![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of New Jersey; Clean Fuel Fleet Opt Out
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: November 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 224)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61948-61953]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20no97-19]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Region 2 Docket No. NJ29-1-175; FRL-5925-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of New
Jersey; Clean Fuel Fleet Opt Out
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan revision submitted
by the State of New Jersey for the purpose of meeting the requirement
to submit the Clean Fuel Fleet program (CFFP) or a substitute program
that meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act). EPA is
proposing to approve the State's plan for implementing a substitute
program to opt out of the CFFP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 22, 1997.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Ronald Borsellino,
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Copies of the State submittals are available at the following
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality Planning, 401 East State Street, CN027, Trenton, New Jersey
08625
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael P. Moltzen, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New
York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 182(c)(4)(A) of the Clean Air Act requires states
containing areas designated as severe ozone nonattainment areas,
including New Jersey, to submit for EPA approval a state implementation
plan (SIP) revision that includes measures to implement the Clean Fuel
Fleet program (CFFP). Under this program, a certain specified
percentage of vehicles purchased by fleet operators for covered fleets
must meet emission standards that are more stringent than those that
apply to conventional vehicles. Covered fleets are defined as fleets of
10 or more vehicles that are centrally fueled or capable of being
centrally fueled. A CFFP meeting federal requirements would be a state-
enforced program which requires covered fleets to assure that an
annually increasing percentage of new vehicle purchases are certified
clean vehicles and that those vehicles operate on clean fuel. In New
Jersey, the program would apply in the State's portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area and in New
Jersey's portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton ozone
nonattainment area.
The federal CFFP is divided into two components. The first
component is a light duty (LD) CFFP which applies to covered fleets of
passenger cars and trucks of gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
6,000 pounds and less, and trucks between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds GVWR.
Covered fleets which fall under the LD CFFP are required to assure that
30 percent of new purchases are clean vehicles in the first year of the
program, 50 percent in the second year and 70 percent in the third and
subsequent years.
The second component is a heavy duty (HD) CFFP which applies to
covered fleets of trucks over 8,500 pounds GVWR and below 26,000
[[Page 61949]]
pounds GVWR. The HD CFFP requires that 50 percent of covered fleets'
new purchases be clean fueled vehicles in the first and subsequent
years.
Under the federal CFFP, the vehicle exhaust emission standards for
LD vehicles are equivalent to those established by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) as LD low emission vehicles (LEVs), for use in
the California LEV program (discussed in more detail in section II. of
this notice). In addition to LEVs, CARB certification exists for
transitional LEVs (TLEVs), ultra LEVs (ULEVs) and zero emission
vehicles (ZEVs). In addition, under the federal CFFP, clean vehicle
emission standards are defined for inherently low emitting vehicles
(ILEVs) and for medium and heavy duty vehicles (both of which are
covered within the HD CFFP weight category). For further information
regarding emission standards associated with all of the clean fuel
vehicles which are applicable under the LEV program and the federal
CFFP, the reader is referred to the CFFP final rule, published on March
1, 1993 at 58 FR 11888.
Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the Act allows states to ``opt out'' of the
CFFP by submitting for EPA approval a SIP revision consisting of a
program or programs that will result in at least equivalent long term
reductions in ozone-producing and toxic air emissions as achieved by
the CFFP. The Clean Air Act directs EPA to approve a substitute program
if it achieves long term reductions in emissions of ozone-producing and
toxic air pollutants equivalent to those that would have been achieved
by the CFFP or the portion of the CFFP for which the measure is to be
substituted.
New Jersey, in its 1992 SIP revision chose to preserve its right to
opt out of the CFFP but did not indicate a specific substitute measure
or measures which was to be used for that purpose. Prior to EPA action
on this commitment, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
ruled that EPA's conditional approval policy with respect to state
commitments was contrary to law. [NRDC v. EPA, 22 F.3d. 1125 (D.C. Cir.
1994)]. The court held that a bare commitment from a state was not
sufficient to warrant conditional approval from EPA under section
110(k)(4) of the Act. Therefore, following this decision, EPA could not
approve New Jersey's November 1992 commitment to opt out of the CFFP.
However, in fashioning a remedy for EPA's improper use of its
conditional approval authority, the NRDC Appellate court did not want
to penalize states for their reliance on EPA's actions.
EPA also does not believe that New Jersey should lose its opportunity
to opt out of the CFFP with a substitute program that meets the
requirements of section 182(c)(4)(B) because of EPA's inability to act
on New Jersey's commitment, especially since New Jersey has since
submitted such a substitute program for EPA approval.
Therefore, EPA is considering all relevant submissions made thus
far by the State that are intended to substitute for the CFFP.
The Region received from New Jersey a proposed SIP revision dated
May 15, 1994. The submittal, consisting of New Jersey's then proposed
LEV program, was intended to fulfill the State's CFFP obligations.
However, because the Clean Air Act requires SIP revisions to consist of
adopted measures, and because the opt out measure was only in the
proposal stage, EPA transmitted a finding of failure to submit the
required SIP revision in a letter to the State on October 3, 1994. New
Jersey then had 18 months from the date of the letter to submit the
required SIP before sanctions were to take effect.
On February 15, 1996, in order to cure the finding of failure to
submit, New Jersey submitted its New Jersey Clean Fleets (NJCF) program
as a substitute for the federal CFFP. As described earlier, the federal
CFFP is a state-enforced program which requires that operators of
covered vehicle fleets assure that a percentage of their new vehicle
purchases are certified clean vehicles and that those vehicles operate
on clean fuel. By contrast, the NJCF program is an essentially
voluntary mix of incentive-based programs which are intended to spur
public and private fleets within New Jersey to purchase clean,
alternatively fueled vehicles (AFVs) (discussed in more detail in
section III. C. of this notice).
On March 29, 1996, New Jersey supplemented the CFFP SIP revision
with a letter clarifying that the NJCF program substitution includes,
to the extent necessary to meet SIP obligations, New Jersey's LEV
program which had been adopted by that time. Because the emissions
reductions relied upon in the NJCF program will largely result from
voluntary measures, the State's LEV program essentially serves the role
of a ``backstop'' to the NJCF program. This means that in the event the
NJCF program fails to achieve the emissions reductions claimed by the
State, emission reductions achieved with the separate LEV program will
be used by the State to account for those reductions that would have
originally been realized through the federal CFFP. In that event EPA
would then recognize the State's LEV program as the effective opt out
measure.
Unlike the federal CFFP, the LEV program imposes requirements on
auto manufacturers and their yearly vehicle sales. New Jersey adopted a
LEV regulation states that New Jersey's primary intention is to
participate in the National LEV (NLEV) program (discussed in more
detail in the section II. C.4. of this notice). However, EPA cannot
require NLEV--it must be mutually agreed upon by the participating
states and the auto manufacturers--and if NLEV fails to become
effective (due to lack of such an agreement), New Jersey's regulation
states that it will operate a State LEV or ``California'' LEV program
(discussed in more detail in section II. of this notice), an option
afforded states in the Clean Air Act (see Clean Air Act section 177).
The NLEV and State LEV programs are similar in that where applicable,
auto manufacturers must meet an average vehicle emission standard,
based on the certified emission standards of all annual vehicle sales.
The annual average vehicle emission standard (referred to as the non-
methane organic gas (NMOG) average) increases in stringency on an
annual basis. Quantitatively, NLEV or State LEV, whichever is
ultimately implemented in New Jersey, will achieve long term vehicle
emission reductions which are far greater than what the federal CFFP
could have achieved.
Based on these provisions in the SIP revisions submitted by New
Jersey on February 15, 1996 and March 29, 1996, EPA sent a letter to
New Jersey on April 4, 1996 notifying the State that the finding of
failure to submit had been withdrawn. New Jersey amended its NJCF SIP
revision with a March 6, 1997 submittal, which included comments on the
proposed SIP revision received by the State, including those received
at a State-held public hearing on October 21, 1996.
The Clean Air Act requires states to observe certain procedural
requirements in developing implementation plan revisions for submission
to EPA. Sections 110(a)(2) and 172(c)(7) of the Act require states to
provide reasonable notice and public hearing before adoption by the
state and submission to EPA for approval. Section 110(1) of the Act
also requires states to provide reasonable notice and hold a public
hearing before adopting SIP revisions.
EPA must also determine whether a state's submittal is complete
before taking further action on the submittal. See section 110(k)(1).
EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set out in 40 CFR
Part 51, Appendix
[[Page 61950]]
V (1993). New Jersey's SIP revision which EPA is proposing to approve
in this notice meets all of the procedural requirements and
completeness criteria.
II. State Submittal
New Jersey submitted SIP revisions on February 15, 1996, March 29,
1996 and March 6, 1997 which substituted the State's NJCF program,
backstopped by New Jersey's adopted and enforceable LEV program, for
the federal CFFP. The adopted LEV regulation requires the
implementation of a program identical to the California LEV program or,
if certain triggering events occur, participation in the National LEV
program (discussed in more detail in section III. C.4. of this
section). The LEV program operated in California requires that each
model year of vehicles produced for sale, beginning with model year
1994, be certified to meet a specific NMOG standard when their total
emissions are averaged as a fleet. Manufacturers must ensure that each
model year of vehicles produced for sale, meet a yearly NMOG fleet
average. The California LEV fleet-average NMOG standard was 0.25 grams
per mile for model year 1994. The NMOG average becomes increasingly
more stringent annually, and for model year 2003 and later the standard
is 0.063 grams per mile.
New Jersey held a public hearing on October 21, 1996 to entertain
public comment on its federal CFFP substitute SIP revision; this
hearing included the State's proposal to opt out of the CFFP with its
NJCF program and LEV backstop as a substitute program.
III. Analysis of State Submission
A. Opt Out Criteria and Requirements
Section 182(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act, which allows states
required to implement a CFFP to opt out of the program by submitting a
SIP revision consisting of a substitute program, requires that the
substitute program result in long term emission reductions equal to or
greater than does the CFFP. Also, EPA can only approve such substitute
programs that consist exclusively of provisions other than those
required under the Clean Air Act for the area. New Jersey's backstopped
NJCF program satisfies both of these requirements.
B. Equivalency of Substitute
The Clean Air Act requires that any substitute for the federal CFFP
must provide equivalent long term emission reductions. In its SIP
revision, the State estimated the emission reductions which would be
attributable to operation of the federal CFFP in New Jersey. It is this
amount of long term reduction, discussed below, which the State's
substitute must achieve.
Light Duty Vehicle Analysis
New Jersey first analyzed the potential for emissions reductions to
result from long term compliance with the LD vehicle portion of the
federal CFFP in New Jersey. The LD vehicle purchase requirements of the
federal CFFP are intended to ensure a gradual turnover of conventional
LD fleet vehicles to clean LD vehicles in covered fleets. In the long
term, a substantial portion of LD vehicles in covered fleets, where the
program is operated, would meet the LEV (or cleaner) standard, where
otherwise they would not have met those more stringent standards (i.e.,
if the State was not also operating a LEV program as described above).
In its SIP revision however, New Jersey pointed out that the LD vehicle
portion of the federal CFFP, in the long term, would essentially
duplicate the Statewide, more comprehensive New Jersey LEV program
which has already been adopted [Adopted on November 22, 1995 at 27
N.J.R. 5016(a) (December 18, 1995), codified at N.J.A.C. 7:27-26].
In the SIP revision, New Jersey explained that its LEV program is
more comprehensive than the LD portion of the federal CFFP, because it
will require virtually all LD vehicles sold in New Jersey (including
fleet and non-fleet vehicles) to meet, by model year 2000, the LEV
standard when their total emissions are averaged. By contrast, the
federal LD CFFP will only require 70 percent of new vehicle purchases
in covered fleets to meet the LEV standard in the long term, a
requirement which would be met through the State's LEV requirements,
imposed on the vehicle manufacturers.
New Jersey also noted that its LEV program begins one year later
(model year 1999) than the federal CFFP (model year 1998). The State
offered the justification that in the long term however, the LEV
program requirements would make up for any shortfall in LD vehicle
emission reductions that might be caused by the difference in start
dates. However, subsequent to the date that New Jersey made its opt out
submission to EPA, EPA has determined that a one year delay of
implementation of the CFFP is necessary and appropriate. The delay is
needed due to a stated lack of availability of the requisite types and
numbers of clean fueled vehicles in the majority of the areas which are
required to implement and comply with the regulatory requirements of a
CFFP. This guidance and policy decision, which was based on input from
all of the program stakeholders, was transmitted in a May 22, 1997 memo
from EPA Office of Mobile Sources Director Margo Oge to EPA's Regional
Air Directors. EPA anticipates publishing a rulemaking in the Federal
Register shortly, finalizing the delay. The fact of the delay further
lends equivalency to the NJCF program as a CFFP opt out, since both
programs will now start at the same time.
