[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 146 (Friday, July 28, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46383-46388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19122]



[[Page 46383]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-6841-6]


Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Attainment Demonstrations for 
the One-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 16, 1999, we (EPA) proposed to approve or 
conditionally approve and disapprove in the alternative attainment 
demonstration State implementation plans (SIPs) for ten areas in the 
eastern United States (64 FR 70317). In today's supplemental notice, we 
are clarifying and expanding on two issues relating to the motor 
vehicle emissions budgets in these SIPs. In addition, we are reopening 
the comment period to take comment on these two issues and to allow 
comment on any additional materials that were placed in the dockets for 
the proposed actions close to or after the initial comment period 
closed on February 14, 2000.
    First, we are proposing to clarify what occurs if we finalize 
conditional or full approval of any of these SIPs based on a State 
commitment to revise the SIP's motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 
future. If this occurs, the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 
approved SIP will apply for transportation conformity purposes only 
until the budgets are revised consistent with the commitment and we 
have found the new budgets adequate. Once we have found the newly 
revised budgets adequate, then they would apply instead of the previous 
conditionally or fully approved budgets.
    Second, we are proposing that States may opt to commit to revise 
their emissions budgets 1 year after the release of MOBILE6, as 
originally proposed on December 16, 1999. Or, States may commit to a 
new option, i.e., to revise their budgets 2 years following the release 
of MOBILE6, provided that conformity is not determined without adequate 
MOBILE6 SIP budgets during the second year.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to the 
EPA regional offices responsible for the areas addressed by the SIPs we 
are reopening. Contact names and addresses for these regional offices 
are included below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General questions concerning sections 
of this document that relate to motor vehicles emissions budgets should 
be directed to Kathryn Sargeant, Transportation and Regional Programs 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Road, 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, sargeant.kathryn@epa.gov. (734) 214-4441.
    Comments or questions on our proposed changes to the applicability 
of budgets in specific areas or on the new information received on 
area-specific SIPs should be addressed to the appropriate EPA Regional 
Office representative listed below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public dockets for the ten areas addressed 
by today's action have been established in EPA's Regional Offices. 
Addresses for these dockets and additional contact information are 
listed below:

Region I--(1) Greater Connecticut Ozone Nonattainment Area; and (2) 
The Connecticut Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 
Island Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) on either the Greater 
CT or the CT portion of the NY-northern NJ ozone nonattainment areas 
should be sent to: David B. Conroy, EPA Region 1 (New England) Office, 
One Congress Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023.
    Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document 
are available for public inspection during normal business hours (9:00 
A.M. to 4:00 P.M.) at the following addresses: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 1 (New England), One Congress St., 11th 
Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023, telephone (617) 918-1664, and 
at the Bureau of Air Management, Connecticut Department of 
Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, 
Hartford, CT 06106-5127. Please telephone in advance before visiting.
    For general information contact: Jeff Butensky, (617) 918-1665.

Region I--Western Massachusetts--The Springfield (Western 
Massachusetts) Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be sent to: 
David B. Conroy at the EPA Region I (New England) Office, One Congress 
Street, Suite 1100-CAQ, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023.
    Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document 
are available for public inspection during normal business hours (9:00 
A.M. to 4:00 P.M.) at the following addresses: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 1 (New England), One Congress St., 11th 
Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023, telephone (617) 918-1664, and 
at the Division of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental 
Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02108. 
Please telephone in advance before visiting.
    For general information contact: Jeff Butensky (617) 918-1665.

Region II--New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT); The 
New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be sent to: 
Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 
10007-1866.
    Copies of the New Jersey submittals and EPA's technical support 
document are available at the following addresses for inspection during 
normal business hours: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 
Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 
York 10007-1866 and at the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection, Office of Air Quality Management, Bureau of Air Quality 
Planning, 401 East State Street, CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
    For general information contact: Paul Truchan (212) 637-4249 or 
Kirk Wieber (212) 637-3381.

Region III--Baltimore (MD) Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be sent to David 
L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Maryland Department 
of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland 21224.
    For general information contact: Cristina Fernandez, (215) 814-
2178. Or by e-mail at fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.

[[Page 46384]]

Region III--Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD); The 
Delaware portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be mailed to 
David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Delaware Department 
of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, Dover, 
Delaware 19901.
    For general information contact: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by 
e-mail at quinto.rose@epa.gov.

Region III--Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD); The 
Maryland Portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) may be mailed to David 
L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to 
this action are available for public inspection during normal business 
hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; 
and the Maryland Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, 
Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.
    For general information contact: Cristina Fernandez, (215) 814--
2178. Or by e-mail at fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.

Region III--Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD); The 
Pennsylvania Portion of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) may be mailed to: David 
L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. Box 
8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
    For general information contact: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-
2179. Or by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.

Region III--Metropolitan Washington (DC-MD-VA) Ozone Nonattainment 
Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) may be mailed to David 
L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone & Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the District of Columbia 
Department of Public Health, Air Quality Division, 51 N Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20002; and the Maryland Department of the Environment, 
2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland, 21224; and the Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, 
Virginia, 23219.
    For general information contact: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-
2179, at the EPA Region III address above, or by e-mail at 
cripps.christopher@epa.gov.

Region IV--Atlanta (GA) Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be mailed to: 
Scott M. Martin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air 
Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
    Copies of the State submittal are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, 
SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; and the Air Protection Branch, Georgia 
Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Department of Natural 
Resources, 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 
30354. Telephone (404) 363-7000.
    For general information contact: Scott Martin at (404) 562-9036.

Region V--Chicago-Gary-Lake County (IL; IN); Illinois and Indiana 
Portions of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) on either the Illinois 
or Indiana portions should be mailed to: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document 
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone Mark Palermo at (312) 886-
6082 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    For general information contact: Edward Doty, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312) 886-6057, e-mail address 
doty.edward@epamail.epa.gov.

Region V--Milwaukee-Racine (WI) Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be mailed to: 
Carlton Nash, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document 
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following address: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (Please telephone Michael G. Leslie at (312) 
353-6680 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    For general information contact: Michael G. Leslie, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, Telephone Number (312) 353-6680.

Region VI--Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (TX) Ozone Nonattainment Area

    Written comments (in duplicate if possible) should be mailed to Mr. 
Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental

[[Page 46385]]

Protection Agency, telephone: (214) 665-7214.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action, including the 
technical support document, are available for public inspection during 
normal business hours at the following addresses: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Multimedia 
Planning and Permitting Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 
75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-7214; and the Texas Natural Resource 
Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, 
Austin, Texas 78753. Interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
least 2 working days in advance.
    For general information contact: Mr. Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-7242.
    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

I. Background Information
    A. What Did We Propose On December 16, 1999?
    B. What Is Transportation Conformity?
    C. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?
    D. Which Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Usually Apply?
II. What Is EPA Proposing Today?
    A. Clarification of the Applicability of Revised Budgets
    B. Additional Option for Timing of Budget
    Revision Following MOBILE6
    C. Reopening of the Comment Period
III. Administrative Requirements

I. Background Information

A. What Did We Propose on December 16, 1999?

    We proposed to conditionally or fully approve, and in the 
alternative to disapprove, ozone attainment demonstration (SIPs) for 
ten areas. The ten areas are described below. Our proposals, all of 
which were published on December 16, 1999, contain a full explanation 
of the background and proposed actions for the following areas: 
Atlanta, 64 FR 70478; Houston-Galveston, 64 FR 70548; Metropolitan 
Washington, DC, 64 FR 70460; Milwaukee-Racine, 64 FR 70531; 
Springfield, 64 FR 70319; Greater Connecticut, 64 FR 70332; Baltimore, 
64 FR 70397; Chicago-Gary-Lake County, 64 FR 70514 and 64 FR 70496; 
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, 64 FR 70412, 64 FR 70428, 64 FR 70444 
and 64 FR 70380; and New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, 64 FR 
70380, 64 FR 70348, 64 FR 70364. For more detail, see the December 
proposals as cited above.
    In order to conditionally or fully approve the attainment 
demonstration SIPs, we proposed that several areas needed to commit to 
adopt additional control measures to achieve the level of emissions 
reductions that we identified as necessary to attain the 1-hour ozone 
standard. We also proposed that these areas must commit to recalculate 
and submit revised motor vehicle emissions budgets that include the 
effects of the measures that are ultimately adopted, if those measures 
pertain to motor vehicles. We explain the term ``motor vehicle 
emissions budget'' in item C below.
    In addition, we proposed that where a SIP includes the benefits of 
EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, the State must commit to revise the SIP's 
motor vehicle emissions budgets within 1 year after we release the 
MOBILE6 model. This commitment would be necessary in order for us to 
approve the SIP.
    Our December 16, 1999 proposals also addressed many other issues 
that are not directly relevant to today's supplemental proposal. We 
direct the reader to the December proposals for more details.

B. What Is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation conformity is a Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement for 
metropolitan planning organizations 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.

C. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets?

    As described in CAA section 176(c)(2)(A), attainment demonstrations 
necessarily include estimates of motor vehicle emissions to help areas 
reach attainment. These estimates act as a budget or ceiling for 
emissions from motor vehicles, and are used in conformity to determine 
whether transportation plans and projects conform to the attainment 
SIP. In order for transportation plans and projects to conform, 
estimated emissions from transportation plans and projects must not 
exceed the emission budgets contained in the attainment demonstration.

D. Which Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Usually Apply?

    According to the transportation conformity rule, motor vehicle 
emissions budgets (``budgets'') in a submitted SIP 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 timeframe and with respect to 
the same CAA requirements. For example, if there is already an approved 
attainment demonstration SIP that establishes budgets for the 
attainment date, and the State submits a revision to those budgets, the 
newly submitted budgets do not apply for conformity purposes until we 
have approved them into the SIP.
    Second, submitted SIP budgets cannot be used before we have 
approved the SIP unless we have found that the submitted SIP budgets 
are adequate for conformity purposes. Our process for determining 
adequacy is explained at 40 CFR 93.118(e) and EPA's May 14, 1999 memo 
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).

II. What Is EPA Proposing Today?

    Today, we are proposing to supplement and clarify our December 16, 
1999 proposals to conditionally or fully approve (and disapprove in the 
alternative) the attainment demonstration SIPs for ten areas. As 
discussed below, our supplemental notice addresses two issues 
specifically pertaining to the motor vehicle emissions budgets in these 
SIPs.
    In addition, we are reopening the comment period so the public may 
comment on these two issues and may consider and comment on any 
additional materials that have been placed in the docket for each of 
these proposed rules close to or after the February 14, 2000 date of 
the initial comment period. We are also reopening the comment period 
for all issues with respect to the Pennsylvania portion of the 
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton nonattainment area based on requests 
received from the State of Pennsylvania and other interested parties 
during the initial comment period.

[[Page 46386]]

