61948 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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-forprofit enterprises, and small

governmental jurisdictions. This

proposed rule would not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because this

federal action authorizes and approves

requirements previously adopted by the

State, and imposes no new

requirements. Therefore, because this

proposed action does not impose any

new requirements, the Administrator

certifies 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

CAA, preparation of a 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. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. 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 expenditures to State,

local, and tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

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 this

proposed approval action does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in expenditures of $100 million or

more to either State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector in any one year. This

proposed Federal action authorizes and

approves requirements previously

adopted by the State, and imposes no

new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

will result from this proposed action.

Dated: November 14, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–30517 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 ozoneproducing 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
61950 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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. § 13201 et seq. Under

EPAct, all state, federal, and fuelprovider 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 fuelprovider 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
61952 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 LEVequivalent 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 Statewide, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[FRL–5923–6]

Notice of Public Meeting on the

Ground Water Disinfection Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of

meeting.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby give that the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is holding a public meeting concerning

the Ground Water Disinfection Rule

(GWDR). The objective of this meeting

is to provide the public with data

summaries to support the GWDR

development; ask for comments on the

data; solicit further data if available;

discuss the EPA’s next steps for the rule

development and data analysis; as well

as to identify parties who may be

interested in further meetings.

DATES: The meetings will be held on

December 18 and 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at

the Ana Hotel at 2401 M street, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20037. The hotel’s

phone number is (202) 429–2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA

will provide a copy of the data

summaries a few weeks prior to the

meeting to anyone who requests it. To

register for the meeting and for the data

summaries please contact the Safe

Drinking Water Hotline (800) 426-4791

or Marty Kucera at US EPA (202) 260–

7773, kucera.martha@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Safe

Drinking Water Act as amended in 1996

directs EPA to promulgate regulations

requiring disinfection ‘‘as necessary’’ for

ground water systems. The intention of

the GWDR is to reduce microbial

contamination risk from public water

sources relying on ground water. To

determine if treatment is necessary, the

rule will establish a framework to

identify public water supplies

vulnerable to microbial contamination

and to develop and implement risk

control strategies including but not

limited to disinfection. This rulemaking

will apply to all public water systems

that use ground water, which includes

noncommunity systems.

Dated: November 17, 1997.

William R. Diamond,

Acting Director for Office of Ground Water

and Drinking Water.

[FR Doc. 97–30556 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–232, RM–9191]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Eureka,

MT

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition filed by William

G. Brady d/b/a KHJ Radio proposing the

allotment of Channel 228C3 at Eureka,

Montana, as that community’s first local

FM broadcast service. The channel can

be allotted to Eureka without a site

restriction at coordinates 48–52–54 and

115–02–54. Although it is not necessary

to site restrict the allotment, we will

request concurrence from the Canadian

Government for Channel 228C3 as a

specially negotiated short-spaced

allotment. Channel 228C3 at Eureka is

short spaced to vacant Channel 226C,

Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before January 5, 1998, and reply

comments on or before January 20,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, as follows: William G. Brady

d/b/a KHJ Radio, 746 Shadow Lane,

Kalispell, MT 59901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–232, adopted November 5, 1997, and

released November 14, 1997. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

Commission’s Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC. The complete text of this decision

may also be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractors,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800,

facsimile (202) 857–3805.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contact.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–30414 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE44

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Endangered

Status for the Plant Plagiobothrys

Hirtus (Rough Popcornflower)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) proposes endangered