With further examination of the relative effects of these programs,
New Jersey also noted that there will still exist certain aspects of
the federal LD CFFP that could result in greater emission reductions
than the NJCF program on an individual LD vehicle basis. As an example,
the State discussed the requirement that LEVs operate on the fuels for
which they were certified to operate on, and that the federal CFFP
requires that covered fleets must ensure that a certain percentage of
their new vehicle purchases (both light and heavy duty) are certified
to meet LEV (or cleaner) standards. By contrast, the NJCF program is
voluntary (with the exception of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct),
discussed in further detail in section C.). The State again justified
the equivalency claim of its opt out measure by explaining the reasons
why these differences are not significant discrepancies. With respect
to the loss of emission reduction benefits that would occur from
gasoline-powered LEVs operating on federal reformulated gasoline (RFG)
rather than the fuel that they were certified to operate on (e.g.,
California RFG), New Jersey explained that such a loss would be
relatively small in the long term. The State claims that this is true
because the reductions from the federal CFFP would occur only on a per
vehicle basis, and because of its anticipation that a substantial
number of LEVs will be operating on alternative fuels, in the later
years of the State LEV program, that are cleaner than California RFG.
EPA agrees with this line of reasoning, as well as with New Jersey's
assertion that the overall additional benefit of the federal CFFP's
fuel requirement for LEVs would be relatively small and insignificant
in the long term for those reasons.
EPA agrees with New Jersey that implementation of the federal LD
CFFP, in addition to either the NLEV or the State LEV program (the
State has made certain through its regulations that one or the other
will be implemented), for any small incremental benefits in light of
the additional administrative requirements of the federal CFFP, would
be burdensome and impractical. Lastly, EPA has determined, for the
reasons
[[Page 61951]]
stated above, that the State does not need to account explicitly for
the long term emission reductions which would have been associated with
a LD CFFP since those reductions are negated by operation of a LEV
program.
Heavy Duty Vehicle Analysis
The heavy duty vehicle portion of the federal CFFP requires that on
an annual basis, 50 percent of heavy duty fleet vehicles purchased each
year must meet clean fuel vehicle emission standards. Through
appropriate modeling, New Jersey has determined that the estimated
emission reduction benefit that would result from applying the federal
CFFP's heavy duty vehicle requirements in New Jersey would be
approximately 4.5 tons per day (tpd) of VOC and NOX combined
in 2010 (modeling techniques and assumptions used to arrive at this
figure are described below). New Jersey assumes in its SIP, and EPA
agrees with the assumption, that modeling emission reductions out to
the year 2010 is adequate for the purpose of determining the long term
reductions which could be expected of the heavy duty CFFP in New
Jersey. The NJCF program must achieve that amount of emission
reductions within the same time frame in order to be an acceptable
substitute for the federal CFFP. If it does not, as will be verified
through the program emission reduction tracking system that the State
committed to implement (described in more detail below), the State has
also committed to use emission reduction credit generated from either
the NLEV program or the State LEV program to make up any emission
reduction shortfall which may result.
Modeled Reductions from the CFFP
In order to determine the level of long term emissions reductions
which needs to be provided by its opt out measures, the State employed
the latest version of the mobile source emission model approved by EPA,
MOBILE5a. Emission factors generated by the MOBILE model were used in
conjunction with proscribed CFFP calculation guidelines in EPA's June
1994 CFFP Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). New Jersey determined
through this modeling that the long term reductions associated with the
federal CFFP would equal 4.5 tons per day of NOX and VOC
combined.
C. NJCF Program Details and Goals
NJDEP has estimated that, in order to meet the Clean Air Act
requirement of an approvable CFFP substitute, the NJCF program must
provide emission reductions equivalent to those from approximately
50,750 medium heavy duty certified clean fueled vehicles by 2010. NJDEP
estimates that about 176 of these vehicles will come from the Clean
Cities program, and the remainder from the efforts of the Incentive
Development Workgroup (both of which are described below).