A. Clarification of the Applicability of Revised Budgets

1. How Are We Proposing to Clarify the Applicability of Revised 
Budgets?
    In today's notice, we are proposing to clarify what occurs if we 
finalize approval or conditional approval of any of the December 16, 
1999 SIPs based on a State commitment to revise the budgets in the 
future. If this occurs, the approved SIP budgets will apply for 
conformity purposes only until the revised budgets have been submitted 
and we have found the submitted budgets to be adequate for conformity 
purposes.
    In other words, when the State submits revised budgets as they have 
committed, those revised budgets will apply for conformity purposes as 
soon as we have found those budgets to be adequate for conformity 
purposes and our adequacy finding is effective. The revised budgets 
would then replace the budgets in the approved (or conditionally 
approved) attainment demonstration SIP, provided that (as we expect) 
the revised budgets are submitted as a revision to part of the 
attainment demonstration SIP and are established for the same year as 
those in the approved SIP.
2. Why Are We Proposing to Clarify the Applicability of Revised 
Budgets?
    In December 1999, we proposed that we would not approve the 
attainment demonstration SIPs from certain areas unless the States 
commit to revise the SIPs' budgets in the future. As described in 
section I.A. of this preamble, emissions budgets must be revised to 
reflect the effects of additional control measures that a State has 
committed to adopt. The budgets must also be revised within 1 year 
after we release MOBILE6, if the budget that is approved reflects the 
benefits of our Tier 2/Sulfur regulation.
    Since we are proposing to approve budgets only because the States 
have committed to revise them, we want our approval of the budgets to 
last only until adequate revised budgets are submitted pursuant to the 
commitments. We believe the revised budgets should apply as soon as we 
find them adequate; we do not believe it is appropriate to wait until 
we have approved the revised attainment demonstration SIP. This is 
because we know now that once we have confirmed that the revised 
budgets are adequate, they will be more appropriate than the originally 
approved budgets for conformity purposes.
    Specifically, once an area has adopted additional measures that 
affect motor vehicle emissions, an appropriate motor vehicle emissions 
budget must reflect those measures. Otherwise, the budget would not be 
the level of motor vehicle emissions that is consistent with the 
attainment demonstration; it would be inappropriately large.
    In addition, we know now that we cannot accurately estimate the 
benefits of the Tier 2 program until we release the MOBILE6 model. We 
are proposing to approve budgets based on interim approximations of 
Tier 2 benefits only because the States are committing to recalculate 
the budgets using MOBILE6 in a timely fashion.
    If we do not clarify our proposed approval of the budgets, States 
will revise their budgets as they have committed, but they will not be 
able to start using them quickly for conformity purposes. This would 
defeat the purpose of our original requirement for the budgets to be 
revised quickly. 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.
    This supplemental notice does not propose any change to the 
existing transportation conformity rule or to the way it is normally 
implemented with respect to other submitted and approved SIPs, which do 
not contain commitments to revise the budgets.
3. How Does the 18-Month Clock Apply With Respect to These Budget 
Revisions?
    Section 93.104(e)(2) of the conformity rule requires conformity of 
the transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP) to 
be redetermined within 18 months following the date of a State's 
initial submission of each SIP establishing a budget.
    As described at 60 FR 44792 (August 29, 1995), the first submission 
of a given type of SIP that establishes a budget (e.g., an ozone 
attainment demonstration) starts the 18-month clock for redetermining 
conformity. However, the 18-month clock is unaffected by subsequent 
changes to that submitted SIP.
    Therefore, the revisions to the attainment demonstration SIPs to 
reflect additional measures or MOBILE6 will not start a new 18-month 
clock. Of course, whenever conformity is eventually determined in 
accordance with the 18-month clock, the demonstration must use whatever 
budgets are applicable at that time. If an initial submission starts 
the 18-month clock but then is changed and the revised budgets are 
found adequate, any subsequent conformity determination must use the 
new, adequate budgets.
    Section 93.104(e)(3) also requires conformity of the transportation 
plan and TIP to be redetermined 18 months following our approval of a 
SIP that establishes or revises a budget. If we conditionally approve 
an ozone attainment demonstration, an 18-month clock will be started on 
the effective date of our conditional approval. A subsequent conversion 
of the conditional approval to full approval will not start another 18-
month clock, unless the budgets we are approving have changed since the 
conditional approval.

B. Additional Option for Timing of Budget Revision Following MOBILE6

1. What Is the Additional Option?
    In our December 16, 1999 proposal to approve and/or disapprove SIPs 
for ten urban areas, we stated that if a SIP relied on Tier 2 benefits 
to demonstrate attainment, States would need to commit to revise their 
motor vehicle emissions budgets within 1 year after we release MOBILE6, 
in order for us to approve the SIP.
    We proposed that States recalculate their budgets using MOBILE6 
because the emission reduction benefits of Tier 2 cannot be properly 
estimated until MOBILE6 is released. The estimates of Tier 2 benefits 
that are currently in submitted SIPs are interim approximations.
    In this supplemental notice we are proposing that the affected 
States may have a 1-year extension of time to revise their emissions 
budgets, under certain circumstances. Specifically, a State may commit 
to revise its SIP's budgets within 2 years after MOBILE6 is released, 
if the State also commits that conformity will not be determined during 
the additional year unless there are adequate SIP budgets in place that 
were developed using MOBILE6 \1\. As part of this commitment, we also 
are proposing that States inform affected metropolitan planning 
organizations and their State transportation departments of this 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This concept was discussed in a letter dated March 6, 2000 
from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards to Ralph Marquez, Commissioner, Texas Natural Resources 
Conservation Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States may opt to commit to revise their emissions budgets 1 year 
after the release of MOBILE6, as originally proposed on December 16, 
1999. Or, States may commit to the new option, i.e., to revise their 
budgets 2 years

