, and the LEV rule would be 
effective with the 2001 model year. Maine has made several 
modifications to this program to make it consistent with how California 
has modified its LEV program over time. Section 177 of the CAA provides 
that states may adopt California vehicle standards provided that the 
standards are identical to California's. As such, as California makes 
modifications to its program, states that have adopted California 
standards are compelled to make similar changes. The current version of 
the Maine program is intended to be identical to the current California 
program with the notable exception that the Maine program does not 
include ZEV requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Maine has recently begun the process to adopt the ZEV 
requirements of the California LEV program. In this proposed 
rulemaking, EPA is acting on the version of the Maine rules 
submitted on February 25, 2004, which does not include ZEV 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What Level of Emission Reductions Will This Program Achieve?

    Maine does not deny registration to new vehicles which apply for 
registration in the State based on whether or not they are certified as 
compliant with the CA LEV program. Other States which implement the 
program ensure that only California certified vehicles are allowed to 
be registered. The level of credit in EPA's MOBILE6 model assumes that 
only CA LEV vehicles are in States with CA LEV programs dependent upon 
the model year the program begins. For example, EPA currently estimates 
that the CA LEV II program will provide about 1 percent additional 
reductions in mobile source VOC and 2 percent in air toxics over the 
federal Tier 2 program in 2020 with the program beginning in 2004. As 
currently structured, Maine's LEV program does not ensure that only 
these CA LEV certified vehicles are registered in Maine. However, Maine 
does require that Maine car dealers only sell (or offer for sale) 
California certified vehicles and ensures that this requirement is met 
by regularly checking new car dealer vehicle inventories. In addition, 
in a letter dated December 9, 2004, Maine has committed to regularly 
reviewing manufacturer's certificates of origin (MCO) to determine that 
the vehicles being registered in Maine are California certified, and to 
follow-up with new vehicles that are not CA LEV certified. Previous 
reviews of these MCOs have indicated a very high rate of compliance 
(99+ percent) for a sample of approximately 1000 vehicles. 
Nevertheless, Maine is aware that in some cases, vehicles that are not 
available under the California program, have been bought new elsewhere 
and are now registered in Maine. In light of this, Maine is requesting 
that they receive 90 percent of the credit associated with the LEV 
program. EPA believes this amount of credit is reasonable and is 
proposing to approve that request. By this proposal, we are seeking 
comment on the appropriateness of this level of credit for a State 
which does not deny registration to new motor vehicles that do not 
comply with the California LEV program. In proposing this level of 
credit, we considered and recognize the uniqueness of Maine's situation 
and its proximity to other States which require CA LEV vehicles, in 
addition to Maine's commitment to continue to enforce the program as 
described above.
    As discussed earlier in this notice, States adopting the California 
LEV program must adopt a program which is identical to California's. 
The zero emission vehicle program has undergone several modifications 
through the years in California. And Maine had made several changes to 
their LEV program in attempts to ensure their program is consistent 
with California. However, in the version of the rule before EPA for 
approval action, Maine did not include any requirements for ZEVs to be 
sold. (As stated above, the State is now making further changes 
regarding these ZEV requirements.) Nevertheless, the Maine LEV program 
is designed to be a comprehensive program which will secure emission 
reductions. For that reason, and since the emission reductions from the 
California program are controlled by the fleet average hydrocarbon 
curve and can be achieved without any specific ZEV sales mandates, we 
are proposing to approve the emissions reductions associated with the 
LEV program and the Maine rules adopted on December 21, 2000, and 
effective December 31, 2000.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision at the request of the 
Maine DEP. This version of the rule entitled ``Chapter 127: New Motor 
Vehicle Emission Standards'' was adopted by Maine with an effective 
date of December 31, 2000. It was submitted to EPA for approval on 
February 25, 2004. That submittal was later clarified on December 9, 
2004 to justify the level of emission reductions expected from this 
program. This proposed approval would justify the State achieving 90 
percent of the credit achieved by States that implement the CA LEV 
program through a registration based enforcement system. The regulation 
adopted by Maine includes the LEV I light-duty program beginning with 
model year 2001 in Maine, the California LEV II light-duty motor 
vehicle emission standards effective in model year 2004, the California 
LEV I medium-duty standards effective in model year 2003, and the smog 
index label specification effective model year 2002. EPA is proposing 
to approve the Maine low emission vehicle program requirements into the 
SIP because EPA has found that the requirements are consistent with the 
CAA.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered 
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the 
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA 
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 
notice.

IV. What Are the Administrative Requirements?

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the

[[Page 3339]]

Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this 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 action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this 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 approves pre-existing 
requirements under state law 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), 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 Clean 
Air Act. This 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.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, 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. This 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.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 12, 2005.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 05-1246 Filed 1-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P