NJDEP has determined that in order to contribute towards the
emission reductions needed for a substitute program, a medium or heavy
duty vehicle must be certified by CARB to meet LEV (or cleaner)
standards. For this reason New Jersey's SIP revision does not rely on
emission reductions from alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) conversions to
meet the target of 4.5 tons per day of NOX and VOC combined
by 2010. Furthermore, AFV conversions will comprise a relatively small
percentage of total clean AFVs in use in New Jersey in the long term.
EPA agrees with this conservative approach in today's proposed
approval.
The NJCF program consists of the following four components: (1)
Incentive Development program, (2) the Department of Energy's (DOE's)
EPAct fleet requirements, (3) DOE's Clean Cities program, and 4) the
Advanced Technology Vehicle (ATV) component of EPA's finalized NLEV
program.
1. Incentive Development Program
The incentive development program was developed by a public/private
workgroup which includes representatives of local and national fleet
operators, municipalities, alternative and clean fuel providers, and
government officials. The Workgroup's efforts are intended to spur use
of clean alternative fuel vehicles. Major areas of focus for the
Workgroup, as it implements its Action Plan, include development of a
New Jersey alternative fuel mechanic training program and promotion of
a State policy supporting the use of alternative fuels and AFVs.
2. EPAct Purchase Mandates
The second component of the NJCF program is the alternative fuel
vehicle purchase requirements under the federal EPAct, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 13201 et seq. Under EPAct, all state, federal, and fuel-provider
fleets must ensure that a percentage of their new LD vehicle purchases
operate on alternative fuels. In the long term, 75% of new state and
federal purchases and 90% of fuel-provider purchases must be AFVs. To
date, New Jersey reports that 61 State vehicles have been converted to
run on clean alternative fuels as a result of EPAct compliance, and
alternative fuel vehicles are available for purchase by public agencies
through the State purchase contract.
3. New Jersey Clean Cities Program
Clean Cities is a voluntary federal program designed to accelerate
and expand the use of clean AFVs and related refueling infrastructure
in communities throughout the country. In 1995 the State's Division of
Energy initiated Clean Cities programs in the metropolitan areas of
Elizabeth, Jersey City, Newark and Trenton; New Jersey plans to expand
these programs in other areas of the State as well. New Jersey expects
the program to have a significant long term emission reduction benefit.
4. Advanced Technology Vehicle Program
The fourth component of the NJCF program is the Advanced Technology
Vehicle (ATV) component of the NLEV program. NLEV is an alternative to
the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) LEV program, which the OTC
petitioned EPA to require. EPA had made a determination requiring LEV
to be adopted throughout the northeast ozone transport region (OTR);
however a Federal Circuit Court has since remanded that requirement.
Virginia v. EPA, No. 95-1163 (D.C. Cir. March 11, 1997). NLEV is a
voluntary program wherein auto manufacturers would manufacture low
emission vehicles nationwide instead of just for the OTR and
California.
EPA proposed the NLEV program in October 1995, and issued the final
NLEV rule in the June 6, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 31192). EPA also
issued an NLEV supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on
August 22, 1997. EPA intends to finalize the SNPRM by mid- to late-
autumn, 1997. Auto manufacturer and OTC state opt-ins shortly
thereafter will ensure program startup in time for model year 1999 LEVs
in the OTR.
In EPA's June 6, 1997 NLEV final rulemaking, an ATV was defined as
any vehicle certified by CARB or EPA that is either: (1) A dual-fuel,
flexible-fuel, or dedicated alternatively fueled vehicle certified as a
transitional low emission vehicle (TLEV), LEV, or ultra low emission
vehicle (ULEV) when operated on the alternative fuel; (2) certified as
a ULEV or Inherently Low Emission Vehicle (ILEV); or (3) a dedicated or
hybrid electric vehicle. As discussed in that rulemaking, EPA
acknowledges the suggestion that advancing motor vehicle pollution
control technology is an important benefit of NLEV. Furthermore, it has
been suggested by several parties, including New Jersey, that
establishment of an ATV component should be a criterion for
[[Page 61952]]
determining whether NLEV is an acceptable LEV-equivalent program.
Although EPA agrees that advancing technology is an important goal, and
EPA believes that the NLEV program could be a part of an agreement that
would provide important opportunities to promote ATVs, the regulatory
portion of the NLEV program does not address ATVs, EPA does not believe
that advancing technology is or should be a legally-required criterion
for approval of a LEV-equivalent program, and given the court decision
invalidating the OTC LEV SIP call, there is no longer any legal
requirement for NLEV to be a LEV-equivalent program. Nevertheless, EPA
recognizes that including some advanced technology component is
important and could provide additional environmental benefits beyond
emissions reduction equivalency. Furthermore, EPA agrees with New
Jersey's intention to use the ATV component as part of its substitute
(backstopped by the enforceable State LEV program) for the federal
CFFP. The ATV program involves a cooperative effort among the states in
the OTR, EPA, DOE, fuel providers, aftermarket converters, fleet
operators, and the full range of motor vehicle manufacturers to develop
ways to increase use of ATVs. The NJDEP expects to begin implementing
the ATV program, in cooperation with other states, the auto
manufacturers, and fuel providers, as soon as the NLEV program with an
ATV component becomes effective.
In order to facilitate implementation of the NJCF program, New
Jersey has stated in its latest SIP revision that it is relying on EPA
to support the ATV initiative by approving emission reduction SIP
credits, where appropriate, upon the introduction of ATVs into the
fleet. EPA is prepared to assist the State in this manner (i.e. by
allowing long term emission reductions generated by the ATV component
of NLEV to be used in part as a substitute SIP measure for the CFFP),
provided emissions reductions from the ATV provision, along with those
generated from the other NJCF program components, can be documented by
the State. It is for this purpose that New Jersey has incorporated a
planned system to track NJCF program emissions reductions. This system,
described below, will serve to identify the need, if any should exist
in the future, to utilize the credit from the State's adopted LEV
program (i.e., the backstop) should the planned reductions not occur as
intended with the voluntary NJCF program.
NJCF Program Backstop
New Jersey, in exercising its option under section 177 of the Clean
Air Act, has adopted a LEV program which affects all new LD vehicles
sold State-wide, specifically passenger cars and LD trucks under 6,000
lbs. gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) for vehicle model years 1999
and later. The LEV program sets forth five different sets of emission
standards, and vehicle manufacturers may market any combination of
vehicles provided that the annual average emissions of each
manufacturer's fleet complies with a fleet average limit that becomes
more stringent each year.
New Jersey's LEV program will assure reductions of ozone-forming
and air toxics emissions that are at least equivalent to those that
would be realized through the LD portion of a CFFP; in the event that
the NJCF failed to reduce long term emissions to the level which would
have been achieved by the CFFP, LEV could make up the resultant
shortfall.
Vehicle Tracking System
As part of its most recent NJCF SIP revision, New Jersey has
committed to implement an automated tracking system to track clean
fueled vehicle purchases and conversions associated with the NJCF
program (detailed above) throughout the State beginning in 1998. The
State will periodically track the variety of clean NJCF vehicles
purchased in New Jersey, but most notably CARB certified LEVs (and
vehicles certified to more stringent standards, such as ULEVs). The
information gathered from the automated tracking system would provide
an accurate indication of the number of vehicles purchased in New
Jersey that are certified to meet the applicable LEV, etc. standards.
In this manner the State can accumulate a database with which it can
calculate emission reduction benefits associated with certified clean
vehicle purchases resulting from the NJCF program, and determine if
necessary the need to employ the LEV backstop discussed above.
IV. Summary of Action
In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's SIP
revision submitted to fulfill the Clean Fuel Fleet requirements of the
Clean Air Act. EPA believes New Jersey's Clean Fleet program,
backstopped by the adopted New Jersey LEV program implementing the low
emission vehicle program are an adequate substitute for the federal
Clean Fuel Fleet program under section 182(c)(4).
Nothing in this rule should be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be considered
separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental
factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements.
Administrative Requirements
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
review under Executive Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but
[[Page 61953]]
simply approve 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 Clean Air Act, preparation of a
regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute federal inquiry into
the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids
EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric
Co. v US EPA, 427 US 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: November 6, 1997.
William J. Muszynski,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-30521 Filed 11-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P