[[Page 46387]]

following the release of MOBILE6, provided that conformity is not 
determined without adequate MOBILE6 SIP budgets during the second year. 
Any SIPs that rely on Tier 2 benefits must be accompanied by one of 
these two types of commitments in order for us to find the budgets 
adequate for conformity purposes, and in order for us to finalize 
approval of the SIP. The commitment must be subject to a public hearing 
and fully enforceable as part of the SIP before we can finalize 
approval of the SIP.
2. How Is ``Release of MOBILE6'' Defined?
    We will publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register 
that announces the formal release of MOBILE6. The date of publication 
of that Federal Register notice will constitute ``release of MOBILE6'' 
for the purposes of the commitments discussed in this supplemental 
proposal.
3. Why Are We Proposing This Additional Option?
    We are proposing to provide States with this additional option in 
response to a comment on the December 16, 1999 proposal. That comment 
indicated that in some areas, allowing more than 1 year to revise and 
adopt a new motor vehicle emissions budget based on the MOBILE6 model 
would better suit an area's schedule for SIP revisions and updates.
    We believe that allowing areas an additional year to revise their 
budgets using MOBILE6 will not cause any environmental harm as long as 
during that time there are no new conformity determinations that rely 
on the older MOBILE5 budgets.

C. Reopening of the Public Comment Period

    The EPA is reopening the comment period for 30 days to take comment 
on the proposed approach, discussed above. In addition, we are 
reopening the comment period for all ten areas to address additional 
information that has been placed in the docket close to or since the 
initial comment period concluded on February 14, 2000. In general, 
these materials consist of motor vehicle emissions budgets, and revised 
or additional commitments or reaffirmations submitted by the States. 
Interested persons should contact the appropriate regional contact 
listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section with any questions 
regarding whether new information has been placed in the docket for a 
specific proposed action.
    In addition, based on requests received during the initial comment 
period, EPA is reopening the comment period for 30 days with respect to 
all issues concerning the Pennsylvania portion of the Philadelphia-
Wilmington-Trenton area.
    We are not, however, reopening the separate comment period on the 
adequacy of motor vehicle emissions budgets, which was started by 
notification on our adequacy website. Notably, comments on the adequacy 
of motor vehicle emissions budgets are accepted through a distinct, 
administrative process established by our conformity regulations, known 
as adequacy review. That process was not started for any area covered 
by today's notice until all materials relevant to the budgets had been 
submitted.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the 
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified 
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of 
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal 
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive 
Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting 
elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies 
that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order 
to include regulations that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may 
not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by 
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to 
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local 
governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not 
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts 
State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials 
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the

[[Page 46388]]

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 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 CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal/State relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on a State's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect 
State-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does 
not impose any new requirements. Therefore, I certify that such a 
proposed disapproval action will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities because it would not remove 
existing requirements nor would it substitute a new Federal 
requirement.
    The EPA's alternative proposed disapproval of the State request 
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA would not affect 
any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-
existing Federal requirements would remain in place after this 
disapproval. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect 
State-enforceability. Moreover EPA's disapproval of the submittal would 
not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that the 
proposed disapproval would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the 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.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to 
approve 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 
proposed action.
    Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to the proposed disapproval 
because the proposed disapproval of the SIP submittal would not, in and 
of itself, constitute a Federal mandate because it would not impose an 
enforceable duty on any entity. In addition, the CAA does not permit 
EPA to consider the types of analyses described in section 202 in 
determining whether a SIP submittal meets the CAA. Finally, section 203 
does not apply to the proposed disapproval because it would affect only 
the State governments, which are not small governments.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical 
standards when developing new regulations. To comply with NTTAA, EPA 
must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' (VCS) if 
available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless 
doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to the regulatory 
actions in this supplemental notice. Today's actions do not require the 
public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This supplemental notice of proposed rule does not impose any new 
information collection requirements from EPA which require approval by 
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 20, 2000.
Robert D. Brenner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 00-19122 Filed 7-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U