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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: July 16, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 136)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46618-46621]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jy02-33]

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

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 jesson.david@epa.gov.

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
(59 FR 22951, 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

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation