|
|---|
|
Air Plan Approval; California; Innovative Clean Transit Regulation Publication: Federal Register Agency: Environmental Protection Agency Byline: Martha Guzman Aceves Date: 16 February 2023 Subjects: American Government  , Buses, The Environment
|
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10049-10058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03275]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0503; FRL-9936-02-R9]
Air Plan Approval; California; Innovative Clean Transit
Regulation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve a revision to the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP) consisting of State rules intended to reduce particulate
matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from
public transit buses. The EPA is approving the SIP revision because the
regulations meet the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Approval of the regulations as part of the California SIP makes them
federally enforceable.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 20, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0503. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Buss, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 947-4152 or by
email at buss.jeffrey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On October 14, 2022 (87 FR 62337) (herein referred to as the
proposed rule), the EPA proposed to approve a SIP revision submitted by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on February
[[Page 10050]]
13, 2020 consisting of certain state regulations (known as the
Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) regulation) adopted to transition
California public transit bus fleets to zero-emission technologies by
2040 and thereby to provide reductions in NOX and PM
emissions to support regional air quality plans and improve air quality
along public transit routes. Table 1 lists the specific sections of
Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.3 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) that comprise the ICT regulation.
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section No. 13 State Submission
Agency CCR Rule title effective date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB............................. 2023 Innovative Clean Transit 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
Regulations Applicability
and Scope.
CARB............................. 2023.1 Zero-Emission Bus 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
Requirements.
CARB............................. 2023.2 Compliance Option for Joint 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
Zero-Emission Bus Groups.
CARB............................. 2023.3 Zero-Emission Bus Bonus 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
Credits.
CARB............................. 2023.4 Provisions for Exemption of a 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
Zero-Emission Bus Purchase.
CARB............................. 2023.5 Zero-Emission Mobility Option 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
CARB............................. 2023.6 Low-NOX Engine Purchase 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
Requirements.
CARB............................. 2023.7 Requirements to Use Renewable 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
Fuels.
CARB............................. 2023.8 Reporting Requirements for 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
Transit Agencies.
CARB............................. 2023.9 Record Keeping Requirements.. 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
CARB............................. 2023.10 Authority to Suspend, Revoke 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
or Modify.
CARB............................. 2023.11 Severability................. 10/01/2019 02/13/2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 11, 2022, CARB supplemented the February 13, 2020, SIP
submission by submitting certain additional definitions codified in the
CCR or California Health & Safety Code (CH&SC) that are relied upon in
the ICT regulation. The specific definitions submitted on August 11,
2022, are listed in table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Erroneously listed in the proposed rule as 17 CCR
95481(a)(30) with a state effective date of 7/1/2020.
\2\ Erroneously listed in the proposed rule as 17 CCR 60013.
\3\ Erroneously listed in the proposed rule as 17 CCR
95481(a)(130) with a state effective date of 7/1/2020.
\4\ Erroneously listed in the proposed rule as 17 CCR
95481(a)(22) with a state effective date of 7/1/2020.
Table 2--Submitted Additional Definitions Relied Upon by the ICT Regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Agency CCR or CH&SC section Title effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB.......................... CH&SC 39012............... Air Basin........................... 01/01/1976
CARB.......................... 17 CCR 95481(a)(27) \1\... Untitled but defines the term 01/04/2019
``compressed natural gas (CNG)''.
CARB.......................... 13 CCR 2208(c)(18)........ Untitled but defines the term ``Low- 10/16/2017
NOX engine''.
CARB.......................... 17 CCR 60100(e)........... Untitled but defines the Sonoma 07/05/1978
County portion of the North Coast
Basin.
CARB.......................... 17 CCR 60113 \2\.......... Lake Tahoe Air Basin................ 01/30/1976
CARB.......................... 17 CCR 95481(a)(123) \3\.. Untitled but defines the term 01/04/2019
``Renewable hydrocarbon diesel''.
CARB.......................... 17 CCR 95481(a)(20) \4\... Untitled but defines the term 01/04/2019
``Biomethane''.
CARB.......................... 13 CCR 2020(b)............ Definitions......................... 01/02/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On pages 62339-62341 of our proposed rule, we described how we
evaluated the ICT regulation and how we determined that the regulation
meets all applicable CAA requirements. In short, we determined that:
CARB provided adequate public notice of a comment period
and a hearing on the draft ICT regulation prior to adoption and
submission to the EPA, and thereby complied with the applicable
procedural requirements for SIP revisions under the CAA section 110(l)
and 40 CFR 51.102;
CARB has adequate legal authority to implement the ICT
regulation because state law so provides; and because the requirements
relate to transit bus purchases directed at public transit agencies
(i.e., not private fleet operators), the regulations are not preempted
under the CAA; and because CARB is not otherwise prohibited by any
provision of federal or state law from carrying out the regulation;
The regulation includes all of the elements necessary to
provide for practical enforceability, including clear applicability and
exemption provisions, requirements that are sufficiently specific so
that the persons affected by the regulation are fairly on notice as to
what the requirements and related compliance dates are, and
recordkeeping and reporting provisions, and thereby establish an
enforceable control measure as required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(A);
The ICT regulation is an outgrowth of a committal measure
for further deployment of zero-emission bus (ZEB) technologies in the
public transit sector that was adopted by CARB in the 2016 State SIP
Strategy, and the ICT regulation would achieve incremental emissions
reductions needed to attain the NAAQS, particularly in the South Coast
and San Joaquin Valley air quality planning areas. Thus, we found that
the ICT regulation would not interfere with reasonable further progress
(RFP), attainment or any other applicable CAA requirement for the
purposes of CAA section 110(l); and
The ICT regulation would require only one additional
person-year for developing a reporting system and updating fleet
information prior to initial reporting in 2020, assisting transit
agencies with compliance and
[[Page 10051]]
annual reporting, and thus CARB has adequate personnel and funding to
carry out the ICT regulation.
For additional detail on the SIP submission itself, and our
evaluation, please see our proposed rule.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment period. The
EPA received a total of seven comment letters in response to the
proposed rule. Four of the comment letters express general support for
our proposed action. The three other comment letters include objections
to our proposed action: (1) a comment letter from the Center for
Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ); \5\ (2) a comment
letter from the American Fuel & Petroleum Manufacturers (AFPM); and (3)
a comment letter from an individual member of the public. All the
comments letters can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. In the
paragraphs below, we summarize the comments and provide responses for
the three comment letters that include objections to our proposed
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The letter from CCAEJ included six exhibits: American Lung
Association's State of the Air 2022 report; Progress Report and
Technical Submittal for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard San
Joaquin Valley (citing Appendix L, Emissions Inventory Methods and
Results for the Proposed Innovative Clean Transit Regulation)
(October 19, 2021); Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Regulation Fact
Sheet; CARB, Board Meeting, September 22, 2022, Board Item Summary;
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Comprehensive Review of
California's Innovated Clean Transit Regulation: Phase 1 Summary
Report; and CARB, Board Meeting, September 22, 2022, transcript.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCAEJ Comment #1: CCAEJ submits these comments in support of the
EPA's proposed approval of the ICT regulation. CCAEJ strongly supports
ZEBs as an air quality and environmental justice solution in the Inland
Empire and in other communities. However, a recent ICT regulation
implementation update disclosed the financial challenges facing transit
agencies to fully transition to 100 percent ZEBs as required by the
regulation.
CCAEJ has concerns that transit agencies will seek to avoid the
transition to ZEBs by claiming financial infeasibility. Accordingly,
CCAEJ calls on the EPA to partially disapprove the ICT regulation due
to the unenforceability of the exemption for ``financial hardship.''
The Clean Air Act requires that measures are enforceable, and the EPA
should require CARB to amend the regulation to ensure enforceability.
The financial hardship exemption at 13 Cal. Code Regs. Sec.
2023.4(c)(5) lacks enforceability. The exemption provision requires the
CARB Executive Officer to grant a transit agency an exemption if the
agency meets certain criteria. 13 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 2023.4(a). A
transit agency may claim the financial hardship exemption request when
the transit agency adopts a resolution declaring a ``fiscal
emergency.'' Cal. Code Reg. Sec. 2023.4(c)(5)(B)(1). This exemption is
not enforceable. A transit agency can claim the exemption by adopting
nothing more than a resolution declaring a ``fiscal emergency.'' 13
Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 2023.4(c)(5)(B)(1). However, the ICT regulation
does not define ``fiscal emergency.'' See 13 Cal. Code Regs. Sec.
2023(b). And CARB has not submitted any other regulations that define
``fiscal emergency'' to the EPA for approval into the SIP. See 87 FR at
62338 and Table 2. The ICT regulation further requires no supporting
documentation for the resolution to justify the undefined ``fiscal
emergency.'' See 13 Cal. Code Regs. Sec. 2023.4(c)(5)(B)(1). A transit
agency, relying on this provision, could adopt a simple resolution
finding a fiscal emergency without any supporting documentation and
without reference to any enforceable standard for what constitutes a
``fiscal emergency.'' This provision begs for abuse and could allow
transit agencies to avoid the regulation's purchase mandate for claimed
fiscal emergencies. Without a defined standard and supporting
documentation, citizens and the EPA will be unable to hold transit
agencies accountable for their duty to purchase ZEBs.
EPA response to CCAEJ Comment #1: The EPA does not have the
authority to disapprove the exemption for ``financial hardship'' but
approve the rest of the ICT regulation because the exemption is not
severable from the rest of the regulation, and because the EPA cannot
render a SIP more stringent than intended by the state through a
partial SIP approval.\6\ This principle was first established in the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Bethlehem Steel, a case
in which the EPA approved a state opacity limitation but disapproved
the allowance for violations of the limitation for a certain number of
minutes within a 24-hour period.\7\ The court held that the EPA cannot,
in the guise of a partial approval, remove words of limitation and
thereby make the regulation stricter than the state had intended.\8\ If
the EPA determines that a stricter rule is required, then the CAA
provides that the EPA must disapprove the state regulation and
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in its place. In this
instance, too, the EPA is not authorized to approve the ICT regulation
but disapprove the financial hardship exemption included therein
because doing so would make the regulation stricter than the state had
intended. Moreover, we believe the ICT regulation need not be made
stricter by removal of this exemption to meet applicable CAA
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028, 1036 (7th
Cir. 1984) (Bethlehem Steel).
\7\ Id, at 1032.
\8\ Id., at 1036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we do not view the ``financial hardship'' exemption as
making the ICT regulation unenforceable. We agree that the provision
does not have a specific definition for the term ``fiscal emergency,''
but the EPA believes that the requirements for public process and
involvement will serve to assure that a public transit agency would not
assert a fiscal emergency inappropriately or for purposes of invoking
the exemption except when actually necessary. With respect to the
specific provisions regarding fiscal emergencies, we note that the ICT
regulation specifies that, to claim the exemption, a transit agency
would need to declare a fiscal emergency under a resolution by a
transit agency's governing body following a public hearing.\9\
Moreover, under California law, a public hearing conducted by a public
transit agency to consider declaration of a fiscal emergency will be
governed by the Brown Act, which as a general matter requires
California public agencies to conduct their business publicly.\10\
Under the Brown Act, such a hearing will be subject to minimum
requirements regarding posting of notice of the hearing, posting of
agendas and providing opportunities for public comment.\11\ As such,
the public will have knowledge of, and the opportunity to participate
in, the decision by a transit agency to declare a fiscal emergency.
Given the procedure safeguards established in the Brown Act, we do not
expect public transit agencies to abuse the financial hardship
exemption to unduly delay the process under the ICT regulation for full
transition to zero-emission buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 13 CCR 2023.4(c)(5).
\10\ Title 5, division 2, part 1, chapter 9 of the California
Government Code. The Brown Act is referred to as one of the State of
California's ``sunshine'' laws.
\11\ California Government Code sections 54954(a) (meeting
notice), 54954.2(a) (meeting agenda), and 54954.3(a) (public comment
opportunity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, while, we do not view the financial hardship exemption as
making the ICT regulation unenforceable, we do
[[Page 10052]]
agree that the exemption, if granted frequently, could delay the
expected schedule for full transition to ZEBs and delay the timing of
the associated emissions reductions. As discussed further below in the
EPA response to CCAEJ Comment #2, we expect that CARB will take into
account the actual transition to ZEBs and related emissions reductions
in future updates to the EMFAC model, and the EPA will assess the
accuracy of emissions projections reflecting emissions reductions from
the ICT regulation when the Agency takes action on SIP submissions of
regional air quality plans.
CCAEJ Comment #2: Given several exemptions provided in the ICT
regulation, the financial challenges of implementation, and CARB's
claim that the regulation will achieve zero NOX and
PM2.5 emissions, the EPA should not grant full SIP credit.
CARB has claimed significant reductions from the ICT regulation,
including 100% reductions by 2045. The EPA should only grant partial
SIP credit because the regulation allows for transit agencies to claim
several exemptions and continue to purchase internal combustion engine
buses. A transit agency may claim exemptions for delays in ZEB
infrastructure, when ZEBs cannot meet daily mileage needs, when ZEBs do
not have adequate gradeability performance, when a ZEB for the
applicable weight class is not available, and for financial hardship
provided the agency demonstrates that the agency cannot offset the
initial capital costs of ZEBs and associated infrastructure. Given
these offramps for transit agencies, and the recent implementation
update showing the substantial financial challenges transit agencies
face with implementation beyond the initial 25 percent target, the EPA
should decline to grant full SIP credit.
EPA response to CCAEJ Comment #2: While, in the proposed rule, the
EPA acknowledged CARB's estimates for the reductions associated with
the ICT regulation,\12\ the EPA is not approving a specific numerical
credit for the ICT regulation in this rulemaking. The emissions
reductions associated with the ICT regulation are reflected in the most
recently-approved version of CARB's on-road motor vehicle emissions
model, EMFAC2021, and in the EPA-approved adjustment factors for the
previous version of the model, EMFAC2017.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 87 FR 62337, at 62338-62339.
\13\ 87 FR 68483 (November 15, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB updates its EMFAC model every three or four years and each
successive version reflects update vehicle mixes and vehicle types and
also changes in circumstances that affect assumptions regarding
emissions reductions from regulatory initiatives such as the ICT
regulation. Thus, if the transition to ZEBs in public transit fleets
proves to be slower than assumed by EMFAC2021 and the adjustment
factors to EMFAC2017, then CARB will take that circumstance into
account in updating the model. The EPA, for its part, will assess the
accuracy of emissions projections reflecting emissions reductions from
the ICT regulation when the Agency takes action on SIP submissions,
such as RFP and attainment demonstrations, that rely on emissions
estimates made using EMFAC2021 or EMFAC2017 (with the adjustment
factors).
Moreover, at this time, we do not find that CARB's emission
reduction projections for the transition to zero emission buses under
the ICT regulation are overly optimistic. First, at the CARB Board
hearing on September 22, 2022, CARB reported that, based on the
reported data for year 2021, California transit agencies collectively
have 510 zero-emission buses in fleet and an addition 424 ZEBs on
order, which is a total increase of over 250 zero-emission buses
compared to year 2020.\14\ Second, CARB reports that funding has been
awarded for nearly 750 additional zero-emission buses to be
ordered.\15\ When the ICT regulation was proposed, CARB had estimated
that, by 2027, approximately 1,350 zero-emission bus purchases would be
required to comply with the regulation,\16\ but that number of bus
purchases has already been surpassed when taking into account the
number of zero-emission buses in service, or on order, or for which
funding has been awarded. As such, we expect the anticipated emissions
reductions estimated by CARB due to the ICT regulation and reflected in
EMFAC to be achieved at least through the end of this decade. Beyond
2030, there is greater uncertainty as to the emissions reductions from
the ICT regulation, but as noted above, future updates to the EMFAC
model will take into account updated forecasts for the transition to
zero-emission buses by the various public transit agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ CARB, Board Meeting, September 22, 2022, transcript, page
19.
\15\ Email communication, Pippin Brehler, Senior Attorney, CARB,
to Jefferson Wehling, EPA Region IX, December 15, 2022.
\16\ CARB; Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Innovative
Clean Transit Regulation, a Replacement of the Fleet Rule for Public
Agencies; Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons; Date of
Release: August 7, 2018, Table VIII-10 on page VIII-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFPM Comment #1: The Clean Air Act provides states with a limited
authority to establish emissions standards for government-owned fleets;
however, that authority is constrained by the statute. In litigation
challenging an earlier set of fleet regulations in California,\17\ the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explained the limitations to the
provisions of CAA section 209(a). Although states are free to set more
stringent standards for state-owned fleets, the ICT regulation fails to
respect these statutory limits. The ICT regulation that the EPA is
proposing to approve as part of the California SIP are not emissions
standards because they are not performance standards, but rather a
mandate to purchase an increasing percentage of specific technologies,
and only vehicles powered by electricity or fuel cells qualify. The
regulation is not applied uniformly to all vehicles in the class and,
therefore, is not a standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ AFPM cites Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist., 498 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007) (referred to herein by its full
name or as EMA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA response to AFPM Comment #1: States do not derive their
authority to set emission standards under the CAA, rather they do so
pursuant to their respective state law authority. However, CAA section
209(a) prohibits states and political subdivisions from adopting or
attempting to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions
from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. As set forth in
AFPM Comment #3 and EPA's response, the ICT regulation is an emission
standard that would generally be preempted by section 209(a). The EMA
decision noted by AFPM was the result of remand from the United States
Supreme Court to the United States District Court and then on appeal to
the Ninth Circuit.\18\ The
[[Page 10053]]
Supreme Court noted: ``The criteria referred to in Sec. 209(a) relate
to the emission characteristics of a vehicle or engine. To meet them
the vehicle or engine must not emit more than a certain amount of a
given pollutant, must be equipped with a certain type of pollution-
control device, or must have some other design feature related to the
control of emissions. This interpretation is consistent with the use of
`standard' throughout Title II of the CAA (which governs emissions from
moving sources) to denote requirements such as numerical emission
levels with which vehicles or engines must comply, e.g., 42 U.S.C.
7521(a)(3)(B)(ii), or emission-control technology with which they must
be equipped, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6).'' \19\ The EPA need not decide
whether CARB's ICT zero-emission technology requirements are
performance requirements or design technology requirements, as either
relates to the emission characteristics of the vehicle and is designed
to address emissions from the vehicle. Further, the commenter provides
no authority for the claim that a requirement is only a ``standard'' if
it applies uniformly. As addressed by the Supreme Court in Engine Mfrs.
Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist, a set of rules that require a
specific emission performance be met (among a broader list of emission-
certified vehicles) by fleet purchasers will still be considered a
standard under section 209(a).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.,
541 U.S. 246 (2004), the Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision
by the Ninth Circuit affirming a District Court ruling that upheld
certain SCAQMD fleet rules from a preemption challenge, and in doing
so, rejected the argument that the Rules ``escape[d] pre-emption
under Sec. 209(a) . . . because they address the purchase of
vehicles, rather than their manufacture or sale.'' Id. However, the
Supreme Court did not decide whether the SCAQMD fleet rules were
actually preempted. See id. at 258. The Court stated that it was
``likely that at least certain aspects of the Fleet Rules are
preempted,'' but allowed that ``[i]t does not necessarily follow . .
. that the Fleet Rules are pre-empted in toto.'' Id. On remand in
the District Court in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, the
District Court concluded that the SCAQMD fleet rules were not
preempted as applied to state and local governmental entities, and
in the EMA case cited by AFPM, the Ninth Circuit agreed, stating
that ``the Clean Air Act does not preempt the Fleet Rules insofar as
they direct the procurement behavior of state and local governmental
entities.'' Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist,
498 F.3d 1031, 1039 (9th Cir. 2007).
\19\ Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541
U.S. 246, 253 (2004).
\20\ Id., at 250 and footnote 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, we acknowledge that, in our proposed rule on page 62340, we
stated that, in adopting the ICT regulation, CARB has not adopted or
attempted to enforce a ``standard'' relating to the control of
emissions from new motor vehicles for the purposes of CAA section
209(a). However, in so stating, we did not mean that the ICT regulation
does not establish an emission standard in the sense considered
preempted by the Supreme Court, but rather, that, because the
requirements only apply to purchases by public entities, the regulation
is not preempted under CAA section 209(a). This is discussed further in
AFPM Comment #3 and EPA's response thereto.
AFPM Comment #2: In the EMA case, the Ninth Circuit found ``nothing
to indicate a congressional intent to bar states from choosing to use
their own money to acquire or use vehicles that exceed the federal
standards.'' However, the California standards do not exceed federal
standards. California (and the EPA) has not shown that the ICT
standards will reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas, PM2.5, or
NOX emissions. California has not conducted any analysis
that compares the costs and benefits of alternative options, such as
using the same amount of funding on new diesel or CNG busses that would
speed progress towards NAAQS attainment compared to EV purchase
requirements and may yield more significant reductions in life-cycle
greenhouse gas. Such an analysis is particularly relevant because
electric buses routinely do not operate on long bus routes and travel
fewer miles per bus compared to diesel and CNG busses. California also
needs to evaluate the significant increase in PM2.5
emissions associated with the higher tire wear from heavier electric
buses.
EPA response to AFPM Comment #2: First, we disagree that the ICT
regulation does not exceed federal standards. The ICT regulation
establishes more stringent numerical emission requirements that are
beyond those established under other state or federal regulations
applicable to emissions from buses.\21\ In other words, the
requirements under the ICT regulation do not supplant or replace any
existing emission control requirements applicable to buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 87 FR at 62340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, we evaluate emissions impacts associated with SIP
revisions, such as the ICT regulation, under CAA section 110(l), which
prohibits EPA approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment or RFP or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. In this regard, we note that CARB
conducted an environmental analysis of the proposed ICT regulation that
evaluated the emissions changes under the proposed regulations relative
to several alternative scenarios included the ``Business-as-Usual''
(BAU) scenario. The BAU scenario represents the projected emission
reductions under the current level of compliance with the Fleet Rule
for Transit Agencies.\22\ Relative to the BAU scenario, CARB concluded
that the tailpipe emissions of NOX and PM2.5
would be lower under the proposed ICT regulation \23\ as would well-to-
wheel greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.\24\ CARB's environmental analysis
acknowledges that the proposed ICT regulation would place additional
demand on the existing electricity grid; however; the ICT regulation
would be implemented in conjunction with other statewide regulatory
programs aimed at improving the State's per capita energy consumption,
decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and increasing reliance of
renewable energy sources.\25\ In light of CARB's environmental
analysis, we find sufficient evidence that the ICT regulation would
result in net emissions reductions of NOX and
PM2.5, and that, as such, approval of the ICT regulation as
a SIP revision would not interfere with attainment or RFP of any NAAQS,
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Moreover, as noted in
the proposed rule,\26\ the ICT regulation is an outgrowth of a
committal measure for further deployment of zero-emission bus
technologies in the public transit sector that was adopted by CARB in
the 2016 State SIP Strategy, and for that reason also, we find that the
ICT regulation is consistent with CAA section 110(l) and would not
interfere with attainment, RFP or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ As described on page 62338 if the proposed rule, CARB
originally adopted the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies in 2000, and
amended the rule in 2004 and 2006. Under the Fleet Rule for Transit
Agencies, public transit agencies operating urban bus fleets were
required to select either the diesel bus path or the alternative-
fuel bus path. The diesel bus path required retrofitting existing
buses with diesel particulate filters, while transit agencies
utilizing the alternative-fuel path had to ensure that eighty-five
percent of urban bus purchases were alternative fueled buses. In the
2006 amendment to the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies, there was a
15 percent ZEB purchase requirement for larger transit agencies with
more than 200 urban buses to purchase ZEBs starting in 2011.
\23\ CARB, Final Environmental Analysis for the Proposed
Innovative Clean Transit Regulation, A Replacement to the Fleet Rule
for Transit Agencies, Date of Release: December 7, 2018, pages 33-
37.
\24\ Id., pages 53-55.
\25\ Id., page 48.
\26\ Proposed rule, page 62340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, California is not obligated to conduct any analysis that
compares the costs and benefits of alternative options, such as using
the same amount of funding on new diesel or CNG busses. Such
considerations are not relevant to the EPA's review of SIP submissions
under CAA section 110. The EPA's role is to review and approve state
choices if they meet applicable CAA requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)
and 40 CFR 52.02(a); see also Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246,
256-266 (1976) (holding that the EPA may not disapprove a state
implementation plan that meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2) on the basis of technological or economic infeasibility). In
this instance, perhaps the state could have chosen an alternative to
the gradual transition to a zero-emissions fleet for public transit
buses, but the approach the state ultimately selected through adoption
of the ICT regulation meets all applicable CAA requirements, and that
is a sufficient basis for the EPA
[[Page 10054]]
to approve the ICT regulation as a SIP revision under CAA section 110.
Lastly, with respect to PM emissions from tire wear, we first note
that tire wear is caused by contact between tires and the road surface,
with the rate of tire wear dependent on a variety of factors, including
the roughness of the road surface; activity factors such as route and
style of driving, and seasonal influences; and vehicle characteristics,
such as weight, suspension, steering geometry, and tire material and
design.\27\ Moreover, most of the PM emissions from tire wear are
coarse particles, i.e., larger than particles considered
PM10 or PM2.5. The EPA estimates that
approximately 8.0 percent and 1.2 percent of tire wear PM emissions are
emitted as PM10 and PM2.5, respectively.\28\
While the various factors that influence tire wear are known, the
current state of knowledge does not provide a basis to quantify the
relationship between tire wear and vehicle weight within the various
regulatory classes of vehicles. As such, the EPA's most recent version
of the Agency's mobile source estimation model, MOVES3,\29\ applies the
same tire wear emission rate for all vehicle fuel types (gasoline,
diesel, flex-fuel, CNG or electric) within a MOVES regulatory
class.\30\ Thus, while the hypothetical incremental increase in PM
emissions from heavier buses (due to the weight of batteries) as
suggested by AFPM cannot reasonably be quantified, there is no evidence
(and AFPM provides no evidence) to suggest that the incremental
increase would result in PM emissions in great enough quantities to
offset the documented decrease in tailpipe PM2.5
emissions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, ``Brake and
Tire Wear Emissions from Onroad Vehicles in MOVES3,'' EPA-420-R-20-
014, November 2020, page 22.
\28\ Id., page 29.
\29\ The EPA published the MOVES3 notice of availability at 86
FR 1106 (January 7, 2021).
\30\ EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, ``Brake and
Tire Wear Emissions from Onroad Vehicles in MOVES3,'' EPA-420-R-20-
014, November 2020, page 29.
\31\ See California Air Resources Board, Brake & Tire Wear
Emissions, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/brake-tire-wear-emissions (last visited Dec. 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFPM Comment #3: California's new rule is a purchase mandate for
which California has not sought a waiver from the EPA, as required
prior to their inclusion in a SIP submittal to the EPA. In the above-
referenced litigation, upon its remand to the 9th Circuit, the Supreme
Court rejected California's argument that their rules did not need an
EPA waiver and ``escape[d] pre-emption under Sec. 209(a) . . . because
they address the purchase of vehicles, rather than their manufacture or
sale.'' The Court held that ``standard-enforcement efforts that are
proscribed by Sec. 209 can be directed to manufacturers or
purchasers.'' Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist.,
541 U.S. 246 (2004). The Court remanded the case back to the 9th
Circuit for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, which
stated that it is ``likely that at least certain aspects of the Fleet
Rules are preempted.''
The reason that the California rules do not qualify as being
excluded from the waiver requirements is that they are not a ``state
proprietary action.'' Such an exception can only be applied to the
efficient procurement of needed goods and services that also lack the
effect of broader social regulation. On the contrary, California's
rules mandate the inefficient procurement of goods for the purpose of
implementing broader social regulation. The inefficiency of
California's rule is clear because if California instead required the
same amount of money to be invested in more cost-effective and proven
bus technology, such as new diesel buses and new CNG buses, instead of
electric buses and all of the associated costs to install and
interconnect charging equipment, California would achieve greater
emission reductions and achieve the NAAQS in a more expeditious
timeframe than its so-called `Clean Transit' regulations in the
proposed SIP. California must seek a waiver, and must receive approval
from the EPA, prior to including its bus purchase mandates in a SIP
submittal to the EPA.
EPA response to AFPM Comment #3: In this comment, AFPM refers to a
Ninth Circuit decision, Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. S. Coast Air Quality
Mgmt. Dist., 498 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007) (referred to herein by its
full name or as EMA), issued in the wake of the Supreme Court's
decision in Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 541
U.S. 246 (2004). In EMA, the Ninth Circuit held that the market
participant doctrine applied to preemption under CAA section 209(a) and
that fleet rules governing procurement decisions by state and local
governments fell within scope of market participant doctrine and thus
were saved from CAA preemption.\32\ The ICT regulation is not subject
to preemption under CAA section 209(a), and CARB does not need a waiver
under CAA section 209(b) for the ICT regulation to enforce the
regulation. Further, nothing in CAA section 209(a) could be read as
barring states from using their purchasing power for motor vehicles
with more stringent standards than federal standards. Such a reading
``would also run afoul of [CAA section 116's] express reservation to
the states of primary authority over and responsibility for controlling
air pollution.'' \33\ In any event, the ICT regulation is analogous to
the fleet rules that were the subject of the EMA decision to the extent
they apply to fleets of vehicles purchased by the government for
government purposes, which in this case is public transit services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ EMA, at 1044, 1048.
\33\ Id., at 1043.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APFM counters that the ICT regulation does not qualify as an
exception to CAA section 209(a) preemption under the market participant
doctrine because the ``exception can only be applied to the efficient
procurement of needed goods and services that also lack the effect of
broader social regulation,'' and ``California's rules mandate the
inefficient procurement of goods for the purpose of implementing
broader social regulation.'' However, APFM's formulation of the
exception under the market participant doctrine conflates the two
different circumstances cited by the Ninth Circuit in EMA under which
state action qualifies as ``proprietary,'' and thus saved from
preemption, as opposed to ``regulatory,'' and thus subject to
preemption.\34\ In the first circumstance, state action is considered
proprietary where the action essentially reflects the governmental
entity's own interest in its efficient procurement of needed goods and
services, as measured by comparison with the typical behavior of
private parties in similar circumstances.\35\ Under these
circumstances, the market participant doctrine protects comprehensive
state policies from preemption so long as the type of state action is
essentially proprietary.\36\ Under the second circumstance, state
action is considered proprietary where the state action may not reflect
the efficient procurement of needed good and services but is so limited
in scope as to lack to effect of broader social regulation.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id., at 1041.
\35\ Id.
\36\ Id.
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this instance, we find that the state action through the ICT
regulation is proprietary in that it reflects the State of California's
own interest in the efficient procurement of needed goods and services.
Engine Mfrs. Assn v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 498 F.3d 1031,
[[Page 10055]]
1046 (9th Cir. 2007) (``That a state or local governmental entity may
have policy goals that it seeks to further through its participation in
the market does not preclude the doctrine's application, so long as the
action in question is the state's own market participation.'') Like the
fleet rules that were the subject of EMA, one purpose of the ICT
regulation is to reduce air pollution, and ``efficient procurement''
must be viewed with an eye toward ``procurement that serves the state's
purposes--which may include purposes other than saving money--just as
private entities serve their purposes by taking into account factors
other than price in their procurement decisions.'' \38\ In the case of
the ICT regulation, the purposes include more than just reducing air
pollution, and include reducing energy consumption and leading zero-
emissions technology in the heavy-duty vehicle sector.\39\ Engine Mfrs.
Assn v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 498 F.3d 1031, 1046 (9th Cir.
2007) (`` `Efficient' does not merely mean `cheap.' In context,
`efficient procurement' means procurement that serves the state's
purposes--which may include purposes other than saving money--just as
private entities serve their purposes by taking into account factors
other than price in their procurement decisions.'') In light of these
state purposes, the ICT regulation's requirement for purchase of zero-
emission buses, rather than diesel buses or CNG buses, can properly be
characterized as ``efficient procurement'' of needed goods and services
and thus is not preempted under CAA section 209(a) under the market
participant doctrine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id., at 1046.
\39\ CARB, Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Innovative
Clean Transit Regulation, A Replacement of the Fleet Rule for
Transit Agencies, Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons, Date
of Release: August 7, 2018, pages II-1--II-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Member of the Public Comment #1: While generally
supportive, the commenter remains concerned about whether the reduction
in emissions from buses will increase costs to run the buses.
EPA response to Individual Member of the Public Comment #1: In
developing the ICT regulation, CARB too was concerned about the
potential for increased costs to transit agencies affecting transit
service, and thus, included in the regulation a number of provisions
intended to provide the transit agencies with flexibility in meeting
the requirements of the regulation and reduce the potential for impacts
to transit service. Among the built-in flexibilities are a phase-in
schedule and exemptions that would be granted by CARB under certain
specific circumstances. The exemptions are broadly available, and the
criteria for granting them are clearly set forth in the regulatory
text.
III. Final Action
Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, and for the reasons given
above, we are taking final action to approve a SIP revision submitted
by CARB on February 3, 2020 that includes certain sections of title 13
of the California Code of Regulations that comprise the Innovative
Clean Transit regulation and that was supplemented by CARB on August
11, 2022 with certain definitions relied upon by the regulation. Tables
1 and 2 above list the regulations and related supplemental definitions
we are approving in this action. We are approving the SIP revision
because the regulation fulfills all relevant CAA requirements. This
final action incorporates by reference the regulation and related
supplemental definitions into the federally enforceable SIP for the
State of California.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of one
section of the California Health and Safety Code and certain sections
of titles 13 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations described in
the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below which pertain to the
transition of California public transit bus fleets to zero-emission
technologies by 2040. Therefore, these materials have been approved by
the EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been
incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\40\ The EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs
[[Page 10056]]
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
The EPA notes that, in adopting the ICT regulation, the state found
that it furthers state environmental justice goals by transitioning to
clean transportation modes in low-income and disadvantaged communities
and does not disproportionately impact people of any race, culture, or
income.\41\ We agree that, by transitioning to clean transportation
modes in low-income and disadvantaged communities, the ICT regulation
will serve to reduce adverse human health effects in all communities
and thereby help to achieve environmental justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ CARB, Resolution 18-60, December 14, 2018, pages 8 and 9.
Also, see CARB; Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Innovative
Clean Transit Regulation, a Replacement of the Fleet Rule for Public
Agencies; Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons; Date of
Release: August 7, 2018, chapter VII (``Environmental Justice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 17, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 10, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. In Sec. 52.220a, paragraph (c), Table 1 is amended by:
0
a. Adding an entry for ``39012'' after the heading ``Health and Safety
Code'';
0
b. Adding a heading for ``Title 13 (Motor Vehicles), Division 3 (Air
Resources Board), Chapter 1 (Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices),
Article 4 (Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measures)'' after the
entry for ``1978''; and under the new heading, adding an entry for
``2020 (paragraph (b) (``Transit Agency''), only)'';
0
c. Adding a heading for ``Title 13 (Motor Vehicles), Division 3 (Air
Resources Board), Chapter 1 (Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Devices),
Article 4.3 (Innovative Clean Transit)'' after the new entry for ``2020
(paragraph (b) (``Transit Agency''), only)'' and under the new heading,
adding entries for ``2023'', ``2023.1'', ``2023.2'', ``2023.3'',
``2023.4'', ``2023.5'', ``2023.6'', ``2023.7'', ``2023.8'', ``2023.9'',
``2023.10'' and ``2023.11'';
0
d. Adding a heading for ``Title 13 (Motor Vehicles), Division 3 (Air
Resources Board), Chapter 4 (Criteria for the Evaluation of Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Devices and Fuel Additives), Article 1 (Fuel
Additives and Prototype Emission Control Devices)'' after the entry for
``2194''; and under the new heading, adding an entry for ``2208
(paragraph (c)(18) (``Low-NOX engine''), only)'';
0
e. Adding a heading for ``Title 17 (Public Health), Division 3 (Air
Resources), Chapter 1 (Air Resources Board), Subchapter 1.5 (Air Basins
and Air Quality Standards), Article 1 (Description of California Air
Basins)'' after the entry for ``3394.6''; and under the new heading,
adding entries for ``60100 (paragraph (e), only)'' and ``60113''; and
0
f. Adding a heading for ``Title 17 (Public Health), Division 3 (Air
Resources), Chapter 1 (Air Resources Board), Subchapter 10 (Climate
Change), Article 4 (Regulations to Achieve Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions), Subarticle 7 (Low Carbon Fuel Standard)'' after the entry
for ``94701''; and under the new heading, adding an entry for ``95481
(paragraphs (a)(20) (``Biomethane''), (a)(27) (``Compressed Natural Gas
(CNG)''), and (a)(123) (``Renewable Hydrocarbon Diesel''), only)''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.220a Identification of plan--in part.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Table 1--EPA-Approved Statutes and State Regulations \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Additional
State citation Title/subject effective date EPA approval date explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
39012............................ Air Basin.......... 1/1/1976 [Insert Federal Definition of ``Air
Register Basin'' is relied
citation], 2/16/ upon by CARB's
2023. Innovative Clean
Transit
regulation.
[[Page 10057]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 13 (Motor Vehicles), Division 3 (Air Resources Board), Chapter 1 (Motor Vehicle Pollution Control
Devices), Article 4 (Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measures)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 (paragraph (b) (``Transit Purpose and 1/2/2010 [Insert Federal The definition of
Agency''), only). Definitions of Register ``Transit Agency''
Diesel Particulate citation], 2/16/ is relied upon by
Matter Control 2023. CARB's Innovative
Measures. Clean Transit
regulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 13 (Motor Vehicles), Division 3 (Air Resources Board), Chapter 1 (Motor Vehicle Pollution Control
Devices), Article 4.3 (Innovative Clean Transit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023............................. Innovative Clean 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Transit Register February 13, 2020.
Regulations citation], 2/16/
Applicability and 2023.
Scope.
2023.1........................... Zero-Emission Bus 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Requirements. Register February 13, 2020.
citation], 2/16/
2023.
2023.2........................... Compliance Option 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
for Joint Zero- Register February 13, 2020.
Emission Bus citation], 2/16/
Groups. 2023.
2023.3........................... Zero-Emission Bus 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Bonus Credits. Register February 13, 2020.
citation], 2/16/
2023.
2023.4........................... Provisions for 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Exemption of a Register February 13, 2020.
Zero-Emission Bus citation], 2/16/
Purchase. 2023.
2023.5........................... Zero-Emission 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Mobility Option. Register February 13, 2020.
citation], 2/16/
2023.
2023.6........................... Low-NOX Engine 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Purchase Register February 13, 2020.
Requirements. citation], 2/16/
2023.
2023.7........................... Requirements to Use 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Renewable Fuels. Register February 13, 2020.
citation], 2/16/
2023.
2023.8........................... Reporting 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Requirements for Register February 13, 2020.
Transit Agencies. citation], 2/16/
2023.
2023.9........................... Record Keeping 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Requirements. Register February 13, 2020.
citation], 2/16/
2023.
2023.10.......................... Authority to 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Suspend, Revoke, Register February 13, 2020.
or Modify. citation], 2/16/
2023.
2023.11.......................... Severability....... 10/1/2019 [Insert Federal Submitted on
Register February 13, 2020.
citation], 2/16/
2023.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 13 (Motor Vehicles), Division 3 (Air Resources Board), Chapter 4 (Criteria for the Evaluation of Motor
Vehicle Pollution Control Devices and Fuel Additives), Article 1 (Fuel Additives and Prototype Emission Control
Devices)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2208 (paragraph (c)(18) (``Low- Purpose, 10/16/2017 [Insert Federal The definition of
NOX engine''), only). Applicability, Register ``Low-NOX engine''
Definitions, and citation], 2/16/ is relied upon by
Reference 2023. CARB's Innovative
Documents. Clean Transit
regulation.
[[Page 10058]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 17 (Public Health), Division 3 (Air Resources), Chapter 1 (Air Resources Board), Subchapter 1.5 (Air
Basins and Air Quality Standards), Article 1 (Description of California Air Basins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60100 (paragraph (e), only)...... North Coast Basin.. 7/5/1978 [Insert Federal Paragraph (e) of 17
Register CCR 60100 defines
citation], 2/16/ the Sonoma County
2023. portion of the
North Coast Basin
and is relied upon
by CARB's
Innovative Clean
Transit
regulation.
60113............................ Lake Tahoe Air 1/30/1976 [Insert Federal The definition of
Basin. Register ``Lake Tahoe Air
citation], 2/16/ Basin'' is relied
2023. upon by CARB's
Innovative Clean
Transit
regulation.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 17 (Public Health), Division 3 (Air Resources), Chapter 1 (Air Resources Board), Subchapter 10 (Climate
Change), Article 4 (Regulations to Achieve Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions), Subarticle 7 (Low Carbon Fuel
Standard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95481 (paragraphs (a)(20) Definitions and 1/4/2019 [Insert Federal Certain definitions
(``Biomethane''), (a)(27) Acronyms. Register in 17 CCR 95481
(``Compressed Natural Gas citation], 2/16/ are relied upon by
(CNG)''), and (a)(123) 2023. CARB's Innovative
(``Renewable Hydrocarbon Clean Transit
Diesel''), only). regulation.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 lists EPA-approved California statutes and regulations incorporated by reference in the applicable
SIP. Table 2 of paragraph (c) lists approved California test procedures, test methods and specifications that
are cited in certain regulations listed in table 1. Approved California statutes that are nonregulatory or
quasi-regulatory are listed in paragraph (e).
[FR Doc. 2023-03275 Filed 2-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P