Jump to main content.

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Zero Emission Vehicle Component of the Low Emission Vehicle Program 


[Federal Register: September 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 170)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50650-50652]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04se07-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0920, FRL-8462-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Zero Emission Vehicle Component of the Low Emission Vehicle Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to approve,
through model year 2011, New Jersey's low emission vehicle program
related to the manufacture and sale of zero-emission vehicles,
consistent with California's current low emission vehicle regulations.
EPA previously approved New Jersey's low emission vehicle program, but
did not take action on the zero-emission vehicle provisions. The
intended effect of this action is to approve, as consistent with
section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, a control strategy that will
help New Jersey achieve attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for ozone.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 4, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2006-0920, by one of the following methods: http://www.regulations.gov:
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
    Fax: 212-637-3901.
    Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866.
    Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2006-0920. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at 
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Laurita, 
laurita.matthew@epa.gov at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region
2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY
10007-1866, telephone number (212) 637-3895, fax number (212) 637-3901.
    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, Public Access
Center, 401 East State Street 1st Floor, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. History of New Jersey's Low Emission Vehicle Program
II. California's Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations
III. Status of New Jersey's Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations
IV. Proposed EPA Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 50651]]

I. History of New Jersey's Low Emission Vehicle Program

    In January 2004, the New Jersey Legislature passed legislation
requiring the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
to adopt the California Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program, known as
the LEV II program. Pursuant to this legislation, New Jersey
promulgated regulations to adopt a LEV program identical to
California's LEV II program. New Jersey's regulations were adopted on
November 28, 2005 and published in the New Jersey Register on January
17, 2006. On June 2, 2006, New Jersey submitted a state implementation
plan (SIP) revision to EPA, seeking federal approval of the regulations.
    On August 27, 2007, EPA approved New Jersey's LEV program into the
New Jersey SIP, with the exception of two provisions (72 FR 48936). EPA
took no action on the portions of New Jersey's LEV program related to
the manufacture and sale of Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEV), commonly
referred to as the ``ZEV mandate,'' and portions of the rule related to
emission standards for greenhouse gases. Today EPA is proposing to
approve the ZEV portion of New Jersey's LEV program into the SIP,
through model year 2011.
    Section 209(a) of the CAA prohibits states from adopting or
enforcing standards relating to the control of emissions from new motor
vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. However, under section 209(b) of
the CAA, EPA may grant a waiver of the section 209(a) prohibition to
the State of California, thereby allowing California to adopt its own
motor vehicle emissions standards. Before EPA may grant such a waiver,
section 209(b) requires California to show that its standards will be
``* * * in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and
welfare as applicable Federal standards* * * .'' Section 209(b) further
provides that EPA will grant a waiver unless it finds that: (1) The
State's determination is ``arbitrary and capricious,'' (2) the State
``does not need such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions,'' or (3) the State's standards and accompanying enforcement
procedures are ``not consistent'' with CAA section 202(a).
    Section 177 of the CAA allows other states to adopt and enforce
California's standards relating to the control of emissions from new
motor vehicles, provided that, among other things, such state standards
are identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been
granted under CAA section 209(b). In addition to the identicality
requirement, the state must adopt such standards at least two years
prior to the commencement of the model year to which the standards will
apply. All SIP revisions submitted to EPA for approval must also meet
the requirements of CAA section 110. In our August 27, 2007, Final Rule
(72 FR 48936), we found that New Jersey had met the requirements of CAA
sections 177 and 110.

II. California's Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the first
generation LEV regulations in 1990, which were effective through the
2003 model year. CARB adopted California's second generation LEV
regulations (LEV II) following a November 1998 hearing. Subsequent to
the adoption of the LEV II program in February 2000, the U.S. EPA
adopted separate Federal standards known as the Tier 2 regulations (65
FR 6698). In December 2000, CARB modified the LEV II program to take
advantage of some elements of the Federal Tier 2 regulations to ensure
that only the cleanest vehicle models would continue to be sold in
California.
    In addition to LEV II emission requirements, minimum percentages of
passenger cars and the lightest light-duty trucks, marketed in
California by large or intermediate volume manufacturers, must be ZEVs.
This is referred to as the ZEV mandate. California has modified the ZEV
mandate several times since it took effect. In a December 19, 2003
revision to the ZEV regulation, CARB put in place an alternative
compliance program (ACP) to provide auto manufacturers with several
options to meet the ZEV mandate. The ACP established ZEV credit
multipliers to allow auto manufacturers to take credit for meeting the
ZEV mandate by selling more Partial Zero-Emission Vehicles (PZEVs) and
Advanced-Technology Partial Zero-Emission Vehicles (ATPZEVs) than they
are otherwise required to sell.
    EPA granted California a section 209(b) waiver for its LEV II
program on April 22, 2003 (68 FR 19811), but did not consider the ZEV
regulations in its decision. In a September 23, 2004 letter to EPA,
CARB requested that EPA find the 1999, 2001, and 2003 amendments to the
ZEV regulations within the scope of previous waivers issued to
California for model year 2003 through 2006 vehicles. In addition, CARB
requested that EPA grant a section 209(b) waiver to enforce the ZEV
regulations for 2007 and subsequent model year vehicles. In a December
28, 2006, notice (71 FR 78190), EPA found the 1999 through 2003 ZEV
amendments to be within the scope of previous waivers as they pertain
to 2003 through 2006 model year vehicles. In addition, EPA granted
California's request for a section 209(b) waiver to enforce provisions
of the ZEV regulations for model years 2007 through 2011. This waiver
allows for other states to adopt and enforce ZEV regulations that are
identical to California's, effective through model year 2011.

III. Status of New Jersey's Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations

    In New Jersey's November 28, 2005 adoption of the California LEV II
program, the State adopted the entirety of California's regulations by
reference, including the ZEV regulations. At that time, EPA had not
issued a section 209(b) waiver of Federal pre-emption that would allow
California to enforce the provisions of its ZEV regulations. Therefore,
at that time New Jersey was also unable to enforce those provisions.
When EPA issued its December 28, 2006 waiver to California, New Jersey
became eligible to enforce its identical ZEV regulations for model
years 2009 through 2011.
    New Jersey requested that EPA approve the ZEV regulations into the
SIP in a comment on EPA's March 21, 2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(72 FR 13227), where EPA proposed approval of New Jersey's LEV program
without the ZEV and greenhouse gas provisions. EPA has found that New
Jersey's ZEV regulations meet the requirements of CAA Section 177 for
model years 2009 through 2011, and is therefore proposing to approve
the ZEV regulations into the New Jersey SIP for only those model years.

IV. Proposed EPA Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the ZEV portion of New Jersey's low
emission vehicle program that is identical to the California standards
for which a waiver has been granted. Because the waiver granted for the
ZEV portion of the program is limited to model year 2011 and earlier
vehicles, EPA is only proposing approval of the ZEV provisions of New
Jersey's LEV program for model years 2009 through 2011.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations

[[Page 50652]]

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use''
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to
approve State law as meeting Federal requirements 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 approve pre-existing requirements under State law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This proposed 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 approve a State rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. 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.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 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.

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

    Dated: August 17, 2007.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E7-17411 Filed 8-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.